Originally posted by ellamay:
...If you pick a boring subject, inanimate, common object kind of thing, then please try to present it in a way via composition or lighting in a way that is special or unique.
If you take a flat uninteresting subject and take a poorly technical photo do not be suprised if it does not do well.
If you have a great subject and great technical aspects, then you have a fabulous photo.... |
I believe all objects are animate and find it more challenging to reveal their breath/soul via camera than to engage in choosing one of several potential subjects. Because of this, I'd consider the choice of subject a matter of individual relation and not a universal criterion.
Commonality, itself, can be a significant and worthy subject, no?
The other difficulty, I think, is to recognize and define (for ourselves) what makes what you call a great subject. I propose to you that there are many allegedly boring subjects that we only fail to see in a light conducive to seeing.
The challenge, IMO, is to see, to relate and to reveal. To accomplish this to any point of satisfaction, we need to involve ourselves in the things we photograph. We need to, at least, open ourselves to the possibility of discovery, empathy and relation. Is it not more sensible to simply partake in a process by making pictures than to have to analyze the meaning (assess the value) of pictures we take, as if it were some sort of loot.
Great subjects, to me, are those that move, transport or stimulate us in more than one sense. Obviously, these would be subjects which do not lend themselves easily to an extraction of meaning or any kind of symbolism, analysis or conjecture.
Message edited by author 2006-05-20 15:40:19. |
