Just by keeping up with Facebook and Flickr I get exposed to
numerous photographs during the course of the day. An awful lot of these pictures
do not fit the definition of being “good” in terms of composition, lighting,
contrast, or any such attributes that are highly regarded by photographers.
However, I have come to realize that a photograph does not have to meet these
standards to be judged “good”.
A photograph can be
considered good if it meets its intended purpose.
Broadly speaking, a vast majority of photographs are taken
to memorialize a moment. These are pictures of people doing something,
visiting somewhere, or just having a good time. The photographer is not paying
much attention to anything except getting all the folks or place where the
picture is being taken within the frame. As long as it meets some basic
criteria---one can see the face, and the head is not cut off---it can be
considered a good photograph, because it will serve as an aid to remember the
moment, and what everyone looked like at that moment. It can be shared with
others, or stored for future viewing.
Another major purpose one take a picture is to create, or at
least attempt to create, a work of art.
Photography is a relatively easy way to channel the need to exercise the
creative right brain. As a work of art, a “good’ photograph has to appeal to
the subconscious in some way. There are some guidelines that good photographers
follow while taking a picture. These generally relate to composition, lighting,
subject, use of space, contrasts, colors, and so on. However, some magic needs
to happen to make it a really memorable photograph. I think the bar a photo has
to clear in the second category to be called “good” is higher than that in the
first.
There is also a third reason for taking pictures, and that
is for photojournalism. These are the pictures taken by professionals that say
a thousand words, and convey the meaning of an event, person or place in a
powerful manner. However, most amateurs like us are not involved with this type
of photography.
It is unfair to use
the yardstick of one group of photograph while measuring the “goodness” of
other type. Thus, an art photographer cannot call a snapshot “bad” because
it does not meet the basic requirements of a work of art (composition,
lighting, contrast, etc.). Likewise, a person used to taking snapshot should
not judge an artistic photograph as useless because it just shows water, trees,
and stones---and besides has no person.
That having been said, I would not necessarily call the person who took a good photograph a good
photographer. Pointing the camera in the right direction, putting it on
automatic, and pressing the shutter does not require much skills. A good
photographer can create really memorable pictures of a family get together in
the first category, or a work of art from the most mundane subject in the second.
