What Makes A Good Picture?

[Tom Charles]

So many factors come together to make an image appealing to the eye. I believe a good photograph begins well before the click of the shutter. A person could produce an image with fine aesthetic qualities, but may not be 'technically' sound, or vice versa.

What makes an image 'technically' good; what makes it 'artistically' or 'aesthetically' appealing?

What do you look for when viewing an image? Are you seeing its technical or its artistic value?

What principles exist in photography that could help us take a picture that 'jumps out' and carries more impact?

[cuddy]

Lot to think about in your post Tom, for myself it will be aesthetic and artistic rather than technical that i will judge on.

Is this because im not able to judge on technical merit due to a lack of knowledge, i will only know that when i learn more about photography.

I have taken images that have pleased without ever producing something that sets my world on fire, does this make me a good judge of a photo? im not sure.

brianr

[Adey Baker]

I think the technical side should be good but not impose itself on a picture. i.e. you should be able to look at the picture without thinking " 'ello, another such-and-such type of photo!" If the first thing you notice is the obvious use of a particular filter, etc., then the shot will have failed to convey to the viewer what you saw through the viewfinder.

[John]

I have good equipment: Canon 20D and three L series lenses yet other serious photographers seem to take better pictures than me, even though I have been taking pictures for many years and know most of the rules of composition. Somehow their pictures seem to have more impact than mine. Does that answer your question?
Not withstanding the foregoing I still get much pleasure out of photography and that's what it's all about, for me anyway.

[kennygee]

Spot on John. You've said it all.