What "makes" a "great" image?

Shangheye · Apr 23, 2009

There is no single quality in my opinion..if there were, it would not be long before we could all bottle it and use it. If I applied your question strictly to photography, I would suggest that the over riding emotion that is triggered in a great image is that of a human value expressed strongly. Whether this be fear, love, hate, excietment, anger etc. That expression does not only arise from images of people, but from landscapes, and objects. That ofcourse is a quality, but is not in of itself the differentiator of why two images with the same human values rank differently. Execution practically of the image through choices of light , serendipity (as keith mentions), and composition all serve to accentuate the impact of that value in a variety of ways. Think of every great image, and you will associate with it a human condition and value. It's greatness is measured by how well the photographer has brought the elements at hand to deliver that value. At least, that is how I see it. K

2F/2F · Apr 23, 2009

Galah said:
I have recently had some thoughts about this question and would like suggestions from "APUGers" as to what exactly is the single quallity that is common to all "great" images?)

All great photographs (I am not talking about "images" in general here), quite simply, exist because someone decided to take a picture. Sounds stupid, but I am quite serious. Far too few photographers actually go out and shoot frequently, if at all.

markbarendt · Apr 23, 2009

Galah said:
...what exactly is the single quallity that is common to all "great" images?

I'd say that it is multiple qualities, not single.

The images I feel are truly great have a subject that is important to me, they are composed in such a way that they convey a feeling that resonates with me, they are technically strong, and they are presented well.

and there is an element of initiative in creation;

2F/2F said:
All great photographs (I am not talking about "images" in general here), quite simply, exist because someone decided to take a picture. Sounds stupid, but I am quite serious. Far too few photographers actually go out and shoot frequently, if at all.

2F you are right.

TheAZGolfBum · Apr 23, 2009

What a great response!
David Pidcock

Vaughn · Apr 23, 2009

MurrayMinchin said:
They were made by photographers whose way of seeing, technical proficiency, and connection to subject matter were all in perfect balance.

Murray

Looking at the title of this thread, Murray's reply was along the same lines as my first thought. It is not "what" makes a great image, but "who".

Vaughn

Urmas R. · Apr 23, 2009

In my view all the good photos trigger some kind of an emotion in the viewer. One can make a technically perfect photo of a NYC skyscraper or a desolate mountain lanscape, but without any emotional response it remains just another image. The emotions can really range from wall to wall: surprise, desire, despair, suspicion, hate, disgust, etc.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 23, 2009

Galah said:
And, what does William Mortensen say it is?

Well, apparently, it took a whole book to say what he had to say.

RalphLambrecht · Apr 23, 2009

Kevin Caulfield said:
Uniqueness?

Indeed, this is one definition of art!

RalphLambrecht · Apr 23, 2009

Urmas R. said:
In my view all the good photos trigger some kind of an emotion in the viewer. One can make a technically perfect photo of a NYC skyscraper or a desolate mountain lanscape, but without any emotional response it remains just another image. The emotions can really range from wall to wall: surprise, desire, despair, suspicion, hate, disgust, etc.

True, but the wrong consequence of this was, unfortunately, tried many times. Just making shocking images is not a way to create great images. I don't believe 'disgusting' images are 'great' images at all.

One component of art is aesthetic.

Scott-S · Apr 23, 2009

Great images come together when everything is right. I don't think it can be calculated or contolled and in a lot of cases it takes time to know if it is a great image. There is a story about a great composer in India who wrote thousands upon thousands of devotional hyms toward Lord Rama. One day he got frustrated as he was wondering if the songs were truly devotional and was God accepting them. He decided to throw them all in a lake and which ever ones were "true" would rise up. It so happens only about 100 came up. He was happy that God accepted these. The rest were done from ego and not from true devotion. Its the same with photography. The one characteristic of a truly great image is humility and lack of ego.

Cheryl Jacobs · Apr 23, 2009

I don't give a damn about originality. I care about emotional impact. The power is in the subtlety, in the connection with the photographer. Originality is overrated, and I do mean that after much consideration.

2F/2F · Apr 23, 2009

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I don't give a damn about originality.

Originality is overrated, and I do mean that after much consideration.

Indeed.

Q.G. · Apr 23, 2009

Relevance.

That's the thing.

Art is like a conversation.
It doesn't matter really whether what you say is unique or original, as long as it is relevant, when you say it (timing is important).

Originality can become a great issue.
When something is said over and over again, it will rapidly become annoying. (More rapidly so when the content is very thin too.)

And something can be too original. Or rather, too irrelevant for where the conversation is at the moment (timing). The well known "ahead of his/her time" thing.

A great image is like a poignant remark.
One that cuts through the omnipresent endless dribble and manages to put something foreward in an concise, clear and unmistakeable way.

Or like a well considered, balanced long essay, that manages to expose comprehensively all the angles and subtleties of the subject.

Etc.

MattKing · Apr 23, 2009

Galah:

By the way, although I disagree with the constraints imposed by the question, thanks for starting an interesting thread!

Matt

avantster · Apr 23, 2009

Perhaps I can further refine the question for some interesting answers.

Is the quality of a 'great' image in the subject (the viewer) or the object (the actual image)?

Kevin Caulfield · Apr 23, 2009

avantster said:
Perhaps I can further refine the question for some interesting answers.

Is the quality of a 'great' image in the subject (the viewer) or the object (the actual image)?

It's in both. It's the connection.

avantster · Apr 23, 2009

How then, may I ask, do you define this connection and in what ways is it in both?

wclark5179 · Apr 23, 2009

A great image is in the eye of the checkbook holder.

Q.G. · Apr 24, 2009

avantster said:
Perhaps I can further refine the question for some interesting answers.

Is the quality of a 'great' image in the subject (the viewer) or the object (the actual image)?

That's a 'wrong' question. Esse est percipere, and all that jazz.
It is a judgement, and takes both. Not an either-or thingy.

Urmas R. · Apr 25, 2009

RalphLambrecht said:
True, but the wrong consequence of this was, unfortunately, tried many times. Just making shocking images is not a way to create great images. I don't believe 'disgusting' images are 'great' images at all.

One component of art is aesthetic.

I absolutely agree. I was in Tate Modern a while ago and they had a series of photos, depicting human mutilation and torture. All were staged shots of course. Were the photos technically exceptional? No, they were not. Rather sloppy framing and BW development. So the only thing the artist was after was getting attention, which he/she no doubt also has received by now. Did I like the photos? Not a bit.

The next day I went to see the Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition. There was one photo, winner of the One Earth Award, which could possibly leave nobody ignorant.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/temporary-exhibitions/wpy/photo.do?photo=2370&category=52&group=3

This time I liked the photo, I still do. What emotions does it bring up in me- anger! Why do I like this photo and not the mutilation ones? I really do not know... Could it be that it is a documentary photo not some staged show?

Q.G. · Apr 25, 2009

But mind you: "aesthetic" is only a word, used so not to have to answer the question what it is that makes a great image.

It's quite o.k. to use that word, to shorten any discourse. But only if it is understood that it is already understood what it means, what it is short for.
But not when it is used instead of trying to understand what it means.

And it does not just mean "pleasing", "beautiful", "likeable" and other such substitute terms.
You can't just stop at "it brings up an emotion in me, but i don't know why".

keithwms · Apr 25, 2009

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I don't give a damn about originality. I care about emotional impact. The power is in the subtlety, in the connection with the photographer. Originality is overrated, and I do mean that after much consideration.

You make it sound like they are mutually exclusive... or emotional impact versus originality. Yet if we actually start naming great photographs, they will most assuredly have both components in comparable doses.

I'd say that originality and emotional impact are both requirements of a great photograph; that I place originality a small tick above emotional impact probably has something to do with my preferred subject matter. There is an awful lot of cliche out there, and few things can reduce emotional impact as much as seeing a poor facsimile of the same shot for the umpteenth time! Thus the value of originality.... which does not in any way diminish the importance of emotional impact (...and I say this after much consideration).

Emotional impact is considerably easier to coax from a portrait subject (with all due respect to Karsh)... but it is far more challenging when the subject is an abstract landscape or a piece of architecture or such. Inanimate and abstract subjects do not generate oxytocin quite as freely as a cute child gazing wistfully into the camera; with abstracts the emotion is supplied by the photographer and the viewer. To put it another way, human subjects freely radiate emotion into the lens, emotion that we can readily connect to. But inanimate subjects can only reflect the emotion of the photographer and the viewer.

Q.G. · Apr 25, 2009

I disagree somewhat.
The 'emotional impact' depends entirely upon us understanding what it is we are looking at, and what that refers to. And how, and to what degree, we can sym-/empathize. To what degree we feel it is something that concerns us.
And we can indeed recognize inanimate objects, and situations, as pertaining to things we have feelings about. Symbols.

And that as easily - at least - as facial expressions.
Facial expressions are rather limited, and need support from situations (a place, a setting, objects) to gain a meaning that goes beyond just a 'raw feel'. I think we can, with a considerable amount of confidence, state that we find more to connect to (emotionally or otherwise) in inanimate objects (and places) than in a person's expression.

removed account4 · Apr 25, 2009

Galah said:
I have recently had some thoughts about this question and would like suggestions from "APUGers" as to what exactly is the single quallity that is common to all "great" images?

(In my view, this same quality is also common to all great literature, painting, sculpture, oratory, architecture, landscaping, etc.)

hi galah

i think what makes a great photographic image is different to every person.
i have seen many images that people drool and oogle over and say " oh boy this is great"
and i did not find anything great about it.
and i am sure there are plenty of people who are wondering
what was in my breakfast cereal when i show them something that
i think is out of sight ...

technical mastery, connection to the viewer, and a bit of je ne sais quoi ..

keithwms · Apr 25, 2009

Q.G. said:
The 'emotional impact' depends entirely upon us understanding what it is we are looking at, and what that refers to. And how, and to what degree, we can sym-/empathize. To what degree we feel it is something that concerns us.

Surely you don't deny that a complete abstract can have emotional impact?

But ultimately John is right of course, and what is great to the goose may not be so great to the gander. (and no I do not mean to imply anything gender specific with that comment!)

I guess my first recollection of seeing a photograph and thinking that it was great was probably Weston's shells or peppers or his excusado toilet. All of those are fairly common subjects to which I have no specific affinity, yet... the way he represented them... and somehow drew in all manner of other associations... Weston's body of work pretty well defines greatness to me, at least in the genre of b&w still life. Highly original, full of je ne sais quoi / "can't put my finger on it" emotional impact. Which to me is far more valuable than most other forms of emotional impact.

What "makes" a "great" image?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency