Best photograph/er lists -What makes for a great image?

There have recently been a few lists and articles posted by print publications on social media and in print about "best" or "inspiring" underwater photographers. The lists that I have seen are, in my opinion, fairly cynical marketing efforts. The fact that they are re-using imagery (I assume without having to pay the photographers again) means that it all amounts to cheap marketing and/or an easy, inexpensive way for the magazines to fill their pages.

Image choices in any publication (online or print) reflect the attitudes and values of the editors only, and are not necessarily linked to any intrinsic worth. For example, if an editor only recognises "art" when it is produced by a known “artist," it kind of limits the pool of talent that can be published....

However, the discussion around the lists has made me query how we now quantify "great" photography. One of the editors involved in them claims that his publication "honours" the photographers by showcasing their work. Certainly his publication is very beautifully printed and presented, but does this mean that photographs are only "great" (and worth honouring) when they are in print and appear in his publication?

Similarly, I have heard an editor say that getting social media "likes" does not have any relationship to a photographer’s skill or ability to create images.

So does an image's (or photographer's) popularity on social media have any relevance? Can images only be considered "great" when they are printed out and published?

Should we consider the size of the audience when looking at this? Niche publications have a limited circulation. Popular diving publications have a larger audience, online publications/sites larger again and social media the largest. This has perhaps lead to a perception (distortion?) that "small = exclusive = best", but should this be considered true? Is this something that effects industry "insiders" more than the people actually out there creating the images?

The financial squeeze affecting all print publications has forced them to change their business model. With a very few exceptions, almost all publications are posting imagery that was not shot exclusively on assignment for said publications, but shot by the photographer as "stock" and then sold to the publication.

In some ways, this makes the role of the editor more central, since he or she essentially chooses from a large pool of available work (rather than from the smaller results from a specific assignment). Are we hence seeing a greater proportion of an editor's own tastes rather than simply great imagery?

If so, how do we broaden the selection of imagery that is being published?

Perhaps this is all of little relevance as (financial) success as an underwater photographer relies on imagery being bought and published outside of traditional diving and underwater media. Often, this involves shooting popular subjects that people like, rather than creating what some would regard as art anyway. Certainly, my most commercial images are not my favourites….

So does being published/recognized in underwater specific media really matter?

Sorry for the long post. I hope it produces some interesting discussion!

This is a very interesting question, and I doubt that you will get a consistent answer - but I am guessing that there will be lots of strong feelings.

I am not really sure where I stand on this question, but I will compare it to similar questions regarding music. I'm of the opinion that most of the major awards (ie Grammies, etc.) are more about commercial success and "popularity" rather than inherent artistic worth. It is, of course, much harder to define and quantify "inherent artistic worth" than it is to do so for number of albums sold, number of social media "likes", etc, which is a lot of why the situation is the way that it is. I would submit that photography, especially underwater photography, is in a similar situation.

That's my opinion, anyway. Now, I'll sit back and watch the fireworks...

I like getting Facebook likes for the few images I post to Facebook but I realize that for the most part that doesn't say a lot about my photography, just means I have supportive friends, which is surely a pick me up.

But to really quantify a photographer and his/her images would be regardless of where they were captured would be from like minded photographers. Or to put it another way, critiques from your peers.

Being published does say something about ones work I suppose, but does it say that you had a product at the right price for what a buyer was willing to pay. I suppose that it might depend on the media your work was published in. Local newspaper or world wide magazine.

Wellllll, being that I am a (former) photo editor for a major dive publication, thought I might weigh in a bit. The images I chose, at least for the publication I worked for, was a massive combined effort of compromise, whinning, and sneakiness (occassionally). It really depends on the photo editor and art director and how well they collaborate, how fine tuned their eye is, and how dedicated they are to the cause. It usually came down to this, I would collect thousands of images per story, I used a crazy amount of resources--flicker, facebook, 10-15 stock sources, various sites like 500px and photoshelter, instagram, image call-outs. Everything was fair game, I never made a decision based on sales or favoritism, everything that was chosen by both of us was purely out of artistic merit, (it also helped if the photographer was a breeze to work with, ie: a professional, sending images on-time, not making crazy demands, etc.). Where the problems come in is not neccesarily from the editors, (although I'm sure there are many out there who make poor decisions for the publication based solely on ego, or whatever), but from whomever is responsible for making a profit for said publication. This usually came from individuals who 1) are NOT artists, and 2) are desperatley trying to keep their job, and MY job alive and well. With this said, I can offer a few words of advice for those looking to make a living based completely off underwater photography.

-Get a second job. Sorry

-FOR GOD'S SAKE, BUY a subscription to your favorite dive mags. Get your friends and family involved. The reason this conundrum is happeneing in the first place is because so many publications are struggling to survive!

-Research who you would like to submit your work to before-hand. Not all mags are created equal. And just because your work is not chosen right away is no reason to give up! Photo editors are not created equal, and change all the time. Some of us are very open creative people who are working their butts off to support such an amazing industry, no matter what the cost (*ahem <-----------)

-KT

Hey Katy,

Perhaps your approach is how it should be done!

I think part of my argument is that some editors are not going out and seeking new and exciting imagery, but stick to a formula of publishing established photographer that they consider "artists." This means that they do not seek out new or exciting talent and sometimes even deride it as being not "serious" due to it being popular on new media channels.

A colleague has defined this as "portfolio editing," simply posting portfolios from well known photographers in order to enhance a publication's credibility.

I guess this is why I am not certain that the imagery that is being published in niche underwater photography publications is at all representative of the "state of our art."

The question posed in the thread title reminds me of the iconic image thread started by Steve Williams a while back. IMHO this is a different question then what gets selected for a given publication.

Lists of "best" seems dubious at best given the great diversity in range of underwater image content. As well the majority of people have not been underwater in a natural habitat while maintaining vision; thus most underwater images are a bit exotic to them.

Hi Adam I thought this was the most honest approach to editing, HOWEVER, this method does require a very specific type of person, ie: someone who has not only a passion for uw photo but also some experience with it, (which allows the editor to decifier between an image that took a ton of hard work in camera, and one that's PS'd to heck...). It also requires a ton, ton, ton of hard work to be on the cusp of what's new and exciting, which is not always something thats viable, esp. with so many other job requirements that are thrown into the mix now-a-days, (social media posting, video shoots, gear testing, shooting gear in studio, web posting, AND paying the bills--which is always a good time...*cough). Most mags are hard pressed to find someone who can juggle all these duties, much less have time to sort through all the new and amazing content that's out there. So really, I can't blame the editor's here--they're stressed out, and to top it off money is tight across the board. (So if anyone reading this in the industry has a PE that fits the bill mentioned above, pleeeeease take good care of them!!)

Tom: I agree, most of the PE's have probably not had experience diving. I do know the publication I worked for did offer training for their employees, although it was not a required thing. Plus, back to what I said earlier, money is tight. Most pubs have probably gotten some ad funds from certain destinations, and I'm sure that comes into play with the decision making process, it's a tough situation any way you look at it

In my definition of "what makes for a great image," a key concept is that the image should do all the talking. The method of capture, the rareness of the subject or the lengths to which the photographer had to go are largely irrelevant to the quality of the image. Put simply: If it needs explaining, it probably isn't great!

I see this often in published collections of images from "extreme" expeditions. The imagery is often (for good reason) only remarkable if you know the story behind it.

This is not to deride from the usefulness of ID and other documentary shots, these are important but not necessarily great.

This makes the case as to why underwater macro imagery is difficult to sell commercially. Whilst underwater photographers are fascinated with the process and difficult of obtaining pictures of some critters, to a large extent the wider public are oblivious to this.

So perhaps those individuals that the traditional print diving press likes to deride as being "Facebook" photographers and who get large numbers of interactions with their images on social media are actually simply doing a better job of engaging with their audience. If this is the case, the publishers need to embrace this or become dinosaurs promoting their versions of art in a social vacuum.

I agree with you, Adam.

If the picture makes you go, "wow" then it's a good image irrespective of how it was done, where it was taken or what's in the image. The image has to tap-in to some form of emotion for it work. It might make you smile, it may make you thoughtful, or sad. But "wow" is top of the list.

I find the same as you with macro images: hard to sell. Woman (preferably) diver on colourful reef; or dolphins sell. Incredible shots which took 73 hours without moving at 69m up the nose of the extremely rare minidinkus tinybuggeratus just does't float the boat of too many picture buyers.