What the most important thing of making a good image

Hehe right now...its knowing how to operate the camera properly since I just started using my uncle's camera and I didn't get the manual (must ask him that sometime :D )

proportioning/bracketing/positioning

I don't know but i want to see how the voting turns out.

Somehow you need everything for a good pic.
But the most important thing is a good camera. Everything else can be perfect but without the right equipment this is useless. I know this. I had a cheap digicam during my first trip, too. I used it sometimes because the good digicam had problems with the memory. The pics are really ugly.

As Depeche Mode would say: Everything counts.

I think that the location and the subjetc are not the most important thing. Even an ugly building has an artistic face if photographer has imagination. I think that imagination is basic to make a good pic.

the composition and subject :)

Knowing how to operate your camera.

Doesn't matter the type of camera you have. Even if you have a camera made of gold and you don't know how to operate it then you won't achieve the effect you desire.

LIGHT is definately the most important thing as without it there would be no image! Professional photographers spend as much time as possible to get the lighting set up properly. With the wrong lighting a photo can look bland, flat, overexposed or underexposed or dull.

At the end of the day, all of the options are very important and a perfect picture doesn't come from any one in particular. I think light is the one which should be given most thought and a bit of artistic effect helps alot.

Pair of good eyes for you to realise all that was listed in the vote...

As the name suggests, photo - latin for light.

Light plays a very important role in photography as it sets the mood, gives the colours, etc.

I feel that the camera quality is the least important.

good judgement is also very important

Everything listed is important....first being Light. But what really makes a picture a great one is originality IMO. Show me something I haven't seen before, like a unique perspective of the same mundane thing we see everyday or a different skyline angle never seen before. I mean whens the last time someone took a picture looking up at the sun underwater.....I mean you might be able to capture the globe of light and it's rays cutting through the water exposing coral or a nearby clown fish or something! ;)

Oh like this! :D
http://www.chrisrossphoto.com/users/christopherross726/images/christopherross72625385.jpg

see there's not much light but it's what you do with it! ;)

my goodness, is that a manta ray?!

very good pic. but that would need that waterproof casing right?

There are different things involved. Good subject and bad camera, good camera bad subject, bad photographer good subject, bad photographer good camera... All of these give a bad result.

As Depeche Mode would say: Everything counts.

I think that the location and the subjetc are not the most important thing. Even an ugly building has an artistic face if photographer has imagination. I think that imagination is basic to make a good pic.
^Agreed^ :yes:

The most important thing of making a good image is to understand Light, followed by a photographer who has the art of seeing and lastly, knowing and using the right equipment.

Everything is important. But the most important thing is: Knowing how to operate the camera properly.
Light condition is extremely important, but there are cases where you forget to bring a bulb, but even at the worst lighting condition, the one who finds the proper one is the operator of the camera. If you know how to operate camera properly, then you know how to find the best lighting condition given.
The thrid thing i think is the most important is timing. Timing is important because taking picture is not merely a recording. It is the blueprint of the subject, and the effort of the photographer comes out proportionally to one's timing. I don't know exactly what others mean by timing, but I wouldn't think it as an exposer period, because it doesn't make much sense.
I guess the subject and the location where you took go together. Choosing the right subject is as important as choosing the location of where to go. Once the subject is chosen, you choose the location. But not necessary all that case. Actually most of the time, photographs come out the best when you find the subject unintentionally. At least that's how I find photography much interesting than any other hobby.
I think the least important is the camera quality. Some may argue that it is really unrealistic to have poor camera quality and expect to take good pictures. Well, I think that if you have a normal camera which have even limited manual functions, you will be able to almost infinite kinds of effect in the picture. Of course, with a phone camera, it's almost useless to get an artistic photograph.

Light (exposure) can make or break a great a great subject that is perfectly proportioned. A good camera does help in getting the light right, if you have read the instructions and follow them. The subject can be bland, but an interesting location (perspective) and proper proprtioning can make it great. But, if you screw up the lighting, everything else could be wasted.

Who the photographer is? :D

To me, what makes a good image is how the picture was taken. The amount of time taken and the difficulty it took to capture the moments. That's why i praise photojournalist for their priceless works.

LIGHT!
No matter how good your camera is, if there's no light, there's no picture.

The only thing that matters is the skill of the photographer. There are people out there who can take good pictures with homemade pinhole cameras, so I don't think the quality of the camera is important.

LIGHT!
No matter how good your camera is, if there's no light, there's no picture.

That's as true a statement one can make!

It is a mixture of everything, but the subject is very important!
;)

I'd probably say Knowing how to operate it properly ... but everything is important .. It's important to get the subject clearly in the picture, it's important to have the right amount of light and color, and it's important to make sure you take the picture from the right angle and to not have anything in your way (branches, people, etc..)

Most important is the photographer. The best photographers will shoot great photos with crappy cameras, because a photo's greatness isnt in the quality of the print, its in the composition, the framing, that SOMETHING we cant put into words. Good photos can be perfect, but still lack that magical element that elevates them to greatness. A good photographer will have an innate understanding, a sense and instict about shooting. cameras are of secondary importance.

the most important aspect is the photographer.

also,
You should differentiate Lens and camera(body).
You also didn't add film to the poll!!!
What kind of film you use is very very important, sometimes more important than lens. Every film has its own personality and the results are very different.

Alot of professional photographers still prefer FILM!
They are still much better than digital IMO, and many real professionals would agree with me.
Even prosumer digital cameras cannot compete with good film cameras in terms of picture quality(I agree digital is more convenient). I really cannot stand weak latitude most digital cameras produce. I also don't think learning photograhy in digital is a good idea. I don't recommend digital to beginners if you want to learn the proper way.

I have a friend who collects cameras(I collect cameras too). We went out for some test shots a couple of weeks ago. I had a 70's Korean RF camera called Kobica 35BC, and he had 1930's Contax II out shooting. We were at a park and saw a group of young college kids with Nikon D70's or Canon EOS 300D's(man, It seems like everyone owns DSLR cameras nowadays).
We heard some of them whispering "look at those poor guys, maybe they cannot afford digital cameras...I cannot believe some people still take pictures with old film cameras, the picture quality is so bad etc." We wanted to tell them they were wrong, and even my 1970's Korean made shitty rangefinder will destroy their DSLR, but I didn't. :) We didn't want to spoil their fantasy. But my friend took out his huge Contax 645 medium format camera start shooting, and smiled at them. Well, that made them shut up.

I know most amateur DSLR users look at their photos on computer monitors, but I wonder they ever print pictures...

I also don't think learning photograhy in digital is a good idea. I don't recommend digital to beginners if you want to learn the proper way.



Used to be like you. Shot with an SLR. Gave up on it. There really isnt much of a difference, and the difference you see is the one you want to see. How would you recommend someone learn about digital photography? Through film? And whats with the "proper" label? Gramophones arent more proper than CD players or MP3 players because they came first, what makes film "proper"? I used to be like you actually, but changing from film to digital opened my eyes. Digital is the medium of the future. film's days are numbered. The fact is I now shoot purely in digital, and I could care less about shooting with film. Therefore Im not going to go back to film if I want to get better at shooting digital photos.

My digital allows me far more flexibility, allows me to shoot and to get instant feedback which in turn allows me to fine tune my shots, making for better photography all around.

You can continue to shoot in film for all you want, but your attacks on digital photography show how desperate film purists are at what is happening. Film is on its way out. Doesnt matter to me, as its already out of my arsenal.

heres my challenge:

Go to my gallery and try to find the pictures taken with film. If you can differentiate maybe theres something to your argument,

Koreanczyk,
don't get me wrong. I own digital cameras too.
I haven't disagreed on digital being the future of photography. I have nothing against digital photography. Digital photos are not better than film yet, at least in general. Any medium or large format photos will destroy most digital photos in every aspects. I think pictures taken with good 35mm films(ex:slide films) + good lenses will be almost as good or bettern than current top digital photos in chroma, lumina, saturation, latitude, resolution etc. If users' intension is to mostly look at their pictures on their monitors, and get images printed once awhile, then it is much wiser to buy a digital camera. However, if you want to print them big(in good quality)and frame them, and even show them in galleries, then buy a good film camera.

Your request to pick film images and digital images don't mean anything. you are comparing directly digitalized images(digital photo) vs. scanned then digitizd film images(scanned film photo). Film is not created to be digitized(eventhough everyone does it nowadays). Everything on your monitor has been digitized so comparing them is useless.

Try PRINTING your digital images, and see what is better.
Also, try B&W photographs on you digital camera. :)
Have you taken photo classes? Do they ever teach you color and digital first? I also think it is better to start with MF cameras, not AF. Why less convenient MF? because I believe it makes the photographers to look through view finders longer, therefore make them think! I feel like most digital photographers don't THINK long enough they press the shutter release button. Because these digital images can easily manipulated on photoshop, and they have enough memory and they don't have to pay for films, developing or prints. Many beginners just take as many picutures as they can with their digital cameras without looking TTL long enough and thinking long enough, and hope to find some good ones amonst thousands of bad ones. If you shoot with film, you don't have that kind of luxury. You really have to think about space(composition), light(exposure), subject etc. It gives beiginners good habit and discipline from the beginning.

Koreanczyk,
I have to head out right now, but since you are into photography and a nice fellow :) , if you have a chance, come to Nylon Gallery in NonhyunDong, Gangnam, Seoul(#7, NonHyun station). It is a photo studio, darkroom, cafe. My close friend owns the place, and I am there all the time, currently working on a project. Maybe we can have a beer and talk about it. :)

Cool, maybe Ill drop by:)

Im thinking of going on another photography expedition around Seoul..I need a subject though heheh. Im all out of ideas:)

Ive never taken any classes. All Ive larned has been through trial and error heheh.

yes, drop by, and beer is on me. :-)
I really gotta go now, I am late again.... :runaway:

Soul,

I agree with you about the thinking and I did begin with a film SLR which I had for a few years, so perhaps it taught me to think. One thing that digital allows you to do is to find your style, develop it, and practice it. You have far more opportunities to actually practice the craft. I think that what you are saying about digital can be said about film. There are plenty of people with film cameras who just mindlessly pounbt and shoot. Granted, a lot of them have switched to digital because its free to shoot with a dica. But we arent talking about 95% of the population here. We are talking about the 5%, like you, me, your friend, who take their compositions seriously, and try to get better at photography. In that sense, I dont think the medium really matters. If you are serious about growing as a photographer, you are gonna take the time to make a proper composition. Digital or film.