How do you make really great photographs?

[Almass]

My personal experience is ........................................................to making better pictures.

Yes Garry. The point is that 99% of the members on this forum are not amateurs but seasoned photographers and many pros abound and need not mention that they are Pros.....Being a Pro is not an entry ticket to being good or being apt at distributing and sharing knowledge.

Ron is asking a simple and deep question as to What makes great photographs.

Cropping or having the picture right in camera is not what makes a great photograph.......

Great photographs are either posed or composed or imposed or supposed:

Here have fun with HCB deceits. Do you see where the crop is?
This is his own crop marks!

[Ron Scubadiver]

I believe HCB took some off the bottom too or someone did it for him. I love the image with its abysmal IQ and the man running out of the frame instead of into it as the "rule" says.

[Bill De Jager]

I'll add in my two cents to the cropping question.

I usually strive to get the composition right in the camera, but I'm still struggling to overcome decades of bad compositional habits.  This means that what I think of at the time as a sufficiently focused composition sometimes is not, which in turn means cropping in post.  That cropping process, at this point and for me personally, is still educational and I intend to continue it for the time being.  I see improvement in my photos over time, and few cases to date of cropping too much in camera.  The best thing I can do right now is simply make it a point to get more time behind the camera, and not doing that has probably been my biggest photographic failing over the last few years.

Another matter, though, is that there is not necessarily one correct framing for every photograph one might visualize.  When I see this while photographing I try to deal with it by taking multiple photos composed differently, but that's not always an option.

Then of course there is the matter, as Andrea noted, of situations where proper framing is just not possible and cropping in post must be assumed.  This may be due to physical limitations on foot zooming or lens magnification, or to issues with the desired aspect ratio for a given composition vs. what the camera provides.  Those of us pursuing landscape and/or macro photography are all too familiar with these issues.

There are photogs shooting infra-red, ultra-violet, landscape, et al ... Which are far far above my pay level ... 

As an amateur landscape photographer who has dabbled in infrared and UV, that's how I feel about photojournalism (and sports photography) - far above my level!

[Frank Fremerey]

The greatness of a photo is all about what you see

and what you are able to capture of what you see.

My experience is that

 a lot of people do not see much
 a lot of people can see but not capture

Gary. Please teach me specific awareness.

I have it sometimes but not every day .

[Ron Scubadiver]

Then of course there is the matter, as Andrea noted, of situations where proper framing is just not possible and cropping in post must be assumed.  This may be due to physical limitations on foot zooming or lens magnification, or to issues with the desired aspect ratio for a given composition vs. what the camera provides.  Those of us pursuing landscape and/or macro photography are all too familiar with these issues.

All of those limitations come into play, but I find time to be the most severe one for photojournalists.  The iconic HCB photo above is a perfect example.  The photographer is sitting there with his famous sole 50mm lens, did not have time to get closer, his movement would have changed the subject's behavior so he takes the shot with the focus point on a billboard behind the man.  Better to have a little bit extra in the frame than nothing at all.  Thank goodness HCB did not bin that one.

I think all of these things like composing in camera, shooting with one lens or shooting only monochrome are exercises.  They can contribute to one's development like the way lifting weights contributes to an athlete's development, but they are not the game (unless all you do is lift weights or whatever the photographic equivalent of that is.)

[Jan Anne]

Finally and again, I believe that getting it right in the camera will help people become a better photographer and will significantly contribute to making better pictures.

Well this approach worked for me so I fully agree, but I also realise that it might not work for others as different people have different ways of learning.

My composition and tilt used to be all over the place but nowadays I rarely need to crop or tilt an image. I will crop however when another aspect ratio makes for a better image, been experimenting with a wider 5:3 crop which sometimes works better (but mostly the image was shot with that crop factor in mind).

I also refuse to use PS as it will make me lazy, if there's something in the image that ruins the image then so be it, mind you I'm not getting paid for my images so nothing is lost financially. By not resorting to PS I've learned to watch my corners, light, funny shadows, things sticking out of other objects, etc, etc.

Did the one lens day a few times, a few two lens holidays (16/3.5 & 50/1.2) and also went with out of camera B&W JPG's for a while. All these things sharpened my senses and made my images better, or at least I think they are better and that's all that matters for a simple amateur like me

[Frank Fremerey]

I want to book a course on "photography specific awareness" held by Gary.

[Kitanikkor]

Starting with an image that SOMEhow is unique....too many photos of too much of the same type (subject, activity, lens use, etc) tend to blur the senses and become "blah" "so what" "who cares" regardless of how technically competent they might be. 

[Ron Scubadiver]

Starting with an image that SOMEhow is unique....too many photos of too much of the same type (subject, activity, lens use, etc) tend to blur the senses and become "blah" "so what" "who cares" regardless of how technically competent they might be.

There are many photographers and photography has been around for a while now.  It is exceedingly difficult to do anything new.  A lot of the stuff I see hanging in galleries is done in some weird kind of way.  These include handmade cameras with plastic lenses, elaborately staged scenes, and extensive computer image manipulation.

In a slightly different vein, a study done at MIT concluded the most memorable photos were of people followed by interiors and familiar objects.  The least memorable were of landscapes.  That leaves me with the impression that taking photos of people is most likely to result in great images.  Admittedly, I don't need to see another photo of Kim Kardashian or Barak Obama, but the folks I photograph don't get anywhere near that kind of exposure.

[Les Olson]

"There are many photographers and photography has been around for a while now.  It is exceedingly difficult to do anything new."

The human body has been around for even longer, and even more people have made images of it, but it is still possible to do new things with the nude - as Bill Brandt and Robert Mapplethorpe, eg, demonstrate.  It is not easy - but that is why it is worth doing.

[charlie]

Pictures of people are more memorable because we are people.

If I see a picture of a landscape that speaks to me it will often make me want to travel and visit that landscape, as a photographer sometimes it will inspire me to recreate my own version of the picture if it really leaves its mark on me, but I can't as easily relate to being a tree, a rock, or a river (depending on my state of mind  ). If I see a compelling picture of a person I can directly empathize with that person and the feelings they are expressing, or probably more accurately the feelings I am projecting onto them, and this leaves a longer lasting impression on me.

But just because MIT conducted a study doesn't mean taking photos of what they say is more memorable is going to make "great"  photographs.

As a people photographer I think there are three main things that lead to making great people photographs. The expression of the person(s) or emotional impact of them in their environment, the lighting, and the composition. Any one of those things can make for a compelling picture, if all of them are attained in single photograph then you are on your way to making memorable photos. That seems pretty basic but I like to think it's true. 


 

[Frank Fremerey]

"There are many photographers and photography has been around for a while now.  It is exceedingly difficult to do anything new." The human body has been around for even longer, and even more people have made images of it, but it is still possible to do new things with the nude - as Bill Brandt and Robert Mapplethorpe, eg, demonstrate.  It is not easy - but that is why it is worth doing.

I feel you are right!

Art is always about the non-obvious.

Look at Michael Erlewine. He is doing the things he does for a purpose and the purpose he claims is not to please us.

Yet he pleases us with the intention not to please us. This is art.

[Ron Scubadiver]

"There are many photographers and photography has been around for a while now.  It is exceedingly difficult to do anything new."

The human body has been around for even longer, and even more people have made images of it, but it is still possible to do new things with the nude - as Bill Brandt and Robert Mapplethorpe, eg, demonstrate.  It is not easy - but that is why it is worth doing.

I said difficult, not impossible.

Pictures of people are more memorable because we are people.

If I see a picture of a landscape that speaks to me it will often make me want to travel and visit that landscape, as a photographer sometimes it will inspire me to recreate my own version of the picture if it really leaves its mark on me, but I can't as easily relate to being a tree, a rock, or a river (depending on my state of mind  ). If I see a compelling picture of a person I can directly empathize with that person and the feelings they are expressing, or probably more accurately the feelings I am projecting onto them, and this leaves a longer lasting impression on me.

But just because MIT conducted a study doesn't mean taking photos of what they say is more memorable is going to make "great"  photographs.

As a people photographer I think there are three main things that lead to making great people photographs. The expression of the person(s) or emotional impact of them in their environment, the lighting, and the composition. Any one of those things can make for a compelling picture, if all of them are attained in single photograph then you are on your way to making memorable photos. That seems pretty basic but I like to think it's true. 

MIT did  a study, that's all it is.  I shoot landscapes and enjoy it as much as photographing people.

I feel you are right!

Art is always about the non-obvious.

Look at Michael Erlewine. He is doing the things he does for a purpose and the purpose he claims is not to please us.

Yet he pleases us with the intention not to please us. This is art.

Michael Erlwine follows his own muse.  He is talented in many ways.

[charlie]

MIT did  a study, that's all it is. 

Yes, which you brought up and commented on, then I followed up on your comments.

That's all that was.

I shoot landscapes and enjoy it as much as photographing people.

As do I, and I find I connect differently to photos with people in them.

[Ron Scubadiver]

Well, I think this group has wandered around the topic.  Some of these ideas like frame in camera or shoot one lens are, in my opinion, training exercises.  They may help some and hinder others.  I don't see these strategies as being directly connected to the goal of great photography.  So, I think we got blown off course.

I have a few ideas:

1.  The subject matter has to be right.  There is no doubt in my mind that photographing people improves the odds, but people are by no means the only right subject matter.  Think Ansel Adams for example.

2.  The photographer must understand the subject matter.  In the case of people this is extraordinarily complex.  It is my belief some photographers are able to establish a connection with their subjects which creates an enormously positive effect on the images.  This result is, IMO, not likely with professional models.  I think there is something to be known about the human condition and not everybody gets it.  Some of the best wildlife photos I have seen were taken by rangers and guides who are around wildlife a lot.

3.  The photographer must have a sense of aesthetics.  That means understanding color, proportion, perspective and who knows what else.  A formal art education is not necessary, but it might help.  There is more to color than avoiding a bad color cast. 

4.  The photographer has to be capable of creative out of the box thinking.  There are dozens of rules of portraiture.  A photographer who always follows then will be a decent wedding shooter, but the work will have nothing to distinguish it.

5.  Obviously, one must have competent equipment and know how to use it right.  Everyone around here knows my philosophy is you don't need the ultimate in gear.

6.  I probably left something important off this list, but the general idea is it is about the photographer and his connection to what he shoots.