What do you think about these two concepts? Which is the difference between these two kind of photography?

Pretty pictures are pretty because what it counts is the subject, good photographs are good because what it counts is the creativity and use of a technique?

Which one is your very own kind of photography?

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts about this...

Even I can recognise a good photograph for what it is, however must admit my most looked at photographs are those of family and friends and places we have visited, most of them pretty average, some of them actually horrible but there is something about a good photograph which makes you look at it and admire.


I have been trying since joining this forum to become a better photographer and to become aware of my surroundings, am enjoying my camera but dont think I will ever become world famous.

You are world famous already. Even if it is only a small audience.

Pat Wrote:Even I can recognise a good photograph for what it is, however must admit my most looked at photographs are those of family and friends and places we have visited, most of them pretty average, some of them actually horrible but there is something about a good photograph which makes you look at it and admire.


I have been trying since joining this forum to become a better photographer and to become aware of my surroundings, am enjoying my camera but dont think I will ever become world famous.

You are very hard on yourself. None of us is world-famous, but you do what you do, and improve incrementally, and maybe that combination of luck, and skill and vision, and being the right place at the right time come together, and bingo - you are world famous...

A very good question, Irma.
I'm constantly at war with myself on this subject.

Here's what I feel I know so far:

A photo that captures something personal can be very wonderful to the people it matters to.
Family, portraits, quick moments caught...
But it usually means nothing to anyone else.

Something with great technique can inspire other photographers, get a response from the general public, and be a very beautiful statement, but not have enough emotional power to hold anyone's interest for very long.

I think a middle ground is where the ultimate goal should be.
Practice can be done on both ends of the scale successfully as one works their way towards the ultimate combination.

When faced with less than inspiring subject matter I lean towards maximum technique, yet when things in front of me are emotionally strong I shoot fast (to capture the moments) and only hope that my constant practice of technique will help me at this critical time.

Does this make sense?

First I would like to apologize for answering your comments so late, but today was "a day"... so busy... but I didn't want to go to bed without giving my comment....

Yes, Keith I think what you say makes sense, and I like your idea. Something in between should be the goal. Your comment made me think.

My idea is that to understand or admire a good picture you need to have certain knowledge about photography, design, colors,etc while a pretty picture is easy to understand, it is mostly of beautiful things or things that in an easy way inspire more universal feelings... Pretty pictures go more to the masses while good photographs are to be understood by a more studied group.

Sometimes I have seen pictures that are labeled as good photographs and I can't find what makes them good. That is why I thought I should be able to appreciate and understand those photographs to reproduce that quality in my pictures.

I think everybody likes its pictures to be acknowledged, I do like it, but I wouldn't like to be world famous. After all these years taking pictures my goal still is to take beautiful pictures, or better to say good photographs...

Thanks so much for your comments.

Need there be a difference? Can good photos never be pretty or pretty pictures never be good?

I suppose *good* photos have composition and rhythm and flow and repetition and color balance and...and..and...

...but not necessarily. Good photos touch something that is not necessarily definable in us - and may not be pretty at all. I suppose they say something about something (how's that for a vague interpretation?). At the end of the day the *art* - the goodness of the photo comes from within the photographer and not from the prettiness and certainly not from the equipment.

I took a course on artistic photography and they were quite specific about what made photos good - and they were right for the most part - because what we consider good in art is based on rules of form and structure and composition - whether we now it consciously or not.

But that denies the inner self - and a *good* photo may exhibit none of the conventional artistic attributes - but may speak directly to the soul...

Ah what rubbish - delete this post...

My opinion (a rant):

Pretty photographs are things in themselves. They can be pretty because they are like colorful tapestries with color harmony or color that fits the decor. They can be pretty because they do not disturb but depict standard, safe "pretty" subjects. They can be fail-safe pretty photographs that have been made a million times in almost perfect copy from the same subject.

Good photographs are encounters--they are one time confrontations between the photographer and the subject. Most of the time they are not duplicateable. I think the standard rules of abstract art do apply but the sense of the goodness of the photo comes from the contact betwen the viewer and the photographer--the I-see-what-he-means" quality.

Toad, I wouldn't like your post be deleted. I think it has very interesting points, I would like to read again and again to clear my ideas...
Don, I like also a lot what you wrote.

Sorry if I don't comment at the moment but I need a bit of time....

I see what yall are saying but i think a lot of what is being said is one of those " in the eyes of the beholder " . A good photo in my eyes is one that is good in the technical ( sp ) aspects . But doesnt make it " pretty " . And that goes the other way , a pretty photo may not be a " good " photo ( as seen in a lot of my attempts ) . Like Toad said why not both ?

I guess its all about what you are going for , shows , selling , personal , whatever. Does a photo have to be a technicaly correct photo to sell it ? no , but it does to win a contest .

I personally try hard for the technical aspects on my shots , while trying to get a " pretty " photo at the same time . Normally i strike out on one of the 2 .

Just my thoughts ........... Shawn

Doing a bit of research for assignment 45, I was surprised at some of the quotations that I found. There seems to be an element of contempt for the idea of prettiness. Perhaps it's because it's a diminutive, and we're all supposed to strive for some transcendent beauty, but really I think it's a question of fashion.

These days I've been looking at commercial photography instead of editorial or art, and it does indeed put emphasis both on "pretty" and being technically excellent. Honestly, I think some of the best photographic work being done today is found in the ads and glossy magazines. Not the photographs for the magazine articles, which pay very little, but the ads that cost millions to produce and run.

A popular view of "Serious" photography still leans toward editorial, news, and "street" photography. There's an idea that significance comes from the disregard of aesthetics, or the flouting of them. To my mind, this is like teenagers the world over who express their individuality by dressing in all black.

To me, a photograph being pretty is something to aspire to. A photograph's technical competence should be a given, and excellence should be sought. My real goal, though, is to make a photograph that's compelling -- and that doesn't require it to be pretty or technically sound. Given a choice between being compelling and pretty, or compelling and technically excellent, I'm not really sure that one is better than the other. If I can have all three, then I'd consider that photograph to be a success.

I like Matthew's comments re. compelling. Although I think this works in more of the journalistic side of photography.

In wedding photography (where I feel best able to make some comments) you are always trying to perform a beautiful picture along with one that is technically sound. But to be honest - it is really about capturing the emotion which makes this type of photography work and I don't see that falling into pretty, good or compelling. It is more about timing and awareness.

A lot of wedding photographers make very 'pretty' pictures and their portfolios look like model shoots. While this is all wonderful and I strive to achieve this - I really feel the emotion is what a bride wants captured on the day. If you capture the emotion in a 'pretty' way, that is technically good than you are probably a top wedding photographer.

In terms of achieving a pretty photograph in general I think this is hard to do without being technically correct (there are always exceptions to this). Whereas it is much easier to produce a technically good photograph without it being pretty.

(Feb 23, 2007, 11:42)Irma Wrote:  What do you think about these two concepts? Which is the difference between these two kind of photography?

Pretty pictures are pretty because what it counts is the subject, good photographs are good because what it counts is the creativity and use of a technique?

Which one is your very own kind of photography?

Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts about this...

Hi Irma,
You raise an interesting subject, and one that certainly inspires thought.
I have read the responses with interest, and there are a lot of very valid points to think on, I am particularly drawn to wedding shooters remarks as they reflect a lot of my own thinking.
To give you my slant. photography for me is very much about taking subject matter that is pleasing to my eye, pretty if you like, as clinically pure and exact as I can get it. (Perhaps if one was taken wedding photography the subject might not be that pleasing to ones own eye, but that would be irrelevant, as the photos are not intended for myself, the intention would be still to create as clinically perfect a reproduction as possible.
It seems to me the answer to your question is pretty much right down the middle. Equal measures of both! It doesn't matter how good the technique, and technical brilliance of a photo is, if it is of an ugly subject matter the photo is never going to be pretty.
What I am trying to say is that to be pretty a photo has to be of something pleasing to the eye, whatever that may be, and many a pretty picture is not technically that brilliant, but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad photo. The trick is to get the subject matter that is pleasing to oneself and get the result as good as you can.
Many photos of ugly subjects, for example a row of factory chimneys could be taken with technical brilliance, but they are never going to be pretty.

Just my thoughts on the matter!
Pete.

Good question, Irma. I am not interested in pretty but occasionally one of my pictures will be pretty - that does not detract from the picture for me, it just is not something I look to achieve.

For me, a good picture (whether photograph or painting or drawing or . . .) is one that makes the viewer think 'Ah!'. That could be Pete's row of factory chimneys (I have one that sells occasionally) or my typical derelict boats or a city scape (my second most frequent subject) or it could be my then two year old niece which is actually a pretty picture and none the worse for that.

Ansel Adams said" You don't take a photograph, you make a photograph" and Erica Larsen said "A photograph is never taken, only given."

My opinion is that a good photograph is one that communicates something to the viewer. However, not every viewer may understand the "language" being used by the photographer, therefore not every photograph will appear to be good to every viewer. It is for this reason that I don't enter photographs in club competitions, as every judge interprets what I am trying to communicate differently. I think that there is also a culture difference in the appreciation of photographs. What may be regarded as a good photograph in the west may not be appreciated in the east and visa-versa.

To me, a good photograph is one that communicates something to me, and is one that I don't mind seeing over and over again, no matter if it is a family snapshot or a fine art landscape or a documentary image from a war zone.

Last month I was a guest on one exhibition's opening. Featured was famous Croatian photographer.
Here's one of the featured photographs:



I wouldn't say it is pretty picture. To be honest, for me it is the kind of photo that would end up in a recycle bin (if I were the author). However, this photograph was featured, so obviously, this is a good photograph. Or not?

Things like this make me think that - if you manage to sell your work and your name you are making good photographs. If you're not, your photos are just pretty pictures.