Good Vs. Bad Photography

good photography will usually tell a story or you'll at least know what it was or why it was that they took the image. a bad one will be aimless and often cluttered.

a good one will be straight, buildings won't slant, horizons won't drain water down the side for ocean images. bad ones make you seasick.

good ones will have interesting skies that aren't blown out. bad ones have blank skies, and worst ones have totally over exposed skies where the branches are lost in the wash.

a good one will captivate you, pull you in and let you share the experience. if it's a street photo scene its understandable why they took it, using light and shadow to an advantage or its just interesting. a bad one will be totally random. something that you thought was funny but no one else thinks so. often they have images of random people doing random things.

a good one showing vintage will take the time to remove anything that doesn't belong to that period. taking the time to clone out outlet plates, wires, people, reflections, watches, exit signs, description plaques etc. a bad one will ignore most of that, or not even know that they don't go together.

good ones will honor the subject and only show the best of a person. a bad one will make fun of that person and use that as the reason they took the image.

a good food photo will be clean, clear, bright, cluttered with only food related objects. a bad one will be a snap shot of a burger on a table, often overlooking things like lighting, color, background and things like hair on the table.

a good one usually knows how to use their equipment or can make the best use of it, they will spend the time knowing how to use the gear they have and get new things as they need it. they know how to use or clean iso. and bad ones don't. they use cameras that can't handle the light. or depend on software to fix their issues. don't worry i'll fix it all in post.

clutter is usually the biggest issue for many images clutter isn't just garbage cans and truncated people on borders. its things like stomped sand on the beach. or wires on a house, too many other distractions that don't let the eye move around slowly. people's biggest mistake is - they don't see the scene that is in front of them. they see the scene they want or compare it to someone else. one scene of the beach (the one in their head), shows a sunset, a smooth sandy coast and nice waves. and theirs has walked on sand, a washed out sunset, and no waves. but they don't see that.

the bad ones usually don't bother looking at the screen in the back. if the sky isn't orange on the screen, but is instead white, your not saving that sky, do it again.

a good pano is interesting and doesn't have ghosts. a bad one has poor overlaps and is very much haunted.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Good photography requires no excuses or explanation.

Bad photography includes "I couldn't...", "Sorry for the...", "If there was...", "I didn't...", "If only my camera were....", "If I went back, I'd..."


Edward M. Fielding
www.edwardfielding.com


“You are responsible for every part of your image, even the parts you’re not interested in.” – Jay Maisel

Good photography is the photography that sells.

I photograph as a means to an end...the end being the finished painting that I used the photo for. Any photographer worth their salt would have a long list of my photographing faults, and rightly so, but for me there are elements that are the most important and these are;

Light...good strong light, sunlight not necessary

A good element of detail and clarity

Other than that, I'm pretty happy with my shots...and therein is the difference...mine are 'shots'...Edward, yours are proper photo's!

Thanks Edward and Mike! This is very informative and helpful to all ! Leaves the good/bad photographer something to think about. Encourages and provides constructive criticism and advice for anyone interesting in understanding the difference between what is good and what is bad photography. Worth printing out and reading more than once.

Thanks Quita but lets keep the discussion on good vs bad photography - not good/bad photographer. We all can find ways to improve. One of the biggest steps a photographer can take to improve their photography is to be able to recognize good work and start analyzing why it is good.

.....

“Every picture should have a place you can go, a home, a climax.” – Jay Maisel

Would you say Edward, that photograhers are getting technically better, or that maybe there is a lot of reliance on editing programmes to make their photographs better? I know one can't edit a blurred image so it's razor sharp, but, for eaxample composition can be adjusted...

Wow. Thanks, guys. What a great list. Could be combined, bullet-pointed and presented as an infographic.

I am mentoring an old friend, whom I haven't seen in three decades. I gave him some coaching with his first Minolta those three decades ago and he has since become quite accomplished. His main "flaw" (when we reconnected a couple months ago) is that his oceans were "draining" in almost every shot. I have always been a stickler for level horizons and buildings not in danger of falling over. He now understands and always corrects his shots.

I have always been one to find a good position to capture a shot. I'm including an example here only to illustrate that. In this Queponco Station shot I actually had my *ss sitting in a ditch beside the roadbed to make the tracks integral to the scene. :)



------------------------------------
~ Bill
~ US Pictures .com

All good points mentioned. To add to it I'll say "good" and "bad" photography is also (as the old saying goes) in the eyes of the beholder.

Lara - As far as photographers are getting technically better/using editing software. This hasn't changed since the birth of photography. Cropping, dodging, burning etc have always been used to improve a photograph. Photoshop makes it easier to clone out distracting elements/fix perspective etc.

But there is difference between throwing a filter on a bad photograph hoping to make it better and a photographer with a vision of the final image before the shutter is pressed.

Having the technical skills honed to the point that you can achieve your final vision is when the photographer becomes an artist. As Ansel Adams famously stated - "You don't take a photograph, you make it."

Composition can be improved with cropping but you have to know when and why to do it. You have to study composition and develop your vision to see it so you know what will make a compelling composition.

Just pointing your camera at a scene and hoping for the best isn't exactly what I'd call fine art.

Ed,
Speaking from one painter's perspective, the important part of my process as an abstract expressionist is also subtraction....mebbe that's why taking photographs works for me as well...

Good point Marlene.

A painter typically starts with a blank canvas and then adds to it. The old saying is the artist knows when to stop. In photography you typically start with a full "canvas" and then look for ways to subtract.

But there are certainly exceptions. Still life photography for example could be considered more like a painting where you create the scene and manipulate the elements.

Your construction site abstracts are a good example of finding a subject within the overall scene - subtracting down to your final abstract.

bad photography relies on filters to get it to look right. there is nothing wrong with tweaking it, or adding some stuff, but there is only so much frosting you can put on a cake that was burned.

bad photography - you can't make up excuses. if it was cloudy, use it to your advantage. if it was snowing the same thing. if there was nothing to shoot - don't shoot anything. wait until its better.

really good photography is very hard. knowing where to be, and shooting it requires patience, skill and luck. it also needs an eye to know when to shoot it. i know of people that scout locations, bring props with certain colors - chairs, boats and other things. they scout a location, set up a camp site, wake up at an ungodly hour. just to shoot the first rays of light in a nice spot. the scene looks nice, they know what to do and how to shoot it.

a bad one is to show up in the middle of the day with harsh sun, or worse on an over cast day, and expect the same results.

a good photographer will go out of their way to make it unique, waking up at an odd time is a side point. to hike out in the mountains, get onto glaciers, and doing things A LOT out of the way to get something new and different is what places people into groups. a bad photographer won't leave the sidewalk if there is a tree in the way. they may not even see it. they won't notice the trash on the beach. or the cloudless sky, or the homeless guy smoking reefer against the peer. and sometimes stupidly says so in the comments - i didn't even see that guy over there when i shot it.

capturing a moment is hard to do and that's what makes something good, vs something EH. people on their phones and tablets shooting pictures probably will never have a nice looking shot because they can't see their surroundings when they are shooting.

a good photographer will know how to fix a scene even if its all in editing later on. i for example, go on trips and shoot in the middle of the day and don't get the late day shots due to timing. but i make do with it. you can figure out how to make the image work for you, with the stuff you carry.

people with an eye will get better as they shoot things. if you don't have the eye, then you will never get better no matter how long you shoot. and for those that don't know what the "eye" is, or if your wondering if you have it - you probably don't.

if you have the eye you can quickly see if someone has a consistent style and depending how good the eye is - you can see if it will sell or not, just by looking.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

great example, Ed, all I do is crop....I try to do the initial cropping at the scene and final adjustments on the computer.
Haley Joel saw dead people. I see abstracts. everywhere.

a good photographer knows how to crop in camera and to set up a scene when they shoot it, to eliminate as many distractions as they can. or at least knows how to align things so they are easy to remove. like lining up a pole in the center of brick and not on the length of it or over windows. lining a person up as they walk in front of a sign.

also to note, and something that i still run into, avoiding odd reflections or shadows. i never notice the shadows on things when i shoot stuff.

a good one will try new unique angles. getting low to the ground or getting over fence or through the bars to get the shot. bad ones won't even lift the blinds to shoot through a window.

also bad ones won't take the time to remove finger prints or dirt from things. i make it a point to actually clean a window if i'm shooting through one, i have a cloth in my bag meant for that purpose. i almost broke a window that was a little too flexible...

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

When it comes to any kind of art, I have my difficulties with the terms "good" and "bad".

You have a good point, Mike. I was in a photography club several years ago, and there was one member who's photos were, well, not even "snap shot" quality. In the two years I was in that club, his photography didn't improve one bit. He was the perpetual bad photographer.

I was once a bad photographer (shut up, Mike LOL). Now I consider myself a good photographer and sometimes, on the rare occasion, when everything is right, a really good photographer.

Trying for the "really good" all the time now. That's why I'm posting less and less and have deleted about 500 images since I started here.

It's interesting to look at someone's portfolio and immediately recognize their major flaws. Like the subject always being smack in the middle of the image....

I think photography can be categorized as "good" and "bad" sometimes the rules can be broken, generally like all art even though we have our favorite styles there is bad composition and good composition, an example would be the end of style periods when design is often not up to par with the earlier part of the period and becomes overdone and complicated, an example would be the end of the Victorian or Rococo period, over the top and crowded when you look at rooms and some art.

Part of good photography is recognizing the potential of a photograph, then creating your vision with it I think.



Also, I recommend a 50mm prime to beginners - which is usually the opposite of what others recommend. That lens (and pretty much any prime) will force you to get up and move to get the image you want, rather than relying on the zoom.

i like the before shot better btw.

primes are nice, but you need god powers to stand on water. i've always used a zoom. but prime quality will just blow you away in clarity. i really should either get a new one or repair what i have.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Good photography starts with good light. In good light any subject looks great. Bad photography is often the result of a good subject not lit in an interesting way. Good photographers can change the light or how they use it. They like to work in great light but can adapt to the situation.

Good photography starts with a clear vision in the mind. Then it may take seconds or years to find and make that photograph. Bad photography just points and hopes for a good shot.

Good photographers control their depth of field and shutter speed to achieve the desired results. Bad photography is often the result of handing over control to the camera.

"i like the before shot better btw."


Ditto.

A word about Zooms:

I was lucky enough to have been born before zoom lenses were even used on TV cameras, so we had to work with 4 lenses and know, without looking, which lens would give us the right framing for a particular shot, whether it was talking heads in the studio, or the quarterback in a football game.

Today I use a zoom lens on my DSLR, but I still must place myself in the right position before taking the shot, and I know what part of the zoom I am using.

Zoom out too wide and the subject is distorted. Zoom in too much and the scene is flattened.

I'm afraid most people today have no idea why their photographs look "strange," but it probably is because they are relying on their zoom to get the picture instead of their eye and their knowledge of lenses.

- ChuckStaley.com

Good discussion that I'm following with interest.

Heather really great control of PS.

PS I think?

Some very good work .Congrats on getting that licensing deal. I was working behind the scenes on that one, but
you beat me to it.

I like the warmer after work.

Chuck, I am no photographer, but I know good info on design elements when I take them in, thanks.

Dave

The funny thing is that I don't even particularly like my best selling photos - though they were always intended to be utilitarian rather than being artistic. The photo I regard as my best has never been bought by anybody other than me (it hangs in my daughter's lounge), it is this one:

Paul consider the audience. We are selling to the mass market here on FAA. Its not a like a high end gallery in NYC. Pop culture seems to be the biggest sellers.

The stuff I sell here to pay the bills I wouldn't necessarily choose to show at a gallery.

Good photography is clear and to the point - Rarely

Good photography is purposeful - So is Aunt Martha's vacation snap shots

Good photography isn't boring. - subjective
’Move your ass.’” – Jay Maisel - If you want to take pictures like he does, yes. If you want to create, you don't have to go anywhere.

Good photography shows consistency. - Ansel Adams had a bunch that were considered good for then, but if I posted them today you would judge them bad.

Good photography evokes an emotional response. Good photography grabs you deeply. Bad photography makes you wonder what attracted the photographers attention in the first place. - That's not photography, that's art.

Good photography is selecting only the best to show. - Of your own work, very true.
Bad photography is lulling you to sleep with every shot off the camera - Might exite others.

Good photography makes you want to be there, bad photography shows you places to avoid - I don't want to go to antarctica so if I see a picture of it, its bad...?


Good photography shows the photographer got up early, stayed out late, has their camera with them always. Bad photography is the camera dusted off for vacation. - A better statement would be, A good PHOTOGRAPHER has to work hard to get many good shots.

Good photography brings back a few great shots on every outing. Bad photography is the lucky shot - A good PHOTOGRAPHER brings back a few great shots.

Good photography is a unique vision. Bad photography is being satisfied with the same shot everyone else gets. - A good PHOTOGRAPHER has a unique vision, a bad critic is satisfied easily.

Good photography shows you something you never saw before or makes you stop and see something you've walked by a thousand times without even noticing. Bad photography shows you what you've seen a thousand times before. - Edward M. Fielding - www.edwardfielding.com

WHAT SAY YOU? - YOU ASK, SO I SAY...You can't please everybody so you got to please yourself

Thanks for the feedback Robert. This one stumps me:

"That's not photography, that's art. " - I find this curious on a fine art site.

As far as pleasing one self, I find it helpful to continually question one's own work and always strive to be better.

Good point, Edward.

I feel that the subject matter determines whether a photograph is good or bad.

Not film vs. digital, good lighting vs. bad lighting, all that stuff.

Does the work grab your attention in some way and make you stop whatever you are doing and go... WOW!

-- ChuckStaley.com

I've seen plenty of bad photos of the Grand Canyon. And I know this because I've also seen outstanding photos of the Grand Canyon and hold them in that organic hard drive inside my skull.

Edward Weston could do more with a pepper than some people can do with Yosemite.

Thanks Ed - Good photography evokes an emotional response. Good photography grabs you deeply. Bad photography makes you wonder what attracted the photographers attention in the first place - Photography is the method, the end product is art. Its OK to wonder if the photographer achieved what he intended if you do not think its your taste, but to deem it bad work would be up to the one who created it, I'd think. There are lots of technically bad photos that people call art, (especially in the genre of Pop Art) that hang in museums but they evoked something from someone. Wedding photography is a great example of technically great photo, but those who get an emotional response or grabbed deeply are few, yet someone pays lots of money for it and there is an art process to create a custom image.

True. I should change that to "PLUS the lighting, editing, and whatever makes a good photograph better."

Edit: Weston certainly knew his way around toilets.

Funny you should mention Weston's peppers, Ed, this whimsical nod to his studies provided my biggest sale here so far:

"I believe that photography at its best is an Art, and photo-technique is but a means to an end: the creation of the picture. Today, even a fool can learn to operate any of our modern foolproof cameras, and produce technically perfect pictures -- but is this knowledge really all he needs for taking purposeful and pictorially exciting photographs? Naturally, as in any other art, there are artists and there are dabblers. If photography really were nothing but the simple and purely mechanical reproduction process the majority of people still think it is, why are there so many dull and meaningless photographs around?" - Andreas Feininger (1906-1999)

Wedding photography is a good example of bad vs. good. Surely we can agree that there is a quality difference that people can see and are willing to pay for between the $200 photographer and the $10,000 photographer.

Good reasoning Edward, your answers are thoughtful and show you have studied the subject. For a painting an example of good vs. bad, I've been wanting to say this for some months when a painting of Thomas Kinkaide showed up here in the discussions and it was lauded by some. I get an uncomfortable feeling when viewing his work. It fights with anything you put with it, there is a sameness with brush strokes and shapes showing detail on everything. A lot like the late crowded Victorian interiors, overwhelming. The same is true with photography, if there is no depth in an image (with some things out of focus) there is usually too much detai,l unless it is a macro or a scenic.

His brushwork is technically good, he could put the paint where he wanted to and control the brush to make the object but design wise is overdone and busy, so many little flowers, blades of grass all the same size. Try putting it with other things and the design competes with with whatever you put it with unless it is a large blank wall! No fine art programs on the university level will ever show his work except on a popular culture level.

There are standards for advertising and graphic design (line and design). Studies have shown if there is too much design it keeps viewers from reading or staying on the page, they become overwhelmed and loose interest.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water because there is always going to be mediocre work thought of as good by some groups. I'm not talking about art just for the sake of being different or shocking, I'm only talking about good design, composition. Someone wealthy buying art that is expensive does not necessarily make it good, it can be trendy and increase in value for a generation but may not prove to be for the next generation.

You can like whatever you want but like Marlene said if you don't know what makes it good then you are at risk of liking anything. At least I am giving standards of people that have studied art and design. I believe we are made with the potential to be excellent, in order to accomplish that we need to know that it is!

The Master of Light always had light emulating from things in an unearthly way. Thousands of mysterious light sources. Certainly not realistic. But pretty colors and shiny things seem to attract a lot of people.

.....

The $200 wedding photographer rushes into the photo club all excited. "Guess what fellas, I'm booked solid for next year! 50 weddings with two weeks off for vacation!"

The $10,000 a wedding photographer just smiles and says "Congratulations, here let me buy you a beer"

....

The thing is when someone hires the $200 guy they are basically just covering their butts in case Uncle Floyd and Brother Jimmy Bob's cell phone batteries die. The $200 guy has it easy. All he has to do is deliver low quality images. If anyone complains, he'll just say, well then maybe you should have hired the "expensive" guy. Not my fault you went with the low ball photographer.

The $10,000 guy on the other hand has to be good because expectations are high.

“If you have not developed a value system to discern good from bad, then by default you must think any photograph is good.”

Not at all, Ed. The point is that my view of a good---or bad---photograph often differs from the views of others.

I used to love to watch Siskel and Ebert. They often disagreed strongly.

The whole point of my comments relate to the fact that there are those that would compile a list of criteria that must be met in order for a photography to be judged as either good or bad.

I find that presumptuous.

“Good photography is clear and to the point - Rarely”

“Good photography is purposeful - So is Aunt Martha's vacation snap shots”

“Good photography isn't boring. - subjective”

Thank you, Robert Frederick!

Suzanne,
I have enjoyed reading your thoughtful comments. ;)

@Walter - very good points. Good & bad are completely subjective when it comes to art. imo.

Suzanne - The reason you feel uneasy about a Kincaide is its not very often that he did his own work. He was known for "manufactured" paintings, ie one person painted the buildings, another the lights, another the trees, etc. in Kincaide's style. I find his stuff offensive, but my wife loves the one print I bought her years ago at the mall - He was a great salesman though and I could learn from that.
And thank you, Walter Holland

Suzanne - The reason you feel uneasy about a Kincaide is its not very often that he did his own work. He was known for "manufactured" paintings, ie one person painted the buildings, another the lights, another the trees, etc. in Kincaide's style. I find his stuff offensive, but my wife loves the one print I bought her years ago at the mall - He was a great salesman though and I could learn from that.
And thank you, Walter Holland

Thank you Marlene.

Yes Edward, a Kinkaide has light sources coming from many different sources can be overwhelming, your eye can't settle anywhere.

Many of the great masters had others painting for them. Whoever painted for Kinkaide painted what he would have painted, in his style and only with his approval. Can anyone tell the difference, which is Kinkaide or others? Probably not.

I-Stock owned by Getty Images, one of the largest stock companies in the world have a training manual on their website, uses the golden thirds as their standard for photography composition to educate potential entry level photographers. Try not using it and see how many photos get their approval! There has to be a standard or they would be wasting their time and the photographers.

Heather's photography examples above with the lantern as the main subject is an example of this. Most photography or fine art uses this system, not all but most. Look in any gallery at FAA, most established photographers will use this system in their composition.

I'll continue my thoughts on good vs. bad. Pick each point apart and believe you there is no bad vs good all you want. How one would improve with that kind of attitude is beyond me.
....

So after spending a blitz trip to New York yesterday (5 hours down, eight hours in Manhattan, 5 hours on the bus back) I'll make this statement from my experience.

Good photography comes after knowing a place when the excitement of somewhere new calms down then mind focuses on seeing.

Blurry eyed and suffering sensory overload in the first few hours of arriving in NYC, I took nothing worthwhile. Nothing more than a series of snapshots. It wasn't until late afternoon that I felt I had started to be comfortable in the space and I started seeing worthy while compositions.

Tony Stone one of the pioneers of stock photography suggests when some visits a new area to spend the first day without a camera, simply soaking in the sense of the place and starting to see the possibilities with their organic camera.

The answer to that question, Ed, is " you don't improve."
I'm flip flopping between this thread and the other by Dean on maybe our art just isn't good enough...
It always come back to the same thing....you must learn to critique your own work to improve and then you have skills to realize ( duh) that there are parameters for what is good and what is not, whether one who feels he is free of judging ( puleeze) wants to admit it or not.
Our customers are judging...keep that in mind!

“Pick each point apart and believe you there is no bad vs good all you want.”

Sorry, Ed. I will not again blame myself for my own inarticulate expression.

All I may do now is invite you to read---very carefully---my previously comments.

For now, I am done with this thread. I have no desire to have to repeat myself when one continues to disregard the point I have tried to make.

If and when you are ready to truly address the issue I have raised....well...then perhaps we may continue the discussion.

Until then, I'm out.

I'm not saying everyone has to use the "golden thirds," I'm just saying it is used by many artists depending on the situation, proving there is a system that works (there are others) or why would it be taught in the work place. Good design is not willy nilly, no one can figure this out, it's subjective, it's not a mystery!

Many award winning photos may be subjective in the sense that a particular high quality image was chosen over another of the same quality. As to the quality no one is confused.

Rule of thirds certainly is a good start. Getting the subject out of the center is a major improvement for most beginners. Learning to click half way to focus and then move the camera to compose. How many people say, "why don't this thing just click shutter? Why do I have to push down so hard?"

A lot of my work these days has the book cover market in mind so I'll center sometimes to provide copy space above and below.
....

Zoom lens get a lot of people in trouble because they keep zooming in until the image has no white space or space to put the subject in context. That's why I would suggest anyone who wants to improve their photography to get a 35 mm lens and just use that single lens for a year. The 35mm provides room for storytelling.

I guess I'm getting the "golden hour" mixed up with the "Rule of Thirds." Me and someone else, I'm going to blame them! lol

Maybe the Golden Ratio.

1.61803398875 for the math fans.