Can anyone take a good photograph?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:
> I have found it useful to read about photography I must say - in
>
>>some cases to see how others did it and _avoid_ doing it that way because
>>the results were awful (in my eyes at least, someone liked them as they'd
>>got to write books about it).
>
>
> That's the way we all are. I go to the library and take a stack of
> photography books to the nearest table and thumb through them. I find shots
> that are not to my liking. I also find shots that are inspiring and then
> think about what I could do to emulate them. I have improved through this
> process.
>
Currently what I could do to better emulate most of the shots is get
better equipment. It's true that you can get a fantastic image with any
camera and the know-how, but having the right equipment really helps and
there are plenty of images you just can't get without it.
New equipment's a project for next year, in the mean time I'm practicing
with my P&S (which at least has full manual controls, the old one was
full auto).

> I also think about the shots I don't like because somebody else likes them
> and try to analyze the implications. Try it. You might be surprised at
> what you come up with.
>
True, I'll have to try that.

> Finally, my wife is very artistic and I like discussing shots with her. Do
> you have such a resource?
>
Yes, though she's a little busy learning to be a teacher at the moment,
so her time's a little short. The SI's useful however.

> Have fun!
>
You too!

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Currently what I could do to better emulate most of the shots is get
> better equipment. It's true that you can get a fantastic image with any
> camera and the know-how, but having the right equipment really helps and
> there are plenty of images you just can't get without it.
> New equipment's a project for next year, in the mean time I'm practicing
> with my P&S (which at least has full manual controls, the old one was full
> auto).

You are right about the equipment. I have been through 4 digital point and
shoots and none of them inspired me to learn more ... got a 300D and the dam
broke!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
> news:41b6194c$0$216$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
>
>>>>Marcel wrote:
>
>
> No he didn't... Mark2 wrote that.
>
>
Yes, I realised I'd mis-snipped after sending it <


>>Yes, that's what I'm on about, it just seems like if people can tell
>>what they like the look of they should be able to recognise that and
>>take at least reasonable photos (compositionally if not technically).
>
> Ah...but that seems that way to you because you are a introspective person.
> Sadly, most people are not, which is what leads so many folks to muted
> success in many aspects of their lives--including photography.
>
That makes sense, I guess I just always assume other people are
introspective, even though I know they're not.


>>I think that's what a lot of (visual) art is about, recognising what
>>looks good. I think what really interests me is why do people like what
>>they like, but that's a really broad area and way OT.
>
> This is always a good question to ask though..."WHY did you pick THAT
> image?"
> I've been surprised many times with the images people pick out of a group,
> because they chose something I woudn't/didn't. Their answers are usually
> pretty generic, but every once in a while, you'll get someone that will
> really have some insight on WHY they like images.
>
I'll have to try it, it sounds useful.


>>Yes. So basically people have the ability to recognise a good picture
>>(in their own eyes) but it takes time to train yourself to apply that to
>>_taking_ them.
>
>
> I think so, but it's usually worse than that: I think most people recognise
> what they like, but they rarely ever even ask themselves why they like it.
> They just do. Some will say "because it's pretty" or "it's colorful" etc.,
> but they don't often get much farther than that. Hopefully they reach a
> point where they start making connections between the diverse visual
> compositions they are drawn to, and begin to understand how to look for
> these things with specific intent, rather than simply making reactionary
> declarations when they are presented with a pre-determined product that
> brings them visual pleasure.
>
>
I can't imagine not thinking about these things, seems like an odd idea
to me, it probably explains a lot.

>>Sounds fair. I think that answers my question.
>
>
> Hooray!
>
>
and may I add Yipee!

Tom

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
news:41b63501$0$219$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> Mark² wrote:
> > "Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
> > news:41b6194c$0$216$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> >
> >>>>Marcel wrote:
> >
> >
> > No he didn't... Mark2 wrote that.
> >
> >
> Yes, I realised I'd mis-snipped after sending it <
>
>
> >>Yes, that's what I'm on about, it just seems like if people can tell
> >>what they like the look of they should be able to recognise that and
> >>take at least reasonable photos (compositionally if not technically).
> >
> > Ah...but that seems that way to you because you are a introspective
person.
> > Sadly, most people are not, which is what leads so many folks to muted
> > success in many aspects of their lives--including photography.
> >
> That makes sense, I guess I just always assume other people are
> introspective, even though I know they're not.

Hooray for you! We're alike in that way.
I have always wondered at the amazing lack of that is many people.
My wife, unfortunately, is often a case in point (luckily only limited to
SOME things). For example...she is a terrible clothes shopper, and likes to
take me along (not my favorite thing to do...). The reason is that I can
almost instantly identify WHY I do or don't like an item on her, and what
precisely it is about it that I do or don't like...and...how it needs to be
different. While this may seem ridiculously basic to you or me (and many
others, I'm sure), there are lots of folks out there who just don't seem to
have this ability. I always assumed--like you--that everyone does this.
They DON'T!! -It can be quite irritating to observe when you DO.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Archived from "angryfilmguy" <asdf@asdf.com> on Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:00:48
-0500:

>its like a sport of tennis,
>
>anyone can hit a nice shot, with enough swings.
>
>but can you play the game?

That's the beauty of digital, it gives everyone enough swings to play the
game.

vm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think what you have here is an example of the answer you are truly looking
for. Every person has a different perception on what a good image is. The
response you get for each image is very much individual, for example:

Photo 1: Technically perfect, but in my eyes boring (no offence to the
photog, this is only because I have seen this type of shot 1000's of times)

Photo2: Technically not so perfect, but I like it, because it is showing the
subject in their true form.

Photo 3: Extremely powerful Journalistic image, conjours up feelings of the
waste of war and how humanity continues to destroy itself. Some of the
general public may take offence to these type of images and say they hate
the photo, they are not taking any notice of the technical expertise of the
photog.

Photo 4: Also technically perfect, I like this type of image, there is a
story behind this that I will spend the next day or so trying to work out.
Others may look at it and say the same as I did about the first shot.

Each and every one of these photos will get different responses from
different individuals, this is the wonderful thing about humans being
unique. I could take a photo of a child, that to most of you would mean
nothing at all.

example:

http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075

But to her mother who cried when I handed her the print it means the world,
Technically perfect? well thats up to a Contest Judge to decide, but for me
the true judge was the recipient of the photo.

We as photographers judge each other on technical merit, content, exposure,
rule of thirds etc etc. But the general public will judge us purely on the
wow factor and what emotions are conjured up from our art.


--
Michael Brown
Melbourne Australia
www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown




<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102484265.626097.136910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tom Hudson wrote:
> > Simon Stanmore wrote:
> > > "Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
> > > news:41b5fd16$0$220$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> > >
> > > I agree that most people can agree on what is a good image. But a
> good image
> > > doesn't have to be a 'pleasing' image or one that people even like
> to
> > > view...
> > > http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> > > http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> > > http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> > > http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
> > > ...each is a good image but only the first would be considered a
> pleasing
> > > one by most people.
> >
> > I really like the 2nd, I don't think I'd hang it on the wall in my
> > house, but I do like it.
> >
>
> I really dislike the 4th.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Hudson <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote:

>A good photograph is one that most people can look at and say, "hey,
>that's a good photograph".
>The 'rules' of photography are based on what people like the look of.
>This means that everyone must have the rules of photography built-in.

I don't consider myself artistic BUT I enjoy taking pictures. Others
have made similar comments but what I find very interesting in a
picture is taking something out of context. For instance, you could
walk by an old barn many times and never take notice but take a photo
of just a weathered hinge in contrast with the aged wood, especially
if there is a distinctive pattern etched there and all of a sudden it
looks completely different.

Just my $0.02! Nice discussion by-the-way!

--
------------------------------------------------
http/www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> "Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
> news:41b5df06$0$222$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> > What I'm getting at is that the basic elements of composition are built
> > in to everyone, and the ability to instinctively recognise them when you
> > see them.
>
> While it may be true that we tend to be drawn to particular patterns of
> composition as a *viewer* of a well-composed shot, this does NOT
necessarily
> translate to people instinctively creating photographs with good
> composition. Quite the reverse. I think it is most instinctive for
people
> to do with their camera viewfinder--exactly what they/we do with our
> eyes...that being centering our eyes (and unfortunately, our viewfinders)
on
> the most interesting spot.
>
> Where do we naturally look when we look at people??
> -The eyes.
> So where does the typical snap-shooter place the eyes of a person in their
> snaps??
> -Smack dab in the middle of the viewfinder! (ugh).
>
> This is easy to illustrate from most people's experience:
>
..
>
> THIS is instinctive.
> For the most part, I think we have to overcome this instinct in order to
> consistently create compelling shots.
>
One of the consistantly excellent photographers on the SI is
Ken. All his shots use round or curved elements. All of mine use straight
lines. So I tried shooting round lines. Couldn't do it. I find that very
annoying, but it makes me think that only some things are instinctive to
some people. Sort of like a real life Rorshach test. Also I notice that as
we get older, we get better and better at less and less. I guess I'm stuck
with straight lines. Bob Hickey

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Simon Stanmore wrote:

1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg

1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
3rd is pj-touching-cliché,

The 3 above are what I would consider, in various categories, "photography"
where the photographer applied himself to impress us in some way and convey a
sense of subject.

4th one is pure barf. It is crudely done, poorly lit, badly manipulated in
photoshop and generally meaningless and as it seems the intent was humor a total
failure at that as well.
Considering that the same photog did work such as:
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/37095900
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/37095898 (not that great, but vg)
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333800 (guess he was getting tired
of his little wooden men... see gallery
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34333790 (better!)
http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/35590999 (wow!)

and other good to very good shots, I'm surprised the one you posted is in his
collection.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>
> 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
>
> 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,

I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately stage
a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not contrived.

If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very boring
world of people photos.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:4RKtd.420143$a85.334235@fed1read04...
>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> > Simon Stanmore wrote:
> >
> > 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> > 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> > 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> > 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
> >
> > 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> > 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> > 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
>
> I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
> cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately
stage
> a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
> moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not contrived.
>
> If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very boring
> world of people photos.
>
>

The problem with this picture is that its effect is so predictible.
Pure documentary, nothing more. It shows sadness but nothing else.
It doesn't provoke any unexpected reaction, anything one wouldn't think of.
If you asked 10 people to go take this picture, at least 9 would come back
with just that.
With luck, the 10th person would bring you a picture that expressed
something more. Contradicting feelings for example.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Bielec" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:cp7utt$m6s$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:4RKtd.420143$a85.334235@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> > > Simon Stanmore wrote:
> > >
> > > 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> > > 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> > > 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> > > 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
> > >
> > > 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> > > 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> > > 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
> >
> > I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
> > cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately
> stage
> > a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
> > moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not contrived.
> >
> > If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very
boring
> > world of people photos.
> >
> >
>
> The problem with this picture is that its effect is so predictible.
> Pure documentary, nothing more. It shows sadness but nothing else.

What wrong with documentary?
I think if you take this shot within the context of the collection it is a
part of, you may feel diferently. Maybe not... but that's OK. Not every
shot has to have some hidden or mysterious question attached to it.

> It doesn't provoke any unexpected reaction, anything one wouldn't think
of.
> If you asked 10 people to go take this picture, at least 9 would come back
> with just that.
> With luck, the 10th person would bring you a picture that expressed
> something more. Contradicting feelings for example.

That's always interesting...when it exists...but if this didn't exist, it's
still worth capturing. I just don't think every shot has to be Pulitzer to
be worthy of appreciation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in news:eLOdnRNCNKwPiSvcRVn-
ig@giganews.com:

> Do you know, or can you imagine, why that is?

I am lazy

That's part of the answer. I have played guitar, but I have
never used any substantial time to get good at it.



/Roland

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:cRLtd.420468$a85.411759@fed1read04...
>
> "Paul Bielec" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:cp7utt$m6s$1@dns3.cae.ca...
> >
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> > news:4RKtd.420143$a85.334235@fed1read04...
> > >
> > > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > > newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> > > > Simon Stanmore wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> > > > 2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> > > > 3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> > > > 4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
> > > >
> > > > 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> > > > 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> > > > 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
> > >
> > > I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
> > > cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately
> > stage
> > > a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
> > > moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not
contrived.
> > >
> > > If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very
> boring
> > > world of people photos.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The problem with this picture is that its effect is so predictible.
> > Pure documentary, nothing more. It shows sadness but nothing else.
>
> What wrong with documentary?
> I think if you take this shot within the context of the collection it is a
> part of, you may feel diferently. Maybe not... but that's OK. Not every
> shot has to have some hidden or mysterious question attached to it.
>
> > It doesn't provoke any unexpected reaction, anything one wouldn't think
> of.
> > If you asked 10 people to go take this picture, at least 9 would come
back
> > with just that.
> > With luck, the 10th person would bring you a picture that expressed
> > something more. Contradicting feelings for example.
>
> That's always interesting...when it exists...but if this didn't exist,
it's
> still worth capturing. I just don't think every shot has to be Pulitzer
to
> be worthy of appreciation.
>
>
I agree.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
>
>>Simon Stanmore wrote:
>>
>>1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
>>2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
>>3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
>>4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
>>
>> 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
>> 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
>> 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
>
>
> I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
> cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately stage
> a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
> moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not contrived.

Just hang around a cemetery and you too can join the ranks!

>
> If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very boring
> world of people photos.

Nonsense. There are a wide varity of human endeavors that evoke emotions in the
subject, the photographer and the viewer of the images. The 2nd image above
( http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg ) shows an expression that is
much more complex, much more difficult to decode.

Hardly boring. Very compelling. Not cliché.

Cliché, BTW, does not only mean boring. It means, among other things, something
that has become overly familiar or commonplace. Go to washingtonpost.com and
other newspapers that have photojournalism sections and you will see many such
images.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:toMtd.64449$IZ2.1799790@wagner.videotron.net...
> Mark² wrote:
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > newsxJtd.26066$Ou1.1635317@weber.videotron.net...
> >
> >>Simon Stanmore wrote:
> >>
> >>1> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
> >>2> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
> >>3> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
> >>4> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
> >>
> >> 1st is well done, but ... er, well, not for me.
> >> 2nd is fantastic in detail and communicates strongly
> >> 3rd is pj-touching-cliché,
> >
> >
> > I really don't see how the capture of unplanned emotion can EVER be
> > cliche...unless the photographer goes out of their way to deliberately
stage
> > a shot after a known famous pose. The raw, unplanned capture of these
> > moments is always worthy of presentation so long as it is not contrived.
>
> Just hang around a cemetery and you too can join the ranks!
>
> >
> > If skillfully captured emotion is cliche, then we're in for a very
boring
> > world of people photos.
>
> Nonsense. There are a wide varity of human endeavors that evoke emotions
in the
> subject, the photographer and the viewer of the images. The 2nd image
above
> ( http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg ) shows an expression that
is
> much more complex, much more difficult to decode.
>
> Hardly boring. Very compelling. Not cliché.
>
> Cliché, BTW, does not only mean boring. It means, among other things,
something
> that has become overly familiar or commonplace. Go to washingtonpost.com
and
> other newspapers that have photojournalism sections and you will see many
such

So what?
This is an image that is part of a collection from this particular war.
View it in that unique context, and it is indeed a unique photo.
It is one part of the larger story.
Of COURSE there are more interesting shots to be had.
I made no claims that it deserves a Pulitzer.
I really think you're bordering on snobbery here, Al.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
news:41b625ba$0$221$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> Simon Stanmore wrote:
>> "Tom Hudson" <gbz@fvathyne.bet.hx> wrote in message
>> news:41b5fd16$0$220$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
>>
>> I agree that most people can agree on what is a good image. But a good
>> image doesn't have to be a 'pleasing' image or one that people even like
>> to view...
>> http/cakeru.image.pbase.com/image/15470706.jpg
>> http/www.pbase.com/magus/image/15634978.jpg
>> http/www.pbase.com/zidar/image/8973787.jpg
>> http/www.pbase.com/davenit/image/34326372.jpg
>> ...each is a good image but only the first would be considered a pleasing
>> one by most people.
>
> I really like the 2nd, I don't think I'd hang it on the wall in my house,
> but I do like it.

I very much like all 4 for different reasons, but am least 'impressed' with
No.1 and certainly wouldn't want it on my wall. But you and I are
photographers and that skews our opinion in this matter. I find No.2
extrememely compelling - it's one of my all-time favourite portraits. That's
the weird thing about keen photographers - what we like and what
non-photog's like very often differs. Other photog's like my portraits and
street photo's mostly and non-photog's usually like the scenics and animal
pic's.

>> Only that one would hang 'nicely' on a living space wall. If there are
>> rules that can be followed to produce consistently good and/or pleasing
>> images then nobody has yet let them out of the bag. I think that anyone
>> can get lucky and get a good/pleasing image with a camera. Anyone could
>> hit bullseye on a dart board too. What you are really asking (I think) is
>> if making good/pleasing images consistently is possible through applying
>> defined rules.
> >
> Not at all, I really need to work on communicating clearly <
> I'm almost asking the opposite - Can people take good photos by instinct.
> It's not quite what I'm asking, but it's a lot closer.

The answer is a definite yes. Seperate learning to use a camera, lights,
darkroom, raw converter, etc. from the issue. The instinctual talent still
needs to master these tools to get consistent results. But once the tools
are mastered then someone with an instinct for visual art (on whatever
level) will be able to create lots of strong images.


>>>But can they? Are some people less 'stimulated', for want of a better
>>>word, by visuals? Sorry - it's starting to sound like a psychology exam.
>>
>> You're right. Some people are not turned on at all by visuals at all. My
>> mum has no interest in my 'real' photo's. She has no interest in
>> painting, sculpture or films either. She really wants to see lots and
>> lots of holiday snaps though, and she takes and cherishes more of these
>> sorts of photo's than anybody else I know.
>>
> I occasionally have a set conversation with my mum, it goes something
> like:
>
> mum: "Take a photo of that, that would make a good photo."
> me: "Err, no, that's alright"
> mum: "Oh go on, why not?"
> me: "Because it wouldn't make a good photo."
>
> I then get accused (sardonically) of being an 'artist'.
> She likes posing unwilling family members for impromptu photos in which
> everyone looks miserable because they're being posed in photos every time
> the opportunity arises. If I'd just thought of that I could have answered
> my own question - some people just can't see what makes a good photo and
> photos are all about _what_ _is_ in them. Composition and what shouldn't
> be in them be damned.

Yes, exclusion within the frame is as key as inclusion when making a good
image. Why not pose and direct your mothers chosen 'victims' yourself next
time? Posed portraits can make for great images - No.2 link is above not a
candid. Even unwilling subjects can make a good image.


>> They can learn to focus, expose, etc. to perfection. Light forming and
>> control can be learnt. An understanding of how a scene will be recorded
>> by the film/sensor can be learnt. Knowing how to process and print to
>> minimise or overcome the limitations of the film/sensor is also
>> learnable. But the process of creating good imagery goes beyond these
>> technicalities. I know avid photographers that have been at it for 40+
>> years and know every little thing about technique and equipment and yet
>> they take consistently dull, forgetable photographs. I know others (just
>> a few) that hit the ground running and were producing what most consider
>> good imagery from their first roll of film taken for the sake of image
>> making
>
> Well I can only hope I won't be the former, I don't think I will be, but
> they probably don't either.
>
> Tom

Some of them don't but some do and they don't give a damn. They love
photography despite their inability to produce strong images. They're the
good ones. The ones that really can't tell a good image from a bad one are
always gearheads. They have flagship SLR bodies, pro grade wide aperture
zooms and churn out endless pap all the time marveling at how sharp their
lovely new $1500 lens is. These people are why camera clubs in my country
are dying a slow death
--
Simon
http/www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mick Brown" <nmcs@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:sDytd.63778$K7.16136@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I think what you have here is an example of the answer you are truly
>looking
> for. Every person has a different perception on what a good image is.
> The
> response you get for each image is very much individual, for example:
>
> Photo 1: Technically perfect, but in my eyes boring (no offence to the
> photog, this is only because I have seen this type of shot 1000's of
> times)
>
> Photo2: Technically not so perfect, but I like it, because it is showing
> the
> subject in their true form.
>
> Photo 3: Extremely powerful Journalistic image, conjours up feelings of
> the
> waste of war and how humanity continues to destroy itself. Some of the
> general public may take offence to these type of images and say they hate
> the photo, they are not taking any notice of the technical expertise of
> the
> photog.
>
> Photo 4: Also technically perfect, I like this type of image, there is a
> story behind this that I will spend the next day or so trying to work out.
> Others may look at it and say the same as I did about the first shot.
>
> Each and every one of these photos will get different responses from
> different individuals, this is the wonderful thing about humans being
> unique. I could take a photo of a child, that to most of you would mean
> nothing at all.
>
> example:
>
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075
>
> But to her mother who cried when I handed her the print it means the
> world,
> Technically perfect? well thats up to a Contest Judge to decide, but for
> me
> the true judge was the recipient of the photo.
>
> We as photographers judge each other on technical merit, content,
> exposure,
> rule of thirds etc etc. But the general public will judge us purely on
> the
> wow factor and what emotions are conjured up from our art.
>
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> Melbourne Australia
> www.photo.net/photos/mlbrown


I think that many photographers include the wow factor and evoked emotion
when they judge an image. Anyway, as you like 3 of those 4 shots here's link
to the respective photographers galleries...
No.2 the portrait by Stefan Rohner ... http/www.pbase.com/magus ... All
good, nothing bad! Also at http/www.stefan-rohner.net/
No.3 the war B&W by James Mason ... http/www.pbase.com/zidar . I rarely
look at every image in a PBase gallery by opening the first image in his
'The war in Central Bosnia' gallery, reading the caption, and then clicking
'Next' all the way through the set is highly recomended.
No.4 the conceptual still-life by Dave Nitsche ...
http/www.pbase.com/davenit . The conceptual and 'Little Man' galleries are
especially good. Also at http/www.davenitsche.com/ . The 'About' section
on this site links to an Equipment List which surprises a lot of
photographers.
--
Simon
http/www.pbase.com/stanmore

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Simon Stanmore" <nomail@thanks.com> wrote:
> Each and every one of these photos will get different responses from
> different individuals, this is the wonderful thing about humans being
> unique. I could take a photo of a child, that to most of you would mean
> nothing at all.
>
> example:
>
> http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2843075
>
> But to her mother who cried when I handed her the print it means the
> world,
> Technically perfect? well thats up to a Contest Judge to decide, but for
> me
> the true judge was the recipient of the photo.

This is my favorite portrait, taken by a well-regarded photographer in the
area. It contrasts not only the color and lighting, but the child/animal
emotions. http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm

(Shel has a lot of other nice ones in a book, and here:
http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/pets.htm)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cynicor wrote:

> emotions. http/www.shelsecundaphotography.com/Portfolio/PDogBark.htm

Amusing. But this is a portrait worth study:
http/www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2452591


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.