How To Judge A Good Photograph

[benchuatl]

Hi all,

Everyone had been discussing to capture the right moment, crop the right size and expose the negative correctly... should anyone give good pointers about judging a good photographs?

What should we look up in a good photo and how the judges determine an award winning photograph? Please enlighten or share...

 

[sequitur]

1. if we could provide the answer, we'd all be award winners.

2. photography is art, art is subjective.

i personally think picasso stuff are full of sh1t. but they sell for over a million dollars a piece.

 

[jimtong]

There is no right or wrong answer to this question. Forget about technical stuff, in IMHO, a photo should tells a story... it must have a main subject to convey a story or mood. Also a good photo may not need to be super sharp or a perfect exposure, the most important thing is your intend and how you want to express the feeling or communicate with ppl looking at your photo.

I dun deny the fact that sometime, it is my feeling about a photo that makes me feel that it is a good photo, it might reminds me of something from a past. Or makes me feel good :bsmilie:

Award winning photos? All my photos are award winning photos in their own way

 

[jimtong]

1. if we could provide the answer, we'd all be award winners.

Strongly agree :thumbsup:

 

[viix]

Hi all,

Everyone had been discussing to capture the right moment, crop the right size and expose the negative correctly... should anyone give good pointers about judging a good photographs?

What should we look up in a good photo and how the judges determine an award winning photograph? Please enlighten or share...

A good photograph technically has enough light and shadow.
The darkest areas when printed out should have a black point where you are not able to see ur teeth reflection on it when printed out (and I mean matt)

there should be enough tonal range of grey values (I dun mean actual grey but the dynamic range of from Black to white)

den there is composition, style etc..

but basic rule of thumb of a good photo is one where the Photo portrays exactly what the photographer wants to tell.

 

[viix]

1. if we could provide the answer, we'd all be award winners.

2. photography is art, art is subjective.

i personally think picasso stuff are full of sh1t. but they sell for over a million dollars a piece.

1. Even if u could provide the answer, you wouldn't still be able to shoot a good photo. A good photo requires alot more than just knowing how to take one..

3. Picasso stuff sells because his art form was unique to that time.. one such phenomenon in current context is the **** up lomography.

 

[Witness]

good photos...colours, exposure...subject, composition....tons of stuff....basically for judging however...depends on whether if your photo suits the theme also wat.....

 

[stroma]

1. Even if u could provide the answer, you wouldn't still be able to shoot a good photo. A good photo requires alot more than just knowing how to take one..

3. Picasso stuff sells because his art form was unique to that time.. one such phenomenon in current context is the **** up lomography.

In Defence of Picasso (who along with Turner?! 2 very different artists!) is my favourite painter. Before all the abstract work with which most people associate him, He had thoroughly learnt his 'Craft'. Like all true greats in my opinion - Great Craftsman first then Great artist... which brings us to photography. If you look at some of the real greats like Ansel Adams, Brandt and more recently Joe Cornish the one thing that stands out is that technically (By that I mean they have mastered the technique) they are all absolute masters before any artistic considerations apply.

Can't remember his website address but a search under Joe Cornish should get you there.. To me his photos are the best example of how to do everything right.

Go and look at Joe Cornish's work.. Light & Composition - Perfection.

 

[zaren]

a good photograph is...

... simple

... powerful

... beautiful

... engaging

 

[ckiang]

Well, they say a good photo tells a story.

Regards
CK

 

[acetylcholine]

sidetrack abit..i agree that alot of arts like picasso are abit...not very nice...sometime so bloody abstract, i have more luck trying to understand hieroglyphics than his arts...but some are really nice though. not all

 

[arty]

1. if we could provide the answer, we'd all be award winners.

2. photography is art, art is subjective.

i personally think picasso stuff are full of sh1t. but they sell for over a million dollars a piece.

:nono: You should try to sell your "street photos" at the same price. After that you will understand and ... maybe become more constructive. :blah:

 

[zaren]

:nono: You should try to sell your "street photos" at the same price. After that you will understand and ... maybe become more constructive. :blah:

:thumbsup: :bsmilie:

 

[RemAcuTetigisti]

The question should be 'How to judge a good photographer' than 'photograph'.

Attractive, powerful, simple, engaging photographs are everywhere. That's why there are tons of amateur photocontests and an equivalent number of winners. Kind of one hit wonders.

The key to good photography is style and consistency. To achieve these, one needs lots of practice, patience, skill and emotional involvement. On top, it requires relentless pursuit of ones vision. These are not easily found among all people and 'masters' in any field are those who achieve these.

Individual photographs never speak much but a body of work by a photographer is what stands out. Minor technical issues like improper framing, lack of contrast, lask of tonal range etc become miniscule issues when one has an emotional involvement with a photograph.

I am not much of an brush artist and have not studied the progression of modern art but when I view picasso's images (at low res on the internet), the sense of style is very evident and this is a mark of a master craft's man. If any of you is musically inclined, I suggest you listen to John Coltrane's classic album 'A love supreme'. The recording quality is pathetic by today's standards and one can critically identify nasty passages in the music but the album as such is a pure outburst of melody from a genius who controls exactly what he is playing.

Photographs are similar too. Stop discussing and start discovering.

 

[clive]

my criteria very simple-minded one..just go 4 the feel =)

 

[zaren]

my criteria very simple-minded one..just go 4 the feel =)

ahhh.... that's why most of your comments on photographs are about a certain "mood"...

 

[SniperD]

Generally.......

a good photo is

1) technically competent in photography and the art (even choosing the medium to take the photo in is considered in the thinking process and the final output in what kind of paper/ print is part of the photography process.)
2) expresses the right mood it is meant to portray
3) reflects on the photographer's maturity/ knowledge/ artistic perception in the art
4) open for multiple intepretations with the given theme

 

[benchuatl]

Generally.......

a good photo is

1) technically competent in photography and the art (even choosing the medium to take the photo in is considered in the thinking process and the final output in what kind of paper/ print is part of the photography process.)
2) expresses the right mood it is meant to portray
3) reflects on the photographer's maturity/ knowledge/ artistic perception in the art
4) open for multiple intepretations with the given theme

Well, I am happy to see much contribution from all of u, thanks for all the comments and appreciate you guys gave your comments.

Nevertheless, I thought there should be a general guideline in leading to capture a good photograph....Interest in what's make a good photograph and a good photographer are totally different, I would ask whether a good photographer always produces good photos or a great photograph is definitely delivered by a good photographer? (Every now and then?) :nono: I disagreed.

Posting this thread is to seek ppl opinions in judging a good photo and not a good photographer. Many Pros who successfully signed their names in the photography history had done what RemAcuTetigisti said, "Stop discussing and start discovering".... Somehow, we need a guide. Self appreciation is definitely not wrong but one would stay put on his own world.

Why bring in Picasso's arts? Is it a guideline or what? Though not all ppl enjoyed his works but we can say generally his works are appreciated by most artists.. agreed? mmmm Personnally I might not know how to appreciate Picasso arts, but I think he made his marks.

If we were to continue in satisfying our own works, enjoying our own stuff as what arty said, "You should try to sell your "street photos" at the same price." we would start to learn how to appreciate what the majority views...

Why are we "learning" photography if there isn't any guideline? standard to achieve? sttory to tell? and then why felt insulted when asked "what camera u use?" :dunno:

What are the correct exposure? what are the speed taken? How to compose? What to avoid? the DOF? the three-quarters rules? the B/W, the vivid colour and etc... is all lead us to a guide in defining a great photograph, isn't it...

Now, how judges of NPCI or Cannon or RPS accept and award a great picture would tell us more..... not simply just shoot and kept it to urself. SHARE YOUR WORKS in the eyes of public, made ur work worth what u spent.....

Like to hear more constructive opinions.... like SniperD, zaren,RemAcuTetigisti, CK, and especially Storma's quotes....

Thanks again

Benz