.
It's good to see this topic pop up. Thanks for originating the post. The arcane back and forth of technical
minutiae usually grows wearisome, and I see most of it as the equivalent of picking fly poop out of the pepper.
I have a strong interest in what makes not only a great picture, but also a good one. None of us, probably, will ever make a great picture, but I think we all have a great chance of making some good pictures. The first step, of course, is to understand what makes a good/great picture. Most of us are trying very hard to make good pictures -- but if we don't know what makes a great picture, how do we judge our success and or progress?
My initial response to the question was simply, consensus and/or acclaim make a picture great. When just about everyone agrees it's a great picture, perhaps it is. Or, maybe not. I've long been told
Mona Lisa is a great picture, but I don't really see it. I've long tried, but to me, it's just another portrait. I understand some of the artistic elements, and perhaps in 1520 they were novel. Today, frankly, I've seen lots better.
A few folks here seem to suggest that "visual impact" is what makes a picture great/good. That seems like a cheap answer to me -- sort of like saying horsepower makes a car great.
The examples of "iconic" pictures here don't seem to clarify the issue. Most are mediocre pictures at best, and when a background story is needed to make them important, they are reduced to simply supporting documents. One thing I most love about the Ali picture is to see the expressions on the faces of photographers behind Ali. They all know the guy on the other side of the ring just got the great shot, and all they have is Ali's rear end -- such is sport photography.
While I have years and years of experience taking pictures, I have not a single moment of formal training. I've always felt deficient because of that. I have a good eye for composition, but I don't have the formal education to elucidate why one picture works and another doesn't. Of course, that never stops me from trying! One of the best things I've come across in this regard is a B&H presentation by Adam Marelli,
Bridging the Gap: Classical Art Designed for Photographers:
Bridging the Gap: Classical Art Designed for Photographers
In that lecture, he begins with the basics of what he calls "visual language," going from straight lines and arcs and circles to volumetric figures and arabesques, etc. He has formal training both in photography and sculpture so he actually knows what he's doing when he's taking pictures. While I'm plodding along hoping something good shows up in my visual field, he is looking for specific visual imagery that makes a good picture. So, probably for every good picture I get, he gets 50 or more. He not only knows what makes a great picture, he knows how to see it (visualize, some would say) and capture it. He did a worthwhile followup to that video with another one,
How to Talk to Strangers: 7 Tips for Photographing People:
How to Talk to Strangers: 7 Tips For Photographing People
As some folks here probably know my first photography interest is public photography, what's generically known these days as "street photography." I like people in public spaces -- whether in streets or parks or markets or public transport or festivals, carnivals, etc. For reasons I've never been able to adequately articulate, I like good pictures of people in public places. Interestingly, I usually get bored rather quickly looking at such pictures, and Marelli explains why. He says 99% or more of what is considered good street photography does not make good pictures. There is far more to good public photography than a picture of a homeless man with a kitten peeking out from under his tattered coat. That may be cute, but if it does not contain the essential elements of a good picture, that's all it is.
An example of a good, perhaps even great picture, I like to use is one by Henri Cartier-Bresson:
http://www.copypasteculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/henri_cartier_bresson_photo_001.jpeg
I believe this comes from France in the 1930s -- so he didn't have the resolution of a 5D3 or the post processing power of Photoshop. What he got is an image contrasting stolid classic lines and shapes in hard, cold steel and stone with the warm, fluid flowing movement of a person on a bicycle. One second earlier or one second later and the picture would not work. I'd like to think he was just walking down the steps one day and he saw this and snapped, but you can be sure that's not what happened. He surely saw the forms and waited for something to come along to accentuate it through contrast. That's why Cartier-Bresson is a big name in photography -- and I'm not!
Anyway, I could go on, but this should be enough to tweak some folks who think "visual impact" is the characteristic of greatness.
Thanks again.