Lecture on what is a good photograph

Combat squirrel

Combat squirrel

Combat squirrel

Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
11,271
Hi all, so iv been asked to give a lecture to my local photography club on what is a good photograph/good photography.

a lot of what we have discussed is to give it avoiding to many technical terms (ISO, af etc), and the 'rule 3rds' type stuff, they already did that and a lot went over beginners heads.

The idea I want is to go and explain what is a good photograph, not so much about cameras which is what they seem to get caught up in, but it's very subjective and again I want to avoid technicality (not all together but mostly)

So how can I go about this? Explain to total beginner why some photos are good and some are not
 
What club is it?

I would use the technical terms but then I would probably explain them in normal english.
Give examples of the different rules. Maybe make it interactive by showing a bunch of pictures and letting the audience pick out which ones they like. Then you can break it down and explain what's going on in the picture?
 
I know literally nothing... However you can have my opinion :)

To make it slightly easier on your self why not put up some obviously good and bad photos and get the group to comment on why they think they are good and bad?

If you have time go out and be very snap happy with the camera... Then go out and be very reluctant to "pull the trigger". I know I can be trigger happy, but I have gone out before and restricted myself to only a few shots and it gets me thinking about things like composition, lighting, etc... before I "pull the trigger". Once you have done this you can tell them why you took each photo... What it represents to you... Why you think it is a good photo, but also ask them why they think it is good? (or bad for that matter).

Hope it makes sense.... Basically, get them to do the hard work. Get them to analyse, look into the pictures, tear them apart with analysis. That way they can break down a scene when they go out by them selfs :)
 
Raymond Lin said:
One word.

Storytelling.
Click to expand...

That mostly applies to people though. Great photos may not in itself have a direct story, some good photos are purely factual accounts of a scene or abstract object/texture. In landscape photography for example you are rarely trying to tell a story but to captivate your audience.


A good photo should always make one think, make a double take, scan the photo, pause a moment to contemplate. It requires good composition, an eye-path and usually something of interest but not necessarily a strong subject. This may sound like technical requirements but these terms are used vaguely. I have it when people talk of " rule of thirds" etc.

Really, what makes a good photo is no different to what makes a good painting/sculpture/music or any piece of art.
 
If your brief is flexible enough, then personally I would flip it and show them one or more bad photographs and explain what would make it better. This will be miles easier for you, and I'm sure even the beginners will be able to see the fault in a badly cropped, out of focus, wonky photo with horrendous white balance.

If you try to convince people about what makes a good photo in a broad sense, then you could end up going down a very abstract road very quickly. However I would probably spend the latter half talking about ways to improve photographs they are perhaps already taking. If they like taking photos of children or flowers, then don't shoot down on them. If they like cars then it's not always best to try to squeeze the whole thing in - look at details, wheels, wing mirrors etc.

That's the way I would do it based on what I can gather about your audience.
 
If the rule of thirds went over their heads maybe it was explained poorly? I'd probably talk a bit more about it, showing varying compositions of the same shot and explaining which ones work and which ones don't?
 
theheyes said:
If your brief is flexible enough, then personally I would flip it and show them one or more bad photographs and explain what would make it better. This will be miles easier for you, and I'm sure even the beginners will be able to see the fault in a badly cropped, out of focus, wonky photo with horrendous white balance.
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't do this. He says they already went through the technicalities of photos and I think doing something along those lines would be very dull, and the listeners would probably feel that he's pointing out the obvious!

It's a tricky one because what you're talking about is entirely subjective. You can go to a gallery and see some technically awful photos (and frankly, quite boring ones), but they're the ones in the gallery whereas my 'technically perfect, rule of thirds, shot in the golden hour, long exposure of all of the seven wonders of the world at once' is sitting on my flickr with 12 views'* :p

*note: this shot does not exist

I'd be inclined to find some well known photos (the child running down the road in Vietnam comes to mind as one) and discuss why they are so good. You'll come up with different reasons for all of them and that would probably be quite interesting.
 
Raymond Lin said:
May be that's why I rarely find a landscape or cityscape shot captivating, even if it's technically perfect.
Click to expand...

A good landscape/cityscape is still captivating though, it still need that special enticing something.

I could say the same about portraits, they do nothing to me because to me it is just another person. What I dislike the most is anything formal where the person/model has been posed, lighting adjusted, etc. To me these photos don't tell stories but just tell me it is a fabricated scene, just isn't for me. Reportage style I find more interesting, so things like street photography when the photo is an observation of a life/identity/culture, a snapshot of a particular time and place.


Edit: This may just be a difference of semantics. What you call storytelling I also expect to be in many good landscape photos, but I don't call it story telling. Just something captivating. There are many boring landscape photos because they lack the captivating element. Landscape photography is about the hardest form there is IMO precisely because it is a challenge to derive the story/captivating element and you have no control over the scene or lighting, you have to be there at the right time. It takes years (or luck) to get certain shots. E.g., look at the photos in this link from Yosemite (these aren't the best examples at all): http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=be....,cf.osb&fp=21b98b29481849e2&biw=1280&bih=831

there are only 2 weeks a year when this phenomenon happens, and only for a few moments each day, and you need the weather to be cooperating. I know pros who have spent 7-10 days in Yosemite for 5-7 years straight to get the best shot. Some years you will never even see the firefall.
And that is a relatively accessible place.
 
Last edited:
D.P. I don't really want to get Ito a debate on which kind of photography is more challenging but your example doesn't hold water. You mention 2 weeks in the year, which is the same 2 weeks I expect. And the best views are known already so all it takes is a 10 day camping trip with a tripod set and snap when you see it. Patients and luck. That to me isn't challenging.

Challenging landscapes would be shooting the aurora in the north pole is extreme conditions.

I said that I don't find a landscape captivating, but I do appreciate a good one when i see it. Especially when it make me do a double take. I know what elements works, leading lines, colours, light, shadows, etc, i appreciate it all, I have even been wow by a few. Hell, there have been occasions where I want to get out of the car to capture a nice scenery. It just even with all that, I still prefer the human element in a photo over a rock.

It's only a preference, like I like Taylor Swift over Miley Cyrus :p
 
Hmm, good luck on your quest.

If they cannot grasp concepts such as "Rule of Thirds", Under and Over exposure, the relationship between Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO and Depth of field then they're going to struggle.

What makes a good Photograph? It is definately subjective. Some break all the rules, others follow them rigorously and yet they can still be great shots.

Technical skill, being at the right place at the right time, good equipment, the right processing or film all have a bearing as well.

The one thing that I think is the most difficult ingredient to capture is emotion. It doesn't matter if it is a Landscape or a Portrait. If it doesn't stir your emotions then it hasn't got that something that makes it a great shot.

A great picture should stop you in your tracks and make you think "bloody hell" :)

Oh and here are some web articles that were found Googling "What makes a good photograph" - obviously their thoughts are again their personal interpretation, but I'm sure they will give you some material to work with

http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2007/03/what_makes_a_great_photo/

http://www.fuelyourphotography.com/what-makes-a-good-photograph/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/basics.htm

http://wordsandphotos.org/Commentary/WhatMakesAPhotoGood.htm
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
D.P. I don't really want to get Ito a debate on which kind of photography is more challenging but your example doesn't hold water. You mention 2 weeks in the year, which is the same 2 weeks I expect. And the best views are known already so all it takes is a 10 day camping trip with a tripod set and snap when you see it. Patients and luck. That to me isn't challenging.

Challenging landscapes would be shooting the aurora in the north pole is extreme conditions.

I said that I don't find a landscape captivating, but I do appreciate a good one when i see it. Especially when it make me do a double take. I know what elements works, leading lines, colours, light, shadows, etc, i appreciate it all, I have even been wow by a few. Hell, there have been occasions where I want to get out of the car to capture a nice scenery. It just even with all that, I still prefer the human element in a photo over a rock.

It's only a preference, like I like Taylor Swift over Miley Cyrus :p
Click to expand...


Agreed this is a little OT, my point was that story telling is not necessarily a requirement for making a good photo, and a contrived or false story can sometimes make for a bad photo, which is why I dislike any formal type of portraiture.

What makes a good photograph is actually very complex. As I mentioned previously, it is no different in photography than Art, so one must ask why are the works of the great painters considered good? Technical proficiency is often found but is not a requirement, subject matter is often important but not always. Sometimes there is a story, sometimes not. A good photo should be captivating and thought about, rather than flicked past on flikr.
 
Last edited:
A good photograph does not have anything at all to do with technical quality in terms of exposure, focus etc.

A great photograph is art. Making photographs is a craft. It is like an oil painting - a great painting obviously requires a certain quality in terms of the craft itself. But just because it is perfect in a technical meaning, it does not have to be a reat piece of art as well. The camera - and all the settings that you can choose, exposure, aperture, composition etc. as well - is a tool.

This tool has to be used. What an actual great picture is, obviously depends on the viewer. But you can't define it by the tools that have been used. For many people it's story telling (the World Press Photo Awards are all about the story told, the technical quality really is secondary in this competition), for others it's asthetics in the composition, for others it's sharpness and vivid colors.

In the end, you cannot define a good picture. You will have to let the viewer decide. Or the photographer, if he doesn't intend to impress a wider audience with his pictures. If the outcome meets, what he had in mind, it is a good photograph. This requires knowledge about the tools, but also about the world and oneself.
 
Very simply put, a good photograph is one that engages the viewer.

I've had a scan over the thread etc and knew things like story telling and technical ability would be mentioned. However, you can't tell a story in every type of photo, its impossible and a lot of the public have no idea about the technicalities of photography.

What engages the viewer might be different for each viewer. Photos like the Afghan Girl, the vietnam soldier shooting a man in the head (http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Nguyen_Van_Lem_big.jpg) or even Ansel Adams' landscapes will all make the viewer feel different things, and for others, they may feel nothing.

Personally I would take "classic" photos like those mentioned and go through them, ask the class what they feel from each photo and discuss them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom