最近坛里出了幺蛾子，一堆不堪入目的片片还美其名说 powerful，并且反问，什么是坏照片？我不是大师， 只是一个喜欢摄影的人。简单地讲，我喜欢唯美的片片；更简单地说，欣赏初学者的片片，你给拍清楚就好。要求更高一点，你的片片有一个主题。我估计很多摄影人和我一样，不会喜欢在昏暗的灯下，拍一张胸口犹如涂了淤泥一样没有头的人物像，胸口挂着一个坠子。也不会喜欢断胳膊少腿的人像摄影。我想，每个玩摄影的人，心头都有一个尺牍，去捉捕美 （而不是丑），也是一个欣赏美的尺牍。现在手机很普遍，人人每天都可以拍出百十张片片来，要是都发到摄坛来，摄坛就变成一个垃圾场了。其实，这大概也是很多摄坛大咖很久不来的原因。
要说什么是好照片，首先照片必需有鲜明的主题，主体要分明。一副风光作品，让人的感受就应该是大自然的鬼斧神工。这不代表景色一定要多么奇骏险要，更多的是人面对自然的一种内心的敬畏。
一幅好的人物照带给我们的感受是什么？是情绪。 人物摄影， 有别于其他种类的作品，多多少少都体现了人的主观情绪。所以，当我们看到一幅人物摄影作品，瞬间被揪心的不是多么高超的技巧，是带给我们情绪上的冲击。没错，就是情绪，一副作品带给人最高的震撼。无论是作者本身想表达出来的情感，还是作品本身能够引起你的情感，这样的作品，都是出彩的。在这里，眼神是十分重要，它是表现被摄人物内心世界的窗口，也会渲染摄影人的爱恨情仇。
好片分两种：视觉好或者故事好。
摄影，与机器镜头关系不是太大，更重要的是 viewfinder 后面那颗脑袋。
如果你热爱摄影，相信你一定听过迈克尔·弗里曼（Michael Freeman）。在他40余年的摄影生涯中，出版了20余部高质量摄影技法书籍，长居国际亚马逊摄影类畅销书前10。 作为国际顶尖摄影师，他为多家国际杂志出版社供稿，有《时代：生活图书》、《德国国家地理》等，并且是《美国摄影地区新闻》的长期供稿人。
这里，我就原样照搬，拷贝粘帖他的六条好照片的标准：
http://www.whanganuicameraclub.com/uploads/3/0/6/3/30633807/good_photograph_by_michael_freeman.pdf
What Makes a Good Photograph
Good may sound sloppily vague as a generalization, but it means something useful to each one of us. And, of course, it means being way above mediocre, or even ordinary. By that definition, most photographs are not particularly good. This doesn’t sit well with many people these days, because everyone wants to be liked and criticism is increasingly seen as impolite and unnecessary. This is nonsense, of course, and I’m not going to indulge it here. Excellence is the result of ability, skill and (usually) hard work.
- Is Skilfully Put Together：There is a long list of image qualities which are seen by most people to be technically and conceptually correct. They include, for example, sharp focus on the main subject, a median exposure that covers the dynamic range, a composition that most people will find generally satisfying, and even a choice of subject that seems worthwhile. These and many more are basic photographic skills, not to be lightly dismissed, and there are strong arguments for mastering them all. If the image needs them, they have to be there. But a good photograph may deliberately dismiss many of them – for a reason. There is a big difference between messing up the focus through ignorance or by mistake, and de-focusing for deliberate effect. What counts is first knowing how composition, lighting and so on work. Photographers who master these can then play with them. Part of this is skilful process, or you could say craftsmanship, and it tends to be at its most evident in print and display. Anything well-crafted attracts admiration just for that alone, and this is as true for photography as it is for any other art. Not every part of the process may show through in the final image, and it may take another photographer to appreciate fully what went into its making, but usually and to most people there is a sense of the skill involved. Traditionalists not only hold this very high, but make it essential. More experimental photographers may subvert it. But no one serious actually ignores it.
- Provokes a Reaction Above all：a good photograph is visually stimulating, and so gets an interested reaction from its audience. Maybe not from everyone, but from enough people to show that the image is engaging attention. If our immediate reaction is “I’ve seen it all before,” then it’s a failure. That may be a brutal assessment, and it may not matter at all in many kinds of commercial photography, where a packshot is a packshot, and a tropical beach resort needs to prove only that it’s located on a beach with palm trees and blue skies, but if we’re talking about “good,” then the standards have to be higher than ordinary. Photographers want their images to be looked at, paid attention to, talked about. That is going to happen only if the image prods its audience, gives the viewer something to think about. But for photography that aims to be in some way creative, problems begin when we try to secondguess the audience. Being too aware of how other people are likely to respond to a photograph can lead down a sterile path, towards images that are too calculated, trying too obviously to please. One of the last things I want when I show someone one of my photographs is for them to think it panders to their taste, because that makes me look like a salesman. All art has this in common, and it raised a well-worn debate about what makes a work of art – the intention of the artist or the judgment of the audience. The audience for photography wants, among other things, to see something afresh through the imaginative eyes of a particular photographer. Most people feel cheated, however, if they suspect that the photographer is simply trying to please them.
- Offers more than One Layer of Experience：A good photograph delivers to the viewer more than just the immediate, obvious image. It works on more than one level. Take, for example… Romano Cagnoni’s striking black-and-white of Ibo recruits in Nigeria…. The graphics are immediately powerful – a mass of shining faces and torsos connected above to a line of figures in profile. Then there is the textural richness from the printing. It is also optically unusual, and we are quickly aware of an extreme compression – it was indeed shot with a very long focal length from an elevated viewpoint. Another layer in, and there is much to discover, different expressions on each face. Look, for instance, at the seemingly paler face at the far left near the back of the main group, turned away and down, mouth open. What is this young man thinking? This leads us further down into the layer of context – what is happening here? This is recruitment for soldiers during the Biafran war, and as such, a rich historical document. In other words, looking at a good photograph gives a layered experience. Among the arts, photography actually has a head start in this, because it contains a built-in paradox with regard to reality. A photograph is of life and also divorced from it, both at the same time. From a creative point of view, this offers good potential for any photographer who cares to make use of it. There are already two frames of reference waiting to be shown and exploited. But it needs work; it needs to be recognized.
- Has its Context in Photography：A good photograph is taken with an understanding of the range of imagery already out there for public view. This is dangerous ground when it gets close to pandering to an audience, as just mentioned, but photography is so embedded in the present, and so much a part of everyone’s daily visual diet, that it can’t help but have a cultural context. Photography is by nature contemporary, and most people like it that way, dealing with the here and now. Nineteenth-century photography really does belong in the nineteenth-century – fascinating and valuable, but not part of the present. An experienced photographer knows where his or her imagery fits into the context of others. Some photographers strive to be like others, or at least to head in the same direction. Others strive for the opposite – to distance themselves from certain others. All of them, however, realize that their work is likely to be judged in a wider context. Anyone who chooses still-life photography, for example, and believes they have something worthwhile to bring to the genre, cannot escape the legacy of figures like Outerbridge and Penn.
- Contains an Idea：This doesn’t have to be complicated or obscure, but any real work of art has some depth of thought. In a photograph, it may be a way of composing on the surface, or perhaps a more intellectual idea deeper down. It may even surprise the photographer looking through the edit later, but there still needs to be something that catches the imagination. In fact, it is all the more important in photography, given that photographs can be made without any thought whatsoever. But of course, there’s a lot of published imagery out there that seems full of cliché – idealess – and yet apparently successful. Where does this fit in? Success in photography, as in any other art, can come by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Many photographs that are simply successful are also seen by some as being irritatingly shallow. We don’t need to upset anyone by pointing to particular examples; it’s sufficient to see some of what sells as stock photography through agencies. This is not to say that a photograph like this is easy to take, as the art directors and photographers who do this for a living will rightly point out. But they tend to be compromised on ideas.
- Doesn’t Imitate：There is a long-held view that each art should concentrate on what it does best, and not try to imitate others. The influential American art critic Clement Greenberg, for instance, wrote that “the unique and proper area of competence of each art” lay within what “was unique in the nature of its medium.” It should not borrow from others, and in this way would “purify” itself. He was writing about Modernist painting, but the same applies perfectly to photography. So, a good photograph does not attempt to mimic other art forms, at least not without irony. Rather, it explores and exploits its own medium, and this means having a clear idea of what photography is good at. The German writer and critic Siegfried Kracauer wrote, “Generally speaking, photographs stand a chance of being beautiful to the extent that they comply with the photographic approach… Pictures extending our vision are not only gratifying as camera revelations but appeal to us aesthetically also.” More than this, a good photograph does not imitate others, in as much as any image can be completely new. Thus, documenting is something at which photography is exceptional, and this leads to one approach that emphasizes clarity, objectivity and calm, cool eye, without involving personal expression. The Paris photography of Eugene Atget, the social documentary portraits of August Sander, and the drab landscapes of Robert Adams follow this route. A large part of their appeal is that they are “sensitive and technically impeccable readings” (Siegfried Kracauer again). Reportage with expression, capturing especially evocative moments, is another approach that also relies on the uniqueness of the medium, as in the work of much of the Magnum cooperative. Another aspect of the medium is the specific optical characteristics in photography, such as flare, differential focus, motion blur, reflections and projections like shadow and caustics, which all offer rich possibilities for exploration, partly because they are so easily captured by the camera, and partly because they have an illusory quality parallel to photographs themselves.
选择“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
选择“don't run on pages on this domain”
