What makes a really good image is difficult to quantify. But there are guidences which help to produce them. The rule of thirds or a mechanism which leads your eye into an image like a path, stream, road, track etc are usefull devices which will improve the chances of taking a good image. A classic example was the winner of the annual countryfile callendar competition about three years ago. A quick snap on a point and shoot by a farmers wife while driving sheep through the snow was an image any professional would have been proud of. She didn’t spend hours planning or need expensive equipment, it was shear luck, the right time the right place coupled with both of the rules mentioned above. Those rules plus duditious cropping will produce superior images on a regular basis. But of course just like painted art, some images are of exceptional artistic quality & may not follow convention.
To your claim that What is “good” for someone depends solely on his or her expectations.
Do you not think that generaly, if an image is ‘Good’, most people will agree that it is a ‘good image’? Not because they are copying or falling in line but because ‘Good’ images are pretty universal in their apeal, even if the subject matter is not to our personal taste.
No, because “universal” usually means “at this point in time and for this particular culture” (which is the point I think @Thomas_Do is also trying to make). Everybody’s definition of good is partly a result of their cultural environment. Show the same picture to a chinese guy living in the 1500 and you’ll get a very different answer. You see it also (and specially) with music: that is an art form for which the cultural definition of “good” changes practically with every generation.
Yes ! I think it’s far easier to know when something is not good technically, artisticly it’s more difficult to judge. But combine the two and you are able to say something is not good / I wouldn’t buy or put that on the wall!
Even faster than that. If I had a single measure to judge music it would be if anyone is listening to that song fifty years from now. I doubt many tunes today would pass that test in the future given this age of disposable music, and I certainly don’t see a way to forecast that for a release issued last week.
That “good” is valid only for a cultural context is not a gotcha.
Of course greatness long term comes from being recognized as good across many contexts. Either often by being either very culturally specific or by just speaking to people for a long time.
Of course such canons are gate kept and produced by the ruling class but the process isn’t completely without merit. Even if the good in this case is accidental.
So please judge the two “artworks” below on a scale from 0…100. The second one is a drawing, so do not judge the reproduction quality but the original. Please also explain, why you judged this way.
I would like to see, if different forum users agree on the quality of the images, when ask to quantify their personal impression. Please, do not search for background information on the internet and try to judge independently from other votes.
In this forum we are a relatively homogeneous group of photography-interested enthusiasts. So, the differences should be rather small.
Image 1
Image 2
You do understand that this exercise makes no sense. Particularly for the photo. Photography is generally serial. Even when sold or displayed as single images their relevance most often come from the rest of the images in the series or other pieces by the artist. This isn’t a problem either, it could be a problem for a commercial photographer but they do craft not art. (unless they are both)
The photograph in itself is unremarkable, even so bad it looks intentional. As part of a series or as a documentation of a performance it could be part of a great thing. On it’s own its nothing.
The sketch is very skillfully done. If it has some age it’s probably great. If it’s recent just good because some of the moves are so well understood now.
Personally I cant believe she chose that purse to go with that outfit… 
I’m glad more of us are appaled
The original thesis was that photography is not subjective, but can be judged by general quantitative standards. Yes, the photo is difficult, technically and artistically. That is why I chose it. But now to demand seriality in order to judge a single work, I feel as evasion.
Your statement to include the age of the drawing only confirms how dependent the classification of art is on the prevailing culture.
Your assessment summarized, the picture is bad, but could be part of a good series. The drawing is mediocre but could be great if it is old. These are not the judging criteria @zerosapte was originally concerned with. I think my practical example puts some of the theoretical statements to the test.
My theoretical statements were exactly that art is judged in a context and that this isn’t in any way a problem. I also said, in a few more words, that it’s a shitty photo but that fact doesn’t influence whether it’s good or not.
No one has stated that the judgement should/can be done without any context. It’s pretty obvious that a single image can be shit but the series it’s part of great. Same goes for not judging paintings from the 800’s the same as paintings from 2022. They are cultural artefacts.
Sorry, I don’t get that.
just quickly it’s not a typo
I mean it.
Gotta go though so will come back at other time.
I got that 
. But I think discussion about art is often as discussion about politics. The discussion first goes in circles, then it drifts off and in the end it becomes an unproductive argument. This refers to parts of the discussion in this thread in general, not specifically to our posts.
I would give #1 an 85/100. It beautifully captures the restrained grace and nuance you find in movies such as The Fast and the Furious
Actually it’s what I already said. The context makes the meaning. That photo could be absolutely amazing next to something (text, another photo) that transforms what you see in it.
This isn’t very out there or strange. In fact photography itself works by a similar mechanic. What is inside the frame and how they relate on all levels compositional, social, emotional, material makes the photo. Similarly what you place around the photograph or before/after it can matter just as much.
Family snapshots can become art when curated and placed next to other things. For real they become something else. Anyone open to looking and thinking should be able to feel it.
You can also make a photograph that’s supposed to work only in itself regardless of how it is shown. I have said the photograph is crap from this point of view.
Thank you @nosle for the explanation. I see that you put a lot of emphasis on “context” when judging photography. An opinion I share in parts, by the way.
But the original question was about measurability and quantification. Expressions like “shitty” and “crap” are qualitative and also strongly pejorative. That doesn’t help us with the issue. I’d like a reasoned critique of the two images. Technically and regarding the artistic value. Especially also regarding the second picture. I included this because I wanted to avoid discussions about sharpness, focus and exposure. Nevertheless, even with a drawing, motive, composition and implementation, etc. should be assessable. I think my experiment here demonstrated that a well-founded objective and quantitative evaluation is difficult. Nevertheless, I would like to ask @zerosapte to evaluate the images according to his criteria. I have chosen street photography for the first picture, because you are particularly familiar with this genre.
I know you’re asking for @zerosapte to critique the images but you failed to see that my comments were only to show that we need more info to be able to critique the images. Explaining the value of context was only to point out missing parameters for the discussion.
If that means your intention is for the critique to be only about the images as seen here it needs to be said. Their value as context less digital images shown in a forum.
If they are intended for other media/situation/context our critique won’t be valid.
My argument in contrast to @zerosapte is that a critique shouldn’t be objective. There are however some subjective critiques that are very good. Good enough to take seriously and stop worrying about objective.
So my quick critique of the images as floating in cyberspace
Photo
The photograph of the car and the woman give the viewer extremely little. The long lens and tight crop suggests a shot of an spy view of an interesting moment but the frame is empty of human or object interaction. Formally the image shows nothing visually interesting, the objects in the frame have no meaningful internal relation. Only backs of heads and this is not used as a device to tell us something. The placement of the figure at approx golden ratio adds no interest to the frame. The jumble of shapes colours and harshly lit textures are not composed to create a visually interesting image. The cropping of feet and car, as well as the hats proximity to the top further fragments the impression. The image is blurry in a way that doesn’t add to the photograph. The chaotic harshness of the image is paired well with content that shows a sort of super tacky failed glamour, but ultimately it doesn’t tell us anything.
Sketch
Very skillful capture of the horses. The tiny moves to make the legs look horsey are excellent. The juxtapositioning of black, white,black,white makes for a striking image even if the move is a bit overused. It’s a sketch and a fragment and as such works very well.