Why

There are plenty of online resources that teach how to make good photos, and this is not a one of them. The thing is - I have no idea (update: well, I have some now) what it takes for a photo to be good. But I think I know what makes it a crappy one, and here I'll try to explain it.

The definition of crap

Take a look at this image (taken by me, not on flickr for obvious reasons):

What is depicted here? Quite a lot of things actually and in order to check if the image is a crappy one we have to name them all. So, there's a seagull sitting on some fence with a ferry terminal in the background. And there is a line of trucks there. And some out-of-focus thing in the bottom-right corner.

The main question is - is that what had been intended to be depicted? In this case I'd say that it is quite clearly not. I mean, I know it for sure since it is my picture, but I'll try to explain why it should be as clear for everyone else.

This picture lacks an object, the reason why it was taken in the 1st place. There are several possibilities of what the object could have been:

• the terminal: it occupies even less space on the image than parts of the ferry from which the picture is taken, and one corner is even behind the fence. Therefore it can't be the object of this picture.

• the fence and the blue floor: is is not even clear if this is just a part of some bridge or a ship, the background makes this fence have too low contrast. The verdict is the same.

• the seagull: apart from it being out of focus (I've failed, yeah) it is barely visible due to the terminal on the background

• the weird thing on the right: well, I hope the explanation is not needed here

As you can see, this image lacks an object, it's pointless and there was no good reason to even take this picture.

Consider this picture, which is, imho, not a crap:

I had an intention to take a picture of a seagull on an evening sky. What do we see here? Right, just that.

One can argue: this method only works for minimalistic pictures, like that stupid bird above. So let's take another example.

This image I took while cycling to Porvoo with my phone. What I wanted to show here is the river, the bridge with nice reflection of it's pillars and some sort of a farmhouse. What do we see here - all of the above plus a part of a metal fence and leafless trees on the right. Let's just crop them out and see if the picture would benefit from it:

Good, but there still is a partly visible car on the bridge. So, in order to make the picture better we'd better crop it as well. I think you got the idea.

So, you're just making an image minimalistic, right?

Well, yes, but actually no.

Sometimes it's not objects that I want to depict. Take a look at this (unedited) image:

What do we see here: a van and some pieces of machinery that I can't even name. But the reason I've decided to take this picture is the amount of horizontal lines here: from the dashed line on top to the contrast between the big white thing (which is a ferry, but it doesn't even matter right now) with the way the blue thing aligned almost perfectly parallel to them. Let's try to bring more focus to these lines. To do this, I've made the picture b&w while increasing it's contrast. So, while this picture is not minimalistic, now it has more accent on why it has been taken - the geometry of those lines.

So, the amount of details is now even higher (for example, the mobile fence next to the van is now more visible). Now, my intentions are more aligned with the end result, making a picture (I hope) less crappy.

More examples

I was trying to take a picture of that bird (as you may have already noticed, I often shoot birds) and I have not even failed with focusing, but the image is still bad. If only this sparrow was sitting a bit to the left, so that it would not blend into the background, it'd be way more clear what is the main object of the picture, which is sadly not. And no matter how you crop this one, it won't be much better for this very reason.

And this bird is much better. It has a nice contrast with the background sky and the branches behind this crow are far enough to be out of focus. The subject is clear - a crow on a tree branch.

There is a lot of things that are bad in this photo, let's try to describe it honestly. We see a tram and this is the only thing that is kinda fine. The reflection of it's lights is obscured by the pile of show, the building behind it is not fully in the frame, there's some radom white car, some part of another building hovering in the left part of the frame... We can continue.

While this one is not ideal either, it is way less crappy - it has a rather clear main object (the tram), it clearly stands out from the background, there are less unrelated objects that may steal the attention.

Conclusion

Ask yourself: "what do I see on the picture?" and try to answer as honest as possible. If the list of things in the answer is significantly longer than you'd think it should be - the picture is most likely a crap.