Well Lit Photos vs Photos that are Lit Well

For this discussion a well lit photo is one where there is sufficient fill light so that all of the shadows have detail.

And a photo that is lit well can be any photo in which you find the light to be pleasing.

For me, a lot of times, photos that I consider to be lit well are not well lit. I have a feeling there are a bunch of people who only consider a well lit photo to be lit well.

What are your thoughts? Does a picture have to be well lit to be lit well?

Absolutely not...

Nothing says the shadows (or the highlights) have to have detail if the desired effect is achieved.

I've seen lots of low key / high key work where one end of the histogram is crushed and it's fine.

Unfortunately, using the play on words is going to cause a lot of confusion.
There is nothing that says a picture has to have a dynamic range that can be captured by the film. (sensor)
In fact, most don't unless the photographer takes great care to control the light. That would mean its "properly lit" to ensure the dynamic range of the subject is within the dynamic range of the capture device.

When Ansel Adams popularized the Zone System it was to control where specific areas in the image were captured on the tonal range the film was capable of recording. He used a combination of exposure and development to get the range he wanted.

Today we have similar, and more powerful, capabilities with something like Lightroom.

All that is to clarify that a final image presented by the photographer will have a tonal range they think is appropriate to the subject. How it was lit is, to a certain extent, irrelevant. Its how the captured image is processed with its tonality along a tone curve that may be steep with sharp toe and shoulder or flat with a broad toe and shoulder. Both may have blocked blacks and specular whites. On the other hand, as seems popular today, there may be areas that have no detail and also are significantly above 0,0,0. As well as highlights without detail that are substantially below 255,255,255. When I was a young photographer making B&W prints images in the developing tray that looked like that were considered over exposed and tossed in the trash. Oh well.

I agree that an image that is well lit has highlights, shadows, tone curve and appropriate detail to convey the intent of the photographer. Whether that means areas that are 0,0,0 and/or 255,255,255 is just the way the photographer applied a tone curve to convey his intent.

For example, I think that there should be something close to 0,0,0 in a high key image, just as there should be something close to 255,255,255 in a low key image. Is what else is on the tone curve and where its bunched that makes the difference.

The latter, not the former.

I think is all about what you are trying to express, light can create different mood or feeling depending on how is manipulated,