|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/23/2005 09:22:19 AM · #1 |
Some of us around the shop were having this discussion the other day.
What makes one photograph an entity on it's own versus simply a recording a some gathering of objects or people?
I hope my description here is good enough because it took 5 of us yesterday about a 1/2 hour to all get on the same page.
Some photo's (most it seems) just feel like a recording of random stuff without a feeling of completion. A picture of a personal belonging, a collection of salt shakers, a kid sitting in a high chair,
a squirrel or bird, a mountain scape, a humorous event or set-up situation...whatever...it could be anything.
Then there are photos that are complete...they transcend a photo, a recording or reality, and move into their own existance..seperate from the object, people or event they recorded.
The reason we were discussing this was because many of us were wondering why we don't take as many photos as we used to and it seemed like many of us were after more than what we have photographed in the past.
Just wondering if...when contributing here at DP Challenge...you are thinking about the photo as something more or do you just try to meet a technical demand, throw your photo in the pot and count the decimal points as the votes roll in...week after week after week?
Discuss?
Message edited by author 2005-12-23 09:24:14. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:28:25 AM · #2 |
| Not to add anything specific, but isn't this basically the same as the "photograph or snapshot" discussion? |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:29:29 AM · #3 |
I believe you are discussing snapshot verses artistic verses emotive?
I know that I try to appeal to the emotional in my photos, or something that truly meets challenge by name, description, and "hopefully" technicals. I try to make sure the technicals are there before I take the shot through my settings, but it doesn't always work with my point and shoot, but when I submit an entry, it isn't just to submit any old thing or shot. I try to make it interesting, captiviting, creative, have the title be striking, AND meet technicals all at the same time.
Alas, although I may think I have done that, the voters don't seem to think so. Take my puns photo. Very well thought out, well, executed, title is good, yet a 5.0. My Shallow DOF? LOTS of work and shooting went into that. I mean, hurting back, hurting knees, and lots of shooting to get the right shot. Worked on the perfect crop, the perfect title, and what is it? A 4.6 and dropping.
So if you are referring to what "seems" like just a thrown in entry, mine are not. If you are referring to just what people photograph today, I do try to meet all levels of expectation here at DPC of the voters, AND what satisfies myself as well.
I'm not a big snapshot lover, nor am I into the artsy fartsy which may have one small object on an entire white or black background. However, sometimes either or is needed to meet challenge.
I don't think I have a particular style, perse`, but it does sound like you are discussing snapshots verses artistic verses what makes a photo appeal to the masses. Unfortunately, not one or the other will appeal to all.
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-12-23 09:33:09.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:34:14 AM · #4 |
Im not sure it is the same as the "photograph or snapshot" discussion.
I think snapshots can actually enter the that realm of their own existence...
Snapshot versus Photograph seem to me a comparison of technical differences. Snapshot being lower in technical merit versus a prepared and well executed Photograph.
I see a lot of well executed photographs that are still nothing more to me than that...no soul, no character. However I have lots of snapshots that, going back over them, have lots of staying power.
The discussion me and my other photo buddies were talking about were more in lines with something that is harder to explain than a simple technical comparison. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:41:03 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Im not sure it is the same as the "photograph or snapshot" discussion.
I think snapshots can actually enter the that realm of their own existence...
Snapshot versus Photograph seem to me a comparison of technical differences. Snapshot being lower in technical merit versus a prepared and well executed Photograph.
I see a lot of well executed photographs that are still nothing more to me than that...no soul, no character. However I have lots of snapshots that, going back over them, have lots of staying power.
The discussion me and my other photo buddies were talking about were more in lines with something that is harder to explain than a simple technical comparison. |
Then maybe you are discussing the emotives. How does it touch your heart, no matter what it is a photo of. Let's say you take a lovely photo of two horses. It is technically perfect, and it is a snapshot, but it doesn't speak to you. Now, if the horses were running, or nose to nose, or bucking or front hoofs up in the air facing each other, THEN that now becomes a capture of time, of moment. It also captures your appeal more than what you would normall see - just two horses in a field.
When I take wildlife pics, I always try to take photos of them doing "something" that is different than the norm, or just boring. I think this is the difference between a snapshot and a photograph. It is a snapshot as well, but it is one in which captures that certain something that catches the eye in a more interesting manner.
Rose
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:44:57 AM · #6 |
The dividing line, I think, is very fine indeed.
When I started here, almost two years ago, I was just as capitvated by the amazing technical facility show by so many here - and I tried to ape it (with some success). The interest and engagement with that kind of stuff waned pretty quickly. I now find most of the still lifes and posed shots leave me absolutely cold - I would go further, they actually annoy me, quite often.
I think most photography - outside of here as well as in - is about selling (either the objects or the image); the best photography - this is the stuff that I aspire to, obviously - is about communication; about an attempt to show how it feels to be you in your world. I don't know whether this is right, but it is what I think at the moment (and these opinions change).
Those who are not engaged fully with their world, or a trying to ignore it, I think, are never going to produce anything much worth looking at.
e |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 09:45:25 AM · #7 |
I think my real question was not so much as trying to define this difference.
Question is, does this difference exist for you in your photography and more pointedly, how does it affect your participation here. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 10:17:48 AM · #8 |
The difference exits. As for being aware of that difference and submitting pictres here, I don't think it is possible (very often) to have a winning photo that transends the difference. This is a technical site. It encourages perfection in technique over messy emotions. And I'm not saying this to be negative. That's just the way the site is. And as far as getting the picture up to an acceptable level of competence, there's no better site to be on.
It's sorta like seeing something at the edge of your vision. Where you think whatever it is, is a monster, but when you turn to look at it, it's just a bush. If I'm concentrating on getting a perfect shot, I can't see how much more it could be if I would go with the flow. Or in other words, the technicals should be so ingrained that I should only concentrate on the vision. But time and time again, I see good shots voted down because of technicals or dnmc or a personal distaste for what was presented. So I don't enter very often anymore. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 11:01:54 AM · #9 |
I agree there is "something" that makes some photo work and it's not the snapshot vs. artistic thing. I wish I could figure out what it is to be honest.
I was looking through a book yesterday that was full of PJ type shots (from 40's thru 70's mostly). Almost all were B&W and most could be classified as snapshots (they would all probably be lucky to get 3's in a challenge here - some were even out of focus/fuzzy and a lot were full of grain :shock: :) yet I found I was getting the emotion of the situtation.
Some of this was due to the subject matter but most of it was that "something" that allows the viewer to have some sense of the situtation. I guess you somehow know what was really going on outside of the small window captured in the image.
I find that sometimes with snapshots of the kids - it can be a sucky picture but it just hits the right moment and that makes it great to me (would bore most to tears).
Interesting topic - thanks for the discussion. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 11:10:01 AM · #10 |
Hokie
The distinction exists for me yes, though I still take photos for both reasons.
Sometimes I take photos for the memories (snapshots at parties, shots of my travel companions on holiday), sometimes I take them to have a pictorial record of objects I own or want to sell (quick studio shots of my eggcup collection and same for the 100 odd of them I've decided to sell on ebay) and other times I take photos for the pure joy of creating something that is, to me at least, a piece of art.
How does it affect my participation at DPC?
Because I prefer to take when the spirit moves me (which tends to be most often when I'm travelling) I don't really tend to enter challenges. I just don't photograph that way. I am motivated to photograph by the experience/ vision itself and not by a commission to do so that then requires me to find/ create/ design the appropriate experience/ scene/ vision.
This all boils down to my entering challenges extremely rarely and participating by enjoying, voting and commenting photos entered by others, reading, laughing, learning from and contributing to the forums and nurturing friendships made since I've been here.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 12:48:03 PM · #11 |
It seems to me Hokie is discussing the issue of "When does an image transcend 'photography' and become 'art'?" In a nutshell...
Robt. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 01:00:43 PM · #12 |
| I have had my best success with photos that were spontaneously made vs. those planned to meet a particular challenge. As a result, I now enter very few challenges, doing so only when a photographic opportunity happens to coincide with a challenge. The difference is 'inspired' vs. 'contrived'. As Bear said, "When does an image transcend 'photography' and become art?" The true artist can successfully and frequently contrive art (perhaps continuously inspired!), while I just stumble toward art with seldom success! |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 01:37:48 PM · #13 |
Great questions. IMO, photos that transcend the "nice picture" to the "wow - OMG" category, are photos that people can really relate to - something that sparks an emotion, belief, or memory that draws the person into the moment, into the scene, where they don't notice the borders of the frame. To me, these pictures generally need to have some humanity represented in the picture. I echo a lot of e301's sentiment - pictures of things (no matter how technically perfect or cool they are), in the end - are just things. I know I am starting to speak DPC sacrilege, but that's my cross to bare. :-)
Personally, I would like to see more people/photojournalistic type pictures in the challenges. It's hard to explain, but I think there is more magic in capturing a moment in time representing the unabashed joy and innocence of a child playing on a swing, or a homeless persons despair, or the pride of someone winning a race or helping Katrina victims, etc. These are the Pulitzer prize winning pictures. These are the types of pictures that captivate the masses, that relate to our emotions and humanity, that transcend a snapshot. And make no mistake about it, these are not just "happened to be there at the right time" pictures. Don't get me wrong, there is a LOT to that as well, but the good photographers plan these pictures - the angles, the time of day, the focus, composition - they prepare and anticipate the image and then SNAP, capture a moment in time that will NEVER happen again (unlike the "I took 300 pictures to get the color on the candle just right" pictures).
I realize that, given the voting, lack of people photos and apparent distain for "cute kid" pictures on this site, I am in the minority, but what the hay! :-) BTW, I think the same comments above would easily apply to other types of pictures, like nature and landscape shots, where that particular sunset/sunrise/cloud-formation will never happen again - there's a certain magic in those shots. However, I think it's harder to relate landscape shots to certain people's emotions, and the well done ones are the ones we put on our walls.
Please don't get me wrong, I am absolutely AMAZED at the creativity of some people on this site, who see an ordinary household object and through real vision, plus lighting, lens, and Photoshop create an artisitic masterpiece - there are strokes of brillance in these pictures! Just to me, one lone voter, these pictures often do not "transcend" into greatness. They are not the pictures that people talk about years from now. But they are, without a doubt, cool! (aka, the water drop shot) |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 02:51:53 PM · #14 |
For me it is a matter of completeness in presentation. That is, I assume the photographer had some intention in creating the image -- if not, they didn't 'create' it so the discussion is mute.
When creating a photograph, how complete is the 'vision'? Does the photograph convey the complete intention? As a parallel, my kids will watch the same movie over and over again -- so it's not uncommon for me to walk thru the livingroom and catch a single scene of the show and 'fill in' the rest of the show because I know the context that scene is taken from. With a movie I haven't seen, a random scene holds no particular context for me.
The same is true for photographs. The photographer has a perspective the 'vision' is viewed from, and if the viewer is not aware of that perspective the image is in danger of being misunderstood.
To answer your question directly; yes there is a difference. A photograph that trancends photography, for me at least, is one that contains it's own context. The viewer doesn't have to 'fill in the blanks', so to speak.
Or as is said, the photograph must speak for itself.
David
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 02:54:26 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
A photograph that trancends photography, for me at least, is one that contains its own context.
David |
What an utterly Zen statement. I love it!
R. |
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:02:39 PM · #16 |
Sometimes I look at photos, both here and elsewhere, and wish the photographer hadn't tried so hard to make the shot, or the subject, into something more that what it was to begin with. I feel that a lot of good photographs are destroyed when the photographer tries to force them into being artistic or emotive.
Some people just don't have that special "eye", or any artistic inclinations, but can still produce photographs that are special beyond simple mass appeal.
|
|
|
|
12/23/2005 06:56:10 PM · #17 |
Let's not forget that there are two parts in this equation - the photograph AND A VIEWER!!
Every viewer is unique in his/her background, experience, intentions, expectations, beliefs etc. All those things influence us greatly in the way we look at things.
No matter how banal a photo, depending on the viewer, it can have an incredible amount of meaning.
Take as an example an average photo of a siamese cat. To the person who hates those cats, even the best photo of one will leave them pretty cold. To someone who just lost their favorite cat-friend, it can mean the world to HAVE that photo.
Yes, some photos are certainly better than others, but there is much more to this equation than meets the eye. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 11:01:54 AM  |
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: 08/28/2025 11:01:54 AM EDT.
|
