Say something about what you see.

I was asked to comment on photos from the following:

1. World Press Photo of the Year

2. International Photographic Art Prize "Arte Laguna"

3. Digital Camera Photographer of the Year

And probably one of the first questions i asked myself was this: "What makes a good photo?" since obviously people thought that these photos were good enough to win prizes in their own categories.

It could be said that the following criteria would apply when examining photos:

1. aesthetics (composition / lighting/ contrast)
2. portrayal of a message / story
3. impact

So how does this apply to the photos from the following sites? There's 2 ways of looking at it - individually and collectively. Obviously in the collective sense they would have had to meet the criteria to even warrant being considered, so the question then is what separates the best from the better and the good?

Let's take this picture as an example. Based on comments by the judges who thought that "this was a clear winner, despite the harrowing nature of the image. The photo almost defies belief. It’s also helped by clear, simple lighting and composition. What this does demonstrate is how a good, simple treatment of such a remarkable subject can still produce a memorable image."

Obviously in this case what they were looking for was more a case of impact and composition being of greater importance. Of course there's still a message behind it and it does tell a story (because i think all 3 aspects are something inherent in pictures), but the thing in this case is that the focus is very obviously on 2 of these aspects.

For another example, let's consider this picture. According to the site it was the "World Press Photo of the Year" for 2007, ahead of other photos in the different categories (which had their own winners of course but didn't make it for the big one).

So why did it win? Probably because in the case of this award, it was the aspect of the story / message that was important (the competition is for press photos after all, and they're supposed to tell a story of sorts).

Finally, let's consider this one. This one would seem to have its judging criteria based solely on the aesthetic aspects such as composition, lighting and techniques involved for digital manipulation. There isn't much of a message behind it, and impact-wise, somehow it doesn't quite measure up against the other 2.

So from looking at all 3 competitions and their winning entries, what do we learn? That basically, what makes a "good photo" varies. The intention of the photographer at that moment does play a part in the end result, because it will affect all 3 criteria mentioned earlier, and it does show through the pictures.