Sparty_lea said recently:

You guys are entitled to judge on whatever criteria you like and I expect whatever won was an excellent picture.
But one thing that strikes me about cave photography these days is how similar everything you see is. Everyone seems to be working to the same 'formula'
Always a caver in there
Always dramatic contrast with backlighting

The guy with arms out to the passage walls and a strong backlight coming over his right shoulder, and the girl crouched down looking at some backlit formation are such total cliches I'm afraid they get zero marks from me for imagination or subtlety even though it doubtless makes for dramatic pictures.

and I thought this was a point worth exploring further.

PLEASE can we keep this as an intelligent and above all constructive discussion?

I am aware that there are several very good photographers on this site and the results are humbling. However, a lot of us have limited equipment, or stuff that is just not really capable of the dramatic shots we often see.

Without detracting from the excellent stuff that Sparty_lea describes, what else can make a good photo?

I could start by suggesting anything that instills an emotional response through the subject portrayed. There was at Hidden Earth a set of three showing a youngster before during and after a caving trip, which I really liked. There were no dramatic views, just three facial expressions which said it all. Other subjects might be those that instill a sense of pathos, or spark memories, or curiosity.

Maybe next year's photo competitions might encourage more than just dramatic views, and explore other avenues. It might encourage those with more amateurish skills to have a go.

I have been banned from commenting on this topic. Pity because Sparty-lea does not have a clue. It was only luck that she won first prize. I thought is was a cave as it was untitled. But it had the "Red Spot" so it must have been a mining snap.

---

You can comment as much as you want on this thread - I locked the other one! :lol:

---

I must admit in general I prefer pictures with people in, I prefer them to show the nature of the trip, I think some of my favourite pictures have been snapped without warning the subject to catch them in action.

Decent lighting 😉

---

Tony, I thought you would respect what I politely asked. You really don't give a damn do you? PLEASE keep your cr4p out of this discussion. You are a b****y disgrace to the website. If you have the means to delete your stupid post, please do so. If not, please ask the admin to do it for you.

Now let's be constructive.

Decent lighting ;)

In most cases I'd agree with this. But if a poorly lit photo is nevertheless evocative of something, is it not a good photo from an artistic point of view? If you managed to portray, for example, the atmosphere of a candle-lit underground scene, is that not a good picture?

Decent lighting ;)

In most cases I'd agree with this. But if a poorly lit photo is nevertheless evocative of something, is it not a good photo from an artistic point of view? If you managed to portray, for example, the atmosphere of a candle-lit underground scene, is that not a good picture?

rsonally I think the balance between a technically perfect, brightly lit picture and a picture that actually has sufficient darkness in it to portray the atmosphere underground can be difficut to achieve.
Sometime a dark picture works very well!

Decent lighting ;)

In most cases I'd agree with this. But if a poorly lit photo is nevertheless evocative of something, is it not a good photo from an artistic point of view? If you managed to portray, for example, the atmosphere of a candle-lit underground scene, is that not a good picture?

rsonally I think the balance between a technically perfect, brightly lit picture and a picture that actually has sufficient darkness in it to portray the atmosphere underground can be difficut to achieve.
Sometime a dark picture works very well!

heres one that Jagman likes in Hendre spar which he wanted me to take just a subtle amount of lighting tells the story

🔗Hendre-Fluorite-Mine-2-User-Album-Image-41821[linkphoto]Hendre-Fluorite-Mine-2-User-Album-Image-41821[/linkphoto][/link]

---

Don't want to get too involved in this but I think one needs to bear in mind that there are differing reasons for taking photographs - and therefore different criteria of "a good photograph."

My principal interest is (was?) primarily in the use of photography for recording, and therefore other criteria such as framing, lighting effects etc. etc. were very much of secondary or less importance. Where I did get a photograph which people thought was "good" (artistically) it was often by accident. Now many people on here take excellent photographs - and I mean artistically - but such photographs do not always convey much in the way of information, they are not necessarily intended to.

There is room surely for both approaches (as well as an infinity of inbetweens) and as such a topic as "a good photograph" is always going to cause an argument! 😉

To everybody I say, never mind the nuances, keep up the good work, I enjoy seeing all the various photos, technical and artistic, and just wish the sort of equipment people tote around these days had been available back then when there was so much of the old stuff still to record!

Grahami

---

Just came across this by casual browsing -

OK it's not underground, but its the sort of thing I was thinking of. It has a sense of abandonment, while also recording an interesting feature of a site.

🔗Threlkeld-Quarry-Granite-Quarry-User-Album-Image-40261[linkphoto]Threlkeld-Quarry-Granite-Quarry-User-Album-Image-40261[/linkphoto][/link]

Taking photos is another opportunity for people to display their OCD, rope access is another.

As my dad says "good art is where the artist demonstrated he knew when to stop".

I have a few mates who could be considered to overcook it. These overcooked photos are obvious. It reminds me of jazz improvisation. An amateur thinks the more notes you can stuff into a solo, the better the musician, a good musician puts the right notes in the right places. No arm across the keyboard or funny hats 'cos it's art. Just the right stuff. As Big Cec used to say, "the music speaks for itself".

I just "take a photo" and it does the job, apart from when big stopes need to be properly lit.

What I class as a good photo is demonstrated here:-

http://www.mine-explorer.co.uk/bbs/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1457&start=1821 

By my mate Ben, who sets up a short exposure, quick wave with his torch and job done. It's the maximum required for the task.

Admin - please tidy up this topic or delete it. 😢

[mod]Done: hopefully the poster concerned will take the hint!

Just for the record, I don't want to see any more references to issues of scale unless they're sensibly presented... ::)

I might add that this forum software currently lacks the ability to temporarily restrict someone's posting, so if I were pushed to a point where I hit the 'ban' button, that poster is gone for good. And I really don't want to do that...[/mod]

As Grahami suggests, there is probably a split based on why someone might consider the photograph to be a good one, basically:

- photographs which are intended as a record, thus should be clear and evenly lit (and possibly with an example of scale :bored: )

or

- photographs which are intended as 'good photographs', where lighting and subject matter will play the important part

I'd agree with the idea that a photograph which includes well-lit areas as well as dark areas is likely to appeal: contrast does appear to improve images.

Something well-framed is likely to look better than something where half the subject is missing, but that's pretty simple stuff and not peculiar to underground photography.

One thing which is - to my mind - very important is subject matter: it has to be recognised that there are a lot of chambers etc. which are simply not interesting and will never make a decent photograph.

Colour is also a pretty critical component, particularly the inclusion of some contrast within the image - this can, sometimes, be improved by lighting (or post-processing). I'd offer as an example something like this:

🔗Rhiwbach-Trip-4th-October-Image-024[linkphoto]Rhiwbach-Trip-4th-October-Image-024[/linkphoto][/link]

---

Don't want to get too involved in this but I think one needs to bear in mind that there are differing reasons for taking photographs - and therefore different criteria of "a good photograph."Grahami

I quite agree. A good example of this would be the National Child Labor Committee Collection (about 5000 photos) in the LoC, most of them taken by Lewis Hines. They significantly helped in the campaign against child labor in the US. Technically not brilliant but he message comes across very strongly. I've posted this before but I think it conveys what I mean.

🔗Pittston-Coal-Mine-Archive-Album-Image-004[linkphoto]Pittston-Coal-Mine-Archive-Album-Image-004[/linkphoto][/link]

---

For a photo to be good, it has to be considered in the context in which it is being judged. If there was a competition where the title was "The Human Element", then the way the subject was lit might take second place to the feelings that the photos convey.

What's good in one context would be poor to average in another.

As Grahami suggests, there is probably a split based on why someone might consider the photograph to be a good one, basically:

- photographs which are intended as a record, thus should be clear and evenly lit (and possibly with an example of scale :bored: )

or

- photographs which are intended as 'good photographs', where lighting and subject matter will play the important part

I'd agree with the idea that a photograph which includes well-lit areas as well as dark areas is likely to appeal: contrast does appear to improve images.

Something well-framed is likely to look better than something where half the subject is missing, but that's pretty simple stuff and not peculiar to underground photography.

One thing which is - to my mind - very important is subject matter: it has to be recognised that there are a lot of chambers etc. which are simply not interesting and will never make a decent photograph.

Colour is also a pretty critical component, particularly the inclusion of some contrast within the image - this can, sometimes, be improved by lighting (or post-processing). I'd offer as an example something like this:

🔗Rhiwbach-Trip-4th-October-Image-024[linkphoto]Rhiwbach-Trip-4th-October-Image-024[/linkphoto][/link]

I think I prefer this one:

http://www.aditnow.co.uk/photo/Rhiwbach-Trip-4th-October-Image-001/ 

---

Colour is also a pretty critical component, particularly the inclusion of some contrast within the image - this can, sometimes, be improved by lighting (or post-processing).

The subject of colour is a good one. I was editing a batch of photos on my laptop last night, these were taken on my Lumix & were shot in RAW.

After adjusting the white balance,& colour slightly I thought they looked about right, ie; the colour was correct as per the location of each photo to the best of my memory.

However when I transfered the saved files onto my main PC, the colour looked overcooked & I did not like it. So it's pretty aparent that what we are viewing on computers differs to quite some degree between various screens & I don't just mean between LCD & CRT as all mine are LCD.

Anyone else come up against this?

---

Absolutely, I agree every word.

The worst is the degree of brightness. My camera takes pictures that look just right in the camera, but when uploaded to my work computer they are dark, and its not just underground ones. That machine has an old 19'' CRT monitor, but its good.
I had this on my lamp comparisons, so I adjusted the car headlamps shot to what I felt just right, and then applied the exact same settings to the others. They looked perfect on that machine, but when uploaded to this site and ME and viewed on my Internet machine LCD monitor, they look over bright. I could tear my hair out over it, I looks as though I am cheating. Of course, the monitor settings of others could be different again.

I think that you make a very important point.

---

What makes a good photograph to me is one that makes me wish that I took it

---