Difference between "good" and "great"

[Mark_A]

The image of the was it Vietnamese or Korean girl fleeing after
having been napalm-ed is one that apparently moved generations &
contributed to significant political changes. It would be a
powerful image, standing alone, even though athena have not
commercialised it on posters for teenagers worldwide.

I don't know if you know, but in one of my posts (perhaps the
initial one) I had said that this picture had the most emotional
impact of any I had ever seen.

For me there are also others .....

For example I was travelling [only a little] as a youth and in Australia, a bunch of other young people were leaving for some weeks in Thailand then on to the big mountains. The mother of one gave them a book, "the life and crimes of xyz" (I cannot remember his name at the moment).

It was about a man who had been praying on hitchikers and backpackers for a number of years in Thailand and other countries. He used amongst other things to drug his victims over days and weeks take their money passports and valuables bit by bit working with various girlfrinds who may or may not have known what was going on ... then eventually he would kill the traveller, dumping them in the countryside sometimes never to be found.

Anyhow the mother gave the book as a warning to be a bit cautious! ... This particular man was at that time in prison serving a long sentence, his crimes having been carried out some years before .. he was due for release shortly .. slightly uneasy feeling but the chances of running into him was low .... there were lots of powerful black and white images I think in that book .. many very nasty indeed ... one stuck in my mind .. an image he, the killer, used to keep in his wallet .. it is also an "infamous image" for different reasons ... a soldier of one of the nasty wars down there proudly holding up two decapitated enemy soldiers heads which he had just removed .......

Among those people in that group of youths, those who read that book and those that just talked about it, this photo had real impact .... one of them met someone who tried to befrend him on his travels in the same way, over time, as this guy in the book ..... he became quite terrified and managed to get home .. scared out of his wits poor chap!!

I do understand that some pictures are great due to their
uniqueness. In fact, my "greatest" photo of all time is for
precisely that reason:
http://www.saimport.com/images/lajollafog.jpg

I remember you posting that in here and liked it .. its a great moment in time that one, you may not see it again like that in your life.

I concede this point, certainly, and modify my original statement
to "a great image will stand the test of time" -- but no such test
is valid unless it was commercially viable at one time, no?

To be honest I am not going to be able to respond with reason without more time to mull over the issues. I think I made some clear points in my answers from this pm. I would have to be sure not to just repeat them.

Too bad -- I, fortunately, have the personal assurance of God that
I am correct! : )

Ah .... which .. no ..

I made a statement earlier that once you enter the "greatness"
arena, ordering becomes absurd. There is some threshold for
greatness, although it is no doubt a very wavy line, but once
crossed, great is great.

There may be some truth in this .

I have a feeling that it is possible to be far more analytical that
merely "greatness is subjective".

If your job was to be a critic I am sure it would be possible to come up with a way or one might loose a salary

Which was fit for its purpose ...
Were any more fit for their purposes than others ?..

If their purposes are not the same, direct comparison becomes
harder and perhaps less valid.

???

Well Joe your ??? concerns me, that argument about fitness for purpose is the one that is the most clear to me ...

So "fitness for purpose" ... I shot a picture of a few fuses recently .. for a specific purpose .. not a complicated objective but a clear one ... it works just as wanted for its purpose so it is great, the need is satisfied.

Simple as that.

--
Mark

 

[Tomrok]

I just remembered a discussion similar to this thread. Read both responses to my message. You might find it interesting.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3676543

--
Tom
Photography – you gotta love it. All kinds of flavors and enough
for everyone.

 

[joe mama]

Greatness is all about popular culture is it not? Technical
excellence can be seen often but people/things are only considered
great if they fit views. this doesnt always happen in an 'artists'
lifetime but it does. Also, if they fit into popular culture they
can influence it (as they develop) and so become 'great' in the
view of history.

I would argue that greatness is not all about popular culture, but it certainly plays a role. The "greater" the image, the more "timeless" it becomes.

What is greatness is a big question and if it does relate to what i
said above it is mostly - if not totally subjective. But then isnt
that how ot should be? or isnt it? I think this is the realm of
philosophers.

Personally, I don't think anything is the exclusive realm of the philosophers. Plato and I would have probably come to blows -- if I thought I could take him! : ) Seriously, I think greatness is not entirely universal, but elements of it are universal enough to have a meaningful discussion on what a great photo is.

The only definitive answer I've gotten in this entire thread on that point is from Tomrok, who claims (please correct me if I misinterpret) that the emotional impact an image makes is far and above the major compenent. To some extent I would have to agree, but, in my opinion, all our notions of democracy, equality, freedom -- in short, right and wrong -- are functions of technology. As such, an image with greater technical skill will have more emotive impact than that same image with less technical skill. That is, by my definition, we should be seeing far more "great" images now than did generations past. As a result, we become more particular about what "great" is, and look back with affection upon past images that would not be considered great had they not been made when they were. In other words, the technological setting helps mdeiate greatness.

It's just that these forums seem like everyone gets patted on the
back for what I see as mediocre pictures.

I think this is true and i am guilty of it no doubt - differint
tastes come in here too), but i think it should be balanced -
encouragement with criticism in moderation, unless it is asked for
in which case a technical criticism in full, and a clearly stated
my taste criticism.
This should satifsfy all but makes it a whole lot more complicated.
I think that if everyone tried to be constructive whilst bieng
aware of peoples feelings it should work.
But then comes in differing styles - some criticise hard/truthfully
whilst others sugar coat, leading to misinterpretations... a tricky
issue.

See, that's the whole issue. I don't want to come of as a d~ck criticizing others photos, nor do I want others do be rude to me. But, I would personally welcome someone saying, "Your photo sucks big time -- here's why..." and tell me exactly what I did wrong. On the other hand, I feel far too timid to do that with regards to others' photos.

I get the feeling that people just want to share, not be critiqued. But even in those posts asking for critiques, I rarely (if ever) see an honest educational critique that makes me think, "Yeah -- I do that too. I gotta watch for that!"

but this may be a type of

image that a different viewing audience might appreciate (but I'm
not really sure). Now, why do I think it's great? I can't tell you
(I never was good at critiquing photos). All I know is it has
emotional power. Maybe it's the dramatic perspective and lighting,
the dark, brooding sky. I get a sense of something about to happen
or to be revealed, but I don't know what.

You are refferring to the image at: http://forums.dpreview.com/ ... ... read.asp?forum=1020&message=4823545

I presume. You know what? If there is any emotional power in this piece, I just plain missed it. I am impressed by the actualy image -- compostion, detail, and color. It is a technical masterpiece (to me) and I would love a print of that on my wall!

That is simply awesome and should fit most anyone's definition of
great -- even when resized for the web!

I see this a great technical shot - with the elements needed and i
see its value as a photo but whilst it is good and would happilly
have it on my wall (and be proud if i took it) it isnt what I
PERSONALLY (just making clear im not dissing the
photo/photographer, not my aim here) would call 'great',
i may be the exception though...

I'd really like to know! I see it ONLY as a great technical shot, yet I consider it "great" -- right along with Ansel Adams. So for me, in this instance, of the three characteristics I mentioned, technical, composition, and emotional; only the first two factor in to make this particular image great to me, yet you and Tomrok see the emotional as the overwhelming guide to "greatness". Interesting.

This post doesnt really go anywhere but these are just some of the
things that struck me when reading this very interesting thread.

Well, honestly, what post does go anywhere? : ) Just a chance to talk and throw around some ideas -- none of us get paid for our time here (if any of you do, please cut me in!).

Anyway, I'm pleased you joined the discussion. Perhaps something will come of it. We shall see!

--joe

--
Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !
Happy G3 owner!

: )

 

[Mark_A]

I am proud to a certain extent of every last image I took which did
not go "direcly to recycle bin" not having passed go ,

How many is that, if you don't mind me asking? I keep all my
photos (easier to buy new hard drives than sort!), but I have to
say that my ratio of great to taken is well, small!

Mine too I would be very lucky to be able honestly to get more than 0.1% (thats not 1% but 0.1%) which I think are great to my critera, good ones are a rather higher proportion and certainly in the %, rather more again when I use a tripod for every shot (not always possible or practical) but its use forces more consideration before each try and results in a significantly improved hit rate for me at any rate.

However this is not the same as usable ... the proportion of images taken which are average but usable for the purpose they were taken is higher than all of these, probably something like 20-30% overall counting shutter clicks against used images. I take a lot of friends and family snaps as well as other things which are often usable quality at small size prints straight from the file, cropped only if requied no other processing, onto CD print in local store and pass to the person concerned. (I have easily 80-150 candid pics of friends and their kids in backlog to print small for people who would like them for fun at this moment)

--
Mark

 

[joe mama]

I would assign the same percentages to my photos!

--joe

--
Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !
Happy G3 owner!

: )

 

[joe mama]

To be honest I am not going to be able to respond with reason
without more time to mull over the issues. I think I made some
clear points in my answers from this pm. I would have to be sure
not to just repeat them.

Kiss your chances of being a politician goodbye! : )

Which was fit for its purpose ...
Were any more fit for their purposes than others ?..

If their purposes are not the same, direct comparison becomes
harder and perhaps less valid.

???

Well Joe your ??? concerns me, that argument about fitness for
purpose is the one that is the most clear to me ...

So "fitness for purpose" ... I shot a picture of a few fuses
recently .. for a specific purpose .. not a complicated objective
but a clear one ... it works just as wanted for its purpose so it
is great, the need is satisfied.

Simple as that.

Tch! If you had just said "fuses" I would have understood completely! : ) Really, though, I now see what you mean. This requires new qualifications for "greatness". Just because a photograph serves its purpose perfectly does not make that image great. Greatness is beyond perfection, if that makes any since.

--joe

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !
Happy G3 owner!

: )

 

[cecilbdemented]

I think the second reply is particularly interesting:

"
To me, there are 3 kinds of photos (with grey areas in between them):

1. one which exhibits the techincal excellence of the photographer or his equipment but has no real impact on its viewers,

2. one which stirs the emotion in its viewers, whether it is joy, sadness or whatever (I call it photo with impact), but perhaps not technically perfect,

3. combination of 1 & 2 above.

(by
Arthur Li )
"

I think this illustrates some things quite well, is te third type true 'greatness'?
And the others good?
or are all of them great?

I have seen works, both photos and others, that have been highly acclaimed (by professional critics) that satisfy only 1 or 2. Equal acclaim has often gone to those that satisfy 3, although i have seen some that are less so as they are too perfect. By this i mean fit the photographic rules - like thirds in composition . But that is another issue...

Would you think that a shot of ones child (say) would fit into the first? They can be a technically great photo that has great power for the photographer/ family but not others?

C
--
http://www.philbooks.demon.co.uk

 

[dave1]

Hi......

What ,in your opinion is a proffesional critic....to me this title dosnt make sence in that what makes such a person, with such a title,qualify in making judgements of a persons view of life,regarding the images he or she presents to the viewer.
Cheers
Dave.......

I think the second reply is particularly interesting:

"
To me, there are 3 kinds of photos (with grey areas in between them):

1. one which exhibits the techincal excellence of the photographer
or his equipment but has no real impact on its viewers,

2. one which stirs the emotion in its viewers, whether it is joy,
sadness or whatever (I call it photo with impact), but perhaps not
technically perfect,

3. combination of 1 & 2 above.

(by
Arthur Li )
"
I think this illustrates some things quite well, is te third type
true 'greatness'?
And the others good?
or are all of them great?

I have seen works, both photos and others, that have been highly
acclaimed (by professional critics) that satisfy only 1 or 2. Equal
acclaim has often gone to those that satisfy 3, although i have
seen some that are less so as they are too perfect. By this i mean
fit the photographic rules - like thirds in composition . But that
is another issue...

Would you think that a shot of ones child (say) would fit into the
first? They can be a technically great photo that has great power
for the photographer/ family but not others?

C
--
http://www.philbooks.demon.co.uk

--
support your local rugby team
http://www.pbase.com/dave1/root

 

[cecilbdemented]

I would argue that greatness is not all about popular culture, but
it certainly plays a role. The "greater" the image, the more
"timeless" it becomes.

and is temporarly timeless due to culture it becomes 'greater'...

Personally, I don't think anything is the exclusive realm of the
philosophers. Plato and I would have probably come to blows -- if
I thought I could take him! : )

I wasnt trying to suggest that - just that at the time of posting my head was melting and i couldnt cope with such a 'deep' issue. I have trouble keeping up with my own mingled thoughts as it is...

...That is, by
my definition, we should be seeing far more "great" images now than
did generations past. As a result, we become more particular about
what "great" is, and look back with affection upon past images that
would not be considered great had they not been made when they
were. In other words, the technological setting helps mdeiate
greatness.

I agree with this - greatness, and whatever defines it - even if emotional, changes with time. Again id say bsed on culture but of course, with other influences.

I don't want to come of as a d~ck
criticizing others photos, nor do I want others do be rude to me.
But, I would personally welcome someone saying, "Your photo sucks
big time -- here's why..." and tell me exactly what I did wrong.
On the other hand, I feel far too timid to do that with regards to
others' photos.

ditto. Its part of the problem with these non-personal communication methods with strangers, you cant convey expressoin tone of voice etc that can make of break a statement. Also, as we dont know each other, largely, personallity quirks or even whether a person is just honest arnt known. This means many of us watch our step to prevent causing offence, but this can have a negative effective on our sriticism. I dont think this is something that can be solved in such a large community.

Unless we just all realise that we should be honest. And trust no-one is actually just bieng rude. Then theres the 'trolls'...

I get the feeling that people just want to share, not be critiqued.
But even in those posts asking for critiques, I rarely (if ever)
see an honest educational critique that makes me think, "Yeah -- I
do that too. I gotta watch for that!"

again i say: ditto. Although i would say some are looking for real critiques. Personally i have maybe one person around me (a friend) who will give me honest replies mostly as he is an artist himself and knows how 'real' responses to someones work helps. So i, for example post for people to lay into them, but also to share, though i agree that the majority or people are simply sharing and looking for validation against people with similar tastes.

Hobbiests looking for greatness? A professional has gallery displays etc, the rest of us has to rely on places like this for 'objective' recognition largely.

I'd really like to know! I see it ONLY as a great technical shot,
yet I consider it "great" -- right along with Ansel Adams. So for
me, in this instance, of the three characteristics I mentioned,
technical, composition, and emotional; only the first two factor in
to make this particular image great to me, yet you and Tomrok see
the emotional as the overwhelming guide to "greatness".
Interesting.

For me, purely technical are great too, though emotion has more of a staying impact i find and so i lean towards that for my definition of great. Its partly as i find it hard to be objective and see the technicallly great as such if i dont like it. Although i try, so i might learn something.
I think for everyone its a balance and persanality accounts for a lot.

Well, honestly, what post does go anywhere? : ) Just a chance to
talk and throw around some ideas -- none of us get paid for our
time here (if any of you do, please cut me in!).

I wish! this wouldnt be a bad living, just doing your hobby at your own pace!

One thing that i think would never make me a good Pro photographer, i couldnt stand doing the same shots again and again. I could do 'art' style photos(what u want, no 'client briefs'), but then its hard to make a living out of that...

C
--
http://www.philbooks.demon.co.uk

 

[cecilbdemented]

What ,in your opinion is a proffesional critic....to me this
title dosnt make sence in that what makes such a person, with such
a title,qualify in making judgements of a persons view of
life,regarding the images he or she presents to the viewer.

I know exactly what u mean. I personelly dont like the whole concept of professional critics for just the reason you state. And all the kind of stuff they come out with - especially regarding 'modern art' astounds me!

I just use the term to describe those who get paid for it and who, in theory, we are supposed to trust.
Personally id rather make up my own mind.

regards,
C
--
http://www.philbooks.demon.co.uk

 

[Tomrok]

1. one which exhibits the techincal excellence of the photographer
or his equipment but has no real impact on its viewers,

2. one which stirs the emotion in its viewers, whether it is joy,
sadness or whatever (I call it photo with impact), but perhaps not
technically perfect,

3. combination of 1 & 2 above.

(by
Arthur Li )

Would you think that a shot of ones child (say) would fit into the
first? They can be a technically great photo that has great power
for the photographer/ family but not others?

I never thought about it. I guess it could possibly fit any of the three categories but with a very narrow or limited appeal.

Maybe there should be a fourth category: Family Shots – good, bad, or in between – they're all masterpieces.

C
--
http://www.philbooks.demon.co.uk

--
Tom
Photography – you gotta love it. All kinds of flavors and enough
for everyone.