DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photography to produce physical reaction
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 15 of 15, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/15/2005 08:23:06 AM · #1
On my illusions challange (Lighting Up the Sun) I received a lot of comments that the picture hurt their eyes. That actually made me feel really good, because the title definitely backs up that reaction. It did not do well, but I am glad that there was a physical reaction from many of the viewers. Question: Do you feel it is valid to try to produce a physical reaction in photography?
 08/15/2005 09:00:39 AM · #2
When I look at a bright sky, it hurts my eyes and yet it seems to be the 'accepted rule' that blown highlights in a sky are a 'bad thing'. Why must images always fall into a safely controlled light range? After all, at the other end of the spectrum are moody, shadowy pictures lacking in detail - these do not provoke so much hostility.
 08/15/2005 09:10:55 AM · #3
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
On my illusions challange (Lighting Up the Sun) I received a lot of comments that the picture hurt their eyes. That actually made me feel really good, because the title definitely backs up that reaction. It did not do well, but I am glad that there was a physical reaction from many of the viewers. Question: Do you feel it is valid to try to produce a physical reaction in photography?


I think it's valid to try, but why would you want to make a photograph that causes physical discomfort to the viewer?
08/15/2005 09:22:04 AM · #4
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I think it's valid to try, but why would you want to make a photograph that causes physical discomfort to the viewer?


Perhaps for some of the same reasons you might make a photograph that causes emotional discomfort?

Message edited by author 2005-08-15 09:22:19.
 08/15/2005 09:30:18 AM · #5
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I think it's valid to try, but why would you want to make a photograph that causes physical discomfort to the viewer?


Perhaps for some of the same reasons you might make a photograph that causes emotional discomfort?


I think you still need to have some level of visual appeal. If it's just unpleasant, why would anyone want to look at it in the first place?
 08/15/2005 09:36:44 AM · #6
Life isn't always visually appealing, and some things hurt your eyes. I kinda like the concept that blown out areas or light should be better tolerated. I personally am not offended or turned off by it when I view it in my own work, or others. I tend to accept flaws in people, in art & photography because thats what makes it real to me.

Message edited by author 2005-08-15 09:37:39.
 08/15/2005 09:51:07 AM · #7
If you want to take photos that no one wants to look at because they are ugly and make them ill, be my guest.

My point is not that the subject has to be pretty, nor that a photo needs to be slick and colorful to be good. There has to be something in the image that engages the viewer and makes them look, even though they may not find the subject or topic of the photo appealing. A photo done strictly to nauseate the viewer is no better than cheap porn.
08/15/2005 12:14:44 PM · #8
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you want to take photos that no one wants to look at because they are ugly and make them ill, be my guest.

My point is not that the subject has to be pretty, nor that a photo needs to be slick and colorful to be good. There has to be something in the image that engages the viewer and makes them look, even though they may not find the subject or topic of the photo appealing. A photo done strictly to nauseate the viewer is no better than cheap porn.


If I were to WRITE about, say, the horrors of war & starvation in Sudan, I'd paint a bleak picture indeed. That would be my goal, to raise the level of visceral awareness in my readers. If i were commissioned to SHOOT the story, my goal would be the same. "Pretty" wouldn't cut it. I'd be looking for extremely disturbing images to get my point across. I'd WANT my viewers to be nauseated and outraged in equal measures.

Is this "pornography"?

R.
 08/15/2005 12:23:25 PM · #9
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
On my illusions challange (Lighting Up the Sun) I received a lot of comments that the picture hurt their eyes.


1 comment is a lot?
 08/15/2005 12:23:37 PM · #10
Originally posted by bear_music:
If I were to WRITE about, say, the horrors of war & starvation in Sudan, I'd paint a bleak picture indeed. That would be my goal, to raise the level of visceral awareness in my readers. If i were commissioned to SHOOT the story, my goal would be the same. "Pretty" wouldn't cut it. I'd be looking for extremely disturbing images to get my point across. I'd WANT my viewers to be nauseated and outraged in equal measures.

Is this "pornography"?

R.


Well put.
 08/15/2005 12:36:43 PM · #11
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If you want to take photos that no one wants to look at because they are ugly and make them ill, be my guest.

My point is not that the subject has to be pretty, nor that a photo needs to be slick and colorful to be good. There has to be something in the image that engages the viewer and makes them look, even though they may not find the subject or topic of the photo appealing. A photo done strictly to nauseate the viewer is no better than cheap porn.


If I were to WRITE about, say, the horrors of war & starvation in Sudan, I'd paint a bleak picture indeed. That would be my goal, to raise the level of visceral awareness in my readers. If i were commissioned to SHOOT the story, my goal would be the same. "Pretty" wouldn't cut it. I'd be looking for extremely disturbing images to get my point across. I'd WANT my viewers to be nauseated and outraged in equal measures.

Is this "pornography"?

R.


No, but that picture would not be taken strictly to create that visceral reaction either. In the example that you used, if ALL the picture did was create a physical revulsion, it would not be nearly as effective as if the image provided a human connection to the subject as well.

The types of images that I would equate to porn simply shock for the sake of shocking, not for any other purpose such communicating the degree of human suffering in the Sudan.
08/15/2005 12:50:15 PM · #12
Where's Sudan? Is that near New York?
 08/15/2005 12:59:08 PM · #13
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
Question: Do you feel it is valid to try to produce a physical reaction in photography?

Absolutely. You'll find many many comments in these forums about people's pictures producing emotional reactions, intentionally or not, and that seems to be accepted without question as valid photography. Why shouldn't a photo produce a physical reaction? This one seemed to make people sick. While that wasn't my intention, I'm glad it had impact.
08/15/2005 01:03:19 PM · #14
Originally posted by bear_music:

Is this "pornography"?

R.


Well, that would depend on how they use the kleenex. To wipe the tears from their eyes or....................?
 08/15/2005 01:06:29 PM · #15
Uh, that "physical reaction" is usually an emotional response, triggering the release of stress hormones.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 06:09:48 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 06:09:48 PM EDT.