# What makes a photo great?



## dryanparker (Dec 16, 2013)

We love CR, and we're here because it's fun to discuss and debate new technology, engage and speculate upon rumors, share techniques and advice...among so many other great reasons. That said, I feel like someone needs to lower the boom every once in a while to keep things in check. MTF charts, megapixels, noise and JPEG artifacts have their place!

Let's not forget what an iconic photo looks like. The reality is most of them are soft and grainy; and any one of us would be blessed to bear witness and capture such a moment just once in our lifetime.

The last thing I want in my portfolio is a bunch of perfectly-lit, ultra-sharp, mural-sized, noise-free crappy photos. I'd be happy with a single epic image that I can be proud to have captured. That search continues.

Soapbox dismount!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2013)

Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster..... two of the worst iconic photos ever taken 

Uniqueness has a lot to do with it....


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 16, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster..... two of the worst iconic photos ever taken
> 
> Uniqueness has a lot to do with it....



Ha! No doubt. But as you say, they are iconic!


----------



## Arctic Photo (Dec 16, 2013)

I completely agree with you, not that there's a chance ever that my library would contain only perfect images. I normally bring a camera wherever I go and try to be ready. Not that the Tiananmen square events would take place where I live. But I do think, whatever equipment one has, it comes down to master it so you can handle it in a high pressure situation.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 17, 2013)

Light, subject and composition.


----------



## cid (Dec 17, 2013)

I think this is very interesting topic and probably people will have different opinions on this.

All 4 photos posted are photo journalist stuff. Indeed they are great shots but what I think is that the moment captured is very strongly dragging them to be great. Are they better because of this than a perfectly done portrait, landscape or macro? I think they are only more spread because of the moment, because they were print in newspaper or maybe even books and that because of the moment itself if very influential for lot of people.



RLPhoto said:


> Light, subject and composition.



I completely agree with this, I'll add one more think - creativity (which is somehow part of composition, but let's face it, sometimes it's really missing).


----------



## sb in ak (Dec 17, 2013)

I'd argue that all of those photojournalism shots would still be incredible even without ANY background. They're stunning works in their own right. 

A great photo make something fire in your brain and will suck you in. That's all you need.


----------



## cid (Dec 17, 2013)

sb in ak said:


> I'd argue that all of those photojournalism shots would still be incredible even without ANY background. They're stunning works in their own right.



That's why I wrote that there will be lot of different opinions and I just wrote mine 
I simply don't think the shot with Ali and Frazier would be so praised is there were no Ali and no Frazier but they were some unknown boxers. Yes, the photo is great, but I wouldn't call it incredible without capturing THAT moment. But that is what photo journalism is all about, so no offence.


----------



## cid (Dec 17, 2013)

cid said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Light, subject and composition.
> ...


and one more thing to add - The Moment


----------



## Eldar (Dec 17, 2013)

cid said:


> sb in ak said:
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that all of those photojournalism shots would still be incredible even without ANY background. They're stunning works in their own right.
> ...


I think the difference of opinion here is what makes this such an interesting hobby/job and why we get so many discussions going on this forum. What catches somebody´s attention, makes somebody want to go back and have another look, stirs emotions etc. is different from person to person. Personally I have only once returned to a photography exhibition and that was Nick Brandt´s large format portraits of African animals, where he has captured that extra IT, which makes you stop at every frame. Shot with a Pentax 6x7, normal and 2xnormal focal lengths, in B&W, but still technically close to flawless.

There are numerous photographs which captured that split second happening and are great because of that. Very few of them are technically flawless and they primarily live because of the moment they captured. Architecture, portrait, landscape, sports and wildlife photographers today need to deliver near technically perfect images, unless it´s of something extraordinary like bigfoot, a plane crashed into the building or a lion ate somebody´s wife. 

Our tolerance for poorly composed, low contrast and grainy images is not what it used to be. Today, I´m sure the Ali and Frazier images would have been shot with a 1DX and a 200/2 or 300/2.8, at 12 fps and after selecting the best frame and run it through PP it would be technically flawless. Considering the equipment that photographer had at the time, that image is probably close to what was technically possible.


----------



## jwilbern (Dec 17, 2013)

cid said:


> sb in ak said:
> 
> 
> > I'd argue that all of those photojournalism shots would still be incredible even without ANY background. They're stunning works in their own right.
> ...


Excellent topic. The boxing photo is actually Ali vs. Sonny Liston. Ali had just landed the famous "Phantom Punch" which was so quick that many of those in attendance didn't see it, and no photographer captured it. It's a fascinating story, and for more information, see Wikipedia Muhammad Ali vs. Sonny Liston.


----------



## cid (Dec 17, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I think the difference of opinion here is what makes this such an interesting hobby/job and why we get so many discussions going on this forum. What catches somebody´s attention, makes somebody want to go back and have another look, stirs emotions etc. is different from person to person. Personally I have only once returned to a photography exhibition and that was Nick Brandt´s large format portraits of African animals, where he has captured that extra IT, which makes you stop at every frame. Shot with a Pentax 6x7, normal and 2xnormal focal lengths, in B&W, but still technically close to flawless.
> 
> There are numerous photographs which captured that split second happening and are great because of that. Very few of them are technically flawless and they primarily live because of the moment they captured. Architecture, portrait, landscape, sports and wildlife photographers today need to deliver near technically perfect images, unless it´s of something extraordinary like bigfoot, a plane crashed into the building or a lion ate somebody´s wife.
> 
> Our tolerance for poorly composed, low contrast and grainy images is not what it used to be. Today, I´m sure the Ali and Frazier images would have been shot with a 1DX and a 200/2 or 300/2.8, at 12 fps and after selecting the best frame and run it through PP it would be technically flawless. Considering the equipment that photographer had at the time, that image is probably close to what was technically possible.



Agreed. I have to say I was not thinking about available equipment. Maybe we can say that the level of what is considered great is moving up with the technology development.


----------



## cid (Dec 17, 2013)

jwilbern said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > sb in ak said:
> ...


sorry, my fault :


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 17, 2013)

Visual impact


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 17, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Visual impact



+1

This is what it's all about. I mean, it might be a captivating wall-sized print of an Arizona sunset captured with $80,000 in gear...or it could be a street photo made on ISO 3200 film in 1982.

I guess my point is...it doesn't matter how you capture the moment. It's about being there and recognizing the power in making images that are meaningful to YOU.


----------



## DanielW (Dec 17, 2013)

A photo is great when you look at it and think "damn, I wish I'd taken this one."


----------



## jwilbern (Dec 17, 2013)

Eldar said:


> cid said:
> 
> 
> > sb in ak said:
> ...


If Ali's "Phantom Punch" happened today, it would have been perfectly captured at the moment of impact. Of course, then it wouldn't be known as the Phantom Punch, and the mystery and legend of this fight would be diminished.


----------



## cid (Dec 18, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Visual impact


+1


----------



## distant.star (Dec 20, 2013)

.
It's good to see this topic pop up. Thanks for originating the post. The arcane back and forth of technical 
minutiae usually grows wearisome, and I see most of it as the equivalent of picking fly poop out of the pepper.

I have a strong interest in what makes not only a great picture, but also a good one. None of us, probably, will ever make a great picture, but I think we all have a great chance of making some good pictures. The first step, of course, is to understand what makes a good/great picture. Most of us are trying very hard to make good pictures -- but if we don't know what makes a great picture, how do we judge our success and or progress?

My initial response to the question was simply, consensus and/or acclaim make a picture great. When just about everyone agrees it's a great picture, perhaps it is. Or, maybe not. I've long been told _Mona Lisa_ is a great picture, but I don't really see it. I've long tried, but to me, it's just another portrait. I understand some of the artistic elements, and perhaps in 1520 they were novel. Today, frankly, I've seen lots better.

A few folks here seem to suggest that "visual impact" is what makes a picture great/good. That seems like a cheap answer to me -- sort of like saying horsepower makes a car great.

The examples of "iconic" pictures here don't seem to clarify the issue. Most are mediocre pictures at best, and when a background story is needed to make them important, they are reduced to simply supporting documents. One thing I most love about the Ali picture is to see the expressions on the faces of photographers behind Ali. They all know the guy on the other side of the ring just got the great shot, and all they have is Ali's rear end -- such is sport photography.

While I have years and years of experience taking pictures, I have not a single moment of formal training. I've always felt deficient because of that. I have a good eye for composition, but I don't have the formal education to elucidate why one picture works and another doesn't. Of course, that never stops me from trying! One of the best things I've come across in this regard is a B&H presentation by Adam Marelli, _Bridging the Gap: Classical Art Designed for Photographers:
_
Bridging the Gap: Classical Art Designed for Photographers

In that lecture, he begins with the basics of what he calls "visual language," going from straight lines and arcs and circles to volumetric figures and arabesques, etc. He has formal training both in photography and sculpture so he actually knows what he's doing when he's taking pictures. While I'm plodding along hoping something good shows up in my visual field, he is looking for specific visual imagery that makes a good picture. So, probably for every good picture I get, he gets 50 or more. He not only knows what makes a great picture, he knows how to see it (visualize, some would say) and capture it. He did a worthwhile followup to that video with another one, _How to Talk to Strangers: 7 Tips for Photographing People:
_
How to Talk to Strangers: 7 Tips For Photographing People


As some folks here probably know my first photography interest is public photography, what's generically known these days as "street photography." I like people in public spaces -- whether in streets or parks or markets or public transport or festivals, carnivals, etc. For reasons I've never been able to adequately articulate, I like good pictures of people in public places. Interestingly, I usually get bored rather quickly looking at such pictures, and Marelli explains why. He says 99% or more of what is considered good street photography does not make good pictures. There is far more to good public photography than a picture of a homeless man with a kitten peeking out from under his tattered coat. That may be cute, but if it does not contain the essential elements of a good picture, that's all it is.

An example of a good, perhaps even great picture, I like to use is one by Henri Cartier-Bresson:

http://www.copypasteculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/henri_cartier_bresson_photo_001.jpeg

I believe this comes from France in the 1930s -- so he didn't have the resolution of a 5D3 or the post processing power of Photoshop. What he got is an image contrasting stolid classic lines and shapes in hard, cold steel and stone with the warm, fluid flowing movement of a person on a bicycle. One second earlier or one second later and the picture would not work. I'd like to think he was just walking down the steps one day and he saw this and snapped, but you can be sure that's not what happened. He surely saw the forms and waited for something to come along to accentuate it through contrast. That's why Cartier-Bresson is a big name in photography -- and I'm not!

Anyway, I could go on, but this should be enough to tweak some folks who think "visual impact" is the characteristic of greatness.

Thanks again.


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 20, 2013)

By "Great" if you mean worldwide instant recognition, then the current perception of photography is one of a documentary nature. You'd need to capture a photograph that is of historic importance and relevance to a high percentage of people. Essentially, a photograph of an event or somebody that people care about. Today, given the ubiquitous nature of cameras and phones, that would also mean being the first to publicise your photo.

Don't believe me - flick through any book of famous iconic photos. How many are of an artistic, wildlife or landscape nature? Typically, only a small percentage. And, while you and I would recognise the work of many famous photographers, most people wouldn't. To most people, if its not a photo of them or their family, they normally couldn't care less. 

So, how to make a great photo. The Answer is easy. Be there and be ready when "it" happens.

If you want to make a great photo without seeking worldwide fame and acclaim, there are quite a few guides available on the internet. For a simple read, I thought this was good: -

http://www.lccc.org.au/EVALUATION_MANUAL_JAN_2012.pdf

In particular, I liked one of the starting concepts, attributed to Cecil Beaton, 

_"A technical 'failure' which shows some attempt as aesthetic expression is of infinitely more value than 'uninspired' success."_


----------



## Hillsilly (Dec 20, 2013)

Oh...and don't forget the rule of thirds. Otherwise you could end up like this guy!

http://newcameranews.com/2013/12/09/new-photographer-bullied-repeatedly-head-rule-thirds/


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 20, 2013)

If you read the internet: The mostest dynamic range in a camera sensor makes a picture greatest.


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 20, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> The examples of "iconic" pictures here don't seem to clarify the issue. Most are mediocre pictures at best, and when a background story is needed to make them important, they are reduced to simply supporting documents. One thing I most love about the Ali picture is to see the expressions on the faces of photographers behind Ali. They all know the guy on the other side of the ring just got the great shot, and all they have is Ali's rear end -- such is sport photography.



Really appreciate your thoughts, though I'll take some issue with this bit. These four images I chose...do you need the background story for them to be compelling visuals? I certainly don't. I suppose if I didn't know anything about them, I might find the Ali picture the least compelling of the four, while still a great image.


----------



## infared (Dec 20, 2013)

Technical ability and passion. If you only have one, take the passion.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 20, 2013)

A photo is great when it tells a story.
If its a good story you will come back to look at it again.
If its an amazing story, you will show others.


----------



## Halfrack (Dec 20, 2013)

It's that personal connection to an image, when an image is just so powerful to a person that they'll put it on paper, show it, or look at it regularly.

When a photo is truly art in the eye of the owner.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 20, 2013)

You guys are being waay too philosophical here...if it sells and makes beaucoup dollars, it's a great image.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 20, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> It's good to see this topic pop up. Thanks for originating the post. The arcane back and forth of technical
> minutiae usually grows wearisome, and I see most of it as the equivalent of picking fly poop out of the pepper.
> 
> ...



Congratulations !

You described in 700 words, 2 videos and 1 picture what I described in two words


----------



## sanj (Dec 20, 2013)

Old but interesting discussion.
For me it could be anything as long as it creates a wow factor: Story, Technique, Content, Mood, Special perspective, Uniqueness. 
Anything as long as it makes me notice the photo.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 20, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> If you want to make a great photo without seeking worldwide fame and acclaim, there are quite a few guides available on the internet. For a simple read, I thought this was good: -
> 
> http://www.lccc.org.au/EVALUATION_MANUAL_JAN_2012.pdf
> 
> ...



Thanks. That's the kind of thing I believe is helpful. I think you have to be able to see what makes a picture good before you can know how to create it.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 20, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



It can be nearly impossible to ignore what we know about the scenes in those pictures, hence objectivity is difficult to obtain. The best objectivity I can get to with the pictures is:

Chinese protest image -- this looks like a guy pausing to look at a row of tanks. There is no sense of movement in the frame. To me, he looks like he's just coming back from shopping and paused to take a quick look.

JFK funeral -- cute picture of a kid saluting because adults around him are doing it. There is nothing to say what's really going on except for the woman in black. She suggests it may have to do with death. The military people around suggests a military death. Otherwise, the composition seems pretty chaotic. 

Ali -- a good picture, but not great. Triumphant vanquishing of an opponent by a boxer, nothing more.

Prison -- this is the worst as it's plainly contrived. I spent too many years working in prisons to think this was anything other than a setup. In this case I can't get to objectivity because I bring too much background to the subject. I'm also pretty jaded since I've seen too many staged prison pictures. If you go to Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia (now a prison museum and a great place to take pictures) you'll see a picture on the wall of inmates taken probably around the 1920s. If you look closely, you'll see one of the inmates has keys hanging from his belt. When I asked the people who run the place what that was about, they said such photos were usually staged by having guards dress up as inmates; apparently one of them forgot to hide his keys. That said, the chess picture does evoke a sense of what most people think of as prison so it works on that level. 

Again, if you have a chance to go to Eastern State, it makes for a great day. I haven't been there in two years, and it's time for me to get some more good picture opportunities there.

http://www.easternstate.org/


----------



## distant.star (Dec 20, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, I could go on, but this should be enough to tweak some folks who think "visual impact" is the characteristic of greatness.
> ...



Yep, I can get a bit windy on the subject. But the "visual impact" seems to need unpacking, in academic terms. Sort of sounds like a trade show tag line -- something that can mean whatever you want it to mean and doesn't really say anything. I was once in the business of creating such phrases; I know them when I see them.

Again, I think it takes a lot of work to get to where we can look objectively at a picture and say what makes it good or not. And only when we do that can we begin to apply it to our own work.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 20, 2013)

infared said:


> Technical ability and passion. If you only have one, take the passion.



I agree with that, Bob!!

These days I see so many cold, heartless pictures rendered perfectly from a technical perspective. However, if we have great passion and little knowledge, it can be really frustrating! I think this is one reason why so many people abandon photography very early. It's not easy!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Dec 20, 2013)

Some of this is really comparing apples to oranges, or hell, apples to potato chips even. Great, Iconic, legendary --- I mean hell, your at a wedding and capture the perfect emotion of the bride as she dances with her father ---great photo...yes...legendary --- no...sadly you don't get legendary status unless your in ver special circumstances...in these cases your in the presence of living history - like this 







or this






you could be the masters master of macro photography selling giant images for millions but you know what, these grainy shots will always be more iconic because its more than just a picture. Of course, we can only say that because for something to be historic and iconic it does have to pass the test of time --- images like these are not grainy but I am pretty sure as time passes they will be heralded as legendary --














How many here have the sac to put on a flac vest and spend years following troops around putting your own life on the line to get that kind of image? 

Ability, gear, passion ---yeah all that is good and fine, but there is a huge factor of luck too - to be in that right place, that right time, with the right people. All the tech, gear and passion in the world doesn't get you that iconic image unless your at that location, the spot where something of history is taking place...






(lol, In thinking iconic is was hard to not look for beatles picutres and i found this one with Ali and the beatles...lol...thought it was a nice way to bring it full circle!)


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 20, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ...sadly you don't get legendary status unless your in ver special circumstances...in these cases your in the presence of living history...we can only say that because for something to be historic and iconic it does have to pass the test of time. ... All the tech, gear and passion in the world doesn't get you that iconic image unless your at that location, the spot where something of history is taking place...



We're on the same page here. The way I see it, "iconic" photos can be captured any time. However, "legendary" photos have passed the test of time.

The thing is...a "great" photo can be any of these—including the high-dollar macro mural you mentioned. The concern I get sometimes (and what spurred the post in the first place) is that "great" photos are often defined in technical terms, and I wanted to get people thinking in different terms. Terms like passion, creativity, awareness, and yes even LUCK! The bottom line is the gear doesn't matter all that much to the greatness of an image. What matters is that you made the image for the love of making the image, however you choose to do it.

Great Ali + Fab Four picture!


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> We love CR, and we're here because it's fun to discuss and debate new technology, engage and speculate upon rumors, share techniques and advice...among so many other great reasons. That said, I feel like someone needs to lower the boom every once in a while to keep things in check. MTF charts, megapixels, noise and JPEG artifacts have their place!
> 
> *Let's not forget what an iconic photo looks like. The reality is most of them are soft and grainy; and any one of us would be blessed to bear witness and capture such a moment just once in our lifetime.*
> 
> ...



I think the critical component you are describing, which literally has nothing to do with image quality, is *emotional impact*. Regardless of what emotions the images you shared may evoke from each individual (which are bound to be different from individual to individual), the key factor is their emotional impact. Every great photo throughout history, the ones that stand the test of time, damn the IQ, are the ones that pack a hell of a lot of emotional impact. 

The man who stopped a train of tanks...doesn't matter what emotion that evokes, it is still an emotionally evocative photo. Same thing would go for that Nat. Geo. photo of the young afghan woman with those stunningly piercing green eyes:






This is considered one of the best photos of the last 20-30 years. It is an emotionally evocative photo. It is also a technically superior photo as well! It has EXCELLENT image quality...perfect focus on her eyes, creamy boke, great color, etc. 

I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 20, 2013)

jrista said:


> I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.



Agree 100%


----------



## emag (Dec 20, 2013)

Google "Sagan pale blue dot". For me the photo and his words kinda say it all.


----------



## Click (Dec 20, 2013)

dryanparker said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.
> ...



+1


----------



## mkabi (Dec 20, 2013)

Ok, now knowing the things discussed in this thread...
Lets revisit http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18061.0


----------



## jrista (Dec 20, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Ok, now knowing the things discussed in this thread...
> Lets revisit http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18061.0



Great talent trumps good equipment, _yet that in no way diminishes the power of good equipment in the hands of great talent. _

The notion that a great photographer can create the "Sistine Chapel" with a pinhole camera and expired film is a fallacy. A great photographer benefits, arguably even more greatly than others, from great equipment. A pinhole camera exposed on expired film can make a great, emotionally evocative photograph, but the chances that a 1D X with thousands of dollars worth of top shelf glass will create even more emotionally evocative photography on a more consistent and regular basis is still undeniable.


----------



## mkabi (Dec 21, 2013)

jrista said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, now knowing the things discussed in this thread...
> ...



But what if this great talent used the 1Dx, pumped the crap out of the ISO, smudged the glass up so that the image is so messed up, but still provides the most "emotionally evoquitive" picture as opposed a very clean and sharp picture. And still, you could've used a 
sh!tty $50 P&S to do the same picture.

You're going to say its equipment still?


----------



## fugu82 (Dec 21, 2013)

Thanx distant.star for posting the links and the insightful comments.


----------



## distant.star (Dec 21, 2013)

fugu82 said:


> Thanx distant.star for posting the links and the insightful comments.



You're welcome. And thanks for the thanks. I appreciate it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 21, 2013)

jrista said:


> Same thing would go for that Nat. Geo. photo of the young afghan woman with those stunningly piercing green eyes:
> 
> This is considered one of the best photos of the last 20-30 years. It is an emotionally evocative photo. It is also a technically superior photo as well! It has EXCELLENT image quality...perfect focus on her eyes, creamy boke, great color, etc.
> 
> I don't think it matters whether a photo has good IQ or bad IQ, and neither do I think that a world renown great photo "has" to have crappy IQ. The key is simply that it has emotional impact. Any photo, of anything, can have emotional impact, doesn't matter if it is of a person, people, animals, landscapes, still life, whatever.



Whoa, I have been keen to stay out of this thread, but I can't. Anybody that has seen actual prints of not only this image of Steve McCurry's but many others of his, knows they are far from technically superior, there is even an expression "Steve McCurry sharp" that refers to compelling images that are slightly soft or out of focus.

Don't get me wrong, the guy is an amazing photographer, though his modern output and techniques are questioned by many, but the strength of his main body of work is not technique (and that shows in his prints), it is his connectivity and very strong use of colour.

Don't forget he shot most of his famous work, including "the Afghan Girl", on 64 iso Kodachrome, the fastest that went to was 200 iso! Oh and depending on who you believe, I shot shed loads of it, had around 7-8 usable stops of dynamic range. You could probably buy the film Nikon and the 50mm lens he used for most of his work for $150. Mind you, they are comments for a different thread


----------



## jrista (Dec 21, 2013)

mkabi said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > mkabi said:
> ...



I never said it was equipment. Please read my post again.


----------



## jrista (Dec 21, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Same thing would go for that Nat. Geo. photo of the young afghan woman with those stunningly piercing green eyes:
> ...



I have the national geographic with that photo somewhere. It certainly never looked out of focus, slightly or otherwise, to me. If he enlarged the photo to multi-foot dimensions, well, the photo was taken, what, almost 30 years ago? I think that was even before the advent of AF, I believe.

Also, when I say the photo was superior technically, with great focus, boke, color, etc. I was speaking relatively. RELATIVE to the tank photo, the Afgan Girl is indeed technically superior. Given the technology of the time, ca. 1984 film and manual focus, it's a damn good photo, both technically and emotionally. Is it as good as you could get today, with something like the 1D X with all it's AF autofocus impressiveness? Probably not, but it doesn't change the fact that it is still a technically superior photo compared to a majority of photos most people would consider "the greatest photos of all time", which, as the OP already stated, are often of the poorest technical quality, grainy, blurry, poor color, etc.


----------



## sanj (Dec 21, 2013)

[/quote]

Great talent trumps good equipment, _yet that in no way diminishes the power of good equipment in the hands of great talent. _

The notion that a great photographer can create the "Sistine Chapel" with a pinhole camera and expired film is a fallacy. A great photographer benefits, arguably even more greatly than others, from great equipment. A pinhole camera exposed on expired film can make a great, emotionally evocative photograph, but the chances that a 1D X with thousands of dollars worth of top shelf glass will create even more emotionally evocative photography on a more consistent and regular basis is still undeniable.
[/quote]

Of course yes! Totally agree.


----------



## Aglet (Dec 21, 2013)

Then some people spend piles of money and effort on filters to transform images into something that _might_ have more emotional impact, often by rendering them down to poor IQ (excess contrast, crushed dark, blown upper shades, horrendous color exaggerations and-or shifts, etc.) that asks the viewer's imagination to make something more of it than it was to start with.

Seems all those great images have emotional impact AND they impact a majority of viewers in the same way so as to create a consensus. 
Some images only greatly impact a small percentage of viewers; are they still great images?


----------



## lux (Dec 21, 2013)

I've been thinking about this one because it's fun to think about. I think the greatest photos I've taken capture the essence of someone or some event. How we'll they do this is usually improved by being well-exposed etc but not always.

Then I thought about the greatest photos I've ever seen and they do the same thing...just better than I do


----------



## jrista (Dec 21, 2013)

Aglet said:


> Then some people spend piles of money and effort on filters to transform images into something that _might_ have more emotional impact, often by rendering them down to poor IQ (excess contrast, crushed dark, blown upper shades, horrendous color exaggerations and-or shifts, etc.) that asks the viewer's imagination to make something more of it than it was to start with.
> 
> Seems all those great images have emotional impact AND they impact a majority of viewers in the same way so as to create a consensus.
> Some images only greatly impact a small percentage of viewers; are they still great images?



Good question. Perhaps the consensus is what makes a truly great photo one for the ages...


----------



## Aglet (Dec 21, 2013)

lux said:


> I've been thinking about this one because it's fun to think about. I think the greatest photos I've taken capture the essence of someone or some event. How we'll they do this is usually improved by being well-exposed etc but not always.
> 
> Then I thought about the greatest photos I've ever seen and they do the same thing...just better than I do



+1
IMO, the greatest images I've seen are ones that have a "human element" in them .. somehow. Whether or not someone is in the photo, or something man-made or otherwise "touched by man."
There are plenty of great landscapes without a trace of human presence but I bet even Ansel Adams best shots pale in comparison to those other iconic images that do contain some human element.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 21, 2013)

Great talent trumps good equipment, _yet that in no way diminishes the power of good equipment in the hands of great talent. _

The notion that a great photographer can create the "Sistine Chapel" with a pinhole camera and expired film is a fallacy. A great photographer benefits, arguably even more greatly than others, from great equipment. A pinhole camera exposed on expired film can make a great, emotionally evocative photograph, but the chances that a 1D X with thousands of dollars worth of top shelf glass will create even more emotionally evocative photography on a more consistent and regular basis is still undeniable.
[/quote]

Of course yes! Totally agree.
[/quote]

I'm assuming when you refer to the "Sistine Chapel" analogy you are talking about the fresco by Michelangelo (and not the architecture or actual physical construction)? And if that is the case, aren't you saying artists now with better equipment would have a better chance at creating a masterpiece? I think those dudes back then were rocking super minimal "gear".

The 1DX doesn't know what "emotion" is. The advancements in tools have only made our jobs easier, so we can spend more time with our families.


----------



## jrista (Dec 21, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > jrista]
> ...


----------



## zim (Dec 21, 2013)

Talent + love of the human condition gets my vote


----------



## Aglet (Dec 22, 2013)

Here's a good bit of background on the iconic EARTHRISE photo from Apollo 8.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE-vOscpiNc

that's a serious "human element" image without any visible humans if ever I've seen one!


----------



## IMG_0001 (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...


----------



## IMG_0001 (Dec 22, 2013)

I am surprised that the underlying element of the answer for the majority of replies is the presupposition of photojournalism. When looking arond in other media about photography, it often claimed that it is to be viewed as a visual art form in its own right, but I don't feel that photojournalism is the best representative of that claim. Strong and charged documentary images might have more of a narrative strength than of a visual strength I reckon.

I concede that as a viewer, I am deeply touched by humanist photography, but I imagine that the answer to the question should allow for !a purely abstract photography.

However, visual impact sounds to me just as subjective and vague as being good makes a good photo good.

To me, a good photo is an intemporal image for which the viewer is stirred but has a hard time putting the finger on the source of the emotion. It is even better if the emotion itself is hard to define because then, the image is really new and unusual.

Now let me say that this easier said than done... (edit: and still quite vague and subjective.)


----------



## jrista (Dec 22, 2013)

IMG_0001 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > pdirestajr said:
> ...


----------



## IMG_0001 (Dec 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...


----------



## gbchriste (Dec 23, 2013)

If we construct a Cartesian graph with X and Y axes, with X representing the technical merits of the photograph, and Y representing the artistic/social merits of the photograph, then answering the question "What makes a photo great" becomes an exercise in mathematics. We assign a numerical score to both a photo's technical execution as well as the importance of it's artistic/social content. We then plot those values on the appropriate axis of the graph. If a photograph excels in the technical merit - i.e. is well lit, thoughtful composition, in focus, etc etc, but depicts nothing of social/artistic importance, it's plot will fall in the lower right quadrant of the graph. If the subject matter is of significant artistic/social importance, but poorly executed from a technical standpoint, its plot will fall in the upper left quadrant of the graph. In both cases, the photo has failed to achieve an measure of "greatness". Only a photo whose plot falls in the upper right quadrant - one that is of a worthy artistic/social subject but also technically well executed - will be considered a "great" photograph.

Of course, all that is a load of s**t - nothing more than a tongue and cheek nod to same simplistic analysis ridiculed by Robin Williams' character as the literature teach in "Dead Poets' Society". But I just couldn't help myself. When I read the question, that scene was the first thing to pop in to my head


----------



## dryanparker (Dec 24, 2013)

gbchriste said:


> If we construct a Cartesian graph with X and Y axes, with X representing the technical merits of the photograph, and Y representing the artistic/social merits of the photograph, then answering the question "What makes a photo great" becomes an exercise in mathematics. We assign a numerical score to both a photo's technical execution as well as the importance of it's artistic/social content. We then plot those values on the appropriate axis of the graph. If a photograph excels in the technical merit - i.e. is well lit, thoughtful composition, in focus, etc etc, but depicts nothing of social/artistic importance, it's plot will fall in the lower right quadrant of the graph. If the subject matter is of significant artistic/social importance, but poorly executed from a technical standpoint, its plot will fall in the upper left quadrant of the graph. In both cases, the photo has failed to achieve an measure of "greatness". Only a photo whose plot falls in the upper right quadrant - one that is of a worthy artistic/social subject but also technically well executed - will be considered a "great" photograph.
> 
> Of course, all that is a load of s**t - nothing more than a tongue and cheek nod to same simplistic analysis ridiculed by Robin Williams' character as the literature teach in "Dead Poets' Society". But I just couldn't help myself. When I read the question, that scene was the first thing to pop in to my head



Extraordinarily well played.

+1


----------

