Wondering

damonff

Lately I've been wondering what makes a good photograph. Now, we've all seen photographs we like as we've all seen films that we like, et cetera. What is troubling me is the process by which we get the image. Perhaps I'm going through a crisis, but, I wonder. Why is one image good? Why is another bad? If all images are representative of the real world (after all, what else could we possibly photograph?) then surely there must be an objective criterion...something that judges the images we capture...or are we, in a futile attempt to catch and possess the world, failing ourselves. I don't know. Maybe I'm tired. Here are a few from the past couple days...

rutt

Well, it's a good question and one that people have tried to answer for a very long time, well before there was photography. What makes a good image? The acient Greeks had theories about the golden mean and there was a thread a while ago about the law of thirds or some such that was really the same thing. I don't really know tons about this topic, but it is very interwoven with art history and philosophy. If you can find it, you can read HCB's essay in the front of The Decisivie Moment and find out what he thought. But his theory is just that: his theory. I don't think it applys to the work of other great photographers; in fact the greats have a way of redefining the rules so that stuff you thought couldn't possibly work, suddenly works great.

Anyway, I know the philosophy was just a way to introduce the great set, which I enjoyed a lot.

damonff

It was Rutt...thanks again.

Anyway, I know the philosophy was just a way to introduce the great set, which I enjoyed a lot.[/QUOTE]

gubbs

Whatever it is that "makes a good photograph", I'm always amazed how the idea of what "It" is must differ from person to person.

damonff

Me too Gubbs. One person's "wow" is another person's "huh?" Funny.

gubbs wrote:

Whatever it is that "makes a good photograph", I'm always amazed how the idea of what "It" is must differ from person to person.