The "what makes a crap photo a good photo?" thread

The "what makes a crap photo a good photo?" thread

Author
Discussion

Nik da Greek

Original Poster:

2,503 posts

149 months

Sunday 7th February 2016
quotequote all
...and what makes an excellent photo, well... crap?

I'd better explain. I'm not a great photographer. I'm OK. I get by, more on being able to see a good pic than any technical ability, and on taking so damned many that some are bound to come out alright. In this day and age of digital wizardry, it's easy to throw away the three hundred rubbish ones and keep the two that make you look a genius.

BUT by contrast, I see loads of photos that are clearly taken by someone with superhuman understanding of how to operate a camera's settings; but the photo is somehow dull as all hell whilst still being technically excellent. There's no "story" to the image, it's become a technical exercise and somehow the art has been lost.


Soooooo, the idea of this thread is to discuss and have a look at what you peeps consider makes a great photo. Is the subject enough, that one serendipitous moment of time where the most inane techno-cretin couldn't fail to make a superb photo out of it? Must it tell a story? Is it irrelevant how good a tale it tells, if it's underexposed and slightly out-of-focus then it'll always upset you no matter how profound the subject?

By way of example, here's some of mine that I think are pretty good pics despite ranking a 1/10 on the "ability" scale. The first was taken about 30 years back, with one of those cameras which were like an oblong box and the lid folded out to become the handle. By every measurable criteria, it's a pretty bad photo. But I love it, and think the rubbishness of the execution in no way detracts from the story. I'd look at that pic for the first time and want to know what was going on



The next was taken through the mess-room window looking towards St Pauls and it just happened that the sun came out from behind a building just as I did it. Rubbish camera phone, rubbish timing. But again, I find it interesting beyond its obvious lack of skill



This was appalling framing, although a more acceptable level of actually getting the right settings. If I'd taken a better scale of photo, would I ever have cropped it down to where it is now? I think if I'd been "sensible" enough to take the entire busker the photo would have been worse for it



Another phone camera one. Taken almost at random from the back cab of a train I was passing on. Strata Tower at t'Elephant... can't fail now matter how poor the equipment or "how nice would it have been to have taken a decent photo of it instead"?



Or maybe a snow leopard? Great pic because of the reflections, or despite them? Or not a great pic at all?




Be genuinely interesting to hear what you guys think, especially given that there are some properly weapons-grade snappers on here. Either that or this thread will sink without trace, lol

Lynchie999

3,421 posts

152 months

Sunday 7th February 2016
quotequote all
the 1st one is really cool in my books, reflections, weird lighting... and good story, why are they there in the middle of all the water ??

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Sunday 7th February 2016
quotequote all
I think that if the subject matter is really interesting then the technical side can drop a bit.

The conundrum for me is that whilst for decades, even centuries, man has been trying to get his images look better and more technically correct, he now chooses to mash them up with cheap effects to captivate that authentic 'crap colour of '70s slides'.

So I guess really it's whatever floats your boat, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you like your photo, then unless you're trying to sell it, that's all that really matters.

fido

16,752 posts

254 months

Monday 8th February 2016
quotequote all
I like the 1st one - it has contrast, colours, well-balanced and is interesting. The 4th one could do with a bit of cropping.

rottie102

3,993 posts

183 months

Monday 8th February 2016
quotequote all
Nope. Sorry. The first one is MILDLY interesting and that's really pushing it...

You like them because you were there and they represent a memory for you. They mean nothing to everybody else and they don't stir my emotions in any way.

I always judge photos on their "greatness" on how easily it would be for somebody else to retake it and come up with a similar result. It is pretty fair because then amazingly timed photos are equal to photos amazing technically. Idea can be as worthy as being in a right place at a right time so studio photo can be as valuable on my scale as war picture.

Anyone can go and take a photo of a sitting leopard through a glass in a zoo. And it will be better technically. There is no moment, no beauty in it. I can go on the same train as you did and take a photo of that tower and I might even capture it straight wink.

But as Simpo said - who are we to judge, it's all very personal. I'm so often wrong with my own photos and the ones I'm proud of receive no praise while people go crazy about some I almost binned.

Edited by rottie102 on Monday 8th February 16:16

GravelBen

15,655 posts

229 months

Monday 8th February 2016
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
I think that if the subject matter is really interesting then the technical side can drop a bit.

The conundrum for me is that whilst for decades, even centuries, man has been trying to get his images look better and more technically correct, he now chooses to mash them up with cheap effects to captivate that authentic 'crap colour of '70s slides'.

So I guess really it's whatever floats your boat, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you like your photo, then unless you're trying to sell it, that's all that really matters.
yes

I saw a collection of winning photos from some competition recently, the judges obviously saw things differently to me and/or regarded massively blown highlights (ie most of the sky/background is gone) as 'artistic'. Personal taste?

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 8th February 23:51

jimmy156

3,681 posts

186 months

Tuesday 9th February 2016
quotequote all
When i look at a photo i am thinking the following things... (not necessarily in this order)

  1. Is the subject matter interesting / or something everyday portrayed in an interesting way
  2. Is the image aesthetically pleasing?
  3. Is the image technically well executed?
  4. Does the image capture a moment in time
  5. Does the image capture an emotion or feeling
If an image only does one of those things, but does it in a big way, then i would say that is enough for me to think that it is a "Good" photo

Some examples

This, for me, scores very highly on points 4 and i suppose 5, but not so much on the others. But i would say its in an excellent image



This, for me, is quite aesthetically pleasing and is technically good, but tells no storey doesn't stir much emotion. I would say its a good image.



Finally one that i have actually taken, and one i would say is an all rounder. Subject matter quite interesting, technically okay, portrays quite a human emotion being hunkered in the rain, and aesthetically not too shabby. I would say its a good photo, but who am i to judge my own work!

IMG_5037 by jimmyb156, on Flickr


RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Tuesday 9th February 2016
quotequote all
Its often hard to work out how an image will be received by the general public. And judges in competitions are even worse lol.

A great/memorable image has to have some emotional connection with the viewer, it can be the worst on technical grounds but still be an amazing shot. Sometimes there are reasons why its technically poor (gear, time , skill), but still better to nail the basics if you can.

terrible photo, big content - one of the worlds most memorable images


Capturing the moment is more important than getting tghe technicalities right


For what I shoot you really have to be there for the moment and capture it technically well, far too many landscapes around to have poorly shot ones. Unless its something locally relevant which can do ok even if its not the best shot.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Tuesday 9th February 2016
quotequote all
RobDickinson said:
Its often hard to work out how an image will be received by the general public. And judges in competitions are even worse lol.

A great/memorable image has to have some emotional connection with the viewer, it can be the worst on technical grounds but still be an amazing shot. Sometimes there are reasons why its technically poor (gear, time , skill), but still better to nail the basics if you can.

terrible photo, big content - one of the worlds most memorable images


Capturing the moment is more important than getting tghe technicalities right


For what I shoot you really have to be there for the moment and capture it technically well, far too many landscapes around to have poorly shot ones. Unless its something locally relevant which can do ok even if its not the best shot.
Agreed.

Also agree with rottie above - people often like images that I feel are no more than acceptable and have no interest in those that are technically preferable and possibly have far better content.

That said your second choice is, as I understand it, a technically well engineered moment. Despite that as an image taken out of it's own age (where people may have been in awe of the technical result for a moving subject in a confined space) the content is not that interesting. The artistic content, however, is quite strong and seems to withstand "the test of time".

To pick up on the original post .... nostalgia is a remarkable thing. On a personal level anything that means something personally or to one's family will probably become more and more interesting as time passes.

To some extent that is also true for the wider audience and not just for professionally shot images of their times but also for family snapshots that put life and times into contexts that we may wish to understand for some reason. How technically proficient they are becomes moot if the content provides at least some reasonable information.

And then there is fine art. There will always be fine art. Some of it may be created using photographic techniques.

One

ExPat2B

2,157 posts

199 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
Have a look at these.

http://mashable.com/2016/02/05/another-vietnam-pho...

Quote from one of the photographers :

"The vast dark forest was my giant darkroom. In the morning I’d rinse the prints in a stream and then hang them from trees to dry. In the afternoon I’d cut them to size and do the captions. I’d wrap the prints and negatives in paper and put them in a plastic bag, which I kept close to my body. That way the photos would stay dry and could be easily found if I got killed."



Now look at your DSLR or phone camera, a technological miracle vastly superior to the equipment available at the time, do your photos measure up ?


Elderly

3,486 posts

237 months

Wednesday 10th February 2016
quotequote all
Give me a 'quality image' over 'image quality' any time.

B'stard Child

28,324 posts

245 months

Wednesday 23rd March 2016
quotequote all
I think it's really down to the feelings they generate



Hand held shot from the bows of the the Statton Island Ferry coming back to NYC

Yes it's not perfect focus and it's a smidge blurry but it still makes me smile and remember a really good holiday

andy-xr

13,204 posts

203 months

Wednesday 23rd March 2016
quotequote all
^^ and it means more to you than it does to me, it's just one of many similar shots I've seen and I'll probably forget it later on. Not that thre's anything wrong with it, it's just not all that grabby for me

Same for the shots in the OP, nice as they are, nothing really means anything.

It's always a personal taste thing, and 'judges' of competitions are usually camera club bores who cant see past sunny 16 and a level histogram, if anything's blown they'll think it's crap and their advice is usually along the lines of 'expose to the right, but not that far right'

There are shots for eample of bombs exploding where highlights are just gone, but the impact of the image remains. If they were submitted to the Nottingham Photo Spciety, you just know someone, probably aged around 65, probably never really moved from film and probably doesnt get what that Photoshop is all about, will come out with 'should have gone for F11 on that, if I'd shot it I'd probably have dragged the shutter a bit, your highlights are blow' and that's their idea of feedback. Not 'fk me, you were stood in a warzone trying to get that photo, what's the story on how you made it out alive'

And that's for me, where a lot of photography judged by photographers falls down

Simpo Two

85,149 posts

264 months

Wednesday 23rd March 2016
quotequote all
andy-xr said:
It's always a personal taste thing, and 'judges' of competitions are usually camera club bores who cant see past sunny 16 and a level histogram, if anything's blown they'll think it's crap and their advice is usually along the lines of 'expose to the right, but not that far right'

There are shots for eample of bombs exploding where highlights are just gone, but the impact of the image remains. If they were submitted to the Nottingham Photo Spciety, you just know someone, probably aged around 65, probably never really moved from film and probably doesnt get what that Photoshop is all about, will come out with 'should have gone for F11 on that, if I'd shot it I'd probably have dragged the shutter a bit, your highlights are blow' and that's their idea of feedback. Not 'fk me, you were stood in a warzone trying to get that photo, what's the story on how you made it out alive'
That's a not a digital vs film issue, it's a tecchy vs reportage issue.

Sounds like you didn't too well in the competition wink

andy-xr

13,204 posts

203 months

Wednesday 23rd March 2016
quotequote all
I withdrew my entry furious

I found a lot of photographers taking photos for other photographers to ask what their settings were as well

But anyway, I guess 'good' is subjective

Nik da Greek

Original Poster:

2,503 posts

149 months

Wednesday 23rd March 2016
quotequote all
it's a definite maybe then rofl

Y'see for my own self I don't really care very much about how a photographer arrived at a photo technically, and I look at loads that are clearly superbly composed, shot with technical excellence and post-processed with awesome skill but leave me completely cold. So many shots in the digital age seem to be performed as a technical exercise without giving any consideration to the story. The Random Photo thread on here is a great example... and obviously I'm not trying to disrespect anyone at all, they're almost all beyond my ability... but I just don't find them interesting. Loads of landscapes that have the feel that the snapper was trying to get a perfect water effect or sky colour and didn't stop to wonder if that made it interesting to look at overall. Light painting is like... wtf? It's clever and takes a load of work but my little one can produce similar effects with a Spirograph. I don't care how much prep went into a photo if it's just a load of pretty colours, I want to see an image that makes me wonder "What's the story?". I want to see a tale being told that would normally require buying a copy of Time to get the backstory. Bombs are good; little girls with napalm burns have become legendary images. The pic Jimmy156 posted of the hut and the cloud is a perfect example of the opposite ideology; I wouldn't even pause the scroll of the page to look at an image like that, no matter how excellent it might be technically. It is, for want of a better phrase, fking dull

It seems that in this age of digital watermarks, anyone with an iPhone is a photographer, but at least those guys who want to Instagram the hell out of everything and fill their Facebook page with endless pics of their mates being Drift King at th'Pod or wherever are actually creating a form of art. Which is to say, they're interpreting what the camera sees and making it match the picture in their mind. That's probably the real difference for me; art used to be using a medium to represent a mind-picture, but now it involves Turner-prize nonsense with rice and light tubes. Photography should have replaced Impressionism or the PRB, but for some strange reason, the better camera equipment becomes, the less adventurous people seem to get with it.

All of which came out sounding more confrontational than it was meant to, my intention with this thread really wasn't to insult anyone or claim "I'm right", it's just an opinion. I honestly thought it would provoke more debate than it has.

Edited by Nik da Greek on Wednesday 23 March 17:21


Edited by Nik da Greek on Wednesday 23 March 17:22

steveatesh

4,893 posts

163 months

Wednesday 23rd March 2016
quotequote all
Interesting view points. Personally I don't look at most landscape shots and consider if there is a story to it. My emotions just decide if I like it or not.

Today I went for a walk near Goathland in North Yorks, took some photos of two waterfalls and came home. None of the images convey a story because there isn't one, it was just a walk out with camera and for me it was a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend the day.

the amazing war zone photographs tell stories, many others do too, but a visible story is the cream on the top for me and very few images I see have that cream, although I still may like those without.

Personally I just take photos for me. If I looked for a story before taking a photograph of my local seafront, scenery or whatever I don't think I'd be taking many photos!