Mr. Kent Shiraishi wrote a new article.
The article let me embody my vague suspicion.
"You are a photographer, aren't you? You are a professional photographer, aren't you? If so, why not have a match by photography?", "You know 500px? This is the world-biggest photography website with over 5 million users.", "You and I make a new account there and post one photo. 24 hours later, we get our evaluations from the users worldwide. The winner is the one who gets more points, the difference can even be 0.1 points." (Quoted and translated from Kent Shiraishi Photo Studio)
If any photographer needs people's evaluation to have a match, and if any photographer needs people's evaluation to decide which is a good photo, how can any photo without such evaluation be valuable?
A good photo.
It is easy to utter the phrase.
Photographers around the world try to take good photos every day and night.
However, I find it quite unhealthy to keep taking photos without knowing what is a good photo as if I were fumbling my way in the dark and wait for unclear evaluations from the world in fear...
However, there's no engineering definition of a good photo...
Well, then, a definition like
"A good photo moves more people more deeply"
can be a standard of a good photo? It sounds weird as if it were a common failure of democracy.
When people see this photo, what do they think?
I took this photo in the beginning of January, the following morning of my moving to Tsurumi. This is indeed, from my house. The strong sunlight shed straight into my room in the chilly air. I enlarged the F-number and made the shutter speed faster. This photo is a symbol of the beginning of my new life to me.
But this is only to me.
Only I feel so.
Any other people will only find that the sun is merely rising between the buildings in the photo. As it includes some ghosting, it can not be excellent as an art.
Is this a good photo?
I found it more challenging to seek the definition of a good photo than to seek a good photo itself.