what makes a good photo?

[Je33ica]

so it's late at night, and im browsing my photo archieve to find a new desktop picture. a few stand out, though most of the pictures were taken at the same time and of the same scenery. why is that? why are some photos eyecatchers and other aren't? it must be more than what the picture displays, it may be more on how it is displayed: lighing, position, moment, message, etc... below are some photos that caught my eye (these were taken august '05 in denmark). are these good, solid photographs or is it just nice scenery? and my sig is also i photo i took in denmark, fyi

[Oneironaut Zero]

Well, that is a really hard question. lol. I think, from my perspective of "artistic," the picture of the tree setting with the parallel sidewalks is the best one of the group. But to answer your question, I have no idea. Lol. Even as an artist, I've never really questioned what it is or wasn't that qualifies something as "artistic," I just usually know it when I see it. Or at least, I think I do. P.S: Now that I notice the last sentence, I like the sig pic also. ^_^

[Howie]

Originally posted by Je33ica so it's late at night, and im browsing my photo archieve to find a new desktop picture. a few stand out, though most of the pictures were taken at the same time and of the same scenery. why is that? why are some photos eyecatchers and other aren't? it must be more than what the picture displays, it may be more on how it is displayed: lighing, position, moment, message, etc... Those are some very nice pictures Je33ica! I am not all that familiar with photographpy. But I am fairly certain that the same rules that apply to art would also apply to photography. Of coarse the actual subject has a lot to do with its appeal to each individual. But the basic rules and principles of design make or break a picture. Composition! In most of your pitures you have very good placement of your focal points on the page. As well as part of the over all outlay of the picture running off the page. All off these things, wether or not a person is consciously aware of them or not, can visually please the viewer. So the fact that the artist or photographer has put lines, color, texture and others into place allows a person to simply look at a picture of a boat and say...I like it.

[nina]

Yep, Howie is right. It's all about composition. Firstly, what is your focal point? And then how does the light and shadow and objects and elements of the photo move your eyes around the photograph? It is definitely a subconscious thing to those who are not experienced or learned in the basic principles of design...and it seems that you have a good eye already at discerning what constitutes good design. If you are interested in learning more there is tons of info on the net or wherever about what it is that basically makes a photograph interesting or boring. In fact, I could go through each one of those photos you picked out and explain exactly why you liked that particular one.

[Ynot]

Few of my favourites complementary drops by Inna Nusinzon also, check this place out http://users.skynet.be/fotoopa/highspeed_frame_set.htm

[Ynot]

Sunsets as well got a whole heap of jaw-dropping graffiti pics as well but it's not everyones cup of tea photos are very subjective trying to capture a particular mood or feeling into a photo can be a tough thing to acheive

[Je33ica]

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div> P.S: Now that I notice the last sentence, I like the sig pic also. ^_^[/b] <!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer Those are some very nice pictures Je33ica! thanks composition is key, and i agree on the subconsious aspect, and now im begining to believe it is totally objective. like that one quote, \"one man's junk is another man's treasure\" Originally posted by Aquanina In fact, I could go through each one of those photos you picked out and explain exactly why you liked that particular one. i think i know why i like the pictures, but that would be great if you or anyone else could anaylze them on why they appeal to me just to affirm what i think. anyway, here are some more pictures. same as sig obviously ^

[kimpossible]

I've actually been taking a bunch of photography classes the last few semesters. And I agree with what's been written. It's generally a bad idea to split your horizons down the center line like that. The general rule is to only do it when there's a compelling reflection below and the subject above. In some, your horizon lines aren't level. That's rarely a good idea. Look at the picture that Ynot posted. Do you see how the focus is on the third lines? The horizon is on the lower third line giving focus to the building. The building is on the left third line, but the "empty space" gives the sensation of size. Your Denmark photo in your sig is quite good! Anyway - what makes good photos is what you like. Unless you're looking for "technically good" or "saleable". I could probably forward you some notes from my last photo composition and/or stock photography class if you like! If you can, a *great* thing to do is to go out and reshoot some of those pictures as soon as you study composition. If you compare a very similar picture side-by-side, you'll learn a lot about why it works or doesn't.

[Je33ica]

thanks for the advice kimpossible, so a horizon line that is in the middle of the photo is typically uncreative? how about if their is a middle horizon line that leads to a vanishing point, like the parallel trees/sidewalk photo? would the photo be more effective if the horizon line was lowered and the trees took up most of the photo instead? most of my horizon lines are split in the middle, from what i can tell, except the graveyard photo, where the horizon line is higher, creating the effect of the long, continous, unlighted tombstones in comparison to the left of the picture where it is bright and sunny. kim, that would be great if you could forward me some notes . i know i will travel more in the future, and i look forward to capturing better photographs.

[Roller]

Ok, I'm no photography expert, but i've found myself drawn to it for some inexplicable reason. I just love the way that you can capture a story, catpure a place or a moment forever... for me there are so many stories in the world that any way I can try and capture more is a good thing. I also love the way that walking around with a camera opens your eyes to the world around you... it's kind of like exploring, finding things that have always been there but no one has ever bothered looking at or noticing before. One of the things I love is exploring nature with a camera... we recently went on a family holiday to a national park, and most of the time I spent walking through the bushland staring at the tiny flowers etc... it's like a hidden world. Another thing I really enjoy is finding angles and light... visual treats that are everywhere if you look hard enough. I'd love to take some proper photography classes or learn some theory, so if anyone knows of any good websites then let me know... I'll try and get some pics posted on here. Btw I love that one of yours, ynot!

[kimpossible]

Have a look at betterphoto.com , roller. Some of their instructors are pretty good. I've actually taken a couple of their online classes as well. Somewhat hit-and-miss.

[Belisarius]

Originally posted by Je33ica so it's late at night, and im browsing my photo archieve to find a new desktop picture. *a few stand out, though most of the pictures were taken at the same time and of the same scenery. *why is that? *why are some photos eyecatchers and other aren't? *it must be more than what the picture displays, it may be more on how it is displayed: *lighing, position, moment, message, etc... below are some photos that caught my eye (these were taken august '05 in denmark). *are these good, solid photographs or is it just nice scenery? and my sig is also i photo i took in denmark, fyi The second and the first are good pictures, the rest are just pretty scenery, the one of the pond is exposed strangely, and the lighting isn't terrific in the rest. The third one looks nice, but subject placement, and background complexity are off.