What is Digg?51 Comments
- bieber, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Am I the only one not terribly impressed by those images?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20I've seen that first photo all over the web, but I don't think it was milk in her mouth.
- Mudcrutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11In my opinion: Like a great song, a great photo puts you in the mood of the image, regardless of what mood you were in.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7The photos get worse as the article goes on, ending on a pretty low note, which is too bad. Of course, art is pretty subjective...
- wild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You can't judge art, and every photo is interesting for a different reason. Rules don't work.
And that dude with the girl in water creeps me the ***** out. - jpbleuu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6naked chicks make a great photo.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4www.duggmirror.com
- MauiMac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The second (with the old man and girl) IS disturbing...
- Braingoo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A camera.
Cant believe you guys did not get the trick question. - Andross01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree about the mood. A great photo should drive everything out of your mind and make you say wow. Evoke an emotion or feeling of awe.
But as to what tangible things make a great photo, I don't believe there is an answer. Some photos are great because they are wildly over exposed with deliberately sloppy composition and an abstract subject matter. Others are great because they pay attention to all the minute details within the image, ensuring that everything is "perfect," as far as technique is concerned; sort of like an Ansel Adams print. And others have both the perfect subject and perfect technique.
There are photos that are great because of technique alone or content alone. Take Robert Capa's D-Day shots. The only stuff he had to show at the end of the day were blurry, poorly exposed negs. But the content of the image is so overwhelming, that this is only a minor complaint. In fact, this even adds to the emotion of the image. And then you go to Ansel Adams. Okay, a picture of a mountain that many people have seen. Big whoop. But all the hours, all the days of dodging, burning, manipulation, etc. made it more than just another picture of a mountain. It became this grandeur and majestic being.
There is no formula for a great photo from my experience. My personal belief is that one should develop their own style and vision. Take the basics of photography, become familiar with them, and go on from there. - Twoodge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think most photographs considered pieces of great art do one or both of the below things:
1) convey a strong message in a subtle but meaningful way or
2) make you say 'wow' due to technical details, such as great colours, contrasts, composition etc.
Also, IMHO, the photos in the article have some great ideas but are really quite a way off the mark in terms of portraying them to the viewer. - Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What's "better" ... brighter colours? The lack of thought required to figure out whats going on in your typical flickr submission or is it just easier to guage concensus on flickr when everyone leaves the same comment and all you have to do is count the "l luv it!!1"s to see which is "better".
- Coffeedemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I thought they got better. The first one didn't say anything to me at all and all of that "she wrote her own vocabulary" stuff sounded like desparate rationalizing for something they felt obligated to include.
The one with the men and the hats was wonderful though ... there's so much that could be happening there that you could write several stories out of it. - HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3STOP REMINDING ME OF THAT IMAGE!
*reboxes having seen goatse and throws back into subconscious* - olegk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2goatse?
- sunchild, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Photos should be discussed as little as possible. There is nothing worse than some self-important photo "critic" who lists off the names of the photography canon (Avedon, HCB, Freidlander, Capa, Weegee, Winogrand, blah blah extreme f-ing boredom).
If you're looking for an easy answer to the question "what is photography?", you will be waiting for a long time. - locnguyen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2These pictures are pretty artsy fartsy which doesn't always mean great. These photos have a bizarreness factor more than anything else.
- virga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jesus christ you are all idiots.
- jersey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Thing is, you're dealing with the art crowd now, and they have a very different definition as to what makes a great photo. More often than not, you'll find most people consider the "iconic" photo great, however in the art circles they are looking for something that makes them reconsider previous beliefs, etc.
- brianberns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The linked photos and discussion are really unimpressive. Not a single one of those photos struck me as "great", and the expert commentary didn't help.
As an amateur photographer, I would say the following characterize great photography.
1. Capturing a specific moment in space and time. This is partly about the technique of composition, but also very much about being in the right place at the right time with a camera. And knowing where to point it. This may sound obvious, but requires a way of seeing the world that is very special. Basically, the choices here are to capture the world as it is, or to deliberately create a scene and then capture it.
2. Manipulating light to create interest/beauty. Again, this sounds obvious, but it requires great skill. Light can be manipulated in much the same way that paint can be manipulated on a canvas. There are basically three ways that this can be done: 1) Deliberately cause the subject to emit/reflect light by e.g. shining a lamp on it, 2) Adjusting the way the camera processes the light that enters it (e.g. fast/slow shutter speed), 3) Manipulating the image sometime after the picture was taken (e.g. Photoshop). - SwellGuy007, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Steve Perry - Former singer from the band Journey
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A photo isn't great until its an "Amazing HDR" photo submitted to Digg. Actually, I have to say that the whole "amazing fantastic photo" trend seems to be dying out on Digg, now its just useless top 10 lists like "Top 10 reason how to create Amazing HDR diggable photos"
- michelrose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice indeed. Hard to beleive.
- inactive, on 09/08/2008, -0/+1The best mortgage rates, refinance, home loan, real estate, realty http://tophomemortgageloan.com
- puffinkiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Love how people are saying the first photo sucks because it's just a girl with "a load in her mouth" and the second photo is creepy because a grown man and a little girl automatically means pedophilia.
Personally, I love both photos. The girl in the first photo is nondescript and expressionless, with her voice silenced by the cement filling her mouth- likening her to the carpet she's laying on. The girl in the second photo is dressed like a princess and her father (dressed poorly) looks like he's straining to hold her up, and the reflection makes him look taller/greater than he really is- maybe speaking to the difficulty of living up to the expectations of fatherhood. You probably interpreted differently, but anything is better than the immature drivel in some of these comments. - crossers, on 07/19/2008, -0/+0I think good photo like good song, or just good episode of your life!
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - Nedlog23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Judging a photo is subjective.
Objectively there may be similarities taken.
However, what each individual comes away with after viewing any given photo is subjective and therefore opinions vary.
Just think if everyone looked, sounded, acted and liked the same things.
This would be one boring world we'd be living in.
So, enjoy the photos or not (not really for me a Photog major from RIT), to each their own. - thehans, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That second creeps me out as well, especially since I don't know where his left hand is.
- sportfan98, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I've seen that first photo all over the web, but I don't think it was milk in her mouth.
John
Fake id cards - http://www.nextdayid.com/pvc-photo-id-cards.htm - crash128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sorry, none of these are "great" photo's. Some are ok. But kill me - pretentious snots talking about what art is - nothing is more unreadable.
Cartier-Bresson, Atget, Robert Frank, Eisenstaedt, Ansel Adams, (and to a certain extent Joel Meyerwitz & Richard Misrach) - these are/were great. Stieglitz & Bourke-White are also in this class.
But these folks - no, not from these pix. Might get some hits on flickr. And putting the best possible spin on it - they don't suck. - crash128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry, forgot Diane Arbus. What a wonderful freak show she was - she's got a seat in the pantheon.
- dAbReAkA, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7a big-breasted blond is what makes a great photo..
- masskurec, on 03/03/2009, -0/+0it is all about the photo
http://xptweak.net - RoflMyWaffle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1um, definately not milk, and i "know what it represents..."
- muybridge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Sorry, none of these are "great" photo's. Some are ok. But kill me - pretentious snots talking about what art is - nothing is more unreadable.
Cartier-Bresson, Atget, Robert Frank, Eisenstaedt, Ansel Adams, (and to a certain extent Joel Meyerwitz & Richard Misrach) - these are/were great. Stieglitz & Bourke-White are also in this class."
having a bit of reading comprehension trouble are we...? Too much focus on the first picture...? :-)
"My great photo : Parc de Sceaux, mars, 7 h. matin 1925 by Eugene Atget.
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/screen/atget/atget_tree_sceaux.jpg - NatieB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Death by chism?
- imfm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I wasn't impressed by any of those images and the only kind of interesting one was Sally Mann's. I love macro nature photography because it's a window into a tiny, colorful and often alien world that you probably wouldn't otherwise notice. To me, that's what makes a great photo. Some chick lying on the floor, looking like a rank amateur on PornoTube doesn't say "art" or "great photo" to me; the closest I get to a message from it is, "Oh, for God's sake, girl, swallow!" Maybe my art sensor is broken. ;)
- crash128, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@muybridge:
Gorgeous photograph.
A long time ago I went to a show at moma and got to see prints from his negatives - stunning. Darn you, you made me go access a, what are they called again, oh yea, a book.
Porte Dauphine, fortifications, Paris 16, about 1913. - Viralcraig, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Anyone have a mirror site?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1dugg down. the first photo looks like any of a hundred of girls who swallow cum on amateurallure.com .. he always makes the girls show off the semen in their mouth after he jizzes.
the fact that the author said "i can't decide where i've seen that before or what it means" just shows that he is either an utter tard, is gay, has never had sex, or has never looked at the internet.
dugg down for living a sheltered life. - bassmanyoowan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0wow, the servers are down already. smooth
- Knightz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5after seeing goatse i know what makes a BAD photo
- honemasterT, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5yeah, she looks like she just took a 'load' in the mouth!? no wonder
the writer is 'intrigued' by it.! :-)
bizzare.. and stupid.. these
photos are lame, and not at all impressive.
dive in and randomly explore flickr, you'll find dozens of photos that are better than
any of these!
move along citizens.. nothing to see here - thehans, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2And you would think that a picture titled tubgirl would be beatiful.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 