| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2003 01:22:21 AM · #1 |
I noticed from comments on other peoples' pictures and around the forums that quite a few people don't like staged shots. Sometimes certain pictures can only be produced in the time alloted is by staging them.
I can agree when people say that the staging was bad because of the set up, but not when they say they don't like it because it was staged.
If the challenges didn't have a time limit, I bet a lot of the photographers have huge databases of pictues that they can pull from. Giving us a time limit gives us a chance to to be more inventive ,but sometimes staging can't be helped.
Message edited by author 2003-09-18 01:23:40. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 01:33:40 AM · #2 |
Faidoi, the word "staged" isn't always a bad word. If a pic is portrayed as an action shot, for example, and it appears to be staged, then it will get hammered.
When you think about it, most shots ARE staged.... they are planed by the photographer, lighting is in place, the angle is judged, the exposure, the shutter speed, etc., and the pic is taken. Nothing wrong with that.
But "staged" in a negative term is when the pic is supposed to convey something that is spontaneous but in reality was staged to LOOK spontaneous. Big difference.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 01:46:21 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Faidoi, the word "staged" isn't always a bad word. If a pic is portrayed as an action shot, for example, and it appears to be staged, then it will get hammered.
When you think about it, most shots ARE staged.... they are planed by the photographer, lighting is in place, the angle is judged, the exposure, the shutter speed, etc., and the pic is taken. Nothing wrong with that.
But "staged" in a negative term is when the pic is supposed to convey something that is spontaneous but in reality was staged to LOOK spontaneous. Big difference. |
I was very afraid that my oops pic Damn Pothole! would get marked down because I thought that it looked (obviously IMHO but of course I staged it) staged... However it did (once again IMHO) pretty darn good. What did I do right??? Do you have an example of a staged shot that didn't do good (Is that a big can of worms or what???) to compare with mine that did well???
I'm still a little shell shocked over the 7th place and am wondering how I'm gonna top it when I don't understand how it did so good!!!
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 01:57:28 AM · #4 |
| I don't mind "staged", but I like to know so I can adjust my expectations accordingly. Studio and "staged" shots should have excellent focus and exposures because the photographer can reshoot. Candid's and photojournalism are one shot situations, so you have to give credit for how good given the situation. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 01:59:16 AM · #5 |
Toocool, the term "staged" means something different to a lot of ppl, and how they will accept or reject your photo based on how much staging they think took place and whether or not it's appropriate for the challenge...
Your photo, is obviously staged: Gee what are the odds of snapping a picture at the exact time that the lipstick is moved because of a pothole? The image doesn't appear or claim to be NOT staged. It's funny, it's staged, it fits the challenge, it's well done, it gets a good score. :)
So your shot, which is staged, is expected and still good with no deception intended. We are talking about photos that are staged to DECEIVE the viewer on purpose. That's the difference. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. LOL. :)
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 02:02:31 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
Your photo, is obviously staged: Gee what are the odds of snapping a picture at the exact time that the lipstick is moved because of a pothole? The image doesn't appear or claim to be NOT staged. It's funny, it's staged, it fits the challenge, it's well done, it gets a good score. :)
|
I agree, the intent of the photo was obvious and I had no issues with it. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 07:15:25 AM · #7 |
But isn't staged the opposite of "snapshot" in some ways? "No thought or control" vs "a lot of thought and control." I understand that PJ is in there somewhere too, but aren't MOST shots 'staged'?
M
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 08:33:57 AM · #8 |
I like shots that are set up (pure studio still life), semi set up (lanscape shots) and no set up (on the fly candids or quick reaction shots, like photojournalism). Each type of photography has its place. I don't feel that any one type should be regarded as higher or lower than an other. As long as they're purty pitcher, I like 'em :)
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 08:59:41 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
I like shots that are set up (pure studio still life), semi set up (lanscape shots) and no set up (on the fly candids or quick reaction shots, like photojournalism). Each type of photography has its place. I don't feel that any one type should be regarded as higher or lower than an other. As long as they're purty pitcher, I like 'em :) |
I agree totally. The photographic world would be a dull place if we couldn't express ourselves through the medium as does an illustrator or painter. Creating scenes and concepts in this way is sometimes more challenging than a 'real life' shot.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:11:46 AM · #10 |
A well done "staged" shot, to me, is just, usually, a very large version of a still life.
You set up studio shots. Why not exterior still lifes, or action lifes?
If they're poorly set or intended to decieve that's another story. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:14:57 AM · #11 |
Does anyone look at the photo for what it is anymore? What difference does it make 'how' it was achieved?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:23:10 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Does anyone look at the photo for what it is anymore? What difference does it make 'how' it was achieved? |
It makes a difference if it's supposed to look spontaneous, but it doesn't achieve it.
Why analyse anything?
How is it possible as a photographer to look at a photo without putting some thought into whether it is successful, and what went into that?
Why criticise threads where people are seeking to understand what makes a good photo... not just whether it is good at first glance? |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:25:54 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Does anyone look at the photo for what it is anymore? What difference does it make 'how' it was achieved? |
It makes a difference if it's supposed to look spontaneous, but it doesn't achieve it.
Why analyse anything?
How is it possible as a photographer to look at a photo without putting some thought into whether it is successful, and what went into that?
Why criticise threads where people are seeking to understand what makes a good photo... not just whether it is good at first glance? |
herein lies the problem... since u don't know the photographer's intent, how can anyone even begin to determine the methods and means?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:30:00 AM · #14 |
| Well, I guess most art critics and academics may as well give up and do something else. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:31:35 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Well, I guess most art critics and academics may as well give up and do something else. |
Maybe the topic has changed here and I'm unaware of it.. i thought the discussion was on whether or not shots were staged... Is this not the case?
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:35:07 AM · #16 |
Yep, you said there was no point because we don't know the photographer's intent. If there's no point in this instance, then I don't see the point of studying art at all.
I think it's entirely reasonable for people to speculate on what has gone into a work of art (including photography), and this is a healthy activity. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 09:47:04 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Yep, you said there was no point because we don't know the photographer's intent. If there's no point in this instance, then I don't see the point of studying art at all.
I think it's entirely reasonable for people to speculate on what has gone into a work of art (including photography), and this is a healthy activity. |
I apologize for entering this discussion. Studying art and trying to determine if a photograph is staged are two different discussions...
Maybe if i clarify myself a little more...
If a photograph is a great photo in your mind, and it is staged, does it make any difference? If the staging doesn't look natural in some way, or looks off balance... too balanced... or whatever, it obviously has a negative impact for the viewer.
In recent months, I have attempted to change the way I look at photos, and I am beginning to see things that I hadn't seen before. I used to spend a lot of time looking at the technical aspects of photos. The technical aspects include composition, which, in turn, includes staged or random compositions. What I have attempted to do is forget about these things and start out by trying to determine what the photographer is trying to show me. I want to understand the idea behind the photograph first. In many cases, when I'm able to determine this, the technical aspects of the photo become irrelevant. If the idea and theme behind the photo are strong enough, all else seems to not matter... This is my OWN view, of course, and I wouldn't expect a lot of people to share this idea.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 10:06:10 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Does anyone look at the photo for what it is anymore? What difference does it make 'how' it was achieved? |
I completely agree that we should look at a photo for what it is rather than "how" it was achieved. The type of camera, lighting technique, is really all secondary when you are the viewer of the photograph. It also frustrates me a little when people look at technique first and completely overlook the content of a photograph. BUT, I do have problem with photojournalistic work being staged. A photographer waving a child into a scene or to a specific postion within a scene and then presenting the photograph as "real" event is a problem for me. I think this may be acceptable in documentary photography where we are largely dependent on the integrity of the photographer to maintain the authenticity. Beyond this one distinction, the "how" of a photograph is only valuable for educating other photographers.
Message edited by author 2003-09-18 10:07:59. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 10:33:55 AM · #19 |
I think the issue is not if an image is "staged" but if it is "poorly staged"... A well staged shot looks natural, even if it obviously had to be staged (studio shot).
I think it's more a semantics issue when people leave a comment that says "It looks staged" when they mean "I don't like the way it was staged"...
Edit : Forgot to spell check before post... Thank you ieSpell :)
Message edited by author 2003-09-18 10:35:19.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 10:39:29 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Well, I guess most art critics and academics may as well give up and do something else. |
I agree... Get a real job already :)
|
|
|
|
09/18/2003 10:42:14 AM · #21 |
| Photographs have been "staged" since the beginning of photography. I don't see what the big deal is. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 10:48:05 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
I like shots that are set up (pure studio still life), semi set up (lanscape shots) and no set up (on the fly candids or quick reaction shots, like photojournalism). Each type of photography has its place. I don't feel that any one type should be regarded as higher or lower than an other. As long as they're purty pitcher, I like 'em :) |
Originally posted by mavrik:
But isn't staged the opposite of "snapshot" in some ways? "No thought or control" vs "a lot of thought and control." I understand that PJ is in there somewhere too, but aren't MOST shots 'staged'?
M |
How about "some thought and control?" To shoot this cloudscape I had about ten seconds to anticipate/plan the shot, and maybe a 1-2 second window in which I could take the shot. But it IS a deliberate composition, not just randomly pointing the camera and snapping off a frame (although I have no problem doing that too!)
I agree that what most people don't like is the WAY a shot is staged; a completely subjective opinion. And don't forget, shots can be used to deceive without being staged; see my entry for No Hand of Man for an example. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 11:16:09 AM · #23 |
| I think the number one criteria for judging a photo (not that I'm any kind of expert) has to be IMPACT. How much impact a photo has on the viewer depends on the both the photo and the viewer, but the more universal the impact of the photo, the better it must address what is common amongst us humans. I don't mind staged shots, but when they don't work I think - ewww - too stagey - not because they are staged but because it didn't work and the impact wasn't felt. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 01:06:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If a photograph is a great photo in your mind, and it is staged, does it make any difference? If the staging doesn't look natural in some way, or looks off balance... too balanced... or whatever, it obviously has a negative impact for the viewer. |
Which takes us back to what I think the original question was: Why do some people include negative comments about a photo being staged? And does that mean people here don't like staged shots? And, what's been brought out here is that there is the general concept of staging shots which (almost?) nobody would be against, and there is staging a shot to appear to be candid, but not achieving the effect. I'm pretty sure that's what the comments are usually refering to. Of course... sometimes we find out that a shot that looked staged to some turns out to have been purely candid, like thelsel's nostalgia shot.
...Not that this discussion hasn't been interesting. It has. Just thought I'd bring it back to the original question. (Edit: but I guess that already happened. Sorry.)
Message edited by author 2003-09-18 13:08:55. |
|
|
|
09/18/2003 01:08:38 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If a photograph is a great photo in your mind, and it is staged, does it make any difference? If the staging doesn't look natural in some way, or looks off balance... too balanced... or whatever, it obviously has a negative impact for the viewer. |
Which takes us back to what I think the original question was: Why do some people include negative comments about a photo being staged? And does that mean people here don't like staged shots? And, what's been brought out here is that there is the general concept of staging shots which (almost?) nobody would be against, and there is staging a shot to appear to be candid, but not achieving the effect. I'm pretty sure that's what the comments are usually refering to. Of course... sometimes we find out that a shot that looked staged to some turns out to have been purely candid, like thelsel's nostalgia shot.
...Not that this discussion hasn't been interesting. It has. Just thought I'd bring it back to the original question. |
I don't think that 'staging' in general is a problem. There are some users who do not like it but I believe they are probably a minority. You are also right about something being candid but appearing staged. That happens. This is the primary reason that staged or not is of no concern to me personally.
|
|
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 05:52:31 PM EDT.
