What "makes" a "great" image?

[Galah]

I have recently had some thoughts about this question and would like suggestions from "APUGers" as to what exactly is the single quallity that is common to all "great" images?

(In my view, this same quality is also common to all great literature, painting, sculpture, oratory, architecture, landscaping, etc.)

[Curt]

A great connection to the viewer.

[MikeSeb]

@Curt's answer is the best curt answer I think.

Whatever it is, I know it when it's missing, by my frustration; remembrance of the sublime satisfaction of seeing it now and again keeps me burning film, against all odds.

[RalphLambrecht]

I have recently had some thoughts about this question and would like suggestions from "APUGers" as to what exactly is the single quallity that is common to all "great" images?

(In my view, this same quality is also common to all great literature, painting, sculpture, oratory, architecture, landscaping, etc.)

Try to get a copy of 'The Command to Look' by William Mortensen. It will tell you.

[panastasia]

I have recently had some thoughts about this question and would like suggestions from "APUGers" as to what exactly is the single quallity that is common to all "great" images?

(In my view, this same quality is also common to all great literature, painting, sculpture, oratory, architecture, landscaping, etc.)

You forgot to give us your thoughts on the "same" quality. Why don't you set the theme going or you'll get answerers that will be so vague and diversified that your question - "common to all great images" - becomes meaningless. I personally don't respond equally to all images that I consider great. I'm being honest. A grotesque image and one that invokes beauty can both be great without having an exact single common quality.

[keithwms]

I think that a basic ingredient of every great image is originality.

Some of the greatest images seem inspired by totally new thinking and experience. As if an idea just formed out of nothing and an image appeared... because somebody needed to express it.

But there is also a role for serendipity in photography; we have to be open to the possibility that an unforseen image can become great by causing new and original thoughts to come to mind... after the image is seen on paper.

In either case, whether planned or unplanned, a great photograph is an original photograph. That is what comes to mind now.

One could then ask, what makes an image not so great. Then I'd say lack of originality... or in the worst case, duplication.

[Galah]

You forgot to give us your thoughts. Why don't you set the theme going or you'll get answerers that will be so diversified that your question - "common to all great images" - becomes meaningless. I personally don't respond equally to all images that I consider great. I'm being honest. A grotesque image and one that invokes beauty can both be great without having an exact single common quality.

I didn't forget. I deliberately refrained from giving my view, first up, so it wouldn't restrict the variety of views from other posters.

However, your own answer to the question seems to me to contain the essence of what I think, just that you haven't yet actually named the specific quality implied in your answer -so far.

[Galah]

Try to get a copy of 'The Command to Look' by William Mortensen. It will tell you.

And, what does William Mortensen say it is?

[MattKing]

Sorry, "the single quality" doesn't work.

Great images are usually a sum of parts that together make the image great.

As an example, consider Karsh's portrait of Churchill. The lighting, exposure, selection of focus, body language and facial expression contribute greatly, but without the subject himself, at most the photograph would be interesting and technically proficient.

Together, all those factors speak to us strongly, so the image is great.

Matt

[Galah]

Sorry, "the single quality" doesn't work.

Great images are usually a sum of parts that together make the image great.

As an example, consider Karsh's portrait of Churchill. The lighting, exposure, selection of focus, body language and facial expression contribute greatly, but without the subject himself, at most the photograph would be interesting and technically proficient.

Together, all those factors speak to us strongly, so the image is great.

Matt

Well, in my view, although the factors you mention may make a contribution they are, really, beside the point. (Surely, there are many "great" images without Winston Churchill as the subject?)

However, your last sentence, I feel, is getting closer to the point. Can you refine it a bit more: boil it down to a "single" quality?