Good Photo - Bad Photo (how to judge)

[r_fredrick_smith]

In a recent post, rsstory said:

A few years ago I was given a little piece of advice about images and how to determine if it is a good image or not. Essentially it is, "You weigh the positives against the negatives and if the positives overcome the negatives then you have a shot that works."

The post is at

Christina From Todays Shoot

so you can read the above in the context of that thread.

I started thinking about this statement and an interesting example popped into my mind. So I thought it might make for a good on going discussion. Is this a valid way to determine whether a photo is "good" or "bad"?

Suppose I have a photo with a beautiful background scene and a perfectly groomed and made up model who is just right for the scene but the pose is totally terrible. In this exaggerated example there are two positives (scene, model) and one negative (bad pose). Is the photo thus a "good" photo by the rule of balancing positives and negatives?

Can we really judge a photo by adding up positives and negatives? In the original thread (to have some context) we had everything positive but one or two small (minor) negative items. I would say we had 4 or 5 positive elements and two negative elements. So the photo is good --- right?

But should the weighting really be done in this manner? Instead, it seems we might want to measure the weight of each positive and negative and thus a very minor negative might not be enough to make a photo "bad". So suppose that I assign a value of one to 10 to each positive or negative. Higher numbers mean that the items is very important to the overall photo and lower number mean less important. Then we add up the total weight of the positives and compare them to the total weight of the negatives. Or is this taking the thing too far. Can we really evaluate a photo based on positives or negatives --- or must it be a more subjective "feeling"?

Side thought: Keep in mind that even one minor negative could cost you a sale to a photo editor? I think that is a real possibility!

So this brings us round to the basic question. How can we decide if a photo is good or bad? Does the above rule as stated work, or should we look for some other more fully qualified statement? What rule do you use do answer the good/bad question?

And, what if we do find minor negatives? Should we correct them? I think the answer might be yes, if they are correctable. Certainly many are easily dealt with in post. But some can't be corrected in post, but require a re-shoot.

By and large, over the years, I have seen many stunningly beautiful photos that I really liked, but then someone pointed out a minor negative, and suddenly that was all I could see (someone had that experience in the quoted thread). So in some cases, a minor flaw, can ruin a great photo.

Maybe the bottom line is that the "devil is in the details". We are really looking for the ultimate photo with no negatives. Is that an obtainable goal?

Well --- I've asked lots of questions. I hope the above introduction to the question will stimulate many of you to think about this issue and add your comments, rules, suggestions, etc to this thread as an ongoing discussion.

cheers,
rfs

[clarionite]

My experience is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A good photo for the group here, can be an excellent photo for the person in the photo. The intended audience of the photo is what counts. Granted, my experience is very limited. But I've noticed that I find issues with most if not all of my photos. But some of the people I've shot the photos for have thought they were wonderful. And some of the photos I've seen from the huge names like Adams while technically almost perfect have not really jumped out at me.

So, I think that while there are some Major things that will ruin a photo, getting all the minor things right, doesn't make it a great photo.

[RSStory]

All good questions and should be an interesting topic.

I should clarify one thing from my post. It isnt just a case of 5 positives vs 2 negatives. As RFS said one negative could potentially outweigh all the positives. The real question in my statement was, does the overall negatives detract so much from the image as to make the positives irrelevent. And it also assumes that the technical aspects of the image are sound. ie lighting, composition and I would consider the pose to be one of those elements. If these things are not right and cant be fixed in post then I dont really see how the image will work.

so, does the overall good outweight the overall bad in an image? I dont know, but that is my standard.

As for one little flaw killing a sale... Look at any major magazine and you can find more then one little flaw in almost every image. But the person that made the decision to use it either didnt see it or felt that it was outweighed by the strength of the rest of the image.

Scott

[RSStory]

Originally Posted by clarionite

My experience is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A good photo for the group here, can be an excellent photo for the person in the photo. The intended audience of the photo is what counts. Granted, my experience is very limited. But I've noticed that I find issues with most if not all of my photos. But some of the people I've shot the photos for have thought they were wonderful. And some of the photos I've seen from the huge names like Adams while technically almost perfect have not really jumped out at me.

So, I think that while there are some Major things that will ruin a photo, getting all the minor things right, doesn't make it a great photo.

Very true....

[Eric E]

Originally Posted by clarionite

My experience is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. A good photo for the group here, can be an excellent photo for the person in the photo. The intended audience of the photo is what counts. Granted, my experience is very limited. But I've noticed that I find issues with most if not all of my photos. But some of the people I've shot the photos for have thought they were wonderful. And some of the photos I've seen from the huge names like Adams while technically almost perfect have not really jumped out at me.

So, I think that while there are some Major things that will ruin a photo, getting all the minor things right, doesn't make it a great photo.

QFT.

I think clarionite said just about everything I was thinking. Good photography is more art than science, and an image that we might find some minor or major flaws in might be priceless to a client. While we can follow the rules and guidelines of photography to the letter, the intended audience will be the "make or break" for the photo.

Thanks to rfs, though - this subject does get one thinking.

[PhotosbyChuck]

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!

[Electricseashell]

Interesting subject...
Before coming here I had my doubts whether or not I could even identify myself as a photographer. The thing is anyone who points and clicks the shutter is a photographer. So I fit right in
In the short time we have been here I have begun to notice some of the things I never would have.
My audience is usually just my family and friends and in that context they love them. Some of you might not get them, and for me my great photos would never cut the mustard in a critique. Someone would find the flaws. Thats where the tough skin comes into play. I'm still working on that aspect since I can only get better if I listen to what everyone has to say.

[Stecyk]

If we could assemble great photographers, both living and dead, who could voice their opinions on various photographs, would they all agree on their opinions of the different photographs? Would some see certain features as strengths and others as weaknesses? Would some see mystery and others see lack of clarity? Would some see style and others see lack of style?

If we take RFS's approach of weightings for certain categories, do we then complicate things by adding the concept of utility to provide additional precision and insight? An example away from photography is, does having a 1000 pairs of shoes put you in a better position than owning 990 pairs of shoes, compared to anther scenario 0 and ten pairs. Most would agree that 990 and 1000 are identical, but there is a world of difference between 0 and ten pair shoes. Going back to photography, how much is enough? Is it important that everything be perfect, or is being perfect in itself a flaw?

In reading Karsh's biography, I learned that he was encouraged and he encouraged others to find their own styles. Thus, aside from the obvious problems, such as eyes being out of focus, one could argue that a person is finding his or her own style. While we might do things differently, it isn't our photograph.

Having said all that, critiques are useful. They show us how others perceive our photographs. They comment on lighting, background, poses, contrast, style, and other elements. Then it is up to us whether we could those comments of value. In some cases, we will easily agree that our photograph suffers from the shortcomings identified. In other cases, we'll just chalk up to our personal preferences (read style) and move on.

If I were to provide advice to anyone chasing his or her own style it would be this: expose your work to lots of different people with different backgrounds with different attitudes. In many cases, their comments will contradict each other and on those elements freely follow your own biases and intuition. But where these disparate individuals seem to provide a similar comment, think extremely carefully before disregarding their comment.

[clarionite]

I have several books of pictures by Bresson. My wife doesn't see what I do in them. And as a matter of fact, not all his stuff speaks to me, but quite a bit does. There are other Magnum photographers that their work doesn't speak to me at all. Avedon is hit or miss with me. But Leibovitz's work is something I enjoy despite hearing a ton of bad comments about her. The second picture on this Link is one I really like.

[r_fredrick_smith]

As for one little flaw killing a sale... Look at any major magazine and you can find more then one little flaw in almost every image. But the person that made the decision to use it either didn't see it or felt that it was outweighed by the strength of the rest of the image.

While we can always find examples of flawed photos in print, we never know how many photos were rejected because of a flaw. There are many factors in an editorial decision to use or reject a photo. Often there will also be deadline considerations. There may be a limited number of photos to draw from, all with flaws, so you have no choice. But I think we can agree that if we recognize a "fixable" flaw (through post work), we should probably fix it before submitting it. The problem, of course, is that it is easy to overlook minor flaws (we all do it from time to time).

Cheers,
rfs