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

[Nik da Greek]

...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

[Nik da Greek]

it's a definite maybe then

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