Does The Subject "Make" The Photograph? There are a lot of photography buffs here so I think it's a good place to ask people's opinions on what "makes" an effective photograph. Is it the subject or the photographer? Someone I was talking with proposed that the subject is, at least, 50% responsible for the effectiveness of an effective photograph, literally such that, in the case of a human portrait, the subject should be entitled to 50% of any profit from any sale of the photo, not for reasons of the rights to how their image is used, but due to their appearance constituting an artistic contribution to the image. He developed this argument by saying that this contribution consisted, not of direct artistic input, but in having "influenced" the photographer. That notion came up in conjunction with an image of a person with tattoos and piercings and a particular hairstyle. The person making these arguments asserted that the effectiveness of the image was 50% due to the subject having cultivated a particular "look". He argued that her "look" is what made the photo interesting, therefore she deserved 50% of the credit and profit, if things were only fair, for having "influenced" the photographer to photograph her. When I raised the question of how much artistic influence we should ascribe to, say, a flower, when an effective photo of that flower has been produced, this person asserted that, indeed, the flower should be acknowledged as having influenced the photograph by 50%. What do all you photographers think?