What makes a good photograph?

Is reality of color, form, texture, etc important? We now have the ability to alter most anything in an original photo. Should we?

A large part of the appeal of NPN is getting togeather and trying to present an image that we hope will be appreciated by other members. In preparing an image we may see a color or somewhat distracting form that was naturally a part of the scene captured that could easily be altered and given more "impact". I do it regularly.

Has it now become expected that altering for impact is expected and if not done the image, as posted, is somehow wanting?

Critique is such a vital part of our group and when trying to be helpful by searching out what we, as individuals, feel may be lacking we often suggest changes that alter reality. Sometimes very greatly.

Learning is growing and expanding. How can we guard against learning techniques and alterations that we may not, in the long run, want to "learn" and may not like what we have learned.

If critiquing is helpful, and I know it is, is not critiquing a "critique" also helpful?

What makes a good photograph?

Good photography.

Aw, come on Hank. There has got to be something we can clone.

What makes a good photograph?

That's a very wide topic, and there are a range of answers depending upon the intent of the photographer. Some will say a photograph is "good" if someone will buy it for the price the photographer puts on it. Others might call a photo "good" if they get a lot of positive atta-boys from their pals on social networking sites. Some may judge a photo "good" if it wins a prize in a contest.

Is reality of color, form, texture, etc important?

Since you ask this question on a Nature photography site, I contend that the answer is Yes. I think nature photos should be as natural as possible.

We now have the ability to alter most anything in an original photo. Should we?

For a nature photo, no.

Has it now become expected that altering for impact is expected and if not done the image, as posted, is somehow wanting?

It may be common practice for some people to alter an image for more "impact" but not for me. For me it is the exact opposite - altering the image as you describe takes away much of the original appeal of the nature image.

Critique is such a vital part of our group and when trying to be helpful by searching out what we, as individuals, feel may be lacking we often suggest changes that alter reality. Sometimes very greatly.

Learning is growing and expanding. How can we guard against learning techniques and alterations that we may not, in the long run, want to "learn" and may not like what we have learned.

Any negative critique can be read as noting the aspects of the image that don't work for that viewer. Some suggestions can be applied to improve an image without altering its honesty - fixing color balance or contrast are examples. Other suggestions about removing a distracting element are better read as what could have been done at the time the image was taken, rather than as suggestions on how to alter the existing image. That is, what to watch out for in the field the next time an opportunity occurs.

If critiquing is helpful, and I know it is, is not critiquing a "critique" also helpful?

I think part of the situation regarding critiquing critiques is that people generally don't have the time to get into longer discussions about images that would result from this. There could be responses to almost anything said in most critiques, but then it turns into a conversation rather than a critique. I have these conversations in my own mind, which is very helpful to me, but not with the person offering the critique.

Richard, that last paragraph is what I have come to know is your thoughts on altering. You also hit on a misconception I have had about critiques and that is that I thought always the suggestion was to alter. But you have commented more than once that it is to prepare for future exposures.

Language is always tough to express exactly what anyone means. almost always what the person intends and what the reader interprets has, at a minimum, some variance. As Barbara says it may not be practical to dig deep into critiques and probably best to read, consider and ponder what is said.

To me a good photograph is one in which the subject rules, that is to say the viewer's first response is to that which is photographed rather than to the techniques the photographer used. That does not rule out manipulation, just poorly done manipulation or manipulation done for its own sake. As an example of departure from reality which did not interfere, several years ago I did a series of B&Ws for a solo exhibit and when I later met someone who had seen it he commented on one of the photographs and added "And the colors were wonderful". That image 'worked', the viewer saw what I intended to show him and filled in the color I had removed. An image does not have to be literal to be good, it has to communicate and sometimes that requires removal of distracting elements in order to focus on what is really important.

interesting topic and a good one. it's important to question the obvious at times and get back to basics. Timely as well as I just read Photoshop and Photography-What Is A Photograph on Alan Ross' blog the other day.

A good photograph will ignite my emotion. What it is about a photograph that makes an impression on me is hard to describe but I do need to find an emotional connection to it in some way..... stormy sky, eerie light, a familiar or favorite place. The photographs I like are usually not the WOW! ones that get a lot of views or comments. They usually portray a special beauty I can connect with.

You usually know when you see a good photograph

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. - Ansel Adams

Each person is likely to have a different answer to the question you posed. Good luck coming to a conclusion.

Not really my goal, Keith. Thoughts about what others feel is good for all of us.

Charlie

I have a personal set of criteria that I typically use. A good photo has these. Makes me want to be at the same time and place as the photographer. Creates a strong sense of place and mood. Does not depend on obvious photoshop trickery or fashionable manipulation.

I use the burrito test. If i would rather look at your photo than eat a burrito, then its a good photo.

Stan, does that make the 15th photo you look at every day a good photo?

I always knew you were full of wind, Stan.

Charlie--LOL!
only 15?