What makes a good photo great? Can elements of design help?

[ALwin]

Photographers such as Michael Freeman, Scott Kelby, David duChemin, and so forth have all talked and written about composition, framing the photo, vision and so on to make a good photo.

So let's talk about the elements we believe to be are necessary to make a good photo and what are essential elements to make a great photo. We all know the rule of thirds, relationship between aperture and DOF, white balance, ISO, shutter speed, bokeh, etc. They are the most basic things everyone learned at the beginning. We also understand how different lenses work, such as how a wide angle lens distorts closeup objects to how a telephoto lens compresses distant backgrounds.

But what other things do you (or should you) consider:

1) Is only having a good frame/composition + exposure the right formula for you?
- A lot of times, this just isn't enough, sure the right composition + exposure will get me an OK photo, but OK just doesn't cut it.

Especially in this day and age where digital cameras has made photography cost friendly for the consumer and anyone can use Photoshop or other tools cheaply to edit photos. Gone are the days of expensive film and even more expensive chemical processing equipment. To make it in the business requires putting in more and more effort into the craft and trying very hard to stand out from the crowd. It will always be a Quantity vs. Quality issue.

2) How about simplicity vs. complexity or familiarity vs. unfamiliarity with the elements in the frame? Even familiar shapes vs. unfamiliar ones or pleasant colors vs. strong colors? Bright vs. Dark?
- Do you want to capture a complex scene that is hard to understand or a simple one that your audience can quickly grasp, after all, people do have a limit on their attention spans and lot of them are short. An image is supposed to speak a thousand words and if it can't be done within the first few seconds, few people will take the time to try and understand it. Also think about what your eyes and the eyes of your audience is drawn towards. Consider the psychological aspects from a design perspective, how will you make your photo attractive to the viewer.


Converging lines by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
Looks like this has a nice exposure, the framing is nice, the lines draw the viewer towards the center of the photo. But it has unfamiliar elements that no one would recognize without being told what or where it is.

3) Is it important for the viewer of your photo to be able to easily find/recognize the relationships between the different elements in the photo?
- If you're taking a photo of two people, or two objects or an object and a person, viewers will try to find a relationship between them. It can be simple obvious ones like a person sitting on a rocking chair to a couple with some sort of subtle expression in their eyes.


Lantern Light by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
A friend's daughter taken on their Chinese New Year celebration, it is easily recognizable how the child relates to the red lantern.

4) Is it important for the viewer to be able to relate to the element(s) in your photo, whether it/they be inanimate objects or living organisms?
- This can be an important thing depending on the type of photography you do. Photojournalists, urban photographers will essentially need to have the human element in one form or another in their photos. Landscape, Architecture, Interior Decoration, etc. photographers, a human element is less essential if not unnecessary. Consider whether having or not having certain elements in the photo makes it stronger or weaker.

5) How about color vs. black&white or monotone/duotone, would your photo become stronger by such a conversion?
- There is a whole range of differences between having a photo in color and having the same photo in b&w, monotone or duotone. There is a whole range of settings for each of the different conversions you can perform and consider what would bring strength to your photo.


Bike on Wall by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
In color this scene is pretty average and boring, but when converted to a strong B&W image, all that's left for the viewer to focus on are the shape of the bicycle and it's relationship to the wall.

6) Let say that you come upon an interesting scene/object(s) to photograph: do you consider how you are going to frame that scene? What to place in the frame vs. what to leave out? Or how about from which angle or point of view to capture that interesting scene/object(s)?
- Framing the scene in your viewfinder can change the way the viewers' eyes are drawn in the photo. If your intention is for the user to focus on a specific element then make the composition lead the viewer. Perhaps you may need to do it during post processing, such as cropping, changing the orientation of the image or even darkening out unwanted areas.


Devotion by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
This photo had a nice exposure for the entire scene but I wanted my viewers to focus only on the person meditating and the statue of Buddha he was sitting in front of. So I darkened out both the bottom left and top right corners of the photo by selectively reducing the exposure for those parts in Lightroom. I didn't want any distracting elements.

7) And finally what are your personal rules concerning the photos you take? One of mine happens to be the KISS! (Keep it simple stupid!).


Simplicity by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
Otherwise an ordinary leaf that no one may care or even notice passing by, by using a wide DOF during a hazy day to defocus the background and keeping the composition very simple, it makes for a simple yet elegant photo, at least in my opinion.

So what do you think makes a good photo and what turns good photos into great ones?

[ALwin]

Here's another example of a good photo where the photographer took the time and effort to make sure it became great.

By 4ColourProgress

Durdle Door by 4 Colour Progress, on Flickr
It may not be obvious but this photo is an HDR of several photos at different exposures stacked together. What is even less obvious is that there were people on this beach, except they have been removed because having people in the photo would have distracted the viewers and weakened the 'greatness' of this photo.

On the opposite side, here is a photo where having the human element actually made the photo stronger in my opinion.

By Ric Hampton

On The Tarmac | XH558 by Richampton, on Flickr
Without the people in the frame, the fact that this plane is very large would have been lost to me.

And a fine example of how changing the color tone of a photo can change the state of how the viewer perceives it

By Ravens-Eye

Silence by Ravens-Eye Photography, on Flickr
Clouds being white to grayish tones can be one of the least interesting elements to capture on an image from the ground. It's an entirely different matter to photographing clouds from high altitudes such as mountain summits or aircrafts. Yet this duotone conversion turns what would've been a plain normal looking white/grayish sky into an essential part of the photo which sits well with all the other elements while providing a strong surreal type feeling. Of course also using a strong ND filter for the long exposure helps add to the quality of the image.

[4colourprogress]

Here's another example of a good photo where the photographer took the time and effort to make sure it became great.

Unfortunately mine is far from great! Not only is the horizon not straight, the tripod was rested on pebbles which are not the most stable surface and so the picture has blurred. I'm going back in a few weeks to try my hand at it again but this time I'm going to make sure I use mirror lock up to try and stabilize the tripod more. Wonky horizons are easy to fix! Movements between exposures... not so much.

[ALwin]

Here's another example of a good photo where the photographer took the time and effort to make sure it became great.

Unfortunately mine is far from great! Not only is the horizon not straight, the tripod was rested on pebbles which are not the most stable surface and so the picture has blurred. I'm going back in a few weeks to try my hand at it again but this time I'm going to make sure I use mirror lock up to try and stabilize the tripod more. Wonky horizons are easy to fix! Movements between exposures... not so much.

Ok ok I will make it 9-1/2 stars instead of 10 . Still, this is a wonderful photo that you have certainly thought over and taken the time to make sure it has the strength to capture the attention of the viewer. A perfect example of attention to detail that photographers need.

[ravens-eye]

This is a great thread Aung (and not because you have chosen to use one of my images. I'm still not sure it belongs here ). It's the sort of pulled together simplified info I was in need of when I stared out and will still refer to it for a long time yet.

Chris, don't be modest. That Durdle Door shot is awesome. If this is what you can come out with when you think you have gone wrong, I can't wait to how your revisit will turn out.

[Rosie]

Very helpful post ALwin - and great images 4colourprogress & Ravens-Eye

[ALwin]

This is a great thread Aung (and not because you have chosen to use one of my images. I'm still not sure it belongs here ). It's the sort of pulled together simplified info I was in need of when I stared out and will still refer to it for a long time yet.

Chris, don't be modest. That Durdle Door shot is awesome. If this is what you can come out with when you think you have gone wrong, I can't wait to how your revisit will turn out.

Thanks, I just want to start some discussions on other elements besides ISO, aperture, DOF, white balance, all the usual basic things we already talk about. Right now I am re-reading Michael Freeman's The Photographer's Eye to see what I have forgotten and what I need to improve upon. If you get the chance to pick up a copy of it I recommend it for any photographer of any level. I am not going into design details like him but I just want people to start thinking about other things besides getting the right exposure/histogram/DOF/sharpness to make their photographs.

And Chris, just like Ravens-eye, I impatiently await the new version of Durdle Door that you have planned.

[ravens-eye]

I think another key element of what makes a good photo, continues well beyond what needs to be done before you press the shutter. You touched on it slightly with explanation of your "Devotion" image.

The modern day darkroom.

The most popular of course being Photoshop.

Ansel Adams photos were (and still are) great but not just because of how he took them. His Darkroom techniques were a main factor to why his images stood out against others of his time.
In the new digital era Darkrooms (in their true sense) are a rare sight, however their heart still beats strong in modern day post processing software.

Therefore, although capturing all the key elements (you have already mentioned) is the main factor to consider, learning the skills & techniques of a selection of processing programmes is essential to making a good photo, a great one.

Of course there are exceptions to all of these key elements.
"Right place right time" has been the only element of some of the worlds most iconic photos. But you can't learn that element

[Chris Humphreys]

I agree with the 'right place right time' point.

But then again, a good wedding photographer will know from experience where the opportunities for great shots lie, where to be waiting, what settings to dial in, how to capture the moment in the split second it happens. A good architectural photographer will understand where and when the light is going to be at it's best, how to express colours. A good portrait photographer will know how to bring the best out of subjects, how to make them at ease, laugh, cry...(ok maybe not cry).

Making a good or even great photograph is so much more than knowing how to take a photograph, and a lot of it comes down to experience which can't be taught. There is always an element of luck too.

Chris

[ALwin]

I agree with the 'right place right time' point.

'Right place right time' may be for certain once in a lifetime occasions but there are other times where 'try, try again' is a better approach. Especially when taking photos of static objects that aren't going anywhere. For example, landscape photography, that place you want to share with the world, it's not going anywhere so if you lack the experience to know what settings to use, then try over and over again till you get something that you're satisfied with and not simply say 'I did my best'. Trying over and over again may mean taking several photos during the same day or spanning several days. And once you get a satisfactory frame, do it all over again till you get something better.

But then again, a good wedding photographer will know from experience where the opportunities for great shots lie, where to be waiting, what settings to dial in, how to capture the moment in the split second it happens. A good architectural photographer will understand where and when the light is going to be at it's best, how to express colours. A good portrait photographer will know how to bring the best out of subjects, how to make them at ease, laugh, cry...(ok maybe not cry).

Making a good or even great photograph is so much more than knowing how to take a photograph, and a lot of it comes down to experience which can't be taught. There is always an element of luck too.
Chris

I agree with your final sentence '...so much more than knowing how to take a photograph...'. And that's what I am trying to discuss in this topic. Going beyond talking about shutter speeds, white balance, ISO, blah blah blah. Trying to discuss how photographers plan their shoots and turning that into instinctual knowledge after gaining (perhaps years or decades of) experience. Photography is more than just clicking the shutter release once you get the right ISO+WB+Shutter+Aperture combination, it is knowing how to carefully place the elements in that 3:2 (horizontal) or 2:3(vertical) APS-C/FX sensor space so that there is a synergy of those elements that reach out to grab the viewers' attention.

A simple exercise I do sometimes for practice is to take several photos of a certain object(s). Each time I capture an image of that object(s) I place it in different parts of the frame (and I'm not talking about physically repositioning the object) or play around with different perspectives/angles. Then I view the captured images on my computer to analyze how the visual sense of the image has changed because the object has been placed in a different part of the frame or captured from a different angle.

This is only the pre-editing stage. For post editing, one simple thing I do is this, for example with Devotion that I captured, when I saw the scene with my eyes I already had a general idea of what I wanted to present to my audience with the image I was going to capture. So, after getting the image, I sat down in front of my computer and processed it to bring my idea to 'life'. From the beginning when post-processing in Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, etc. we're advised to watch the histogram, the lights, highlights, darks, shadows, and so on. Lightroom even has warning indicators to show whether the image has overblown highlights or dark areas. But what we're rarely advised on is that sometimes having too bright or took dark can be just as useful, or even changing the white balance to something other than the correct setting.

[peterlyall]

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder though many only realise subconsciously (or not) what makes these things tick.
Aung and Chris you are both right in your comments and perhaps it is digital that has allowed much more of the idea of shoot shoot and shoot because you can chose which image(s) you want to keep.
Perhaps we should get people to concentrate on quality not quantity which I think is an underlying thread in some of the comments which Aung has carefully crafted as part of this thread. We all have some better days than others and may not have the opportunity to go back and reshoot - its the experience which enables you to make the best of any scenario.

[ALwin]

They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder though many only realise subconsciously (or not) what makes these things tick.

True, it is in the eye of the beholder, based on different cultures, experiences and background. Yet I think there are a lot of common points that people may share which defines what is beauty and what isn't. One of the things I wish to open up to discussion is, what makes a photo pleasing to the eye of the viewer. What are the elements of design that draws the audience's interest?

I'm sure that someone could go into the wild and take a photo of some never before seen bird or animal, yet if it wasn't portrayed well, would that photo still keep the viewers interested. Remember, there are billions of people in the world and they all have different personalities and interests. A photo of a never before seen creature would be interesting to the scientific community that studies wildlife, even if the photo wasn't well composed, but to someone who looks at a photo as an art may have a different opinion.

Of course this leads us to "Presentation", how you present your work can be an important factor in deciding whether someone likes it or not. In photography, presentation is all about what is within the borders of the frame.

... digital that has allowed much more of the idea of shoot shoot and shoot because you can chose which image(s) you want to keep...

In a way, Digital has made it easier to be a photographer, on the other hand it can dampen our creative process. With film, being limited to the number of shots per roll, the number of rolls people are willing to carry, the price for developing the film and other reasons we had to be more careful with our photography than we do now with digital.

Like you mentioned, we can shoot shoot and shoot and later select the best ones. But how many of us go back and analyze in depth why we discard or choose those particular images? Besides the basic elements such as out of focus, blur, bad exposure, etc. what other things cause us to like or dislike a photo we captured. With almost every digital camera having a good LCD screen in the back to review our captured images, we can easily press the delete button on the ones we dislike, so back home on the computer we get even less of a chance to analyze in greater detail what was wrong with the photos discarded.

[ALwin]

I think I should change the title of this topic to indicate that I am also talking about 'elements of design' and will knowing it help improve the photos we capture.

And another thing I have been considering lately:

If we were to use a grading system with a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 being the optimal score and we graded two factors:
1) the subject matter in the photo
2) the way the subject matter is presented in the photo (it can be the way it was composed/framed, the exposure, sharpness, colors, etc.)

What do you think about the following combinations:

A) the subject matter scores a low grade of e.g. 5 but the presentation scores 95
Could a photo of an ordinary or even outright boring/unpopular/uninteresting subject matter be turned into a great photo just by the way it was presented?

B) subject matter scores 50, presentation scores 50
Could an average ranking subject matter and an average presentation of it in a photo combined add up to become a good or great photo?

C) the subject matter scores 95 but the presentation scores 5
Could a great photo be achieved only by relying on the high interest/popularity of the subject matter while having only an average or below average image presentation?

Or is it always necessary for both the subject matter and the presentation to have high scores?

[ravens-eye]

I think A & C both have there place in achieving Great photos but B will always remain average.

A) would lean more towards taking a simple subject such as say a feather but using good lighting, composition and exposure to bring out something contemporary and arty.

C) would lean more towards iconic images of moments in history where there was minimal time to consider framing and setting up lighting, and only the strength of the subject matter can be captured.

B) on the other hand says to me if the subject matter is not high scoring to start with why are you taking the picture in the first place if its not to take your time and consider how to capture it in such a way that you can make it special. By achieving only 50 on that side, you have not taken your time and the photo becomes a snap and little more.

Ideally you want to achieve the best of both subject & how you capture it. But don't take too long trying to achieve perfection and end up losing the moment.

[ALwin]

In keeping with what I'm trying to say on this thread, here's a photo I just reviewed.


Standing out by A.LwinDigital, on Flickr
Is it a good idea to always stick to the group? Is it worth trying to stand out even if standing out can sometimes mean you're alone?