Is photography THAT subjective? or can most people agree/ disagree if a photo is "good"/ "bad"?

[rochester21]

Postmodern art and literature are total garbage in comparison with any historic reference one can possibly think of. And yet, most art critics say "it`s the best". I think they belong in a mental institution. So there is a wide range of tastes out there.

Same applies to photography.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2881dg9.jpg

 

[D Cox]

At the risk of summoning the wrath of Harvey Weinstein's accusers, I'd say that most men would praise semi-nude photos of conventionally pretty young women. And most women, trust me, would give top ratings to any photo of a baby. And wouldn't both sexes like pictures of dogs with big eyes?

So perhaps the photo's subject matter is actually the main factor if it is 'good' or 'bad'?

Why "semi" ?

 

[D Cox]

Postmodern art and literature are total garbage in comparison with any historic reference one can possibly think of. And yet, most art critics say "it`s the best". I think they belong in a mental institution. So there is a wide range of tastes out there.

Same applies to photography.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2881dg9.jpg

The right hand example there is "modern" rather than "post-modern". Post-modern art tends to be more about ideas, especially political or social ideas, rather than subject matter or technique.

 

[Mike CH]

A large part of photography is art.

Art is to a large degree subjective. Note - that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have rules. It just means that application is often a matter of subjective opinion.

It follows that most people won’t be able to agree whether something is good or bad. You will, at most, be able to get subgroups of people that share the same contect and subjective interpretation to agree.

And that is on a good day.

Regards, Mike

 

[hikerdoc]

It would be more subjective if EXIF data identifying the equipment was not included here. Look at any sample gallery here and see predominately negative comments by users of other gear. If people could judge on the merits of an image rather than articulating their incredible awareness of perceived deficiencies, deficiencies they would be unaware of if the identifying data did not confirm their brand biases.

Personal tastes obviously do play a role as in any art form. Some would salivate over the chance to own a distorted face from Picasso or a soup can from Warhol. I see nothing of interest.

D

 

[Kung Fu]

Just curious as to how subjective photography is. I was reading up on other sites/ forums and read some people have very strong disagreements on whether their photos were good or not, and it was surprising to me because I just dont understand what makes a good photo GOOD.

Besides the basics - in focus, exposed properly, you know the things that should be there with any photo.

but then you get kind of more creative, post processing, color manipulation, and so much more.

so i guess what I'm asking is, is photography THAT subjective that people either hate it or love it despite it following the basics?

I have some examples on instagram of other people (hopefully me posting their account isn't against any rule on here? i doubt it because people mention them all the time on yt and social media, but anyway if it is feel free to edit it out, mods, or tell me and ill edit it out)

but photographers like:

https://www.instagram.com/brandonwoelfel/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/dukemoose/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/mymk_photography/

as you can see they all have vastly different photography styles (ranging from super creative, to pretty "normal"/ not crazy colors or anything). whats your overall opinion on those styles? surely we can all appreciate a good hard working person, but just for conversations sake, which person would YOU go to? do you think age is a factor too?

Everybody has a different taste of course, but for me to find a photo good, it has to be sharp and right exposed......

But what is a “correct” exposure? Sometimes under or overexposure works artistically.

”Sharp” is equally subjective, and surely there are subjects and styles where sharpness isn’t even something you’d want or need.

 

[Lee Jay]

Some of the winners of the contest of contests (or whatever it's called) here on DPREVIEW would have been delete-in-camera shots for me. I've visited photography exhibits at art museums without finding a single image I could tolerate.

That's why I find the contest here to be a ridiculous waste of time.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

That is not a simple problem, and there is a whole branch of philosophy, aesthetics, which attempts to address the problem of judgements of taste, as to whether or not these judgments have any validity outside of personal opinion.
From around the time of the Reformation in the West, new ideas developed, and as these ideas, over the centuries, were taken towards their logical conclusion, more emphasis was placed on subjectivity, until this idea became completely dominant, especially in the arts.

Under this system of thinking, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", "there's no accounting for taste", "one man's meat is another man's poison", and so forth, but it isn't quite as simple as this.

There developed in parallel the notion that styles must change quickly and that these styles must be followed by each new generation in turn, as a sign of historical progress. *Your* opinion in matters of taste mean nothing, especially if you are from an older generation, and hence less evolved: it is your duty to shut up and let the next generation take over.

But I think that the older, premodern ideas about art and aesthetics still have validity and value.

Any given art is seen to quickly develop to perfection, and any development subsequently is only incremental and subject to the law of diminishing returns, and too often, old lessons are forgotten as new ideas are implemented. So progress in any art is rather quick at first, but eventually reaches a state of relative perfection. This perfection is seen as "classical", and while this best form of an art is culturally rooted, and so different for each culture, it is also universal as it can be easily recognized as such by peoples of other cultures. Constant change of styles is not seen as progress, but rather due to boredom, the profit motive, politics, and general human degradation.

The human intellect is seen as starting as a "tabula rasa" or a blank slate, but while contemporary thinking sees this as a sign of unlimited human freedom and potential - and also that there is no accounting for taste - the older theory instead sees this as a grave obligation to properly form the intellect, including the forming of the intellect to the best of the classical arts.

Finally, beauty itself is seen as an effulgence of what's good and true, and so is ultimately objective, even though our own personal differences and experiences might make it difficult to see it.

 

[Leon Wittwer]

than you think. If someone looks at a landscape that is significantly different than anything he/she has previously seen, you can not be sure what they actually see even in general terms. Memory and past experience sometimes has a big impact on our perception and when memory and past experience can't help, perception can be very different from anything to do with reality. In other words, to see something well, we likely have to do some training on that something.

 

[David Pavlich]

It really depends on who's looking at the image. If it's someone from an artistic background, that person may consider color rendering over whether or not the subject is following the Rule of Thirds.

If there's a tone mapped HDR shot of a '53 Plymouth in the middle of an old barn, a photographic purist will poo poo it regardless of whether or not it's technically correct, where as a car guy or someone that's mechanically oriented will be wowed by it.

So yes, beyond those standard "rules", photography is very subjective.

David

 

[SirLataxe]

Photography is a craft, not an art - although post-picture-taking manipulation of images might become graphic art.

But this to the side.

Some features of graphic images - including photos, paintings, sculptures and other symbolic representations of human perceptions of reality - have a universal appeal to virtually all humans, as they stimulate various evolved human predilections; and may even incorporate appealing features found universally throughout nature, such as the Fibonacci series/ratio aka golden mean.

But, humans being human, we are infested with all kinds of mental constructs that are cultural, fashionable or otherwise peculiar to various historical periods and geographical locations. Many of these are highly- contrived aesthetic sensibilities or preferences, often with no obvious or straightforward connection to "the natural".

So, tastes in photographic images (or the position of such images in various hierarchies of merit) are often a mishmash of universally-found human notions of "attractive" mediated by all sorts of queer fashions of the time & place. This has been the case for graphic representations of every kind, throughout history.

These days we notice how things become "just a matter of taste" much more readily because the rate of churn in "fashionable" is much greater than in past times - especially in photography, which generates a zillion images an hour along with numerous associated fashions. And the ability to see & compare hordes of them via the interwebbing.

In all events, some photo styles and the features thereof have proved to be more long-lasting or resilient than others. But at bottom, humans are very capable of denouncing yesterday's good stuff as today's bad stuff. This is not confined only to judgements about the features expressed by photo styles.

******

So, when you argue with another about the merits of a photo, it only make sense to do so if you share a significant degree of agreement concerning the valid (and invalid) criteria for making such judgements. In this day and age, there is less and less agreement about such criteria, as everyone and his dog is now allowed "an opinion", no matter how crass.

SirLataxe

PS My dog only likes photos that have somehow got a splash of gravy on them.

 

[dmartin92]

I like the photos of Stephen Shore, but I never have understood why his photos “caught on”, and became so widely respected, but other photos of a similar nature as his, are not respected.

I think that a lot of people that “don’t know” would try to imply that they “do know”, by praising Z, when really the only reason they like Z is because everybody says Z is great.

If Z was not respected, they would not like Z’s photos.

But as things are, they are ready to vehemently proclaim Z as being super.

But I do like Stephen Shore’s photos, and I would, even if nobody else did.

 

[JDC1958]

Just curious as to how subjective photography is. I was reading up on other sites/ forums and read some people have very strong disagreements on whether their photos were good or not, and it was surprising to me because I just dont understand what makes a good photo GOOD.

Besides the basics - in focus, exposed properly, you know the things that should be there with any photo.

but then you get kind of more creative, post processing, color manipulation, and so much more.

so i guess what I'm asking is, is photography THAT subjective that people either hate it or love it despite it following the basics?

I have some examples on instagram of other people (hopefully me posting their account isn't against any rule on here? i doubt it because people mention them all the time on yt and social media, but anyway if it is feel free to edit it out, mods, or tell me and ill edit it out)

but photographers like:

https://www.instagram.com/brandonwoelfel/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/dukemoose/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/mymk_photography/

as you can see they all have vastly different photography styles (ranging from super creative, to pretty "normal"/ not crazy colors or anything). whats your overall opinion on those styles? surely we can all appreciate a good hard working person, but just for conversations sake, which person would YOU go to? do you think age is a factor too?

I like Brandon's and Duke's. MYMK is boring.

 

[Bobthearch]

but photographers like:

https://www.instagram.com/brandonwoelfel/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/dukemoose/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/mymk_photography/

as you can see they all have vastly different photography styles (ranging from super creative, to pretty "normal"/ not crazy colors or anything). whats your overall opinion on those styles? surely we can all appreciate a good hard working person, but just for conversations sake, which person would YOU go to? do you think age is a factor too?

An example of how subjective photographic aesthetics can be, and how subject matter plays a roll,

I don't like any of those. Photos of people, people just standing there doing nothing of interest, especially people I don't know... Bleh!

 

[JDC1958]

I like the photos of Stephen Shore, but I never have understood why his photos “caught on”, and became so widely respected, but other photos of a similar nature as his, are not respected.

I think that a lot of people that “don’t know” would try to imply that they “do know”, by praising Z, when really the only reason they like Z is because everybody says Z is great.

If Z was not respected, they would not like Z’s photos.

But as things are, they are ready to vehemently proclaim Z as being super.

But I do like Stephen Shore’s photos, and I would, even if nobody else did.

Meeting Andy Warhol at 17 and getting into his inner circle probably had a lot to do with his fast rise to fame.

 

[dmartin92]

Ah, yes, that could help.

 

[Don_D]

Just curious as to how subjective photography is. I was reading up on other sites/ forums and read some people have very strong disagreements on whether their photos were good or not, and it was surprising to me because I just dont understand what makes a good photo GOOD.

Besides the basics - in focus, exposed properly, you know the things that should be there with any photo.

but then you get kind of more creative, post processing, color manipulation, and so much more.

so i guess what I'm asking is, is photography THAT subjective that people either hate it or love it despite it following the basics?

I have some examples on instagram of other people (hopefully me posting their account isn't against any rule on here? i doubt it because people mention them all the time on yt and social media, but anyway if it is feel free to edit it out, mods, or tell me and ill edit it out)

but photographers like:

https://www.instagram.com/brandonwoelfel/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/dukemoose/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/mymk_photography/

as you can see they all have vastly different photography styles (ranging from super creative, to pretty "normal"/ not crazy colors or anything). whats your overall opinion on those styles? surely we can all appreciate a good hard working person, but just for conversations sake, which person would YOU go to? do you think age is a factor too?

Everybody has a different taste of course, but for me to find a photo good, it has to be sharp and right exposed......

Griddi.......

That's true only if you insist that a photograph be an exact rendition of the subject. I would guess you only appreciate realist painters and don't find impressionists paintings "good".

What makes a photograph good to me is how it speaks to the viewer, how it invokes an emotion, an involvement with the image. It has little to do with the technical side like focus, exposure, but the artistic side and how the photograph communicates with the viewer.

--
Don

 

[JDC1958]

A large part of photography is art.

Art is to a large degree subjective. Note - that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have rules. It just means that application is often a matter of subjective opinion.

It follows that most people won’t be able to agree whether something is good or bad. You will, at most, be able to get subgroups of people that share the same contect and subjective interpretation to agree.

And that is on a good day.

Regards, Mike

 

[kaphinga]

Just curious as to how subjective photography is. I was reading up on other sites/ forums and read some people have very strong disagreements on whether their photos were good or not, and it was surprising to me because I just dont understand what makes a good photo GOOD.

It's good if it communicates well with the viewer.

Besides the basics - in focus, exposed properly, you know the things that should be there with any photo.

Generally it's good to execute the basics well, but the basics don't in themselves make a good photo. Robert Capa's photographs of D-Day are technical disasters, and yet they are photographic masterpieces. On the other hand. I see a lot of pictures of brick walls that are technically flawless and communicate absolutely nothing.

In addition, there are rules of composition -- balance, rhythm, and such -- that are pretty much universal. These rules are part of the visual language, much as grammar and vocabulary are part of the written language. Ignorance of the rules makes it difficult to communicate.

but then you get kind of more creative, post processing, color manipulation, and so much more.

so i guess what I'm asking is, is photography THAT subjective that people either hate it or love it despite it following the basics?

but photographers like:

...

as you can see they all have vastly different photography styles (ranging from super creative, to pretty "normal"/ not crazy colors or anything). whats your overall opinion on those styles?

surely we can all appreciate a good hard working person, but just for conversations sake, which person would YOU go to? do you think age is a factor too?

All three photographers apply fairly consistent color grading, which makes their work go together as a set, which can be fairly important for a commercial photographer. I don't know that one is better or worse than the other. I would say that they are all pretty solidly crafted.

Of course, "good" or "bad" depends on the audience. What really wows one audience may seem tired and cliche to another audience. For example, I am a painter, and sometimes I judge painting competitions. Suppose that you and your spouse visit Italy and you do a painting of a Tuscan villa that you visited. Chances are that your spouse will love the painting, and it will have meaning for both of you. If you are judging a show, though, and you have just seen two dozen other paintings of Tuscan villas, it's probably going to come off as boring and cliche. Or, if it is done in a trendy style that you have seen a thousand times, even if it is technically well done it will be boring.

 

[abiquiuense]

so i guess what I'm asking is, is photography THAT subjective that people either hate it or love it despite it following the basics?

but photographers like:

https://www.instagram.com/brandonwoelfel/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/dukemoose/

vs

https://www.instagram.com/mymk_photography/

as you can see they all have vastly different photography styles (ranging from super creative, to pretty "normal"/ not crazy colors or anything). whats your overall opinion on those styles? surely we can all appreciate a good hard working person, but just for conversations sake, which person would YOU go to? do you think age is a factor too?

I think it's an emotional thing. If you feel good about the photo then it's good photography. If you don't like it, it's bad. However, it really helps if your subjects are good looking though.