
What Makes a Picture Good? - luu
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/what-makes-a-picture-good/
======
TheOtherHobbes
This misses a few things.

The basics are surprise/rarity, emotional impact/narrative (which can include
comedy, tragedy, drama, etc), geometry and composition (which can include
focus control, depth of field, and motion effects), and controlled colour.

Colour control is the one a lot of people miss. The aim is to have a limited
colour palette - either one dominant colour, or two or three punchy related
colours (complementary or contrasting on the colour wheel) against a more
neutral background (white/black/grey/less often - brown.)

Too many colours are chaotic. There are exceptions which can make chaotic
colour work as a feature, but if you just snap a random crowd you'll usually
get a photo that lacks something, and you're not sure what.

Newspaper photo pages are good for examples. Random sample:

[https://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2020/jul/14/sammy-t...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/gallery/2020/jul/14/sammy-
the-seal-and-bastille-day-tuesdays-best-photos)

You can see how few colours most of these photos have and how often there's a
strong colour contrast. A "newsy" photo of flooded buildings still has
controlled colour - base of green contrasting with blue in the foreground, and
further bright purple/pink contrasts in the background.

And the photo of the soldiers with masks balances black/white against the pale
blue of the masks, with complementary gold highlights.

Even the prisoner photo only has three colours - green on the prison shirt,
pale yellow gold on the uniform patches and buildings, and some splashes of
red, which contrasts with the green.

The opera audience photo is the weakest with a pale nondescript yellow/green
wash against grey/white, but it (almost) makes up for it with very strong
geometric composition in the architecture.

Edit: non-representational photos usually follow the same rules. The one big
exception is high end art photography which uses a couple of specialised
standard palettes (usually warm on the flesh tones) and a small selection of
standardised subjects that signify "art" in that market.

~~~
chrstphrknwtn
I think this over simplifies what makes a good image quite dramatically.

And too suggest that art photography uses specialised standard colour palettes
to signal “high end art” is a pretty big claim to make with no evidence.

Some of the most influential and interesting art photographers working today
produce images that do not exhibit the qualities you mention, for example Jeff
Wall and Thomas Struth.

Edit: typo

------
sradman
> What makes a picture good? Not only because this is a very subjective
> question it is a hard one to answer.

IMHO, what makes a picture good is a combination of aesthetics and narrative.
The idea that the quality of an image is subjective reminds me of Robert
Pirsig's pursuit of the notion of "quality" in his two books [1]. Although it
is very hard to define the rules that govern what constitutes quality, if you
survey enough people they rank simple artifacts like images quite
consistently; perhaps differing when the narrative makes a significant
contribution.

This post presents some very high quality images. What is missing is the
photographic context that contributes to the aesthetics of each image.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig)

~~~
EForEndeavour
I think the author addresses narrative and "photographic context" in the
section under "Emotion".

> What makes a picture evoke emotions in – or feel “real” to – us, is what we
> see in it – based on our education, knowledge and history.

> There may be pictures from your past and when you look at them you are
> reminded of those experiences and therefore they feel special to you, like
> this beach picture above: it was one of the first analogue pictures I took
> and I somewhat like it, but it is really that good? Probably not. Same goes
> for pictures of your girlfriend, children or dog: they will all be special
> to you, but to someone else they may not be that interesting, especially if
> they are lacking in one way or the other (out of focus, tilted, noisy etc.)

> If on the other hand you want your pictures to appeal to a broader audience,
> you should make sure they cover an interesting topic that means something
> not only to you. And they should also be good in a technical way, which
> brings us to the following section.

~~~
sradman
Great point but what I meant, and should have made clearer, is the "aesthetic"
aspect of each photograph. This context is independent of the emotional
narrative. Each photograph has a technical explanation contributing to the
aesthetic that is easily taught and applied. The OP covers the narrative, as
your selected quotes nicely demonstrate.

~~~
EForEndeavour
Ah ok, I think I get you. Is it right to say that the technical factors used
to take and process a photograph influence the emotional "look and feel"
(aesthetics) of the end result, separate from the bigger-picture story and
context behind what is being photographed, and by whom? The former can be
taught, whereas the latter is mostly a product of circumstances. Though I
guess you can improve your chances of encountering powerful stories by
traveling, carrying a camera wherever you go, working as a photojournalist,
etc.

~~~
sradman
> Though I guess you can improve your chances of encountering powerful stories
> by traveling, carrying a camera wherever you go, working as a
> photojournalist, etc.

Exactly, f/8 and be there. [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ƒ/8_and_be_there](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ƒ/8_and_be_there)

------
emrehan
This post is like asking “What makes a painting good?” and answering in
respect to realist paintings.

Likewise, photography is a broad discipline ranging from pictorialism to
postmodernism and a good photograph is more than opportunity, emotion and
execution.

------
markandrewj
Much of what this article covers could be described by the term 'decisive
moment'. It is only one school of thought, that is debated, but it may be an
interesting concept for some people.

[http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/decisive_moment.htm](http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/decisive_moment.htm)

------
BartekG
A thing is good for someone for something and dropping this context is a
mistake that causes superficial contradictions or an illusion of subjectivity.
A picture of two cars racing on a public road can be good for the newspaper
for attracting readers and bad for the police for identifying the drivers at
the same time. Once we consider WHO and FOR WHAT the problem of being good
becomes objective.

------
Priem19
Relevant: FART for fantastic photos. Feel, ask, refine, take. I always
remembered this simple advice after the first time I read it.
[https://kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm](https://kenrockwell.com/tech/fart.htm)

Also, I wonder how much of professional amazing looking photos are edited
(e.g., brightness, contrasts, levels, saturation, etc.)

~~~
MurMan
Referencing Ken Rockwell for photo advice is pretty funny. If you don't know
his reputation, just look at his photos and judge for yourself. That said, his
gear reviews are useful.

As for editing for brightness, contrast, ...: _All_ digital images are edited.
You either let the camera manage levels & color ("straight out of camera") or
you do it.

------
enriquto
Based on the given examples, it seems that a pre-requisite for a good picture
is to have objects at very different distances to the viewer.

