Difference between "good" and "great"

[joe mama]

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I'm not sure if
I've chosen the most appropriate examples to illustrate your
various categories.

Actually, right on the mark!

Thanks for the post!

--joe

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

: )

 

[Toussaint]

Hi Joe,

Here is a small selection of shots I like :

http://www.pbase.com/francist/best_50

francis

 

[joe mama]

Sir,

You are a master of photoshop! The "Towards Oblivion" leaf shot is awesome! My personal choice for a "pure" photograph (as in made to look "real") is "Riva degli Schiavoni". I have a question, though. It appears as though most, if not all, of the pics were shot with the D30 and D60. Yet, some appear sharp, and others not so sharp. I assume this is because you chose not sharpen some in post-processing which others you did. Also, some shots appear grainy (e.g. "Sunset in Antwerpen" -- I know it was ISO 400, but that should still be clean, shouldn't it?), as though it were an intended effect.

So, my question to you is, which of these do you choose as the best of the group in terms of "technical merit", "composition", and "emotional appeal" (although the "Towards Oblivion" adds a new category -- "Photoshop expertise"!) and do you place any value on this. Or are they all just photographs, none any less or any more than another?

Anyway, nice gallery!

--joe

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

: )

 

[Ed Leys20479]

I shouldn't be interceding....maybe I'll be more loquacious when I have the time I don't have right now.

But let me say this...

Mark, you're doing pretty good. I think you have some perspective to you, and I may need to comment no further on what you've so far said. Though I think I have another important quality to add to your list.

Joe? With all due respect, some of your responses to Mark are driving me up the wall. Otherwise I'd be saying nothing. Perhaps I shouldn't even say this, however, since I don't know when or if I'll get the time...

Sure, this is your thread, I spoze you can define "great" and "greatness" in it however you want. But. Your definition as expressed in the predecessor to this particular reply is coming off kinda cheap and superficial, you know. That doesn't mean that I have any particular definition in mind for the undefinable, but yours is coming off much like lowest common denominator. Just think how profusely photographs printed on velvet would sell...

My best,

Ed

--
http://www.blackmallard.com/o_barn/
One Barn

 

[Toussaint]

Sir,

You are a master of photoshop! The "Towards Oblivion" leaf shot is
awesome! My personal choice for a "pure" photograph (as in made to
look "real") is "Riva degli Schiavoni". I have a question, though.
It appears as though most, if not all, of the pics were shot with
the D30 and D60. Yet, some appear sharp, and others not so sharp.
I assume this is because you chose not sharpen some in
post-processing which others you did. Also, some shots appear
grainy (e.g. "Sunset in Antwerpen" -- I know it was ISO 400, but
that should still be clean, shouldn't it?), as though it were an
intended effect.

So, my question to you is, which of these do you choose as the best
of the group in terms of "technical merit", "composition", and
"emotional appeal" (although the "Towards Oblivion" adds a new
category -- "Photoshop expertise"!) and do you place any value on
this. Or are they all just photographs, none any less or any more
than another?

Anyway, nice gallery!

--joe

Thanks for these nice comments, Joe,

It is difficult for me to choose pictures on the basis of your criteria ( Technical, composition, emotional appeal)...I hope each of them fits in all 3 categories. If I must make a selection, this early in the morning, I would elect these 3 images:

Technical merit

Combination of 2 night shots of Paris landmarks ( Le Louvre and L'Institut de France) to create a virtual new "dream land"
Focal Length 16 mm
Exposure Time 8.00 sec
Aperture f/6.7
ISO Equivalent 100



Composition and color
Shot handheld in the Louvre
Focal Length 20 mm
Exposure Time 1/45 sec
Aperture f/2.5
ISO Equivalent 800



Emotional appeal

Technically not very good, but appealing because of the juxtaposition of the 2 couples in different stages of their life

 

[Tomrok]

First, I want to apologize to you. I got a wrong impression about your thread. Something (I'm not even sure exactly what) appeared similar to a few "troll" threads I've seen in one of the other forums. You are not a troll. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I believe you really are searching. (see my message below the pics)







I don't know if I can help, but I'll try by not quibbling about stuff that shouldn't really matter to anyone enjoying their hobby.

At 640 x 480, all cameras are pretty much equal, no?

You said it better than I tried to. I don't see how anyone can tell which camera to buy based on what is posted on the Internet.

"technical merit", composition, emotional impact. What I wish to know is how people value each of these three categories.

What ARE the qualities that make a picture appealing to the majority of people? Is it the three categories you mentioned, or something else? I know what happens to me when I find a picture appealing – emotional impact above all. It has it or it doesn't. The other two might play a part in the appeal, but I'm not as conscious of it as the initial emotional attraction.

Just a little bit more about emotional attraction. Do NOT take this as a put down – please. I looked at your galleries and saw some really nice scenic eye-pleasing shots. But they did not have the emotional impact that a few others had that evening (other posters). Why some and not others? I don't know. I'm sure people can say the same about my posted images, too. So, what is that special quality that might even transcend the "by-the-book" correctness of what should be a – yes – great shot?

I'll be fair and post three of my favorites. They might not be technically the best, but as far as specific categories (at least for two of them) . . . it's composition for me when I shoot. The first one is a composite. The third one has the emotional quality because of the image itself and the story behind it.

Finally, my worst time spent photographing was when I tried what I thought would be "right thing" when taking a picture. I kept wondering if anyone would like this or that attempt. I could not understand why I kept failing to take a good picture. Most of what I did then were snapshots. Why? Maybe because I was doing it without heart. I think that's the difference now, more than anything else. What was part of the liberating process? A book I recommend all the time – "The Art of Seeing" by Derek Doeffinger. Something he said triggered something in me. I started taking pictures for myself, and I think it led to seeing, not just with my eyes but with my heart. This is the advice I've given beginners and others, too:

Be true to yourself no matter what you choose to photograph. Do it for the love of it. Discover what photography means to you, not what somebody else tells you what it's supposed to mean. Pursue what appeals to your heart and do it with heart.

Anyway . . . I really hope you find your own photographic vision if you haven't already. Photography can be the most enjoyable experience when you love it for its own sake no matter what kinds of pictures you take – good or bad – and it really won't matter what anyone else thinks because you are having a great time doing what you love doing.
--
Tom
Photography – you gotta love it. All kinds of flavors and enough
for everyone.

 

[Grayhair]

To my eye virtually all of Toiussaint's pics would be rated excellent to great in the technical and composition categories, at the very least. As for emotion, I can react strongly to pictures without any apparent emotional content, but I understand we are describing some more or less universaql human quality to pictures.

Setting aside philosophy, can you, Touissaint, reveal some of the craft that produces such outstanding images? It's clear that the first 2 rules are

1. Spend a lot of time in Paris

2. Have Touissant set up your camera and frame the picture

What else? How much of the finished product is photoshop as a general rule in your photography, for example, in "Beneton Venition Colors" vs. "Relaxing in the sun..."? How long do you take to set up for a typical landscape picture? etc

Hi Joe,

Here is a small selection of shots I like :

http://www.pbase.com/francist/best_50

francis

 

[Mark_A]

I can't imagine a forum rife with DSLR owners will ever be jealous
of the quality of a digital Elph photo (esp. at 640 x 480), but

Hi Christopher,
That point above I would forget about in this samples forum.
That dslrs can produce large detailed files is of no use for the internet.

For me, in here it is not about who has the biggest memory card, longest lense or most expensive gadget with the best brand name. Its about people and their pictures.

Choices as to camera settings, point of viewing the scene and other composition issues are the same whatever camera anyone is using, even film, and then for processing and presentation for the net the issues are the same again for users of any camera (excepting a developing and then scanning step for film users who are working semi-digital)

The most recent galleries I have seen from here which impressed me the most were shot with a prosumer camera and the pictures in that are more inspiring to me than most of the galleries I have seen from here shot with slr cameras.

Good to see your posting in samples you would be most welcome to stick around and post lots more

http://www.pbase.com/image/15170949

is not an image that I would have seen let alone taken whatever camera I had with me.

http://www.pbase.com/image/15097477

is a very nice composition that I think breaks the boring rules in a very attractive way, I would like to see it a little sharper..

and the last one well ... its unusual to say the least

--
Mark

 

[Mark_A]

joe mama wrote:

Again, I'm at a loss for what is meant here. I'll take a stab, though. I would think that there is no way a 2 MP camera can compare to a DSLR in the "technical". As for film being of higher "technical" merit, again, that depends on the resolution it is viewed at and how good the scanning was. At 640 x 480, all cameras are pretty much equal, no?

Hi Joe

I am getting a little more interested in your discussion. Like Tomrok I suspected you of being a troll but am instead liking the points made on many fronts

In my humble opinion the differences between a picture taken with a prosumer or digital slr at web resolutions can I agree be small or non existant but where I differ is they can also be subtle and still include significant enough reasons for someone to justify why they spent their money on one rather than another or both.

To expand just a touch, there are many lense effects available to slrs which are much harder to replicate with many prosumers. An example is the shallow depth of field on this pic..



Achieved at a 400mm focal length at f5.6 on a dslr and decent distance in yards behind the subject to the bg. This effect is very very easy to produce cleanly almost any time on my dlsr and is one of the reasons I bought it, but it is an effect that "while possible" requires many more conditions to be "just right" to get anything like this using my prosumer camera.

I think these kinds of effects are clearly visible even at the thumbnail size I posted above .. the difference could be even more marked if comparing digital prosumers to 35mm film slr camera shots reduced to the same web resolutions.

Then there are things that prosumers can easily do which dlsrs cannot so easily achieve, sneaked photos where the presence of a larger camera would have given the game away or photos easily taken only illuminated by flash with no ambient light permitted into the camera, even in bright daylight situations, due to the nature of the shutter mechanism in my dslr it is not possible to synch a flash at high enough speeds to easily achieve this while my prosumer can easily to this at will, anytime .... an excellent reason along with its built in macro capability for me to keep it and keeping enjoying what it does well.

This one was for example fully lit by white bounced and diffused flash sourced light virtually no ambient sunlight got into this picture so that is the neutral colour of this leaf .. easy with my prosumer harder with the other



Re: your pics, the first is striking to me because of the closeup and great detail, as a photograph however, honestly, it does not do that much for me except clearly remind me the resolving power of these great cameras we can play with these days.

Like you Joe I come here to improve my photography from the level where I am now onwards. Thus I now know about this "resolving power" and therefore it, on its own, now is not as impressive for me..

Your second picture is I think a very striking view, one that demands attention and can be looked at for a long time. There is no doubt to me that I could hang it on a wall as a piece of artwork should I have a suitable space compatible with the image, I do think it is a very striking colourful and dynamic photograph.

The third one, as you yourself hint, is I think a much more personal view possibly very important for people with personal links to the child involved,
I think most of us have some of these sort of images of equal importance to us.

Joe you wrote:

"I want to hear others' opinions so that I can produce better photographs. Other people's opinions matter to me. It is not enough that I think an image is good (at least, not all the time!).But, shouldn't a "great" photo have to stand to high standards?"

Ok to the extent that other peoples opinions matter to you, that is why we are all in here. Without exception we could be doing this in our private virtual dark rooms and never showing our pictures to anyone. We could still produce what you are describing as "great pictures" but we would have appreciate them alone. There is a social element in here and we can all "learn together" whatever stage we are at.

I dont think anyone who posts in here actually thinks that they can "only teach" others who are all "below them" , I think most people are enjoying learning as much from the pictures posted by the complete beginner as from some in here who obviously by the very nature of their pictures and the consistency of them have come to know what they are doing and what they like to do.

There is more but its coming in anothe response to you.

--
Mark

 

[joe mama]

Sure, this is your thread, I spoze you can define "great" and
"greatness" in it however you want. But. Your definition as
expressed in the predecessor to this particular reply is coming off
kinda cheap and superficial, you know. That doesn't mean that I
have any particular definition in mind for the undefinable, but
yours is coming off much like lowest common denominator. Just
think how profusely photographs printed on velvet would sell...

I don't mean to say that greatness is entirely based on commercial value (that's why I excluded porn), but commercial value is certainly central. A Picasso is "worth" more than many other paintings as an Ansel Adams photo is "worth" more than other photographs.

I mentioned before that there's a photo gallery here in La Jolla (I forget the photographers name) that features this guys amazing nature photographs. There's a reason a store exisits for his photos and not other nature photographers. I want to know the reason.

Is it because his prints are fantastically detailed and colorful even at 48x20 inches? If so, then greatness would be measured only in terms of technical merit. Are the prints great because of the framing? Then I don't get it -- I see many photographs composed as well. Are they great due to their uniqueness -- lots of polar bear shots and Alaska shots that you don't often see? If so, then I still don't get it, because many different pictures are unique in such a fashion, and, when you think about it, Ansel Adams must be quite common nowadays from that perspective!

Is it a combination of all three, then? If so, then that's what this thread's all about. Or is there something else? That, too, is what this thread is about.

Photography is just a hobby for me -- although there is a commercial side ( http://www.saimport.com ) -- I guess I am a professional! : ) But, it would be cool if at some time in the future I might be able to sell a poster of Antelope Canyon, or Bryce, or Zion, or where ever. At this point there's no way -- the technical side of the G3 is not even close to good enough. But, I want to know if the technical is all that needs to be addressed. Please visit http://www.saimport.com/wallpaper to see a lot of my older shots. They're all reduced in quality and size for the web, but imagine they looked "good" (from a technical standpoint) -- would they sell at poster size? If so, why? In not, why not? What more is needed to be great?

Thanks for responding! Sorry to annoy, but, if you asked my wife, she'd say you're getting off light!

--joe

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

: )

 

[Mark_A]

joe mama wrote:
Joe you wrote

"Not about rules, but money -- that's the bottom line. A great photo will sell to the masses."

No ..I think you need to expand your vocabulary Joe, no offence intended.
Those are "commercially successful images" which is different altogether..

The Athena image of the tennis playing girl scratching her bum is I think a very commercially successful image, it is however a picture of a girls scratching her bum (probably mainly amusing and great looking to western young male viewers eyes it has to be said that is a more influentual reason why it has succeded commercially than anything else about it.

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.

If you made an image like that and never showed it to anyone, it could still be a "great image", the processes of gaining critical acclaim or commercial success are complicated, and can have significant ethical dimensions rather than being "just" about the qualitites of the image or pieces of artwork.

You mentioned music .. let me try a comparitive line ... The work Mozart produced when still a child are [I am no expert, far from it] very complex for someone so young. As such they are quite amazing.

However, commercially they survive today as much less commercially successful entities than the heavily marketed sexually provocitive regularly turned out pop music which is drilled into todays youth markets.

These simple (technically in comparison to mozart) pop songs, make more money per year than mozart ever did and ever will.

BTW I have no evidence to support this line, it is only opinion.

So which is greater ..... mozarts young work or (pick any no 1 from the...) pop bands in the last years? Oh what about Hendrix .. "cross town traffic", just came on my radio .... serious "original material" imho .. great rollercoasters of emotion in his music ..

So ... perhaps its not really possible to make too many statements across these varied sectors of human endeavour unless you are able to be quite specific and categorical .... or unless one wished to be an elitist one way or another as many professional critics I think seem happy to be in these fields

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.

see below for part 2

--
Mark

 

[ken White]

Wow, what a thread this turned out to be.

There is a funny thing about my images. I'm often quite satisfied with the quality of a new photograph for about five minutes. Once this self-delusion subsides I realize that the new image is just slightly better than my previous best effort. I am certainly not in the same league as many of the photographers that post in this forum. My greatest image is always the one that is better than my best previous work. The satisfaction of creating pleasing images and improving my skills is enough for me.

--
kw
http://www.pbase.com/kwhite

 

[Mark_A]

Joe you wrote

"How about some you're just proud of, then, in terms of "technical merit", "composition", and "emotional impact"?"

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 ,

But I feel rather as tomrok did, I am not comfortable to claim any are great in any of these aspects. And it is not as if mine are hard to do .. we are not exactly "brain surgeons" or pioneering peacemakers or human rights campaigners in the phillipines or mountaineers (well not most of us anyhow etc etc (well I am not anyhow

The question I think most important is:
Does an image fulfill its purpose?

Only the person who made it knows this, and if they made it for someone else then this other person or group also know. That is assuming the creator had such a purpose in mind when they made the image and if it meets that objective.

.. if we are improving then hey! "we are improving" !
what else matters ....

How fast we are improving! : )

Well perhaps indeed

Hey we Joe need to get this forum working better I think so we can improve faster I am all for that

you wrote:

"the people putting out money for their photographs might be, and their opinion would matter even more."

I agree to a point, I work in sales and marketing, if you have a target customer (audience) in mind whether commercial or not then their opinions do matter who ever they are especially if you require commercial success to pay your bills, those creators that dont require commercial success are freed of that objective and can lead their own direction, others must follow somewhat behind if they wish at all to follow and tease their audiences along if they wish to move away from simple populism.

My point here I think is that we may all be targetting different audiences here and some none at all, just enjoying what they are doing.

I would as it happens like to get some of the money I spent (on my amateur photo equipment) back from certain potential target customers and I have now a pretty clear idea what I have to do and as part of that what type of images I have to make in order to do that.

I love product development and have now been involved in it doing and learning about it for more than 13 years. I find it a very creative process, like manufacturing, also it does not seem very different from photography, there are some purely ideas issues, some vision, some practical work, some tech issues, energy and enthusiasm required and some cash always helps the wheels stay on.

Making those particular images will be "making a product" pure and simple .. and success in that endeavour will be "measurable in money", thus if you are not my target audience for those it will not matter if you love or hate them, the work could still be "great" because it could still be "fit for its purpose"!!

BTW the quality assurance sort of industry seems to have coined this phrase "fit for purpose" but I think it is a useful one for the discussion we are having here.

Back .. However if I were in the lesser spotted greebewarbler appreciation society my photographic intentions are likely to be very different.....
No lesser or greater, just different and the resulting image therefore also

well it seems to be getting to serious in this text I have been

writing .... what a load of rubbish I wrote .... No worries! If you're an American, you can claim that you're just following your leader's example! : )

Grin ,.... I promised myself to keep off politics in here Joe ... you are tempting me but I am going to keep on keeping my trap shut

Hope you are enjoying this on topic debate you started as much as I am, well done for thinking of posting it and for actually posting in here.....

Dont go back .. Samples is a better forum than wherever you have come from !!!

--
Mark

 

[joe mama]

First, I want to apologize to you. I got a wrong impression about
your thread. Something (I'm not even sure exactly what) appeared
similar to a few "troll" threads I've seen in one of the other
forums. You are not a troll. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I
believe you really are searching.

No worries! : )

If I may say, I find the first two pics posted impressive in compostion and lighting, but lacking in the "technical" department (either the camera or presentation for the web). But, you certainly show the skills of a talented photographer! The last, on the other hand, does nothing for me as the last of the three I posted does nothing for anyone here, either! : )

I don't know if I can help, but I'll try by not quibbling about
stuff that shouldn't really matter to anyone enjoying their hobby.

You know, sometimes quibbling can be entertaining for its own sake. I know you believed me a troll, but I really like lurking through the troll threads that make the most posted list! : )

At 640 x 480, all cameras are pretty much equal, no?

You said it better than I tried to. I don't see how anyone can tell
which camera to buy based on what is posted on the Internet.

At 800x600 and higher, there is a marked difference, though not as marked as the printed image would show. 640x480 is almost always too small, though.

"technical merit", composition, emotional impact. What I wish to know is how people value each of these three categories.

What ARE the qualities that make a picture appealing to the
majority of people? Is it the three categories you mentioned, or
something else? I know what happens to me when I find a picture
appealing – emotional impact above all. It has it or it doesn't.
The other two might play a part in the appeal, but I'm not as
conscious of it as the initial emotional attraction.

THAT is precisely the answer I was looking for!

Just a little bit more about emotional attraction. Do NOT take this
as a put down – please. I looked at your galleries and saw some
really nice scenic eye-pleasing shots. But they did not have the
emotional impact that a few others had that evening (other
posters). Why some and not others? I don't know. I'm sure people
can say the same about my posted images, too. So, what is that
special quality that might even transcend the "by-the-book"
correctness of what should be a – yes – great shot?

A put-down is fine by me (and desired) when accompanied by constructive criticism, as you did (thanks). I'm not sure what would constitute "emotional impact" for nature photographs, perhaps no one does, but yes, that "special quality that might even transcend the 'by-the-book' correctness of what should be a – yes – great shot" is exactly what I am looking for!

I'll be fair and post three of my favorites. They might not be
technically the best, but as far as specific categories (at least
for two of them) . . . it's composition for me when I shoot. The
first one is a composite. The third one has the emotional quality
because of the image itself and the story behind it.

You certainly succeeded here. It's rare that I crop images (no particular reason -- I guess I just like the prints to take up the whole page, I mean, I paid for the whole sheet of paper!), but here's the compositional shot of the "Eyes" pic that did not have even close to the detail as the one I posted: http://www.saimport.com/images/eyes3.jpg

Finally, my worst time spent photographing was when I tried what I
thought would be "right thing" when taking a picture. I kept
wondering if anyone would like this or that attempt. I could not
understand why I kept failing to take a good picture. Most of what
I did then were snapshots. Why? Maybe because I was doing it
without heart. I think that's the difference now, more than
anything else. What was part of the liberating process? A book I
recommend all the time – "The Art of Seeing" by Derek Doeffinger.
Something he said triggered something in me. I started taking
pictures for myself, and I think it led to seeing, not just with my
eyes but with my heart. This is the advice I've given beginners and
others, too:

I see your point, but with a couple of 1 GB microdrives, there's room for both. I often take many slightly different shots of the same scene and just choose the best ones (which, I'm sure, is a common practice). I always tell people that, in some respect, quantity can cover for talent! : )

Be true to yourself no matter what you choose to photograph. Do it
for the love of it. Discover what photography means to you, not
what somebody else tells you what it's supposed to mean. Pursue
what appeals to your heart and do it with heart.

Well, there's the commercial side too! (Visit my rock store, http://www.saimport.com -- but there has to be some love -- it's really not worth all the effort that goes into it!).

Anyway . . . I really hope you find your own photographic vision if
you haven't already. Photography can be the most enjoyable
experience when you love it for its own sake no matter what kinds
of pictures you take – good or bad – and it really won't matter
what anyone else thinks because you are having a great time doing
what you love doing.

It's just that these forums seem like everyone gets patted on the back for what I see as mediocre pictures. Let me give an example of a great pic that I could not have gotten with my camera (I think), would not have thought to take with its composition, and that I learned a lot from:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=4823545

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

Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to respond!

--joe

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

: )

 

[joe mama]

"Not about rules, but money -- that's the bottom line. A great
photo will sell to the masses."

No ..I think you need to expand your vocabulary Joe, no offence
intended.
Those are "commercially successful images" which is different
altogether..

I didn't mean this exactly (although I know I said this -- exactly!), but that this is certainly an important criterion.

The Athena image of the tennis playing girl scratching her bum is I
think a very commercially successful image, it is however a picture
of a girls scratching her bum (probably mainly amusing and great
looking to western young male viewers eyes it has to be said
that is a more influentual reason why it has succeded commercially
than anything else about it.

Hey, I'm a young (well...) western male. Now where's that picture! : )

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.

If you made an image like that and never showed it to anyone, it
could still be a "great image", the processes of gaining critical
acclaim or commercial success are complicated, and can have
significant ethical dimensions rather than being "just" about the
qualitites of the image or pieces of artwork.

Yes, but if you did show it to others, and it was great, they would acknowledge that fact.

You mentioned music .. let me try a comparitive line ... The work
Mozart produced when still a child are [I am no expert, far from
it] very complex for someone so young. As such they are quite
amazing.

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

However, surely greatness is not entirely (or even mostly?) chance, or is it?

However, commercially they survive today as much less commercially
successful entities than the heavily marketed sexually provocitive
regularly turned out pop music which is drilled into todays youth
markets.

I had already discounted porn (although Uwe Ommer's Black Ladies is pure art -- interestingly, his Asian Ladies, which came out later, is not nearly as good!).

These simple (technically in comparison to mozart) pop songs, make
more money per year than mozart ever did and ever will.

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?

BTW I have no evidence to support this line, it is only opinion.

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

So which is greater ..... mozarts young work or (pick any no 1 from
the...) pop bands in the last years? Oh what about Hendrix ..
"cross town traffic", just came on my radio .... serious
"original material" imho .. great rollercoasters of emotion in his
music ..

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.

So ... perhaps its not really possible to make too many statements
across these varied sectors of human endeavour unless you are able
to be quite specific and categorical .... or unless one wished to
be an elitist one way or another as many professional critics I
think seem happy to be in these fields

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

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.

???

see below for part 2

ditto! : )

--joe

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

: )

 

[joe mama]

"How about some you're just proud of, then, in terms of "technical
merit", "composition", and "emotional impact"?"

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!

But I feel rather as tomrok did, I am not comfortable to claim any
are great in any of these aspects. And it is not as if mine are
hard to do .. we are not exactly "brain surgeons" or pioneering
peacemakers or human rights campaigners in the phillipines or
mountaineers (well not most of us anyhow etc etc (well I am not
anyhow

Not a brain surgeon? Then what gives you the right to post at all?! : ) Seriously, I respect your wishes, to be sure, but if you change your mind...

The question I think most important is:
Does an image fulfill its purpose?

Only the person who made it knows this, and if they made it for
someone else then this other person or group also know. That is
assuming the creator had such a purpose in mind when they made the
image and if it meets that objective.

Hmmmm.

Back .. However if I were in the lesser spotted greebewarbler
appreciation society my photographic intentions are likely to be
very different.....
No lesser or greater, just different and the resulting image
therefore also

You too, eh? : ) I see your point, but tend to disagree. A great image will not appeal to only one group. I don't have in mind how many groups it would appeal to, though, and concede that I may well be in error. However, to back my claim, I cite the Hubble Space Telescope as an example. Its most astronomically useful are not the prints that dazzle the public. Yet, aren't the dazzling ones the great ones?

well it seems to be getting to serious in this text I have been

writing .... what a load of rubbish I wrote .... No worries! If you're an American, you can claim that you're just following your leader's example! : )

Grin ,.... I promised myself to keep off politics in here Joe ...
you are tempting me but I am going to keep on keeping my trap shut

The Soviets disappear and look at the results -- expansion of the United States everywhere! (Paraphrased from a Star Trek Next Generation episode, actually!). : )

Hope you are enjoying this on topic debate you started as much as I
am, well done for thinking of posting it and for actually posting
in here.....

No, I just like to type! : )

Dont go back .. Samples is a better forum than wherever you have
come from !!!

Thanks!

--joe

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

: )

 

[Tomrok]

I see your point, but with a couple of 1 GB microdrives, there's
room for both. I often take many slightly different shots of the
same scene and just choose the best ones (which, I'm sure, is a
common practice). I always tell people that, in some respect,
quantity can cover for talent! : )

Heck, sometimesI consider it a good day if I have a few good shots on the card! I have noticed something though. When I shot with film I was more fussy about what I wanted to record. With digital I shoot a lot more and have become a bit sloppy (not as fussy).

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

Well, yes, it seems that way, but I see it as a form of enouragement. On the other hand: what is encouraging about saying something nice if it won't really help the poster to get better? I have to think about it a little more.

Let me give an example
of a great pic that I could not have gotten with my camera (I
think), would not have thought to take with its composition, and
that I learned a lot from:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=4823545

WOW!!! Now THAT is a GREAT shot!!! Not his most popular??? This might be a good example of great not being recognized by the majority. Maybe this isn't the place for it to be appreciated? Not that I'm putting down the folks here, 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. Oops, I've already tripped over myself trying to define what I don't know how to.

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

You are absolutely right and thanks for sharing! You are discerning – and I now mean that as a compliment.

Take care.

Oh yes, before I forget. I'm still a happy owner of a G2. Great little camera.
--
Tom
Photography – you gotta love it. All kinds of flavors and enough
for everyone.

 

[bee1000]

http://www.pbase.com/image/15097477

is a very nice composition that I think breaks the boring rules in
a very attractive way, I would like to see it a little sharper..

This image shows the role that equipment can play in photography. Using a point and shoot camera, I can only choose Macro, Infinity or somewhere-around-the-center-of-the-frame automatic focusing, and have little depth-of-field control. As a result, I couldn't experiment with this scene as much as I will when I have a more flexible camera.

Thanks for the comments.

 

[cecilbdemented]

I tried posting a lengthy post spurred on by the intereting exchange between you and Tomrok but for somereason it didnt come out - probably closed the wrong window before hitting post or something similar - but anyway...the jist...

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.

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.

shoot a lot more and have become a bit sloppy (not as fussy).

As another point of view, with digital I shoot a lot more its true, i also throw away many more shots, however it allows me to get the chance shots that dont look much initially but you later realise the potential through wither a change in views, or manipulation, be it colour conversion/toning, cropping or more drastic.

I guess this is partially down to why you shoot - 'traditional photography' (one shot one kill type principle with only development adjustments if any) or whether you are in for te 'digital experience' and further manipulation.

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.

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.

audience - culture/popular or not... Emotional power also, is ( i presume not having studied phsyc.) based on past experience etc and so based partly on culture. It is also therefore subjective. Although conditioning/massmedia exposing us to similar thing means that some things are prevelent most places adn so theere are excepted images such as war based things - dying civilian children for example. But then this example goes into base emotions - the whole primal thing, instincts an all - again i dont know enough about it...

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...

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

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

 

[cecilbdemented]

I meant to say also,

i think that greatness is personnal. In the first instance it is great to the photographer - even if they think it is great because of others views and they think it will be considered great. It is great to them. And thats what matters. If the 'people's' views have moved on then it is still great.

I think i am leaning towards defining (for myself) greatness as perfect for that instant. Be it when you take it. Review it, or whatever. In context it was great.

What do you think about context? do you believe in timeless and such? (sorry if its in an earlier thread and i missed it). I have trouble when looking back at old (say crimean war, whenever that was - some of the first war photographs), if i consider context - such as equpment available, shooting conditions etc - i can see 'greatness'. But otherwise it isnt.

just thinking out loud...

all the best,
C
--
http://www.philbooks.demon.co.uk