The problem is that invariably, a photo is judged within a context. There is no reasonably complete "judging guideline" of even a "good" photo (let alone great) that will fit all intents.
There are certainly photos that we can all agree are powerful. Dorthea Lange's,
Migrant's Mother seen here:
Dorothea Lange - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is one easy example. The image is well composed, exposed and is powerful. But not all "great" photos fall into such easy lines.
I look at the generally blurry and often poorly exposed photos of Bob Capa. If they were judged by standards of focus and exposure they'd fail. (If you're not familiar with his photographs, see here:
Robert Capa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). But judging his work by that would fail itself to recognize the context of their capture...and the intent.
I look at Helmut Newton's photos like the one of Laurel Martyn here:
Helmut Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and note that his placement of the subject dead center would have us all telling him to crop her differently. Other of his photographs not suitable for this site because they (gasp!) contain nudity mght be judged trite when compared to the war photos of Capa. Clearly Newton created many photos just to tickle a fetish...but does that mean they can't be great photographs?
I look at us nameless types who click our shutters without someone knowing our name. Each of us likely has in our collections a great photograph.
So in the end, I'm not sure I can answer the question of what makes a great photograph other than to say, "A connection." When the viewer looks at a photograph and feels a connection to it -- and can verbalize a message conveyed by that photograph, the photo is great.
Just my 2 cents. If it's worth that!
