It's a silly question, Isaac.
The question is, of course, too broad and too general, to be really meaningful. Photography is too capacious a category and ‘good’ is too porous an adjective. So, in that ‘good’ implies something affective and effective, and that photography, when ‘good’, really means, for me, an artful, deliberate and clever kind of photography, the best way to answer this question lies in thinking about why a particular example of photography is ‘good’ beyond being an epitome of its genre.
Aaaaaaahhhhh! Not this topic again - please oh ye kind and compassionate god! Run away! Hide under the couch!
... but it was quite pleasantly reassuring to discover people I respected shared my own view on photography and its art...
No one's forced you to read the posts, and no one's forced you to add to them.
Isaac I THINK he was trying to point out it was possible for you to try and start a topic that was a little more original and a little less problematic with respect to stirring up controversy but I guess that wasn't your intention? BTW the previous four posts were made by yourself. I suspect you wanted to keep the topic live.
I THINK he was trying to point out it was possible for you to try and start a topic that was...
the previous four posts were made by yourself.
Shock! Horror! Man agrees with confirmation of his own opinion and ignores different opinions!
If you don't understand what's going on then it is best to be silent.