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

[Kung Fu]

Correct, but they are applied relative to other works, subjectively of course. I didn't say it wasn't subjective, but it is across a variety of subjective aspects. Like I said, in the pro world, if the were not applied consistently, even though it has to be subjective, then they'd lose credibility, respect, and membership - and if you've ever gone to a professional judging and listened to the judges assess works and explain, in detail, on their reasoning on these aspects you'd be hard pressed to disagree 99% of the time with their subjective reasoning.

I highly doubt that, and we’ve all seen contest winners that evoke a “what the...??” response.

Compositions that pull the eye away from the subject, poor use of negative space, subjects that are cliche, and a plethora of other mistakes, and weaknesses are easy to spot and use a subtractive method - as opposed to an additive method for assessment.

Lumping 12 or 100 subjective criteria together into a fancy formalized “assessment” doesn’t make them any less subjective.

Part of the appeal for me of Parr, Eggleston, Levitt, Sternfeld, Shore, Struth, is the underlying recognition that everyone with a roll of color film and a camera is an artist.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Correct, but they are applied relative to other works, subjectively of course. I didn't say it wasn't subjective, but it is across a variety of subjective aspects. Like I said, in the pro world, if the were not applied consistently, even though it has to be subjective, then they'd lose credibility, respect, and membership - and if you've ever gone to a professional judging and listened to the judges assess works and explain, in detail, on their reasoning on these aspects you'd be hard pressed to disagree 99% of the time with their subjective reasoning.

I highly doubt that, and we’ve all seen contest winners that evoke a “what the...??” response.

Compositions that pull the eye away from the subject, poor use of negative space, subjects that are cliche, and a plethora of other mistakes, and weaknesses are easy to spot and use a subtractive method - as opposed to an additive method for assessment.

Lumping 12 or 100 subjective criteria together into a fancy formalized “assessment” doesn’t make them any less subjective.

Part of the appeal for me of Parr, Eggleston, Levitt, Sternfeld, Shore, Struth, is the underlying recognition that everyone with a roll of color film and a camera is an artist.

Once again, I didn't say it wasn't subjective, all art is subjective - as they say, in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Max Iso]

I think there are some lines that cross into objectively bad. When something is so bad, everybody will agree bc it doesn't possess anything, even niche, that is impressive. But IMO the majority of shots look good and bad to somebody.

Not too different than music for example, most music is perfect for certain people, while being completely ugly to others. I don't think there's very much "art" that everybody will agree on, which means as a whole, it is subjective.

A small sliver everybody can agree is horrible. A small sliver everybody can agree is great. The vast majority will be polarizing.

 

[Brev00]

I think there are some lines that cross into objectively bad. When something is so bad, everybody will agree bc it doesn't possess anything, even niche, that is impressive. But IMO the majority of shots look good and bad to somebody.

Not too different than music for example, most music is perfect for certain people, while being completely ugly to others. I don't think there's very much "art" that everybody will agree on, which means as a whole, it is subjective.

A small sliver everybody can agree is horrible. A small sliver everybody can agree is great. The vast majority will be polarizing.

I am not too sure what you mean by there being a small sliver of art everyone will agree is great. Please give me an example of a truly universally agreed upon wonderful work of art. Perhaps you mean by Western cultural standards. Perhaps you mean over a long period of time not including the long period of time before a work became generally acceptable and all the people who had contempt for it until that time. No, there is no one work of art that everyone agrees is good. Yes, agreement does mean a lot. But, alas, it is no indication of actual quality. Just people thinking along the same lines whatever those lines may be. I believe the opposite is actually true. That which one feels deep inside as true for you may have some chance of being universal. Subjectivity is the beginning and the end of truth.

 

[agrandaiz]

It feel like you're basically ask, if everyone opinion is different. Of course it is.

 

[lightspeakers121]

I've read all the replies, and have come across some really great comments. Anyway, after reading all that, especially with the art analogy (paintings), I have to ask... so... is asking for photo critique effective? I mean, since everyone has their own style and clearly people like different things, if you've got your own style of photography, should you really take the advice of someone who critiques your photo?

Or is that just a whole other topic, that is sort of a middle-meet? You keep your own style, but improve on some technical aspects to make it more interesting/ appealing to the viewer?

 

[brightncheerful]

Of the 3 links only the first would seem to be for non-commercial gain and even then I am not sure. To attract paying customers, a photographer (whether professional or non) presupposing some knowledge of business methodology would be expected to have a target market. So If you are not in a particular target market then it is less likely you would find the style of photo to your liking.

It is the same principle with advertising on TV. Ads can be seen by everyone watching the programme during which the ad is shown but not everyone is in the target market for the product or service that the ad is targeted at. So whether an ad is considered good or bad depends uoon the point of the ad.

When the point of showing a photo is commercial gain, I do not think it matters whether it woukd pass a test of technical competence. With wedding photography, for example, the determining factor is whether the overall look of the photo appeals to the type of customer that the photographer is wanting to attract.

For hobbysts, a similiar principle applies: namely the point of the photo having regard to the subject matter. On balance, I reckon that for most people to agree a photo is good or bad will depend upon whether the photographer has been successful in getting the point across through the medium of the photo.

So when the point of the photo is to demonstrate technical competence the degree of success would be determined by those with sufficient understanding of the technicalities to confirm accordingly.

Anything else, in my opinion, is prejudice!

 

[agrandaiz]

I've read all the replies, and have come across some really great comments. Anyway, after reading all that, especially with the art analogy (paintings), I have to ask... so... is asking for photo critique effective? I mean, since everyone has their own style and clearly people like different things, if you've got your own style of photography, should you really take the advice of someone who critiques your photo?

Or is that just a whole other topic, that is sort of a middle-meet? You keep your own style, but improve on some technical aspects to make it more interesting/ appealing to the viewer?

Interesting question

I remember when I was a child, my teacher had a hard time to read my writing. And she said, "your writing is horrible," and ask me to improve it. But my answer at the time was "my writing isn't horrible, it just my font style."

What is it got to do with your question? I'm not sure. I just suddenly remember that.

Now for your question about taking advice of a critics, I think you should consider few things. Like is that critics make sense and also work for your photo. Of course not all of them.

Also maybe who give you the critics. Is it someone you know, is it a great photographer. Is that person at least understand your style of photography.

For that reason. I think when asking for critics, a person should ask on the right place, or the right forum. Which actually understand that person style

 

[FrancoD]

I've read all the replies, and have come across some really great comments. Anyway, after reading all that, especially with the art analogy (paintings), I have to ask... so... is asking for photo critique effective? I mean, since everyone has their own style and clearly people like different things, if you've got your own style of photography, should you really take the advice of someone who critiques your photo?

Yes it is, in as much as you will soon find out what most people dislike.

Some photos are just bad except we may not be aware of it.

Or is that just a whole other topic, that is sort of a middle-meet? You keep your own style, but improve on some technical aspects to make it more interesting/ appealing to the viewer?

Yes , see the above comment.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

Lots of good points of view. art is subjective - duh! There have been countless threads that end up in silly, endless, circular unresolvable debates. There are even those that will argue viciously whether photography is or isn't even art to begin with, but there are widely accepted tenets of what are positive attributes and which are negative attributes of a good image. There will always be a percentage that think otherwise - so you'll never achieve universal agreement.

What I find utterly boorish are those that want to argue for arguments sake - as if they have some deep seated anger and use these threads to vent that anger, or boost their frail ego, shore up their feelings of self-doubt, or simply want to 'win' and argument to somehow prove that they have the biggest swinging opinion in the the room and prove their dominance to themselves and others. When it gets extreme it makes me think - what is wrong with those people and hope that homeland security is tracking them. Others of us, long past the years of needing to feed our egos, simply try to add to the exchange, hopefully intelligently, based on decades of experience and maybe even a little hard-earned wisdom, many with years of professional experience and exposure to a wide variety of works. We participate because we enjoy sharing years of experience with others as we age out for nothing more than wanting to contribute back like the many that helped us along, but we often leave the discussions shaking our heads in disgust and don't return, or don't return for a long periods.

What matters first and foremost to most artists is to please yourself. You are your #1 critic. If you aren't doing it for yourself to begin with, then you are in it for nothing more than ego or pure profit - neither of which are negative, but when you do you've generally left the art part behind. I've shot bacteria growing on microprocessors through an electron microscope - there's not much art in it, although the visuals are stunning. I put no intent into it - didn't try to communicate anything of interpretive value to the viewer, but some might see it as art even though it was unintentional.

You might consider the work you do solely for you is the best work on the planet, simply because you do it for yourself. I personally think that's the ideal - to compete with oneself. I happen to be writing a novel - I don't care if it never sells; I am writing it for myself. It is cathartic as is much of my own image making, and I am certain it will be the most cherished novel in my library. On the other end of the spectrum I get hired out to make indoor murals for big bucks - some up to 30+ feet long that you can walk right up to and see fine detail (multi gigapixel matrix stitched images). If the work isn't up to par I don't get hired again, or my gallery prints sit there and don't sell - that's my litmus test of what others think of my work - do they want it and are willing to spend their time or money to see it or buy it, or better, repeatedly.

I think the majority of people consider Ansel Adams work great photography. If you ever get the opportunity to see 50 large pieces of his work in real life up close you understand why people line up at museums worldwide by the thousands to view it, and when they do, hear their gasps or see the wonder in their eyes. That is about as universal agreement as it gets - though there are others that hate his work, but are decidedly in the minority.

Diversity of opinion and point of view is what makes the world go 'round, but most of us generally know the difference between chocolate and dung when its staring us in the face and right under our nose. Then again, there is a minority that have a fetish on the the latter - good for them, but I'll pass.

MFL

 

[SirLataxe]

I've read all the replies, and have come across some really great comments. Anyway, after reading all that, especially with the art analogy (paintings), I have to ask... so... is asking for photo critique effective? I mean, since everyone has their own style and clearly people like different things, if you've got your own style of photography, should you really take the advice of someone who critiques your photo?

If it's agreed that photo merits are a subjective set of judgements, photo critiques only make sense when there's a group of photographers and their critics who all agree on the (subjective) criteria that are legitimate in judging photos good, bad or at some location along the spectrum between the two.

In effect, this is what happens in camera clubs (a very small group) and in the readership of the mass media (a very large group). These culturally-aligned groups can meaningfully criticise photos as they share the "rules" for doing so. Even then, however, disputes can arise when "the rules" are not fully agreed and/or inchoate.

This is what happens in all social groupings, large and small. Sometimes the rules for differentiating the good from the bad are formal (as in the legal codes of a democracy) and sometimes informal (as in the rules of etiquette when being a street photographer in Madrid or a member of The Preston Wheelers cycling club riding the public roads).

In large interwebby places like DPR, things become confused. There are numerous "rules" and sets of criteria for judging photos good or bad. This is a place where many nations and cultures participate. Many of the good-bad photo rule-sets encountered in such a diverse or multicultural place are contradictory or orthogonal to each other. Before asking for a critique, you therefore need to understand (or even delimit) the photo-cultures and rule-sets from which you will accept criticism as legitimate.

****

If you're claiming to be "a photographer-artist", it's likely that you'll believe yourself to have a unique "vision" and as a consequence you'll find no one's critique of any genuine value. ....... Although if enough people say "ugh" and no one says "oooh" you may find that of some help in re-evaluating your artistic delusions.

SirLataxe

 

[Kung Fu]

...When it gets extreme it makes me think - what is wrong with those people and hope that homeland security is tracking them.

What a bizarre comment. I thought we were talking about photography here. What are you talking about?

 

[Michael Firstlight]

...When it gets extreme it makes me think - what is wrong with those people and hope that homeland security is tracking them.

What a bizarre comment. I thought we were talking about photography here. What are you talking about?

And my point is proven.

 

[David Pavlich]

I've read all the replies, and have come across some really great comments. Anyway, after reading all that, especially with the art analogy (paintings), I have to ask... so... is asking for photo critique effective? I mean, since everyone has their own style and clearly people like different things, if you've got your own style of photography, should you really take the advice of someone who critiques your photo?

Or is that just a whole other topic, that is sort of a middle-meet? You keep your own style, but improve on some technical aspects to make it more interesting/ appealing to the viewer?

Where critiques can help is the technical side, for the most part. For the artistic side, it becomes "subjective". ;-) But, regardless of the nature of the critique, many times there can be something that you hadn't thought of or noticed that will improve your work. And, you have to have a thick skin at times.

David

 

[Kung Fu]

...When it gets extreme it makes me think - what is wrong with those people and hope that homeland security is tracking them.

What a bizarre comment. I thought we were talking about photography here. What are you talking about?

And my point is proven.

What point? That if you write an opinion on the internet someone may disagree with you, and if they do they have mental problems and should be tracked by homeland security? Are you serious? Get over yourself.

If you want to post opinions and experiences online, and be free of differing opinions and comments on them, start a blog.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

...When it gets extreme it makes me think - what is wrong with those people and hope that homeland security is tracking them.

What a bizarre comment. I thought we were talking about photography here. What are you talking about?

And my point is proven.

What point? That if you write an opinion on the internet someone may disagree with you, and if they do they have mental problems and should be tracked by homeland security? Are you serious? Get over yourself.

If you want to post opinions and experiences online, and be free of differing opinions and comments on them, start a blog.

Since you need to have the last word, have at it.

 

[rochester21]

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.

I hate modernism too, but not nearly as much as postmodernism. Both currents involve the arts as well. It`s just that postmodern art looks more like compacted trash or ink blots on white paper. By comparison, impressionism still produced decent paint works.

It`s an extensive subject, so i`m not going into details. Let`s face it, even literature sucks today. If the Harry Potter books or Paulo Coelho are representative for the end of the 20st century and the beginning of the 21st century, then it`s safe to assume that things are going downhill fast.

Come on, even movies made today suck. "Avatar", "the Matrix", "the Hangover" ?? Let us not mention theatrical productions.

As far as photography goes, i do see a lot of photographers making money off photos of poor people, which they track across the globe. Another option, of course, is to do "fashion fotography", where young girls are dressed up like Chucky`s bride and being treated like part cattle, part sex toys. In the meantime, everybody proclaims the liberation of women in the west from the tyrannical patriarhal society model, when reality clearly contradicts any such claims.

 

[SpiltMilk]

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 often my thoughts when I look through a painting exhibition.

10% "wow that IS nice".... 20% "yeah, I kinda like that"

60% "How the hell did this ever get exhi8bition space!!??"
10% "They should have burnt the canvas rather than let any other living thing see it".

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

There was a UK wide WATERCOLOUR competition by some Art Academy...

And the £30 000 (I think, or was it £10k?) winner was....

An ACRYLIC painting.

(And some of the comments were "did they own him some money then? And they dare not show it on the books?"... Many (many many) were about "No, Acrylic is water BASED, not Watercolour!!)

That's why i don't bother with these things.

If an Art Academy doesn't know the difference between Acrylic and Watercolour, when hope does the moron-on-the-street?

--
Lee Jay

 

[Midwest]

And the range of tastes each person has differs, too. It is less good/bad than like/dislike.

Totally agree.

I see scads of photos on here that I won't look at for more than a second. ANOTHER "fluffy" waterfall. ANOTHER flower. ANOTHER bug face. ANOTHER sunset.

Yet some people enjoy those, which is no skin off my nose.

Several years ago I entered a photo contest at my local county fair - a shot I thought (and still do think) was really good. It didn't win - I never expect to win, but I was disappointed to not get at least an honorable mention. In fact, I found it in a pile on the 'entries' table amidst the other also-rans. Yet in the brief time I was there looking over the winning entries posted on the wall (including b/w pics of an empty locust shell, a traffic sign, and a photo of a bench sitting under a tree, zzzz) I overheard two different people looking through the entries pile commenting on my photo that 'this one is really good'.

I decided then that the person who did the photo judging was not someone who was 'into' the kind of photos I like to take, and rather than frustrate myself anymore, I just left the future contests to the photos of benches and bug shells and such.

 

[Midwest]

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.......

For me those things are very important, but the technical aspects even being perfect don't make a photo any good for me if it doesn't reach me as a person. It has to capture an emotion or a moment in some way.