• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

What is a Great Image?

Taha Belushi

New member
Hi all,


what is it that constitutes a Great photo/image? If I would say I were to be a judge, having said that I have my own taste, It could be that I love animals, art etc..

So then In my opinion, a picture of a Zebra is more stunning than lets say of people.


How can a great image/Photo be judge?


what are the merits based on?


Regards,

TB
 

Klaus Esser

pro member
Hi all,


what is it that constitutes a Great photo/image? If I would say I were to be a judge, having said that I have my own taste, It could be that I love animals, art etc..

So then In my opinion, a picture of a Zebra is more stunning than lets say of people.


How can a great image/Photo be judge?


what are the merits based on?


Regards,

TB


Hi!

Interesting question - and absolutely impossible to answer :) !

I´d say, if you do a photograph of a Zebra in a way nobody has seen one and in which the Zebra is a personality and an individual and if the picture is above that a real good pictural composition - that would possibly be a great picture.

One can make a shot of a puppy a "great picture" . . . :)

best, Klaus
 

Taha Belushi

New member
Thanks for that Klaus,

Month back my photographer lost in the Gulf photo competition, honestly speaking her images were best in comparision to anyone else.


well as you said it, We cant judge.


Strangely enough there were no set guidlines in chosing the best.
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Subjective but not

Great topic because this is something I struggle with. I think that there are rules in photography for quality of image and yet the rules are a guide line. Certainly, composition, lighting, and style play into the photo.

I went to the Getty Museum a few months back and looked at the main exhibit of photography - which were captures of life in America. Just plain snap shots - until you looked twice.

This is a photo I took in San Francisco. It breaks a lot of rules - the head isn't well lit, there is a post coming out of his head. Yet, some people actually like it - some don't. Sujective. My class voted it one of the best for the week. So maybe the artist's eye plays into it. I almost deleted it, but, I do like it after living with it for a while now.

67605077.M0SC7pTC.jpg
 

Michael Fontana

pro member
Giving a try:

a great image

- is interesting, even if you look multiple times on it, as it has different "layers" to be explored.
Therefore not boring, but a great pict, still in ten years.

- tells you with the media-specific charalteristics something about the subject.

to follow...
 

Rick Medlock

New member
Hi Guys

Good thread this. Very difficult to say what makes a great image? A friend of mine works with problem kids. He gives then a cheap digital camera to use and gives them a topic, lets say, where you live. The results are stunning. Ok, technique wise not so good but visually breathtaking. So for me a great image is one that breaks all the rules, as these kids don’t know about photography. It has to visually grab the on looker without having to read a large amount of script about what the image is about.

Hope this makes sense.


Rickster
 
A great image

is one that engages the viewer emotionally in a way that completes what Asher calls the "artist's arc of intent." And completes the transfer of an idea or emotion from artist to viewer.

That those images are timeless and enduring has to do with the fact that the things that affect us emotionally don't change much through time.
 

Rick Medlock

New member
Hi Guys

If you take, I think it was Cappa’s shot of the D day landings in WW2 were there is an blurred image of an American wading through the water, you can’t say that it was his intent to grab that image like that I would imagine he was dodging bullets but a powerful image just the same. The visual impact of an image is the most important consideration.

Rickster
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks for that Klaus,

Month back my photographer lost in the Gulf photo competition, honestly speaking her images were best in comparision to anyone else.


well as you said it, We cant judge.


Strangely enough there were no set guidlines in chosing the best.

Taha,

Do you have the url link? I need to look at these pictues now!

Asher
 
Hi Guys

If you take, I think it was Capa’s shot of the D day landings in WW2 were there is an blurred image of an American wading through the water, you can’t say that it was his intent to grab that image like that I would imagine he was dodging bullets but a powerful image just the same. The visual impact of an image is the most important consideration.

Rickster

Capa's intentions only partially led to the final picture and its impact. His credo was to get as close to the action as possible, and he certainly did that. He caught a boat out after making it to the shore, shooting three rolls of film, sent his film to Life's offices in London, where they were so excited that they overheated the films in the drying cabinet to the point where the emulsion ran. Ten streaky images survived. The effect is entirely appropriate, but not entirely Capa's.

scott
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Capa and Arc of Intent.

Hi Guys

If you take, I think it was Cappa’s shot of the D day landings in WW2 were there is an blurred image of an American wading through the water, you can’t say that it was his intent to grab that image like that I would imagine he was dodging bullets but a powerful image just the same. The visual impact of an image is the most important consideration.

Rickster

Rick,

André Freidman, a.k.a., Robert Capa, wasn’t a tourist taking snapshots but an artist maneuvering his perspective and framing to get us the full presence of what he was embedded amongst.

When I talk about "The Arc of Intent" this is not meant to describe the great picture or define it. Rather it refers to a process where the experience and meanings in the work of a photographer get embedded into a delivered image, so bring part of that vision and evoked feelings to the viewer.

In Capa's work, he was for sure dodging bullets, but the camera was an extension of his mind. He put himself in a place and position to view what he shot and what he thought was important to transmit. That started "The Arc of Intent". And in this particular case it works. When we look at the pictures, we are there with real life in the battlefield.

Once Capa (or his editor) looked at his own pictures and like them, just for that the Arc, as I described it, is complete and it is now unimportant whether or not it works for anyone else as far a that process is concerned!

When we look at Capa'a work and also get some of those strong feelings and emotional reactions and more so think about the boys there and the destruction and consequences of war or no war, the work of Capa, transcends the individual image and becomes art. That Capa'a work symbolizes that period and what we did and how he recorded it, the work becomes iconic.

However, all that is after the simple creation was completed when Capa successfully transmits his unique vision. This, in itself merely finishes the physical embedding of Cappa’s concepts.

My theoretical construct, "Arc of Intent", does not imply art worthy to see or collect. Rather the path to get there.

Capa's work, I contend did employ "Intent" since he had an impression of the war, destruction and devastation and its effect on the men wished and worked to embed this in all in his images of the battlefield. Hence an “Arc of Intent” was initiated.

It had to have Cappa's brain in between the eye and the shutter release. The brain brought to the choices of how to make the picture all Capa's experience, skills, culture, education and esthetic sense and in a split second! So he definitely did have a process in his brain that influenced how and when he took the picture. That is the process by which art can and might be created.

This is very different from a picture like a snapshot on vacation, where all that is needed is proof that we had fun. Of course that too could be iconic but not necessarily creative.

Asher
 
Last edited:

Rick Medlock

New member
Rick,

André Freidman, a.k.a., Robert Capa, wasn’t a tourist taking snapshots but an artist maneuvering his perspective and framing to get us the full presence of what he was embedded amongst.

When I talk about "The Arc of Intent" this is not meant to describe the great picture or define it. Rather it refers to a process where the experience and meanings in the work of a photographer get embedded into a delivered image, so bring part of that vision and evoked feelings to the viewer.

In Capa's work, he was for sure dodging bullets, but the camera was an extension of his mind. He put himself in a place and position to view what he shot and what he thought was important to transmit. That started "The Arc of Intent". And in this particular case it works. When we look at the pictures, we are there with real life in the battlefield.

Once Capa (or his editor) looked at his own pictures and like them, just for that the Arc, as I described it, is complete and it is now unimportant whether or not it works for anyone else as far a that process is concerned!

When we look at Capa'a work and also get some of those strong feelings and emotional reactions and more so think about the boys there and the destruction and consequences of war or no war, the work of Capa, transcends the individual image and becomes art. That Capa'a work symbolizes that period and what we did and how he recorded it, the work becomes iconic.

However, all that is after the simple creation was completed when Capa successfully transmits his unique vision. This, in itself merely finishes the physical embedding of Cappa’s concepts.

My theoretical construct, "Arc of Intent", does not imply art worthy to see or collect. Rather the path to get there.

Capa's work, I contend did employ "Intent" since he had an impression of the war, destruction and devastation and its effect on the men wished and worked to embed this in all in his images of the battlefield. Hence an “Arc of Intent” was initiated.

It had to have Cappa's brain in between the eye and the shutter release. The brain brought to the choices of how to make the picture all Capa's experience, skills, culture, education and esthetic sense and in a split second! So he definitely did have a process in his brain that influenced how and when he took the picture. That is the process by which art can and might be created.

This is very different from a picture like a snapshot on vacation, where all that is needed is proof that we had fun. Of course that too could be iconic but not necessarily creative.

Asher

Hi Asher

Thanks for the reply.

Ok I stand corrected and I can see the point you are putting over. I joined this forum to improve my knowledge and that is exactly what I have been doing since I landed here. Arc of intent if you like.

All the best

Rick
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
There is no answer to the original question posed here. Every photo forum has such a thread at least once each year, sometimes more often. It's a ponderable subject with no solution.

Here's an interesting side note regarding Robert Capa's D-Day photograph. Capa had, through some finagling, arranged to land on one of the beaches with an early wave of troops. He shot several rolls of film and managed to return alive, no small feat that day. But an inexperienced assistant ruined nearly all of Capa's film during development. Only one or two shots (I've only seen one) survived the chemical ordeal with the assistant. Can you imagine how that guy felt about that gaffe for the rest of his life? True story.

I don't know that Capa had any real intent beyond simply getting war action news photos that nobody else (outside of the armed forces photographers) would have. He was quite a bold young fellow and, rather like James Nachtway today, was willing to use a camera where others would rather take cover and live another day.

But back at least to the neighborhood of this thread's original subject, Capa's D-Day photo presents us with a stark example of what is not required for a "great" photograph; technical perfection. I don't think I have ever seen a photograph convey such a sense of fear and chaos as that blurry image conveys. It sums up the unimaginable terror of that day perfectly.

Newcomers to photography today are greeted with a notion that there is a "perfect" image made possible through digital technology. Many people become enslaved by their camera's technology and by discussions (usually on forums like this one) with other amateur photographers concerning right/wrong, good/bad. There is a constant obsessive pursuit for digital image qualities such as "increased dynamic range" and edge sharpness of wide lenses. While amateur photography has long harbored similar obsessions it has become magnified by the Internet and by the sudden technophile influx that digital photography has ushered into photography.

Technical improvements in photographic products are always welcome, certainly with me. But in the broad view of photography's history the factors that contributed most significantly to certain photographs' recognition and long-term public admiration (it's "greatness") are largely human in origin. Where was the camera? When did the photographer click the shutter? Those have been, and will continue to be, the essential ingredients for "great" photography.
 
There is no answer to the original question posed here. Every photo forum has such a thread at least once each year, sometimes more often. It's a ponderable subject with no solution.

The Capa D-day photos also bear on another subject that the annual thread usually gets into, namely form and composition versus content. It's content that makes these pictures memorable, and the lucky accident that the form and the damaged style perfectly suits that content.

scott
 
He was quite a bold young fellow and, rather like James Nachtway today, was willing to use a camera where others would rather take cover and live another day.

Technical improvements in photographic products are always welcome, certainly with me. But in the broad view of photography's history the factors that contributed most significantly to certain photographs' recognition and long-term public admiration (it's "greatness") are largely human in origin. Where was the camera? When did the photographer click the shutter? Those have been, and will continue to be, the essential ingredients for "great" photography.

Gene Smith and a close friend, film cameraman Damien Parer, vied to be the most out in front of the action in the Pacific (in WWII). Parer would walk close behind an advancing tank, shooting back at the the front line of Marines that followed the tank. Smith was equally fearless. Parer was killed by a machine gun that his tank had passed during the invasion of Pelelieu; Smith stood up to shoot an infantryman under mortar fire and was himself hit in the jaw, requiring two years of reconstruction and rehab before he photographed again. But none of this wartime pictures, I feel, had the power of his most memorable later images, such as Paradise Garden or Tomoko in the bath. The time he spent in developing those ideas before he took the picture was a critical part of their emotional impact.

scott
 
A very interesting article, with far too few pictures. My information comes from Jim Hughes' biography of Smith, which I highly recommend. It is out of print, but not too expensive in used bookstores.

scott
 
Top