Your new post is loading...
"Photography, if you want to be scientific or academic about it, is the fetishisation or freezing of a moment in time. But aside from the technical - the camera, kit, etc - what makes a particular photograph interesting depends on what you and your viewer’s interests are.
We might as well state the obvious at this point: it’s entirely subjective and down to how you view the world, what truths you think apply to it, and what fascinates you. If you like cats and cars (and, goodness, so many people do) then the cuter the cat, the sleeker the car, the better the photograph. To you, at least."
What makes a good photograph? That's a question that has been the source of debate among several photographers for decades. After all, is there such a thing as a good photograph?
The Telegraph had a feature article today about this topic and I think its the best attempt at answering some of these questions. The article suggests that all photographs are inherently "good photographs" because each photo has an ability to evoke an emotional response in an individual. In other words, all photos are good because they have some sort of personal value either to the photographer or the people in the photo. Finally, the article closes by describing a good photo as any photo that forces you to "look at the world differently" - even if the photo is of something ordinary.