Photographic rules do they really apply to a good photo ?

jerry12953 said:
That is excellent satire but the problem is that this is the internet and we have no idea of the experience, achievements or background of the those posting.

I do agree with this which appeared somewhere in the comments section, though ......

"I wish someone would explain to me why the commonly accepted great photographs are considered to be great photographs. I think I could muster some satirical sarcasm of my own, but as far as explaining why these photographs are great, I wouldn't know where to begin. "
Click to expand...
It's true of all "greats" though isn't it? Why was Constable great, or the Beatles? Sometimes it's because they were the amongst the first to achieve success in a given genre; other "greats" were ahead of their time and their achievements were only recognised in later life or after death. You can't take a photograph in isolation, that might just be a one-hit-wonder but a body of work in the context of the time it was created makes for greatness. The images in those links are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg that best illustrates the photographers work.

There is also all the peripheral stuff, "sales and marketing" for want of a better term. In isolation is Gursky's Rhein II really a great photo and worth £millions? That Gursky can produce it and sell both himself and the photograph is all part of the talents that go into being "great".

I guess in a nutshell they are great because the photographer got them to a place where they have been selected as great by a broad and knowledgeable group of people and there are not necessarily any intrinsic qualities of those specific photos that make them great, it's as much about the extrinsic qualities.
 
One man's great art is another woman's "why the f*^k did you buy that?" :naughty:
 
Well instead of trying to work out why crap shots (IMO) like Gursky's Rhein II are worth millions all you need to do is copy shots\style\ideas of very good photographers....and if you can't understand why a pile of bricks in an art gallery is brilliant then why bother trying to understand why some shots and art are considered great by a minority.
I could post some links of very good photographers but everybody else would probably start posting links as well and fill the thread up. :eek:
 
Smash the rules !! The only place I see people get hung up on rules is camera clubs hence why I don't bother with them .
 
excalibur2 said:
Well instead of trying to work out why crap shots (IMO) like Gursky's Rhein II are worth millions all you need to do is copy shots\style\ideas of very good photographers....and if you can't understand why a pile of bricks in an art gallery is brilliant then why bother trying to understand why some shots and art are considered great by a minority.
I could post some links of very good photographers but everybody else would probably start posting links as well and fill the thread up. :eek:
Click to expand...

I saw the Gursky exhibition in London a couple of years back, and there was a copy of Rhine II on the wall. As I mentioned in another thread, photographic art often seems to be considered special for the reasons it was taken - that actual image is often subordinate to that. So Rhine II is impressive because of the sheer size of the image and the high level of detailing, but without the 'why' it's just another failed landscape snap.

That's not to say that 'art' photographs are failed images - far from it - but only some can stand alone as pictures in their own right, while some were never intended to be great photographs.
 
excalibur2 said:
To improve anyone's photography e.g. to make a shot interesting and if you are not gifted to produce your own style\ideas why not copy others.
Click to expand...
Copying won't make you great though :) it will just help you apply someone else's "rules". Will it make a shot interesting or will it just make a copy of an interesting photo?
 
sirch said:
Copying won't make you great though :) it will just help you apply someone else's "rules". Will it make a shot interesting or will it just make a copy of an interesting photo?
Click to expand...
It might, eventually, if you use it as a tool for learning and exploration. Other than that I agree with you and can't see the point of copying someone else's work for any other reason.

This was an interesting Thomas Heaton video as he attempted a Ted Forbes assignment to replicate a Sudek photograph .

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OafIDC2TRVU


Copying "Master" painters is a common training tool for painters, but I suspect you already know that.
 
excalibur2 said:
To improve anyone's photography e.g. to make a shot interesting and if you are not gifted to produce your own style\ideas why not copy others.
Click to expand...
It will only improve someone's photography if they actively use it as a learning tool.
 
Last edited:
I think the words "good", "bad" and above all "great" should be barred from any discussion of art. The words "like" or "dislike" are so much more helpful.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think the words "good", "bad" and above all "great" should be barred from any discussion of art. The words "like" or "dislike" are so much more helpful.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that seriously restrict the discussion? What might be good art and bad art has very little, or anything, to do with my personal likes or dislikes.
 
myotis said:
Wouldn't that seriously restrict the discussion? What might be good art and bad art has very little, or anything, to do with my personal likes or dislikes.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that it can only be "good" or ",bad" art in the eyes of the individual. What may be "good" for many people may leave me totally un moved, so not "good" for me.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
After seeing this argument/discussion start on my Holga thread I thought it would make a good basis for a thread so here we go.
Does a photo have to abide by all the photographic rules to be a good photo ? low grain/noise, rule of thirds,sharp focus , Do you care about these rules and do you try to stick to them ? Do you care what others think of you photos or are you making them for yourself first ?

From my point of view I do my photography for myself and if others like them then fair enough I like getting outside and exploring what is out there and trying to capture what I see if it doesn't work then I still have enjoyed the outing, I don't care overly about all the above and feel a lot of them depend on the camera in use. I would expect a modern digital to produce sharp images but when using vintage or low tech gear I really like some of my photos even if they do have their faults. As I tend to take a lots of photos of old things sometimes those faults give my photos a more realistic/authentic look where a modern camera with super sharpness would just be a very good photo but lack any feeling of age.Some of the shots in my collection from when I was a kid are awful but instantly bring back memory's of that time/place or people.

What do you think ?

I have now retired to a safe distance after lighting the blue touch paper.
Click to expand...
My 2 peneth : Depends upon the audience.

If you're having your photos judged by technical judges then yes an understanding of the rules and their application unless you're made it obvious your deliberately breaking them as some artsy juxtaposition
If you're selling them to buyers not a jot if they appeal to a market. Those who don't realise the "rules" probably subconsciously like photos that fall within the rules because the "rules" are the mathematics behind visually appealing images. However (with my cynical hat on) slap a nasty Solarise Insta-filter on a photo these days and it might be visually appealing to some (from the number of likes its likely to get).

Terrywoodenpic said:
Have a look a some Cartier Bresson photographs, none of them are critically sharp. Most are hardly sharp at all, but they are great images.
Click to expand...

I always like C-B because he captured "a time" with historical significance. Like composition, thats an art form. I guess anyone whos been into the centre of London during this pandemic and captured the "28 days later" look and feel will be able to exhibit in a few years time at Somerset House
 
Last edited:
jamesev said:
My 2 peneth : Depends upon the audience.

If you're having your photos judged by technical judges then yes an understanding of the rules and their application unless you're made it obvious your deliberately breaking them as some artsy juxtaposition
If you're selling them to buyers not a jot if they appeal to a market. Those who don't realise the "rules" probably subconsciously like photos that fall within the rules because the "rules" are the mathematics behind visually appealing images. However (with my cynical hat on) slap a nasty Solarise Insta-filter on a photo these days and it might be visually appealing to some (from the number of likes its likely to get).
Click to expand...

Blue sky. ..check.
Fluffy white clouds....check
Orange people.... check
No shadows....check
 
Cockney said:
What may be "good" for many people may leave me totally un moved, so not "good" for me.
Click to expand...

That is fair enough, but it not being "good" for you, doesn't necessarily make it "bad" art. I feel an assessment of how good a work of art is, has to go well beyond personal likes and dislikes.
 
myotis said:
What might be good art and bad art has very little, or anything, to do with my personal likes or dislikes.
Click to expand...
I do not believe in the concept of "good" or "bad" in art while accepting that the terms might be usefully applied to a description of technical implementation. In my opinion, one can say that a portrait is a good likeness but still dislike it. In the same way, one can describe a landscape as badly executed but still like the experience of viewing it.
 
sirch said:
It's true of all "greats" though isn't it? Why was Constable great, or the Beatles? Sometimes it's because they were the amongst the first to achieve success in a given genre; other "greats" were ahead of their time and their achievements were only recognised in later life or after death. You can't take a photograph in isolation, that might just be a one-hit-wonder but a body of work in the context of the time it was created makes for greatness. The images in those links are perhaps just the tip of the iceberg that best illustrates the photographers work.

There is also all the peripheral stuff, "sales and marketing" for want of a better term. In isolation is Gursky's Rhein II really a great photo and worth £millions? That Gursky can produce it and sell both himself and the photograph is all part of the talents that go into being "great".

I guess in a nutshell they are great because the photographer got them to a place where they have been selected as great by a broad and knowledgeable group of people and there are not necessarily any intrinsic qualities of those specific photos that make them great, it's as much about the extrinsic qualities.
Click to expand...


I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is one of the best and most-thought-provoking posts I have ever read on TP.

In my limited understanding of such things, Turner and Constable, now recognised as "greats", were actually revolutionary in their own time, and there were countless crusty old fuddy-duddies (such as myself..... :naughty:) who couldn't understand what their work was all about. Personally I dismiss a lot of current photographic trends ("lens-based art") but maybe amongst all the dross there is true greatness just struggling to be get out.

What I think you have missed, although you do touch on it, are the rather gullible - in my opinion - trend-setters always on the look-out for the latest thing, whether it has any merit at all other than being new. If you are one of the ones picked up by such people - like Gursky? - then you could be made for life. Broad and knowledgeable, maybe, influential - yes, pretentious - in many cases definitely!

i suppose this veers into dangerous "but is it art?" territory and has nothing to do with "the rules", though.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Have a look a some Cartier Bresson photographs, none of them are critically sharp. Most are hardly sharp at all, but they are great images.
Click to expand...
jerry12953 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is one of the best and most-thought-provoking posts I have ever read on TP.

In my limited understanding of such things, Turner and Constable, now recognised as "greats", were actually revolutionary in their own time, and there were countless crusty old fuddy-duddies (such as myself..... :naughty:) who couldn't understand what their work was all about. Personally I dismiss a lot of current photographic trends ("lens-based art") but maybe amongst all the dross there is true greatness just struggling to be get out.

What I think you have missed, although you do touch on it, are the rather gullible - in my opinion - trend-setters always on the look-out for the latest thing, whether it has any merit at all other than being new. If you are one of the ones picked up by such people - like Gursky? - then you could be made for life. Broad and knowledgeable, maybe, influential - yes, pretentious - in many cases definitely!

i suppose this veers into dangerous "but is it art?" territory and has nothing to do with "the rules", though.
Click to expand...
I subscribed to the line i one read that true art had no other purpose but to serve itself. Others may disagree but when I saw it, it kinda struck a chord with me
 
Phil V said:
noise / grain is something only photographers get hung up on.
Click to expand...
100% agree with this. I’ve been saying the same for years that only photographers worry about noise and ISO.

I was on a photography day where another photographer was complaining about high ISO and images being too noisy for entering into camera club competitions. We ended up using studio lighting to please him (which practically ended the day for me as the lighting was then awful). It made me chuckle when I was looking through the winning images of that years BWPA competition only to see one taken by a different photographer that day. It seems it was too noisy for local camera club competitions but ok for national competitions
:ROFLMAO:
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that that is one of the best and most-thought-provoking posts I have ever read on TP.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much :)

jerry12953 said:
If you are one of the ones picked up by such people - like Gursky?
Click to expand...
I think it's a bit more than just being picked, in part my point about extrinsic qualities was that the artist/photographer has to have the skills to, in your terms, set a trend that people want to follow. As for gullible, is a multi-millionaire like Charles Saatchi gullible or astute? Also never underestimate the fact that there is a complex multi-level game going on, played for fun. Part of that game might be artists having a laugh, buyers are accepting the joke and raising the stakes back on the artist. People, artists and buyers know what they are doing, rather than gullible they are enjoying the dance and having fun with it.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I do not believe in the concept of "good" or "bad" in art while accepting that the terms might be usefully applied to a description of technical implementation. In my opinion, one can say that a portrait is a good likeness but still dislike it. In the same way, one can describe a landscape as badly executed but still like the experience of viewing it.
Click to expand...

I guess we see this from entirely different directions I am happy with the concept of good and bad art (not that I can define it), but what you are describing as "might" be art, I would call craft.

In assessing how close something might be to "good art", I would consider how well the artist had used their technical skills (craft) to realise their artistic intent.

With the term "artistic intent" covering a very wide spectrum of possible intents, and the level of craft required only needing to be "fit for purpose" ie "good enough" to realise the artistic intent.

So, In the examples you give, I would be far more likely to assess the latter example as "good art" than the former, as that is the one that invoked a favourable emotional response from you. Not that I would actually make such an assessment.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think the words "good", "bad" and above all "great" should be barred from any discussion of art. The words "like" or "dislike" are so much more helpful.
Click to expand...
Of course there is good and bad art. If a group of 5 year olds gets up on the school stage and plays their recorders, no one questions whether it is music but it is not very good music. There can be good art that I don't like (Turner's Dido and Aeneas) and there can be bad art (a steam train puffing along a track) that I might like.
 
myotis said:
That is fair enough, but it not being "good" for you, doesn't necessarily make it "bad" art. I feel an assessment of how good a work of art is, has to go well beyond personal likes and dislikes.
Click to expand...

So how else could you assess it?
 
jamesev said:
I subscribed to the line i one read that true art had no other purpose but to serve itself. Others may disagree but when I saw it, it kinda struck a chord with me
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think the words "good", "bad" and above all "great" should be barred from any discussion of art. The words "like" or "dislike" are so much more helpful.
Click to expand...
Like and dislike are about the worst starting points for any discussion of art.

I really dislike Constable, but have no doubt that he’s a great artist.
 
Phil V said:
Like and dislike are about the worst starting points for any discussion of art.

I really dislike Constable, but have no doubt that he’s a great artist.
Click to expand...

So do you think hes a great artist because others say so?
Hes obviously not great to you.
 
I went to a presentation by Charlie Waite a few years ago.
He mentioned that having a horizon on the middle of an image wouldn't bother him.
More so with 16:9 and 1:1 formats.
The amount of images I've had the "crop it to get the horizon off centre" comment always leaves me wondering where to crop from :D
 
mstphoto said:
I went to a presentation by Charlie Waite a few years ago.
He mentioned that having a horizon on the middle of an image wouldn't bother him.
More so with 16:9 and 1:1 formats.
The amount of images I've had the "crop it to get the horizon off centre" comment always leaves me wondering where to crop from :D
Click to expand...

I try to compose the important elements, where the horizon ends up doesn't bother me if the rest works.
 
Cockney said:
So how else could you assess it?
Click to expand...
I'm only qualified to say what I like or don't like, I'm not qualified to assess whether it's good or bad art.

I will leave that to those who have studied it long enough to have gained the depth and breadth of knowledge of art in both a contemporary and historical context to allow them to have a meaningful opinion, even if I don't always follow the reasoning.
 
myotis said:
I'm only qualified to say what I like or don't like, I'm not qualified to assess whether it's good or bad art.
Click to expand...
I will never understand why people with no depth of knowledge, let alone qualifications on a subject feel that their opinion is as valid as that of someone who has made and in depth study of a subject.

View: https://youtu.be/FzOv14fA-BI
 
Last edited:
Cockney said:
So do you think hes a great artist because others say so?
Hes obviously not great to you.
Click to expand...
What?
whether I ‘like’ something is my subjective opinion based on my taste.
Whether or not someone is:
  • Accomplished
  • Highly regarded
  • Successful (whether financially or artistically)
Are all objective facts.

Me not liking Queen doesn’t negate their huge financial success or the fact that millions of others find their music ‘great’. They’re entitled to their money and awards, it’d be weird if I thought my opinion should override that.
 
Phil V said:
Like and dislike are about the worst starting points for any discussion of art.
Click to expand...
Whereas to me they are the best and possibly the only way in which to discuss art. The problem with using the terms "good" and "bad" is that you can all too easily end up in the land of the ReichsKulturKammer or the Proletarskie kulturno-prosvetitelnye organizatsii.
 
myotis said:
I'm only qualified to say what I like or don't like, I'm not qualified to assess whether it's good or bad art.

I will leave that to those who have studied it long enough to have gained the depth and breadth of knowledge of art in both a contemporary and historical context to allow them to have a meaningful opinion, even if I don't always follow the reasoning.
Click to expand...
If it's art you shouldn't have to study to understand it. In my view anyway.
It's typical amongst jazz lovers. Always saying to people like me (who can't stand the racket) it's because you don't understand it.
Condescending t***s , I've been playing guitar and developing music theory for years.
Jazz is an abomination to me. Others may see it as art but it's what I've spent years avoiding sounding like. :D
 
Phil V said:
What?
whether I ‘like’ something is my subjective opinion based on my taste.
Whether or not someone is:
  • Accomplished
  • Highly regarded
  • Successful (whether financially or artistically)
Are all objective facts.

Me not liking Queen doesn’t negate their huge financial success or the fact that millions of others find their music ‘great’. They’re entitled to their money and awards, it’d be weird if I thought my opinion should override that.
Click to expand...

Im not suggesting you should. Im talking about what is art TO YOU.
It doesn't have to be the same to all people.
 
One of the unfortunate mixups of language is that 'art' as some are discussing it here is not the same as making a painting, but the 2 things are often mixed in our thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top