"You know how few of the pictures you take turn out to be any good."
William Gedney's notes, August 1971, a week after Diane Arbus' death, (the above statement is from a conversation between Gedney & Arbus, it is unclear from his notes which of them was speaking).
A few years ago whilst browsing in a bookstore in Brooklyn I picked up a book about a photographer whose name was new to me and whose work I was unfamiliar with.
Since then "What Was True" The Photographs and Notebooks of William Gedney has become one of my most treasured and valued books on photography. I often bring this book out of the bookshelf and keep it near to my desk, reading passages and viewing images over the course of a few weeks. I never fail to be impressed and a little inspired. The images are rare examples of a great photographer's mind at work. All the necessary elements are there; composition, timing and most importantly content. I'll save the rant on "content" or "lack thereof" for another post.
So how do we know when an image is "any good"? Besides the necessary decent composition, timing and subject matter and a given degree of technical competence, or even excellence Is there such a thing as an easy definition of "good" given that many great images, and here I'm thinking not only of historically significant or important images but also of more than a few current ones, are certainly lacking at least one of these elements? There are of course many images which while being technically perfect are devoid of anything that would elicit the slightest desire to view it a second time.
Therein lies the key to my own personal defination of good;
Is the image worth a second look? or does it bring pleasure or stir emotions and can it do so over a long period?
