What makes a good photo? 

A huge thank you to MPB for sponsoring this video & for anything you need photography and videography wise you're welcome to check out their page: tinyurl.com/3yps3fvu thank you everyone for watching and for the constant support! 🕊

Good discussion. 95% of photos and photographers with YT channels just promote the same cliche ridden notions, the same attention to gear rather than artistry, and the same techniques through an obsession with stale conventions. In particular the obsession with "filmic" profiles, logs etc now means that anything different is regarded as "unprofessional". The vast majority of photography courses are high on technical facts and low on encouraging variation or individuality. Thus a large proportion of published photos follow a really tired formula and the whole process is becoming predictable. The concept of subtlety has been overthrown and replaced by pictures that "pop". Unfortunately this has now become the default.

Gordon Parks changed me as a human being, and as a photographer. His photos are so beautiful and powerful at the same time. He lays bare, the beauty amongst the ugliest of humanity. He exposes our paradoxical human nature. He taught me that fundamentally, love is more powerful then all the hate of the world.

A good photo is a mirror to your soul. Don't think about it too much. It won't fit into a satisfying concept. Don't be afraid of that. Trust your intuition. Be alive.

a good photograph lives rent free in my head

Lovely thought provoking video,Tatiana. Ansel Adams once said " there are always two people in every photograph, the photographer and the viewer." I sincerely believe that a good photograph, opens a highway for the viewer to explore his/her thoughts and emotions. They are a canvas upon which the viewer paints his or her emotions. As such, great photographs are so powerful and beautiful.

The thing that makes a photo "good" is the same thing that makes a painting, song, novel, poem, play, movie, sculpture, building or any other piece of art "good" - it speaks to someone. It can be just a single person - "quantity" of connection is irrelevant....it's just the NATURE of the connection....it needs to be real...substantial....impactful....lasting....if these things happen - it is GOOD. The light, the compostion, the intent, the overall execution are all irrelevant if the finished product is what the artist TRULY WANTS and someone else UNDERSTANDS. Everything/anything else is a form of commerce.

This channel is a pure treasure trove. From the things that you have mentioned already in the video, in my opinion when a viewer wants to know more about the photo or the story it is a good photograph - one photo from your video Exploring Madeira Island with a Mamiya 7 really caught my eye it’s a photo of a white table top , a napkin holder ( I guess ) with a photograph of a Coke Bottle and plant , two white stools with a backdrop of a ocean & sky. The photograph is beautiful and as a viewer I wanted to know who were the people who sat where and perhaps enjoyed a meal, what do they look like, most likely they had pleasant conversation and there were lots of laughter and smiles, how are they related. Thanks

A good photo is one that makes me stop and say ‘Damn, I wish I had taken that photo!’ Great video Tatiana.

Thank you for sharing your views about photography. What I picked up is to be more intent and bring out the emotions in my photos. Learning to sculpt with light is still a technique I'm constantly trying to learn. Keep sharing your views and showing samples of what they mean. 😊👍

This is such a great philosophical discussion. There are also other related questions that branch off this one, such as is a good photo the same as a creative photo and vice versa? There are some photos that are evocative and emotional, but maybe sometimes I wouldn't classify them as good. Or what about photos that you didn't think were good, but you learn to appreciate them as time goes by, especially with our own work? It's such a tricky question to answer, which exactly why it's such a great question to ask. I think the definition of what makes a "good" photo is constantly evolving and is dependent on the decade, culture, and unique experience that each person has. I really resonate with what that person said about not knowing what a good photo is until they see one. I think this speaks to the idea that there's no formula for what is a "good" photo. Yes, there are elements of a good photo, such as the ones you outlined, but it's hard to describe what a good photo is. If it were so easily described, then a good photo would be very easy to make.

A good photo clicks something inside the viewer, an emotion, and makes them want to stay there a bit longer

That was awesome, Thanks T. I love the way you show us another way of looking at photography, thank you!

I like, I love your videos, your point of view, your analysis. And more, for a french people like me, it's a pleasure to listen to you because of your excellent english, your excellent prononciation so easy for me to understand ! Thanks !

From my early days looking at photography certain images resonated particularly deeply with me. I could feel them or, their mood and ambience. One of these was Bill Brandt’s Rainswept Roofs. You could almost smell the rain. I suppose evocative about sums it up. Thanks for such wonderful, thoughtful videos.

Fantastic topic and you raise many important points. Perhaps another way to help us define a good photo is to consider how typically photographs are critiqued or what keeps a photo from being good. It seems generally critiques often deal with the technical aspects of an image…expose, focus, depth of field etc. it may be that this is the case because these elements are the easiest to quantify and for to reach a consensus, rather than because they are most important elements. I also considered the range of possibilities to the question “What makes a good photo?” by considering another visual art form ie painting and wonder the response one would get if you asked “What makes a good painting?” Thanks for this video!

Great video, I really enjoyed this one. The photographs I have seen, which stood out to me, have always been seeing something we can relate to from a surprising viewpoint. The viewpoint can be physical or metaphysical. The surprise is always seeing something in a different context (light/composition, storytelling).

I really enjoy your talks ! I appreciate you bringing attention more to the "art of photography" rather than just product reviews. Nothing wrong with reviews but we need more of what you're doing here. THANK YOU !

Your videos are so informative

Beautiful video as always!

the question of 'what makes good photograph?' will always remain unanswered .. it's personal. Bottom line is: if one looks at at a photo for more than five seconds or wants to see it again, it's a good photo for that particular viewer. It might depend on patience, which is scarce these days

Such a great breakdown of how we approach images without even realising! I’ve often found that images can be two things, or both. That is, that they can be “descriptive” or “expressive” which ties in with the evocative and the studium I suppose!

Loved this!!!

Very Helpful! Thought provoking

A good photo stops the casual viewer from having a quick glance and compels them to take an inquisitive look.

The topic reminds me of the in depth discussion of 'quality' in the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, we know what quality is without being able to define it.

Very informative Tatiana, the top of the list is composition and light, for me it's what separates a photograph from a snapshot.

Nice job and beautiful filters on the film portions. I think the key word for me is “engage” - does the photo engage with me somehow? That could be related to memory, subject, composition, light quality, whatever. Same as with paintings.

Thank you!!

You are so right about light TH, the photographer is always at the mercy of light outside the studio. I'd love to see a "painting with light" video! (In the meantime, I'll check those other videos about composition again -- thanks for including the links.)

An excellent and thought provoking video on some of the reasons why we like the images that we do. For me, it’s Don McCullin’s ‘Shell-shocked US Marine’ image from his book Sleeping with Ghosts and which I was able to see as one of his prints as part of his Tate Modern exhibition in London in 2019.

Maybe unpopular opinion, but photography to me is capturing a moment from our universe. I think being there at the perfect time and place and the spontaneity of it all is what makes it pure art, the randomness of it. Placing props and people and having a team to take care of things is alright I guess, but then I really have a hard time buying that as pure photographical art, it's more art direction to me. Looking at photographers such as Kertesz or Cartier-Bresson, that randomness and unexpected moments they captured while of course delivering them in a breathless manner, is what this art is about.

Insightful video, thank you for making it. I would add the caveat that although emotion is important in a photograph, it can sometimes be difficult to separate the emotion we feel at being present when we take an image from the emotions that are conveyed by the image. It is very easy to conflate the two. At least that has been my personal experience

Explaining what is a good photo is as difficult as explaining why we take them in the first place. About the punctum point, it's annoying to think that it's something we have no control over, kind of like sharing our work online. No matter how carefully we craft an image, we have no control over the display others will use to watch it. Work the punctum, any picture, even one technically flawed, could be loved by someone. I think Daido Moriyama expressed that idea in one of his books, how a casual snap could be liked by some person 16 years later. To me, a good photo is a photo that I will like no matter when I look at it, whether I'm bored or not, happy or upset... Something that will make me pause and take more time. Something that will inspire me and drive me to go take some photo. A good photo should be able to stand on its own, without needing to be part of a series. It should be able to be loved by anyone , especially those without photography skills or knowledge.

I'm mostly a urban photographer, I think any good image must be open to interpretation whether it includes people or not

i love your channel so much

Thank you for your thoughts, plenty to ponder.

This is gold ! Nice one !

Orson Welles said this about movies but the same applies to stills...." A film is never really good unless the camera is an eye in the head of a poet "

for me, a good photograph is not about perfect exposure, light, etc but it should transport you somewhere; so one that creates or evokes a memory or feeling my all-time favourite image is from a bike race (possibly the tour de france but that's not important) in the late 60s / early 70s. it's of a woman in a summer dress handing the unknown rider what looks like a bottle of wine. it tells such a wonderful story, but also reminds me of my days as a competitive cyclist and my then girlfriend handing up drinks in longer races.

Is it by Alec Soth? Yes. Then its a good photo - pretty much my mantra 😁 Seriously though- emotion and connection to subject or narrative is a driver in my own work. Good light, composition and technical aspects are simply a given if you are a photographer IMHO.

Great content. Keep up the great work!

Ed Clarke's photo of Chief Petty Officer Graham Jackson, playing the accordion with a tear streaming down his face, at FDR's funeral was the first photo to get right to the core of me. I was overcome with emotion within seconds of seeing it for the first time. The emotion in the image just leapt out and grabbed me

I save this video for later , it was worth it. Thank you.

Hello Tatiana!! Another great presentation, both content and style. Every time I watch one of your videos, next time I go out with a camera in hand, well...I'm thinking in new ways to shoot and see the world. Have a great day!! CC

Nice video as always love your choice of music

nice one!!!

"I won't know if a photograph is 'good' until I see it." I didn't make that comment, but I agree with its author. Regarding paintings, Georgia O'Keeffe said: "Paintings are like people, you either like them or you don't." Regarding photographs, I agree with Ms. O'Keeffe.

like this time on the RU-vid and the idea of why photography is a good insight to what makes a photography. the emostion is suggest as a high point as Albert Waston in concept and creativity. Nice really nice..

I love your videos :)

Slightly off topic but thanks for showing the music credit for that opening song “Have Faith”. I am a fan of garage rock and that song was exceptional for the genre.

Another answer might be simply “A good photograph is one that fulfills its intended purpose”. By that definition, the slightly oof image of my deceased mother with a lamp emerging from her head is still a good photo.

very useful video!

OK. I laughed when you said "Keep shooting film," your usual closing statement, and then said "Or keep shooting." I have been wanting to mention that your closing "shooting film" statement always made me think that I will never shoot film, since I did that twice (and both times for several years) and now I know I am a full-fledged digital photographer, exclusively. Overall, I am a digital, not an analog person, when it comes to creating photos or writing, or communication, though yes, I am a boomer. So thank you for the more inclusive farewell. Not that it bothered me but I alwys wondered why just film. About knowing a good photo when you see it, when I used to grade student essays, I often had a grading rubric that could help me share with them specific grammatical and research issues with their essays, but I also told students that I know an A paper when I see it. Actually, I still recall one of the few A+ papers I ever graded, an essay by a white CIS male student about how the film Legally Blonde spoke to him as an overweight, lower class individual who was planning on going to law school. It was academically and reflectively brilliant, balanced. Anyway, Julius Shulman's photography, as it was revealed and explored in the sublime documentary Visual Acoustics, opened my vision to photographing architecture in ways based on, but not imitating, his style. He loved to highlight the structures contextually within their location, and used people for scale, while I divorce structures from their location and remove all "f****** people and all f****** trees" (and as often as possible, all f****** clouds), but his vision still nourishes my own. I go back and watch Visual Acoustics every so often and reexamine his photos. Another photographer who shaped my notion of what I love to photograph is the overlooked Norman Seeff. His portraits are full of life and motion and are often fun. Annie Leibovitz is another whose portraiture greatly inspires me, especially since her ability to capture her subjects' personal moments of expression tell me she is trusted by the people who pose for her because they know she will portray them at their best, if not always at their prettiest. Fostering that kind of trust is magical. Actually, more recently, Platon also fires my imagination. All 3 portrait photographers are muses of mine for portraiture. Finally, Imogen Cunningham, whose flower photos remind me of Georgia O'Keeffe's early flower paintings, both women shaped my way of seeing lines and shape and color/greyscale. Sorry for the long comment. Thank you.

Masahisa Fukase is my fav photographer. His posed family portrait series is really quirky and saddening. His photographs resonates with me emotionally so i couldn't care less about his technical skills to be honest.

I thoroughly enjoy your videos! They are well thought out and produced. Your voice is also very soothing and pleasant. I am curious about your nationality: Are you British or French?

Looking forward to what’s next

Thank you for another insightful video. Lately I have been thinking about nostalgia in photography-- so many people post photos of old cars, old buildings, etc. It makes sense as so many of us are inspired by the photographers of the 20th century and so we are drawn to those objects. But of course, when Eggleston took a picture of a 60s Ford, he was taking a photograph of a contemporary car! A lot of what he photographed would have been considered trashy, low-class, or even alienatingly modern at the time, but seems elegant to us from 2022. I have been trying to resolve this tension and I wondered what you think. I find myself wanting to avoid cell phones, contemporary cars, and so forth in my pictures but ultimately is this just a failure to capture the moment we live in?

You've done some marvelous presentations. I wonder if you have an academic background at all, or, when you present your ideas, you might also present a bibliography for those of use who need to go further. In other words, what is your background?

I liked the way Francine Prose (author) once said about what is a good photograph. It begins with, do I want to look at this photograph twice, 3 times, for 20 minutes or have this photograph?

Pretty good video. Certainly better than some others I wasted time watching.

Tatiana, thank you very much for your great work. Fabulous. A note about the Preacher Man photo that I think makes photography work... Notice how our imaginations come alive; each our own. To me he is in prison due to the clothing, some similar, and the all male co-subjects. Thanks again.

Which photography books have you read

Now a pink floyd t-shirt, good video¡¡

How are your darkroom skills? Improving? Quit? Tell us what's going on. My best

A good photo for me is an emotional photo.

How did you find that music, I loved it. The music of my teenage years.

where's that music from??? beautiful! do you have a link?

John Berger spoke about appearances and coherence... perhaps he had a point more cemented that Barthe's semiotic extensions. Barthes spoke about individual experiences through studium and punctum in his mum picture but doesn't bring in Hegel's individuality theory, Berger does and gets to the bottom of this shit. Barthes is poetic, Berger is phenomenal.

1:40 whats the name of the song please? i love it

The last couple years my idea of a good photo has really changed. Maybe to many perfect IG sunset and Cute half naked influencer photos floating around or something not sure. Now even a blurry or poorly exposed shot gets my attention as long as it shows something real about life here on Earth.

📸

0:47 This has the composition and symmetry of a centered mother, flanked by two children turned away from the camera. If you squint, you'll see that the upper half is significanty darker, for yet another visual layer. It DOES have several great fundamentals aside from the emotion of the situation. 0:54 Aside from having contrast, I never understood why this became known as a good photo. It does have a good horisontal band of darkness in its upper half (it would have made a well-composed environmental scene without people), but not only is the subject way off to one side, he's also moving out of the picture, which adds even more energy out from it. Whatever the historical significance that probably made this famous (I forget what it's a picture of), I think its composition fails it. In my opinion, photography, just like music, is almost always slave to sound fundamentals, and an image that lacks them will have to present something preposterously evocative to overcome its handicap.

Tough question T, I suspect for me it depends on 3 things, the 1st - is it in colour, and 2nd, is it in black and white, and lastly is it dated or historical, or if its something current. Understand this is only my own experience, but I tend to look at photographs differently depending on which one of the boxes above is ticked. This of course is all subjective, and carries with it my own emotional baggage and how the photograph relates to my first impression of it, and where on my emotional spectrum it touches. I believe a good photograph needs to be a mirror in some way, it needs to reflect and connect to me emotionally on some level. Great little video T, thanks as always, cheers.

subject....that's all....nothing else matters

Hello, the grab a print page isn't working? (error 404 page missing or moved)

I hope you discuss about wong kar wai film

Good photo has to make you feel or think. Or both.

PS... the stairs (to nowhere) to me open up to eternal possibility.

Hi. Just an idea. Could you make a video, again, just an idea, of what makes a good photo book? Salut!

Interesting video on photography, liked and subscribed will return to see more.

First!

A photograph is good if it furthers the questions, propositions or ideas set in motion by the artist. These may not translate into verbal language.

Another great video but can you use clearer (and bigger) text?😅

Love your videos. This time the sound was a little to low I think.

It's all relative to the person.

To answer the question in the title. that would be a camera, especially one made to take pictures. 😜

There are no specific elements to what makes a good photo. Art is subjective. It's all up to the individual.

I am not sure I've taken anything in the initial description of what makes a photo good yet. Might not ever.

Tbh all your vids are thoughtful with great analysis but the random adverts with photo “gurus” flogging irrelevant courses really distract. The inevitability of the commercial impact on the youtube culturescape I guess. But definitely suboptimal. Obviously we’ll all keep watching because your content is good. Is there anyway you can sensor the stuff that is jumpcut inserted?

You have asked the burning question for Artistic/Amateur photographers, but not for pro's. Wedding photographs and Portraiture can be art and so with Journalism, product photography, Real Estate photography. But Us amateurs would then have to actually work not hobby. Amateurs like me want to improve the basics, get some local recognition or win some contests or whatever, but we are trying to be "artistic", not commercial. You mention Dorothea Lange, and Irving Penn and you could mention Steiglitz, Adams, Weston, Bresson as classic photographers from another age demonstrating important eleoments. Or you could study Gursky, Mapplethorpe, Cindy Sherman and Peter Lik. I have looked at a lot of photos from posted sites that curate or rank in some way and There are relatively few "creative" approaches in technique or post that make it past photographer's curation or popularity. But almost all fall into that category of approaching, asymptotically, technical/lighting/composition perfection but about a fixed range of subjects. Looking at a lot of photos you see a lot of subject repetition. Sure they are all unique to the photographer and many are very good. It seems that those technical and composition and lighting rules both stimulate skill but also box us into a standard. What do you think?

What a good photo is, is something very subjective. Look at some of the famous photos that sell for 7figure sums- Andreas Ghursky:Rhein II, for example-it makes me scratch my head 🤷‍♂️

A good photo is one that follows the rule of thirds where the subject is placed on the intersecting points. Lol just kidding. If it was only that simple. When I began photography I thought that the rule of thirds would make all of my photos so much better. Then I realised that no, I will never figure out what makes a good photo, I can only try making good photos and pick the ones that look the best to ME

🙋🏾‍♂️Who wants TH as your Photography Professor? 😢

Babies dressed as flowers and Dogs in Human Clothes.

Imagine fast forwarding 50, 60 or even a 100 years. How would this video be different? I struggle to see the direction photography is taking...

Thought provoking indeed . But can I be bore and suggest when processing your audio, you maintain some continuity. It sounds like you are using a noise gate…I would suggest turning it off (it’s not really necessary) or adding some release so it doesn’t stop/start so abruptly…I hope understand this with the friendly intention it was meant

Is it storytelling if the whole shot is staged? They are aesthetically pleasing, but they are fake. They are not snapshots of a moment in time. I guess if it is a story, then it is fiction.

What makes a good video? Lack of disruptive mid-roll ads!

Such a great breakdown of how we approach images without even realising! I’ve often found that images can be two things, or both. That is, that they can be “descriptive” or “expressive” which ties in with the evocative and the studium I suppose!id love to talk more about it, what is your Instagram?