Hmmm.... been pondering over this minefield of a question lately.

but what exactly makes an 'image' totally work for you? ....is it effort involved? subject? technical ability (whatever that may mean to you)? equipment used? post processing? artistic interpretation? or a combination of these and/or more? or something else...?

a genuine question... i'd like to know what others think as.... per thread title. & why?

lets discuss....

For me it's the idea of the photo. If there is something unexpected, the better. When a image makes me think and then giggle, it has done it's job.

I do value the high quality shoots, which can give tranquility and atmosphere to the images. But to be honest, if those lack the idea, it's couple of seconds and I'm looking the next image.

For me it's the idea of the photo. If there is something unexpected, the better.

that is interesting.... an image that lies? Thanks for that oilinki.

Good question...

it's not always easy to get the picture one hopes sometimes... I find the worse situations of taking photos is when you are with a non photographer... who makes you feel the need to rush...

Having said that, what looks like could be an interesting shot even with taking ones time still turns out to be a dud!

I'll ponder and think more on it!

Not necessarily lie, but if image includes combinations which just feels good.

For example image of lightbulb and sunset. One of the photos I'd like to reproduce some day.

Not my picture, saw it on imgur.com a while ago.

I am a right brain sort of guy, so it is all about how it makes me feel. The technical stuff may affect how I feel but that is not what I focus on. Even when I am playing around with post processing, I don’t do it by the numbers or to a formula. I am trying to reproduce what I saw and felt at the time I took the shot. A RAW image doesn’t capture the finished image. I must sculpt that hunk of stone to try and produce the image I see within.

I find the worse situations of taking photos is when you are with a non photographer... who makes you feel the need to rush...

haha... i can sympathise with you there Jim, you're firmly in my 'effort involved' camp too. Many of my attempts are scuppered by 'she who shall not be named' also

A RAW image doesn’t capture the finished image. I must sculpt that hunk of stone to try and produce the image I see within.

bravo VF! ....so you do condone PP?

the purist may say though, 'get it right the first time!'

Simple really. Content, composition, exposure and most of all LIGHT . These are the absolute ingredients of a successful image. If any of the above are missing, the image fails. The content element is, of course, personnel appeal.

PP to taste fine tunes the above.

For me, I try to SEE a finished image, rather than LOOK for something that might (or might not) be there.

Then in PP I attempt to reproduce what I saw as best as I can, i.e. pre-visualisation. If I can't pre-visualise an image, I don't shoot it.

Photography is a skill in as much as it requires technique to perceive and achieve your goal.

Snapping away on a wing and a prayer is pointless, it produces nothing.

That's what I think anyway!

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

Not necessarily lie, but if image includes combinations which just feels good.

you've answered my question right there... 'feels good'

i'll take that as a valid 'yay'

A RAW image doesn’t capture the finished image. I must sculpt that hunk of stone to try and produce the image I see within.

bravo VF! ....so you do condone PP?

the purist may say though, 'get it right the first time!'

If one is a real “purist” then one should be looking at nothing but negatives, in my opinion. Everything else is PP, whether in-camera or after. Different film, different sensor, different lens all produce different results and simply cannot reproduce what the eye sees and the heart feels no matter how hard they try.

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

Does the image convey emotion or an cause an emotional response in the viewer?

Does the image communicate information greater than the two-dimensional? By this I mean, does the photo tell a deeper story?

Whether it's taken with a PhaseOne, a Mamiya Leaf or a Polaroid, a good or great image needs to meet either of the conditions above.

EDIT: Here's a good example of what I mean. This photograph by James Nachtwey strongly meets the two conditions above.

Photography is a skill in as much as it requires technique to perceive and achieve your goal.

certainly... especially in my specific field of interest (wild birds)

but i sense from your answer that PP plays a big part in your final image? not a criticism.

Photography is a skill in as much as it requires technique to perceive and achieve your goal.

certainly... especially in my specific field of interest (wild birds)

but i sense from your answer that PP plays a big part in your final image? not a criticism.

I was talking to Ajaydee about this. He's a fellow Pentaxian, but uses a Spotmatic and B&W film. I feel really skilled photographers achieve what we achieve in PP, on film. However, if you watch The War Photographer you can see a lot of the art was in the film processing. The chap that processed James Nachtwey's award winning exposures, is I think, as skilled as Nachtwey himself.

It's a different set of skills using film. Apart from the aspects I previously mentioned film shooters need to consider format, film stock, filtration, development technique and then start all over again for the print. Dodging, burning, paper grading etc etc.

I think really skilled film photographers really shine in the darkroom.

Photography is a skill in as much as it requires technique to perceive and achieve your goal.

certainly... especially in my specific field of interest (wild birds)

but i sense from your answer that PP plays a big part in your final image? not a criticism.

Yes, PP most certainly plays a big part, if not the biggest part, in my final image. As Village Farrang stated, the RAW file is not the finished article, merely the base from which to work.

I frequently spend an hour in PP on one image and often return days later to fine tune it.

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

It's a different set of skills using film. Apart from the aspects I previously mentioned film shooters need to consider format, film stock, filtration, development technique and then start all over again for the print. Dodging, burning, paper grading etc etc.

I think really skilled film photographers really shine in the darkroom.

Processing is now like playing Nintendo.

Does the image communicate information greater than the two-dimensional? By this I mean, does the photo tell a deeper story?

precisely! at what point does a photograph cease to be a simple snapshot image, before becoming a vibrant living entity?

I believe a successful image is one that captures the emotion or the feeling that was in the mind and heart of the photographer. A camera, no matter how good, can not reproduce exactly what the eye sees. Therefore, I believe that post processing allows us to reproduce a final image that reflects what we felt at the moment we captured the image.

As an extension of this very interesting thread I wonder how many images, per annum, members can honestly say " that's it, that's what I saw and I've got it"

Me - 3/4. That is, 3/4 that I'd gladly print and hang for anyone's eyes.

Need another 3 for this year!

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

As an extension of this very interesting thread I wonder how many images, per annum, members can honestly say " that's it, that's what I saw and I've got it"

Me - 3/4. That is, 3/4 that I'd gladly print and hang for anyone's eyes.

Need another 3 for this year!

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

When I add the cost of all the gear together, then divide that cost by the number of years it will last, then divide that number again by the number of good images I have actually achieved in a year . . . the soul weeps.

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

this i don't mind, and can totally understand, on let's say 'milky way' shots.... but willy nilly cranking up/down highlights & shadows (etc) is deceiving the human experience at best?

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

this i don't mind, and can totally understand, on let's say 'milky way' shots.... but willy nilly cranking up/down highlights & shadows (etc) is deceiving the human experience at best?

Does the cranking improve the storytelling? Does it intensify the emotional response? Does the cranking enable us to show what the heart feels as well as what the eye sees?

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

this i don't mind, and can totally understand, on let's say 'milky way' shots.... but willy nilly cranking up/down highlights & shadows (etc) is deceiving the human experience at best?

Does the cranking improve the storytelling? Does it intensify the emotional response?

in some cases, yes it does... remember as OP i'm here for reactions from other members, not to disregard any particular technique (cranked a few myself)

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

this i don't mind, and can totally understand, on let's say 'milky way' shots.... but willy nilly cranking up/down highlights & shadows (etc) is deceiving the human experience at best?

Does the cranking improve the storytelling? Does it intensify the emotional response?

in some cases, yes it does... remember as OP i'm here for reactions from other members, not to disregard any particular technique (cranked a few myself)

You've asked the most interesting question I've seen on any photography board.

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

this i don't mind, and can totally understand, on let's say 'milky way' shots.... but willy nilly cranking up/down highlights & shadows (etc) is deceiving the human experience at best?

Goshawk, i respectfully disagree with you. When our eyes see a scene, our eyes and brain can process it in such a way that we 'see' a very broad dynamic range. We also move our eyes to 'see' sharp images in the foreground, middle ground and at a distance. We do this naturally by simply shifting our eyes to the various elements of the scene. If we wish to capture this entire 'image' digitally then we are limited by our equipment since no camera can capture in a single image all that we processed with our eyes and brain. BUT, we can take advantage of such techniques as exposure blending and focus stacking to make the images convey what we 'saw' and felt. Is this deceiving? I do not feel it is. I feel it is allowing me to represent my feelings or memories within the limitations of a two dimensional media.

I think in psychology there's the concept of top-down and bottom-up processing. How the mind interacts with what the eye sees.

I'm fascinated by this whole topic.

I have stopped worrying about perfection because I have found different people like different things. I recently posted an image on Google+, almost as an afterthought. It got something like 113,376 views, 792 +1s and 58 reshares. Go figure. If I hate something I won’t share it but if it is okay, who knows, someone else may love it.

That doesn’t change how I feel about it but it is nice to have made other people happy.

Visual Perception Theory

In order to receive information from the environment we are equipped with sense organs e.g. eye, ear, nose. Each sense organ is part of a sensory system which receives sensory inputs and transmits sensory information to the brain.

A particular problem for psychologists is to explain the process by which the physical energy received by sense organs forms the basis of perceptual experience. Sensory inputs are somehow converted into perceptions of desks and computers, flowers and buildings, cars and planes; into sights, sounds, smells, taste and touch experiences.

More at the link . . .

http://www.simplypsychology.org/perception-theories.html

How the mind interacts with what the eye sees.

I'm fascinated by this whole topic.

me too.. lets not forget that most of us have 2 really amazing optical instruments in our possession....

somebody has put these points together on dpreview :

Human Eye Specifications (typical):

• Sensor (Retina) : 22mm diameter x 0.5mm thick (section); 10 layers

• Resolution : 576MP equiv.

• Visual Acuity : ~ 74 MP (Megapixels) (printed) to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity

• ISO : 1 - 800 equivalent

• Data Rate : 500,000 bits per second without colour or around 600,000 bits per second including colour.

• Lens : 2 lenses - 16mm & 24mm diameter

• Dynamic Range - Static : contrast ratio of around 100:1 (about 6 1/2 f-stops) (4 seconds)

• Dynamic Range - Dynamic : contrast ratio of about 1,000,000:1 (about 20 f-stops) (30 minutes)

• Focal Length : ~ 3.2mm - (~ 22mm 35mm equiv)

• Aperture : f2.1 - f8.3 (f3.5 dark-adapted is claimed by the astronomical community)

• FOV Field of View : 95° Out, 75° Down, 60° In, 60° Up

• Color Space - 3D (non-linear) RGB

• Color Sensitivity : 10,000,000 (ten million)

• Color Range : 380 to 740 nm

• White Balance : Automatic (constant perceived color under different lighting)

• Refresh Rate : foveal vision (high-quality telescopic) - 3-4fps; peripheral vision (very inaccurate) - up to 90fps