Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What makes a great photograph "great"?
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Jan 14, 2014 13:36:17   #
Dbez1 Loc: Ford City, PA
 
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great" music is that every time you listen to it, you hear something new and fresh. Another test is; does it remain interesting over the course of many years or even centuries? I suppose these same criteria translate to great photographs and somehow the rules of composition fit into the equation also. But then, we sometimes call a photograph "great" even when it breaks all the rules of composition. I think of the works of Ansel Adams and other masters and was wondering what some of you UHH'ers feel makes their work (or even some of our own images) worthy of the classification of "great"?

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 13:38:45   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
That is very subjective. As the old saying goes, "One person's trash is another's treasure"

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 14:01:06   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
I hear this all the time, "I shoot only for myself, I don't have to please anyone else".
READ, my work sucks, but I'm happy with it.
A great shot, regardless of rules etc., has to WOW a great slice of the public. Regardless of the light, the shadow or the composition, all of that only matters to those that understand such things.
It is when the general populace, can be mesmerized by a pic, that the pic has really arrived.
A photo can be very simple, or very complex, it doesn't matter, a great shot has the same affect on a high percentage of viewers. I have not outlined any rules or about composition, surely those aspects are there, but they are irrelevant, to the layperson, who sees only the impact of the foto, and is thus drawn to it. They don't even have to like it, but it still moves them. ;-)
SS

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2014 14:26:51   #
JPL
 
What makes a photograph "great" is that people like it.

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 14:44:08   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
That's partially true. The photo must generate interest, be it positive or negative. A photo that generates no interest isn't "great"....That said, there is also the old adage that color will sell a color image, but composition is what sells a B&W image...
JPL wrote:
What makes a photograph "great" is that people like it.

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 15:09:12   #
SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia
 
People liking it is the key I believe...I have won several comps, state and nationally, with pics I thought were not all that good but the judges thought otherwise...even on UHH I have posted pics that seemed OK but not brilliant and have received more pages of positive comment than others that I thought were better...

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 15:14:39   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
Dbez1 wrote:
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great" music is that every time you listen to it, you hear something new and fresh. Another test is; does it remain interesting over the course of many years or even centuries? I suppose these same criteria translate to great photographs and somehow the rules of composition fit into the equation also. But then, we sometimes call a photograph "great" even when it breaks all the rules of composition. I think of the works of Ansel Adams and other masters and was wondering what some of you UHH'ers feel makes their work (or even some of our own images) worthy of the classification of "great"?
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great&... (show quote)

I would call them composition guidelines, and the pictures you describe as "breaking" them tend to do so with intent.

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2014 15:18:09   #
Wellhiem Loc: Sunny England.
 
There are probably as many answers to this as there are photographers. But one of the things that always brings a smile to my face, is when I show someone a two dimensional photo, and they touch it to feel the texture.

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 16:47:33   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
JPL wrote:
What makes a photograph "great" is that people like it.


That's about as good of an explanation as any.

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 17:04:36   #
Kingmapix Loc: Mesa, Arizona
 
I like your question. In my view, any photograph that "picks" at the viewers inner emotions is the start of a great photograph. Creations that moves the viewer or listener into another zone of reality, reawakens a past experience or moves a person into contemplative thought are also markers of an excellent photograph, piece of music, poetry or other art.

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 17:09:11   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
Kingmapix wrote:
I like your question. In my view, any photograph that "picks" at the viewers inner emotions is the start of a great photograph. Creations that moves the viewer or listener into another zone of reality, reawakens a past experience or moves a person into contemplative thought are also markers of an excellent photograph, piece of music, poetry or other art.

:thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Jan 14, 2014 17:39:23   #
MDI Mainer
 
Dbez1 wrote:
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great" music is that every time you listen to it, you hear something new and fresh. Another test is; does it remain interesting over the course of many years or even centuries? I suppose these same criteria translate to great photographs and somehow the rules of composition fit into the equation also. But then, we sometimes call a photograph "great" even when it breaks all the rules of composition. I think of the works of Ansel Adams and other masters and was wondering what some of you UHH'ers feel makes their work (or even some of our own images) worthy of the classification of "great"?
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great&... (show quote)


A slightly different take that equates "great" with "memorable."

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com/tip/2955/how-to-take-memorable-photos/

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 18:04:23   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
Dbez1 wrote:
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great" music is that every time you listen to it, you hear something new and fresh. Another test is; does it remain interesting over the course of many years or even centuries? I suppose these same criteria translate to great photographs and somehow the rules of composition fit into the equation also. But then, we sometimes call a photograph "great" even when it breaks all the rules of composition. I think of the works of Ansel Adams and other masters and was wondering what some of you UHH'ers feel makes their work (or even some of our own images) worthy of the classification of "great"?
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great&... (show quote)


There are no rules on 'Great" It's basically an opinion, which can (and often does) change. If a bunch of critics thinks 'A" is great and another bunch thinks it's crap who is right or who is wrong? If all of a sudden a new Rembrandt was discovered and it was merely a scribble it would be hailed as classic,and it would be regarded as a lost masterpiece. If then 2 years later it was reveled that an error had been made and in fact it was the signature of the local librarian all the art experts would point the blame for the error on other art experts. If you like a photo and think that it is "great" don't worry about what any one else thinks.

Reply
Jan 14, 2014 18:08:16   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
boberic wrote:
There are no rules on 'Great" It's basically an opinion, which can (and often does) change. If a bunch of critics thinks 'A" is great and another bunch thinks it's crap who is right or who is wrong? If all of a sudden a new Rembrandt was discovered and it was merely a scribble it would be hailed as classic,and it would be regarded as a lost masterpiece. If then 2 years later it was reveled that an error had been made and in fact it was the signature of the local librarian all the art experts would point the blame for the error on other art experts. If you like a photo and think that it is "great" don't worry about what any one else thinks.
There are no rules on 'Great" It's basically ... (show quote)


In addition My Grand Daughters are the best looking children that have ever been born. And if any one should ever think otherwise thet obviously have no taste whatsoever



Reply
Jan 14, 2014 18:20:30   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
boberic wrote:
In addition My Grand Daughters are the best looking children that have ever been born. And if any one should ever think otherwise thet obviously have no taste whatsoever


Yeah, but Boberic, if they are not ALSO, the smartest, then they are indeed, just normal ! :lol:

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.