>>3259620there are various considerations, but I haven't cemented a formula of criteria. I can tell you for sure that liking it, like this anon suggests (
>>3259621) shouldn't play much of a role. You should be 'well read' enough visually as to have an eclectic taste and understanding of images to the point where you can appreciate one as good without necessarily liking it.
But you know, general stuff like how the composition, lighting and tonality interact with the subject and if they create a visual syntax of their own. Then stuff like, ingenuous technical ability - doesn't have to be complex or anything, just original enough to present what appears as a mundane scene through different eyes. There are several other considerations and I wouldn't proclaim any of these as set in stone for what makes a good photo. I'd rather speak about a specific image/set than devise general rules.
The best thing you can do for yourself is educate yourself visually, both by observing visual art and its history and observing life as it unfolds before you and composing images mentally. And another thing - articulate why it is that you like or dislike an image. And be harsh on yourself when it comes to setting the standards for what you consider an articulate critique. Very few people do that, but it's good exercise. People think how their taste functions, but you'll find that their artistic sensibilities are in their infancy and illiterate unless their are actively conscious of them.
