| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/11/2003 04:55:34 PM · #1 |
Greetings...
Did any of you ever look at much photography before you became a 'photographer'?
I did... my dad was a professional photographer in the 'product photography' field. He also worked for the local newspaper doing photojournalism when he was in school. I have been exposed to most of the elements of this hobby for a long time before I ever took an interest in it myself.
I can remember looking at a LOT of photos and thinking to myself how great the images were. I didn't know anything about the technical aspects of photography... nothing about composition... nothing about any rules or best practices for making a good photo. I just looked at it and I knew if I liked it but couldn't really tell you why.
When I decided to get more serious with my camera, I stumbled upon DPChallenge. When I joined this site in April of 2002, I started to learn something about the technical side of photography. I read a lot of comments on photos and read lots of forum threads where the technical issues were being discussed. I learned a lot from these and started implementing what I had learned in my own photos... or trying to :)
As I started to learn these elements, and as I became more proficient at implementing these techniques, I also found myself judging and critiquing all the photos I saw purely on the technical aspects of the photo. My mind was in a mode that didn't want me to 'see' what the photographer was showing me. I could have cared less about any emotional value of a photo. My eyes and mind went straight for the technical merit issues and pretty much ignored everything else. I was more interested in 'how' the photo was done and what the photographer was thinking when the shot was executed.
Why am I thinking about this now?
Well... In recent months, I have had the opportunity to observe non-photographers looking at a lot of photography and other types of art. These people are like I was before I took my camera seriously. They can look at a photo and decide whether or not they like it without knowing how to 'verbalize' what they like about it. I'm pretty sure that most of them like images because of some inner relationship they may have with the subject... maybe they like the colors or combination of colors... maybe the abstract nature of it appeals to their eye in some way or another.
I sat down with my Mom over the weekend and went through a set of challenge photos on this site with her. I asked her to look through them all and pick out her favorite from the set. I was quite surprised when she picked a photo that I scored a 5 in the challenge. Mom has also picked out some favs in my own photos that I would not call my best also. She doesn't know anything about the technical side of photography either, so technical issues don't 'blind' her to what she likes and doesn't.
Photography, as a form of 'art', isn't really all about technical perfection, perfect composition, and following or breaking the 'rules' of the game. Each of those elements can certainly improve a photograph when used properly, but they are not really the deciding factor on whether a photo is 'good' or not. Technique doesn't really improve or ruin the emotional value of a photo.
In recent months, I have started trying to look at photography from a non-technical viewpoint more and more. I would like to get back to the way I used to look at it before I knew what was technically 'good' and 'bad'. I wanna know more about 'why' the photographer chose to photograph a particular subject. What is the motivation or emotional value of that chosen subject?
Now, when I look at a photo for the first time, I look for something that strikes an emotional chord in me. If it has a high impact on me initially, I tend to overlook any technical issues. This type of photo may be for the purpose of relaying emotion and other feelings rather than showing some particular technical skill. Other photos may be purely technical where the emotion is irrelevant. It's worthwhile to ask yourself what the photographer's objective with the photo is before you pass judgement on it. Does the photographer want to show you a feeling or does he want to show you technical skill... maybe a combination of both? Sometimes it may be hard to decide, but giving technical commentary on a photo where the photographer intended no technical skill as part of the photo may be a waste of time for both parties :)
Just some random thoughts about things....
:)
|
|
|
|
08/11/2003 04:58:18 PM · #2 |
AMEN! Time to start looking into the photos instead of at the photos!
|
|
|
|
08/11/2003 05:12:06 PM · #3 |
You made some good points John. Although I do point out some technicalities to folks, I also try to look beyond them and see the artistic value, and/or message the photographer is trying to achieve. I strive to encourage, rather than seek fault and harp on it.
For sure there are quite a few others here who do likewise. Thanks to all of you. You know who you are.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2003 06:58:44 PM · #4 |
Everyone...I mean everyone should read this! Something to think about!
|
|
|
|
08/11/2003 08:00:30 PM · #5 |
Personally, I too have become obsessed with the technical side of my digital photography. To be honest, it was starting to take the fun out of it for me. I was spending tons of time, setting up shots in my makeshift studio, spending hours getting the lighting just right, taking tons of shots. Ive recently took a little break, and have picked up shooting with my toy and antique cameras (film). I have very limited control ( one shutter speed or bulb, and usually 2 F stops, depending on the camera ) Its made me take more time looking at what Im photographing, instead of worrying about all the technical buisness. Its actually been pretty good for the soul. Sometimes we need to stop and remember what we want to do with our photography, sometimes, it doesnt have to be so serious.
|
|
|
|
08/11/2003 09:22:32 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scab-lab:
Sometimes we need to stop and remember what we want to do with our photography, sometimes, it doesnt have to be so serious. |
I'm not really questioning what I want to do/change about my photography as much as I'm questioning the way I look at other's work...
|
|
|
|
08/11/2003 09:25:37 PM · #7 |
| Hey scab (or anyone), do you know what's going on w/ DevArt? |
|
|
|
08/11/2003 09:27:02 PM · #8 |
John,
As usual a very insightful post. I think a while back you posted an article from another site discussing the rules of photography and how they can stifle creativity. It was interesting to read the dialogue from that post (I wish I had the url), as a relative newbie I'm starving for more information about the technical aspects of photography. In my mind it seems a natural development to start by choosing photos that are instinctively pleasing. It also seems to me that the great photographers are able to transend the technical details and provide fully rounded pictures that are technically sound, but also spark a response from their viewers. If anyone has some good resources on the technicals of photography, I would love to hear about them.
Part of what makes photography so intriguing to me is the personal aspect of it. I read somewhere that photography can transend language boundries, that a great picture can be appreciated by all, and even be timeless.
As to the technicals being a waste of time for pictures where the technicals were not a concern, I'm not so sure of that. Any constructive criticism should aide a photographer in making better pictures. Maybe at the time the individual had not thought about what you see in the picture, and by making the comment, when in a similar situation next time they will be able to add something extra to their shot. A well meant comment that as mentioned above is constructive doesn't have to detract from the subject matter or how well you liked the shot does it?
-N |
|
|
|
08/11/2003 09:33:25 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by narliss:
John,
As to the technicals being a waste of time for pictures where the technicals were not a concern, I'm not so sure of that. Any constructive criticism should aide a photographer in making better pictures. Maybe at the time the individual had not thought about what you see in the picture, and by making the comment, when in a similar situation next time they will be able to add something extra to their shot. A well meant comment that as mentioned above is constructive doesn't have to detract from the subject matter or how well you liked the shot does it?
-N |
This point is where I separate myself from a LOT of people who comment on photography. I always assume that what I see is intentional. I know this is 'wrong' in some cases, but, I would rather assume that it's intentional in case it is. There is nothing I dislike more than someone telling me that something I did intentionally was a 'mistake'. I would rather give the photographer the benefit of the doubt in this case. If I'm wrong, my comment will still indicate to the photographer that I'm not happy with 'his choice' to do something someway... lol :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 12:29:20 AM · #10 |
This point is where I separate myself from a LOT of people who comment on photography. I always assume that what I see is intentional. I know this is 'wrong' in some cases, but, I would rather assume that it's intentional in case it is. There is nothing I dislike more than someone telling me that something I did intentionally was a 'mistake'. I would rather give the photographer the benefit of the doubt in this case. If I'm wrong, my comment will still indicate to the photographer that I'm not happy with 'his choice' to do something someway... lol :)
I love this point of view and agree with it. I am always trying to push myself to stretch my creative side. I have shots with extreme technical effort along side shots with a very artsy approach. I think they both play a strong part in a good photograph. I think the "WOW" factor can be achieved with either/or, but to get it all together in one shot is the key to a great photo. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:09:55 AM · #11 |
I like where you're coming from. For me, I think the shooting can be summed up like this:
Look, there's something I like... now I just get in the frame the way it looks good... ok, great.
Often I go looking for something I had in mind... but that never works... and I come home with a shot I saw on the way there.
As for technical detail, well, if you compose it right, and you focus your camera, then I think any further technical detail takes care of itself-- or becomes insignificant to how the photo feels.
You're not still on that toilet, are you?
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 01:11:25. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 05:53:55 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by hortopth:
You're not still on that toilet, are you? |
LOL! Nice conjuring of mental image h
E
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 10:52:42 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by hortopth:
You're not still on that toilet, are you? |
No, but it is a good place to ponder these thoughts :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:01:58 AM · #14 |
Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
Chess Moves
This photo was part of the 'Games' challenge. I gave this photo a 10. Is this photo about technical excellence? No... Could it have been technically better? yes... would that have improved the way I look at the photo? no... I think the photographer intended to show mood and emotion in a journalistic way. As a former competitive chess player, I see some things in this photo that would likely go unnoticed by many...
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:19:01 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think the photographer intended to show mood and emotion in a journalistic way. As a former competitive chess player, I see some things in this photo that would likely go unnoticed by many... |
But when only (former) chess players see these things then the photographer somehow failed to tell the story to his audience. And that's the challenge of journalistic photography, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 12:48:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by stephan:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think the photographer intended to show mood and emotion in a journalistic way. As a former competitive chess player, I see some things in this photo that would likely go unnoticed by many... |
But when only (former) chess players see these things then the photographer somehow failed to tell the story to his audience. And that's the challenge of journalistic photography, isn't it? |
I don't think this particular photo fails at all. I think it tells a story to non chess players also.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 12:51:24 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 12:53:51 PM · #18 |
Nice post. Lots of food for thoughts.
One thing is evident among all others: who wrote it really loves photography. =)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:11:22 PM · #19 |
That particular photo, to me, is not one that should be judged on 'technical merit' when technical merit was not the overall intent. That photo falls into a different category for me. Since it's not in a category where technical merit matters much, I like to judge it based on a different category... one that fits what I think the photographer intended.
In this case, i would call it a journalistic shot. In the world of photojournalism, the photographer doesn't usually have a lot of control over lighting and other 'technical' issues. The photogrpher snaps the shutter when the momemt feels right.
In my earlier post when I mentioned that I saw some things in this photo that may go unnoticed by some, I was referring to the chess player himself. If you look closely at this guy, he's fairly clean shaven. I think that he's a hustler. He's wearing the clothes and the glasses to pull off a desired 'look'. He wants you to think he's more on the 'down and out' so you will put your money on the table for a game of chess :)
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:20:40 PM · #20 |
I have been thinking about this thread for a while, trying to determine exactly what my take on it is.
Like John, when I first started taking pictures, I knew what I liked, but not always why. Now, though I am no where as technically as competent as he is, I at least "know" the technical issues (or some of them). It has influenced how I look at shots.
About 6 weeks ago, I started missing something in my photography. My scores were better than they had been in a while, but it just didn't "sit well" with me. Then, after some introspection, I realized that my scores were technically okay, but they didn't mean squat to me. Now, I'm on a quest to try and invoke an emotional response with my viewer, whomever it may be (even if it is just me). My scores plummeted, here, but my overall satisfaction rose.
In scoring and critiquing. Technical still scores well. BUT, if you can give it some emotion, it is even better. If it is full of emotion and totally devoid of technique, I'm not sure what I will do.
I think the technique gets commented on a lot because if it doesn't strike a chord in the heart or mind of the viewer, the technique is easy to fall back on. I do try to look at each picture as if it is exactly the way the photog wanted it, and sometimes, I still don't like. wouldn't it be a sad world if we all liked the same things.
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 13:22:03.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:38:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I always assume that what I see is intentional. I know this is 'wrong' in some cases, but, I would rather assume that it's intentional in case it is. |
This is so true, John. I do the same. Only by assuming that aspects of the photo were intentional can one begin to see what the photographer was aiming for. Rules are made to be broken, and when a photographer intentionally breaks a rule, herein lie so many clues that an image uses to communicate what it wants to communicate.
In your example of the chess player, for instance, there is some glare on the hand, it appears slightly gritty, the chess board is out of focus, but I see these as choices by the photographer to create a more journalistic, candid feel to the photo--which ultimately turns our thoughts to what IS clear: the intensity of the move he is making, and the concentration that chess requires. It's a wonderful shot and a good example.
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 13:40:12. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 01:43:46 PM · #22 |
I don't spend a lot of my time browsing the forums here, for a multitude of reasons. But I must say I have enjoyed reading this thread.
_cheers! |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 02:05:18 PM · #23 |
My own comments and feelings on the "Chess Moves" photo are not for the purpose of making anyone like it who doesn't already. My point overall is to try to decide what 'type' of photo i'm looking at and view it accordingly.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 03:59:37 PM · #24 |
| I recently taken up photography, and i have seen things that I have ignored my whole life, its unbelievable the things that I pay attention to . Its like ive been given new eyes!! I like to be able to feel a picture with out seeing expressions on faces .When a picture moves you or makes you laugh, or cry , strikes compassion. When you take a picture the image never leaves you. I really never have seen the man in the moon, until I took a photograph of the moon. Im 35 now and , I have been given NEW Eye's!!! |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 05:24:03 PM · #25 |
Not being a competitive chess player, the thought did not cross my mind that the player in Chess Moves could be a hustler of some kind, and I did not know that competative chess involved gambling (naïve of me, I guess). I was wondering why the main player looked so bundled up for cold weather, as compared with the player next to him. Being a medical person, my thoughts for this photograph ran something like this: The main subject, bundled up for cold weather in what appears to be a warm environment, as well as, leaning on a cane, is either the victim of a past accident, stroke or illness. I have actually seen people like this who may have been on disability and have had a long convalescence and whose physical activities remained limited. As a result, they turn to more mental preoccupations and chess would be a perfect activity for someone like this.
What the photographer of this photo may have been trying to convey is the newly discovered sense of power this person may be finding in himself through this game and the role it may play in his recuperation and confidence. I do not see the blown out highlights as being technical flaws at all, but rather it emphasizes that this person, who may appear to be reaching for a chess piece is also grasping to take control of his life. The light falls perfectly on his hand and arm. It’s not important that we see the chessboard clearly, or well exposed, because to me, this photo may be about the psychological aspects of overcoming physical disability, and the role the game may play in doing so.
In addition, I see the blown out highs as being symbolic for the harsh realities the player may have had to overcome. The harsh lighting on the chessboard, while imperfect technically adds cohesiveness to the message of the photograph as it represents where the “imperfect” player’s concentration falls.
Now, I certainly don’t know if my theory is correct about this image, but I wish the photographer would appear and let us know his intentions. Until then, part of the joy of viewing photographs is trying to discern what artistic message the photographer is trying to convey. While this may be difficult here on DPC, an involved message like my interpretation may not always be the intention of the photographer. I believe that part of our responsibilities as critics and voters is to discern what the photographer found so wonderful about what was photographed and how well it was conveyed. It could be as simple as wonderful colors or textures…interesting subject matter or composition, or natural lighting or the range of tones of an image.
To me, the technical aspects of a photo merely mean how well the photographer manipulated the technology available to convey an artistic and cohesive message. There is nothing to say that soft focus, harsh lighting or any other intended effect is bad in and of itself. If viewed in the overall context and framework of how it’s being used, it helps us to discern how well of a communicator the photographer is and challenges our own interpretative powers. I happen to really like photojournalistic pictures such as Chess Moves because I like to “get” the story behind the picture.
I also believe the title to be very important in being able to discern the intent of the photographer. Could it be that the photographer of Chess Moves wants us to see a person who does not move so well physically, but is still adept at moving well in other ways? Are we being challenged to confront our own ideas of disability here, or is it as John says, about the game and a deceptive hustler/player? I have no answers but just want to say there can be many valid interpretations of a photograph and that the measure of value in photographs with a numbering system as we do here on DPC is of limited value. I think John is trying to take us beyond this to see something more important.
I would also like to add that photography is not merely a one way communication from photographer to viewer. As viewers, we are also adding our own perceptions and values to pictures and that’s why for some, a picture could be a masterpiece, and for others a total failure. Photography helps to define who we are as sentient and psychological beings, but in order for that to happen we need to know that there is a communication involved and how knowledge of the technical and artistic (communicative) aspects contribute to the overall value of a photograph.
|
|
