I've been pondering again and again over this....so in essence, what exactly makes up a good photograph? Is the photographer/the scenery an important point of consideration to be taken into?
Is a good photo one that tells a story? Or is it simply a capture of an already beautiful scene? Is it supposed to show the mood of the photographer or the atmosphere of the scene?
Take for example Steve Mccurry's Afghan girl photo that garnered world wide acclaim; no doubt it is beautifully taken and captures the essence and atmosphere of a war torn country and its people.
However, does the difficulty or probably lack thereof of the photo actually count into making that photograph so good? Some may argue that a good photographer is able to see things in different perspective and also able to capture the moment much better than amateurs. But does that mean most amateur shots are to be discredited?
I personally don't think so. After-all, a camera is simply a medium for us to express our feelings,emotions, etc...and I tend to see photography as a form of art. Painting with light in other words....and I've seen great works from alot of people whom aren't even photographers by profession....
However, many times when viewing amazing photos, this particular thought always comes across my mind...and that is: "Am I able to capture such shots given the right conditions as well? Or is this shot amazing simply because of the scenery?
Aside from the mood, setting, photographer (and of course he's equipment), how often are good photographs excellent because of the photographer's exceptional skills in capturing the moment? And how often are shots amazing simply because of the scenery and all it does for one is to press the button?
Please share your comments folks....