General discussionIf you aren't sure which forum your post would be best housed in, post it here. Some posts and threads may eventually be moved to other forums.
I have just viewed a photograph from Stephen (Working Light in the B/W forum) that I had seen before a long time ago and it made me think.
It wasn't so long ago that I was guilty of looking at a photograph but not actually seeing it. I'm sure you know what I mean. I knew if I liked a particular pic or not but I could never say exactly why either way.
I still miss lots of photographic errors and can't always identify the good points until someone else refers to them, but I have noticed that I spend a lot more time studying each one, searching out detail and noting composition etc. Now I'm sure that there is no definate formula for examing a photo because each one is different with it's own faults and merits but......
what do you look for in a photo generally?
how do you seperate technical data from visual impact?
Obviously the more adept a person is the more he/she will read into a photograph but there must be some sort of guidlines.??
I have just viewed a photograph from Stephen (Working Light in the B/W forum) that I had seen before a long time ago and it made me think.
It wasn't so long ago that I was guilty of looking at a photograph but not actually seeing it. I'm sure you know what I mean. I knew if I liked a particular pic or not but I could never say exactly why either way.
I still miss lots of photographic errors and can't always identify the good points until someone else refers to them, but I have noticed that I spend a lot more time studying each one, searching out detail and noting composition etc. Now I'm sure that there is no definate formula for examing a photo because each one is different with it's own faults and merits but......
what do you look for in a photo generally?
how do you seperate technical data from visual impact?
Obviously the more adept a person is the more he/she will read into a photograph but there must be some sort of guidlines.??
I know exactly what you mean. I have been criticized for years for only looking at the technical correctness of an image and not even noticing it's content. I guess it's all down to your own sense of values. I'm trying hard now to see images for what they are rather than how they have been taken and processed. I hope studying the images here on this forum will help change my ways. I do envy those that can see a story or meaning in an image, perhaps with time even that will come to me.
I have just viewed a photograph from Stephen (Working Light in the B/W forum) that I had seen before a long time ago and it made me think.
It wasn't so long ago that I was guilty of looking at a photograph but not actually seeing it. I'm sure you know what I mean. I knew if I liked a particular pic or not but I could never say exactly why either way.
I still miss lots of photographic errors and can't always identify the good points until someone else refers to them, but I have noticed that I spend a lot more time studying each one, searching out detail and noting composition etc. Now I'm sure that there is no definate formula for examing a photo because each one is different with it's own faults and merits but......
what do you look for in a photo generally?
how do you seperate technical data from visual impact?
Obviously the more adept a person is the more he/she will read into a photograph but there must be some sort of guidlines.??
Wow! Loadsa stuff to think of there Pops To be honest I think I have always put visual impact as you put it, ahead of technical data. Having said that I used to be a little more strict than I am now about following the accepted norms and techniques of picture taking. The fact is though that artistic flair can be stifled by strict adherance to technical rules etc.
Hope this thread develops a bit more, lots of potential for comments and discussion.
BTW, I'm really pleased you have been able to see more in my photo Pops, are you sure you haven't just bought a new monitor
Personally, I just instinctively know if I like a photo or not.
Photographs rarely grow on me, I decide straight away if I like them or not.
There are lots of photographs I can think of that are technically perfect that don't really move me – most of Ansel Adam's for example.
There are whole genres that hold no interest – sports or wildlife.
I think quite early on most photographers get away from the idea that subject is what makes a good photo.
A lot of people have trouble with much contemporary documentary photography, I think some of this is because they don't put much emphasis on 'craft' and formal composition etc. But I think some photographs are great photographs regardless of this.
Personally when I'm viewing photographs, technical data rarely enters my mind.
Whatever rules or regulations exist, everybody will have their own way of reading a photograph and all are valid.
What makes a good photograph for me is one that stands up to repeated viewings and whose image stays with me and invites me back again and again to admire.
It's a huge question and I'm not sure I can give any sort of definite answer.
I suppose some images grab me immediately and I can spend ages studying them, thinking about them, going back to study them again - same as I might have done in an art gallery, or as I might do with music. The more I look, the more I tend to see, the more it kinda 'communicates' something (stimulates my thoughts, memories, 'mental connections' or whatever).
Other times, something about a picture might amuse me, or the colours may please me so the colour comes first, content slightly later. Other images may be straightforward 'record' shots that interest me because I may, or may not have been there.
Then there's the 'creative and experimental stuff' that intrigues me and I ponder how it might have been done.
I sometimes see what some might consider to be 'technical faults' but quite often those 'faults' aren't particularly important enough to spoil my enjoyment of a photo - though I admit they occasionally niggle.
I suppose the visual impact grabs me first then the technical data follows afterwards. I look to enjoy the image rather than trying to dissect the techie data, though I do like to know a bit about the technical data and try to take some of it onboard.
Looks to me like 'Instant Visual Impact' or put another way 'First Impression' leads the way here. I really thought that the more advanced person would be going for the techie stuff first and I bet a lot of others do as well. If I am right on this then it could also be a reason for newbies being reluctant to post their work in a dedicated photography forum like this one.
I think Tom's last sentence sums it up nicely.
p.s. No Stephen I haven't got a new monitor, just new thought patterns <BG>
Yet I would have deleted some of the ones he has shown during the past few days. I also liked his "Smoke" pictures because they were different and abstract. I didn't have to think "Do I like these?" I just knew I did.
Although this is a rather simplistic view I do realise that there perhaps are times, as in Pops view of Stephen's welder, when a second look is worth while and on this specific occasion, it was. You see, if it had been mine, I would have looked at it and thought "Darn it, I have burnt his hair out," when I should have been thinking "Just look how the light falls artistically over his hair and his welding." Yes Pops, I am going to look harder in future to add to what I already like and not be so boring and rigid.
You can't expect to like all the work of David Nightingale. He posts a wide ranging style of photograph. Some are IMO brilliant, and others don't especially appeal. He admits he often finds it hard to find something to put up everyday, I can understand his situation, having often to draw on stuff from the archive and fearing he is not putting his best work up always.
I have to say though I think its great that you can appreciate some of his work and that you find yourself looking and finding things in an image that perhaps you didn't before.
??
To be honest I think I have always put visual impact as you put it, ahead of technical data. Having said that I used to be a little more strict than I am now about following the accepted norms and techniques of picture taking. The fact is though that artistic flair can be stifled by strict adherance to technical rules etc.
You see, if it had been mine, I would have looked at it and thought "Darn it, I have burnt his hair out," when I should have been thinking "Just look how the light falls artistically over his hair and his welding." Yes Pops, I am going to look harder in future to add to what I already like and not be so boring and rigid.
Linear Mode
