bill100 Loc: St Petersburg, Florida

In the eye of the beholder....

Tommy II Loc: Northern Illinois

To me, it's an image I enjoy viewing.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And I was thinking about that and the sentiment in the air back in 1972. 18 months later I pulled a draft lottery number of 47, and was contemplating surrendering my citizenship and permanently leaving the country, when this photo was published in June, 1972. I felt the end of the war was near, that the US populace had had enough of war, and six months later Nixon revoked the draft lottery and announced the peace agreement. I have no doubt that this image may have played a part in this.

The impact of this image has diminished with each successive generation, and probably all but lost on the millennials. But to anyone who lived through those times as a teenager or young adult, it is indelibly imprinted into their consciousness. I doubt that Nick Ut was thinking about rules of composition, exposure, hell, even focus when he took the shot. But there is no doubt that it was one of the most important images taken during the war.

As far as composition is concerned, my favorite quote, from master photographer Edward Weston, goes like this, "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." Amen!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It's not sharpness.

I will say two things: 1. the subject; 2. how it is composed or framed. It can be a beautiful scene or something meaningful that grabs the viewer's emotions. A great photo will generally fall into one of two categories: 1. nature; 2. a human emotional situation. I saw two shots decades ago that still stick in my mind. I think both were taken by Gene Smith. One shows a little boy and girl, from behind, walking through bushes into the light. The other shows a Japanese woman holding her son, deformed by Thalidomide.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

[quote=ricardo7]

Unbelievable!

cthahn

Join a photographic group where they have professional photographers judge your photographs. This is the only way you will learn what it takes to make a good photograph. Many photographers do not want to have their photographs judged as they can not tolerate critisism. Do not have friends and family do you judging as they have no clue what constitutes a good photograph.

pbcbob Loc: Delray Beach, FL

And sometimes a little luck.

aberration

Some of us praise what others consider poor. There are wide opinions as to the how, why and what, etc to take or make a great picture. When many agree on a wow opinion, that is the publics means of letting the photographer know what their reaction is. We may take comfort in back pats, financial reward, publication, etc. Or know we can try to better our efforts by learning from others, and our mistakes. Pleasing yourself first may be as far as a picture gets, or it becomes world messaging. We can all visualize some of those and wonder at their power. We are visual animals, with a memory that is faulty. So photography locks in a vision for a more permanent recollection of what we saw, or with manipulation what we hoped to see.

Mark W Loc: Camden, Maine

Agree....What IS the point. A piece of toast with the image of the Virgin Mary sold for 1.3 million. Unless this photograph has some great historic value it's a good example of NOTHING.

soli Loc: London, UK.

A good photo is one that you can frame and hang on your wall. A great photo is like a great painting, one which you would like to gaze at for some time with your full attention.

Granddad Loc: UK

Short answer, when you look at a image and go 'WOW'.
Dave.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

[quote=ricardo7]

His forth point gets into the collectiblity of photographs and the history of photography; in this case value due to rarity. Personally I find that particular photograph, "The Pond-Moonlight" incredibly boring! The interest being the old and today very unusual, Gum Bichromate process used (Yikes, Chromium VI). The image itself is flat and really stereotypical. I've seen countless images to trees along the edge of a body of water, most far better. I can think of many photos of Aspen trees at lakes or rivers taken in Yosemite, for one location, that blow this away. I'd have to check one of my books about photo processes, but I'm guessing Gum Bichromate is not know for resolution or contrast. On the other hand an even older and one of the earliest processes, Daguerreotype could produce images of immense detail and beauty, rivaling many of today's images. Problem with the Daguerreotype is that it uses an even more dangerous chemical, Mercury vapor! Also the image has to be covered by glass as the metallic image remains "wet" on a copper plate! Yes, I used to work at a museum and got to see photographs made with other than "modern" Silver Halide films and papers.

ralphfr Loc: Long Island, NY

+++1

It certainly is very subjective as most times we don't know the how, why and where a photo is taken. For me a great photo evokes an involuntary emotional response. Again very subjective.

d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

Is there such a thing? Rules on composition seem to be altered or thrown out, on a regular basis. Focus may or may not be absolutely required. Blurring due to the speed of the subject and the shutter speed selected can be, or may not be an issue, as we have seen in this very forum, this week. There was a major discussion about water as a subject, and whether freezing the flow of water or not, was to be preferred.

What makes a great photo varies dependent upon the subject or scene, photographer and what he/she is trying to convey, and the individual viewing the photo and how he/she perceives and thinks about the subject. Lighting techniques will change, depending upon the subject, conditions, the mood the photographer is trying to convey, the impact he/she believes will make a difference, all contributing to whether he/she puts the sun over his/her shoulder, to the side or perhaps behind the subject. This is one of the reasons why so many of us replicate scenes that Ansel Adams photographed: Not necessarily to compete with him - although that could be the rationale for some people - but because we might see something different or want to attempt a different methodology in photographing the same scene.

It is one the great things about photography.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There's no connection between the quality of a photograph and how much someone is willing to pay for it.