What makes a great photograph "great"?
Jan 14, 2014 18:33:23 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Yeah, but Boberic, if they are not ALSO, the smartest, then they are indeed, just normal ! :lol:
I forgot to mention that they are both geniuses. They are sure to be Mensa members. They will earn millions and support their parents as well as their grandparents in luxury
Jan 14, 2014 18:39:57 #
boberic wrote:
I forgot to mention that they are both geniuses. They are sure to be Mensa members. They will earn millions and support their parents as well as their grandparents in luxury
Boberic, now your talking. But they are not solely unique, as all of my Grandkids are also card carrying MENSA members as well, just like their Granddad !! :lol:
SS
Jan 14, 2014 18:42:16 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
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...
People also like "cheese whiz"-- that doesn't make it great.
Jan 14, 2014 18:44:11 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Boberic, now your talking. But they are not solely unique, as all of my Grandkids are also card carrying MENSA members as well, just like their Granddad !! :lol:
SS
SS
Take a look. I just posted their pics. above
Jan 14, 2014 18:50:56 #
Jan 14, 2014 18:57:52 #
TimT
Loc: Los Angeles
It's true that a photo (or any other work of art) has to be liked to be great. But that's an answer that doesn't tell us anything. It begs the next question, "What do I do to take a photo that people will like."
A better restatement of the issue is that a great photo will resonate with people on some deep level. And to resonate two things have to happen. The artist has to have found a subject that resonates with them on a human level and the technical elements have to be implemented well enough so that a thoughtful viewer will find that the shot triggers a response in their own psyche.
An Ansel Adams shot has a formal excellence that allows the viewer to enter into that experience. And the result is we feel that Half Dome has a primal beauty that stirs something deep. A shot of a Vietnamese general shooting a captured Viet Cong soldier doesn't have the same formal beauty -- it's raw and immediate. But the image is painful and shocking. And the shot makes a powerful statement about that war.
Obviously no photo works with everyone. A critic may be more open to formal photographic techniques, a regular person may care more about the choice of subject. But it would be a mistake to not give a crap about communicating with your work. There is nothing wrong with asking yourself why one of your shots grabbed an audience and one didn't. There's a value in trying to take shots that shave a technique that supports your vision. And the key point, we all need to find the shot that gets our juices going. If the shot doesn't work for you, chances are no one else will appreciate it.
A better restatement of the issue is that a great photo will resonate with people on some deep level. And to resonate two things have to happen. The artist has to have found a subject that resonates with them on a human level and the technical elements have to be implemented well enough so that a thoughtful viewer will find that the shot triggers a response in their own psyche.
An Ansel Adams shot has a formal excellence that allows the viewer to enter into that experience. And the result is we feel that Half Dome has a primal beauty that stirs something deep. A shot of a Vietnamese general shooting a captured Viet Cong soldier doesn't have the same formal beauty -- it's raw and immediate. But the image is painful and shocking. And the shot makes a powerful statement about that war.
Obviously no photo works with everyone. A critic may be more open to formal photographic techniques, a regular person may care more about the choice of subject. But it would be a mistake to not give a crap about communicating with your work. There is nothing wrong with asking yourself why one of your shots grabbed an audience and one didn't. There's a value in trying to take shots that shave a technique that supports your vision. And the key point, we all need to find the shot that gets our juices going. If the shot doesn't work for you, chances are no one else will appreciate it.
Jan 14, 2014 19:16:36 #
TimT wrote:
It's true that a photo (or any other work of art) ... (show quote)
Right on Tim, I never take pics I think others will like, I take pics I like and if anyone else likes them so be it...
Jan 14, 2014 19:45:43 #
quote=SX2002]Right on Tim, I never take pics I think others will like, I take pics I like and if anyone else likes them so be it...[/quote]
Is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy murder a great video? Are the stills from it great photos? They are among the most important images of the 20th century. I think that most would agree that they are great shots. But they are not well composed or well focused. They are great becaus of the fact that they are the only record of that event. I am willing to bet that more people have seen those pictures than have seen any of Ansell Adams work. And By the way no one has ever seen Adams rejects. Mant times a poor photo is better than no photo.
Is the Zapruder film of the Kennedy murder a great video? Are the stills from it great photos? They are among the most important images of the 20th century. I think that most would agree that they are great shots. But they are not well composed or well focused. They are great becaus of the fact that they are the only record of that event. I am willing to bet that more people have seen those pictures than have seen any of Ansell Adams work. And By the way no one has ever seen Adams rejects. Mant times a poor photo is better than no photo.
Jan 14, 2014 21:56:08 #
The article on memorable photos that was recommended is an excellent piece of advise. Good reading and learning.
Jan 15, 2014 01:30:15 #
Jan 15, 2014 05:36:01 #
Dbez1 wrote:
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"?
Post processing
:twisted:
Jan 15, 2014 06:00:17 #
I'm not sure that "like" is the correct word for describing a great photograph.
I recently watched the Eddie Adams documentary on Netflix, and there was quite a bit of discussion of his famous Viet Nam photo, in which a Viet Cong is executed on the street. I can't say I "like" the photo, but it is dramatic and a great photograph. Likewise the famous Kim Phuc "napalm girl" Viet Nam photograph, or Epperidge's famous Bobby Kennedy dying in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in 1968.
All of these are truly great photos - they are dramatic, they are memorable, they create emotional responses in the viewer. I can't say that I "like" any of them, because of the content. I absolutely LOVE them as photographs.
I recently watched the Eddie Adams documentary on Netflix, and there was quite a bit of discussion of his famous Viet Nam photo, in which a Viet Cong is executed on the street. I can't say I "like" the photo, but it is dramatic and a great photograph. Likewise the famous Kim Phuc "napalm girl" Viet Nam photograph, or Epperidge's famous Bobby Kennedy dying in the kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in 1968.
All of these are truly great photos - they are dramatic, they are memorable, they create emotional responses in the viewer. I can't say that I "like" any of them, because of the content. I absolutely LOVE them as photographs.
Jan 15, 2014 06:02:10 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
Dbez1 wrote:
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great&... (show quote)
I think your first sentencemay describe it best. The music or in this case photo, remain as recorded in its final version. It is the individual perception that changes which eventually will determine the popularity over time.
Jan 15, 2014 06:06:07 #
Dbez1 wrote:
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great&... (show quote)
I see 'subjective' in one of the responses. That could not be so true. Brings to mind the photograph sold last year of the river in the desert. It brought in a whoping 5 million. The picture was bad. Well not worth the money. Go figure!!
Jan 15, 2014 07:55:07 #
Dbez1 wrote:
In music, one of the litmus tests for "great&... (show quote)
Great is in the eye of the beholder.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.