That's pretty broad but I'll ramble for a bit

If you can look at a picture and understand their intention, be able to see what they were going for shown by the composition and subject they picked in an interesting manner it's good photography

For instance in the picture you posted there's a clear idea behind why they took it and it was executed in a manner that makes it clear and concise

If you're just starting out I'd suggest not just walking around with a camera a lot snapping photos of things you think are neat but try imagining concepts for photos or sets of photos. Just brainstorm a bit about things you could see and ideas of how you could make a photo with a clear idea behind it. After that go outside and look at things and see if observing things can also give you ideas about what photos you'd want to take

Also try not to worry about other people. Just find an idea or subject or an idea about a subject and try it out. While doing so look through the finder for a while asking yourself questions about every aspect of the frame: Is it balanced, is there anything that doesn't need to be here that I can avoid, am I too close or too far, is there anything overtly distracting, am I trying to fit too much into the frame or too little

I'm not even sure if this is good advice or not but just have fun with not just taking pictures of things you find interesting but also thinking about if it shows a little insight towards a higher concept or idea as to why you took it

>>2881094
I think this is a good advice, I'll add my 2 cents:
Study the work of other photographers, not necessarily famous buy known and appreciated for their style or what they brought to the table. This will help you learn a lot and figure out what kind of photos you'd like to take.
After all, You don't know where you're going until you know where you've been.

Find something interesting. Think about how to capture what you find interesting about it. Think about how to frame it to capture it. Think about how to expose it to capture it. Think about lighting, what time of day, maybe come back...

Go out and do this 100 times and maybe you'll get 1 picture actually interesting.

there is no one real rule of good photography. photography isn't limited by concept or aesthetics. you can do anything with it so long as it uses the medium of photography and it can be good.

This thread seems like solid advice desu. especially as a beginner you tend to shoot everything without any idea behind it. I feel like if you find/make up a theme for a set, it kind of makes it easier to focus on what to shoot

>>2881094
>If you're just starting out I'd suggest not just walking around with a camera a lot snapping photos of things you think are neat but
terrible advice in a good advice post. A new person to photography NEEDS to take lots of photographs of different things, at different angles and at different levels of brightness, etc etc. He needs to understand what it means to changes the aperture or shutter and what mm to use when. You really can't expect a new shoot to just sit and thing of grandiose concept without experimenting with what that bird looks like under a tree at 70mm

>>2881795
Well that's mainly why I merely suggested it

I understand exposure fully and went out and took tons of photos of random things I thought were neat but it brought me personally nowhere closer to being able to create more conceptual work

I'd definitely recommend just going out and snapping photos but also to do the opposite

Like I said that's mostly from my personal experience but it might help that dude out

good photography is personal taste and everyone has different tastes so there is no easy answer

there is obviously knowing how to use your camera, getting the correct focus and all that technical stuff

but apart from that shoot whatever you think is cool and dont let anyone else tell you it isnt

>>2881086
It's super personal.
Some people are really caught up in technical quality, things like perfect focus, corner to corner sharpness, balanced exposure, tasteful editing that is noticable but doesn't go too far. For them a great photograph has to be technically perfect.
Some people love the artistic side, strong aesthetic (even if that's lo-fi), cohesive themes or clear artistic intentions, a considered composition. For them a great photograph has to be artistically strong.

Often these two groups clash, and even more often there's a lot of overlap (although few tend to be a dead 50/50 split between the two. There's no single right answer.

To paraphrase Alan Moore's comments on how a novice should approach magic and the occult, the best thing to do is just throw yourself in and consume as much as you can while relying on yourself to accrue a sense discerning taste later on. You'll eventually just pick up on how to sort the wheat from the chaff. Go in and consume everything, instagram snapshots, high end fashion magazines, gritty punk and skater zines, take it all in and just let your tastes develop naturally. Trust yourself to become a good judge later on down the line while acknowledging that being completely new means you are still developing. Just always be on the look out, actively seeking out and consuming and the rest will take care of itself. It's not something to worry about, it's something to be enjoyed.

For me, a good photograph or project or work or w/e is USUALLY brimming with potential. Images you can look into and that you can use to find multiple meanings from rather than a direct, obvious meaning with nothing below the surface. I'm more interested in what the photographs might signify than how well composed they are - it tends to be the case that photogs who get the signifying down get a distinct aesthetic over time. That said, when more window-dressing type photographs are concerned, good form is obviously nice. But I'm more interested in ugly photographs that say a lot. Sometimes, it's simply being able to make the viewer suspend disbelief long enough to give an effect of "being there"

In my view a good photographer knows how to get the shot they want before they get it. Whatever medium doesn't matter - you only need to look at plate photographers shooting paper negs to see that it's not high on the agenda even for those with the highest quality equipment. I'm sure digital MF photogs have done similar things in some way

As a viewer, I think it's best to be able to contextualise a photograph as speak of what, again, it says. But I'd be a liar if I didn't say that I like some pictures because they tickle me aesthetically.

(sorry for the long post, got a bit rambly)

>>2882358
yep, I've noticed a large number of technifags here. Sometimes a over iso exposure works great and sometimes a shot does not have to be perfectly leveled if the content is intriguing and has good triangle connections or lines of contact that helps you focus on why the photograph was taken

>>2881086
Usually I can tell what they wanted me to look at and what they thought was interesting. There's a massive variety of ways to do this, which is what makes photography so engaging to me.

>>2882452
I don't often see technical criticism here unless it's warranted. Many people here are pretty new to photography and aren't tuned in all the way, so you get mid day shots at ISO 1600 or crooked horizons.

Since people are new they also latch I to that stuff because Its usually the first aspect they learn. Its a lot easier to point out technical errors than sit down and articulate something deep about what the photo is trying to communicate and how it could do a better job at that.

Its not a bad thing to point out technical flaws though. Learning and doing better are always positives.