When does the subject mean enough to take the shot ?

<p>I thought about putting this in the Philosophy forum, but it seemed more rudimentary than philosophical.</p>

<p>I've done lots of reading in photo books on composition and nature photography and photography in general, and it seems to me that often the author falls back on the shot telling a story or evoking some emotion or something else important. In a nutshell , the picture should depict something worth showing, not just a shot of a scene or subject you may have thought was a interesting view.</p>

<p>How do you evaluate that ? I might see a ridge line that is standing out more than normal due to a storm the night before that washed the air clean, and I might take a shot of it, for the slight uniqueness of it, but is that enough of a reason ? It just seems to me that I don't consider things enough to make the picture worth viewing by others. Of course, I often see photos by others people, of seemingly boring subjects, like a rusty bicycle, against a building, on a rainy day, they seem to be worth the effort.</p>

<p>I think that if I could see the artful angle of a scene or a subject, my shots might stop looking like vacation snaps. What do you look for ? What process do you go through before you grab your camera ? I have more trouble with scenics, than shots I take of motor racing, I would say.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have to admit, that I always want to kick myself when I don't have my camera and witness a great lighting opportunity. The shots that stand out to me on Photo.net either have a really great narrative or have some really fantastic lighting. The most mundane object can transform into a piece of art in the right light.</p>

<p>Shoot anything and everything that interests you. Edit later</p>

<p>I guess if you want a memory, that is enough reason to press the button...<br>

If you want to share with others an experience or emotion, that requires more... abstraction, and perhaps some irony. The composition is just some fancy graphics to direct the viewer to your message. Composition is not <i>the message. </i><br>

I get from your post that, for you, maybe viewing photographs is more your thing than creating them?<br>

Anyway, a short tale and an illustration: A while back, I was driving around in winter when it turned rainy. I stopped at some school campus where I got out and noticed fog rising from the melting snow. It looked pretty cool and the feeling of the weather, and perhaps the smell added to the experience. I thought, "I'll take a photograph of this"...I grabbed my camera and started looking through the viewfinder. And, the image in the viewfinder just didn't and, couldn't convey what I could feel experiencing the moment in person. It was impossible. The fog from the snow just wasn't really that impressive in two dimensions in a little frame. But I did "see" this:<img src="http://brucealangreene.com/websitejpgsfullreshorizontal/stregistree.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="611" /><br>

and I really like it! I don't think it might appeal to a lot of photo.net 'ers, but I don't really care, so if anyone wants to comment about why this, or some other example you wish to post works or doesn't feel free while trying to keep in mind some of John's original questions.</p>

<p>And, what do you think John? Is this example something you can relate to? Or something that makes no sense? </p>

<p>What I was trying to do here was to create some tension by obscuring the beautiful part by putting it out of focus and blocking it with the , kind of interesting, tree trunk. I think the viewer's attempts to "see" around the tree is what makes the photograph interesting, and calls attention to the scene that piqued my attention in the first place.</p>

<p>Ramble over, and out:)</p>

<p>I agree with John....but would add....that once I took the shot I first noticed the subject for, I would explore it further. Always taking pictures. There is NEVER a "...process do you go through before you grab your camera...". The process is always carried out thru the camera...especially now adays with digital. not saying I didn't do it with film....but now it don't cost any extra to do a dozen more angles.<br>

Scenics have the added advantage that they don't go anywhere (unlike candid people pics)...so if you shoot the scenic and say later during editing you wish it was more like something or another.....well, go back when the conditions will give you it. </p>

<p>If your pictures look like vacation snaps you should refine and develop your vision, that is your way of looking. There are numerous ways to go about this. Look at the paintings and photographs in art museums and galleries. Really look at them, don't just wander by with a glazed look. Observe the composition, lighting and use of color. Shoot what interests you. Be ruthless in evaluating the results. Always ask yourself the question "how might I improve this". I don't mean by post production, but by better more original seeing. Start sketching. It doesn't matter if you are any good. Use simple lines and darkened areas to design the page. If you do enough of that it will help your photography. If you keep pushing yourself the work evolves.</p>

<p>John,<br>

You might want to pick up a few books from the library on art composition. Things like the golden mean and the rule of thirds are absolutely relevant. The same rules of composition apply to any image, photo or not. Then go out and make some photos using the ideas in the books. You'll be surprised at how quickly you'll incorporate them into your routine and won't have to consciously think about it. The fact that you see a problem w/ your compositions is actually a good thing. Complacent photographers make complacent images. Looking at how others do it may be a help, may not. Actually using the ideas works. This is a good idea for even experienced image makers, because we tend to get stuck in our own little techniques and views. Going back to the basics is a reminder of why these things work so well.</p>

<p>I think we can found a lot of things about photo techniques and some rules about composition, but abut the subject .. weel its different, because photo is a visual art so its your eyes to decide the right shot time and the scene you feel interesting. Of course need know at the best the use of the camera and the light, but noone can give suggestion about how make an interesting shot, just you can feel the emotion when look something and the most important thing to do is put in the shot all sensation you re feeling, so who ll look that photo should feel same emotions you had when you took it. Ita the most difficult part of every arts, and you can refine your eyes just shooting and shooting and look at the results and correct yourself if you doint find in the photo the same emotions you had when you took it <br>

Best regards, Fabrizio</p>

 

<p>Just like you, I'm always on the lookout for that "ridge line that is standing out more than normal due to a storm the night before".<br /> It often comes about due to a different quality in the lighting conditions/weather.<br>

Other than that, I tend to photograph subjects/scenes that I have never seen before (obviously, this includes all of my personal holiday snaps.)<br>

The example below was caught recently on a trip to a historic railway line. You're looking at a pile of rusty railway spikes. Initially, this image is quite confusing to the eye. Eventually, though, my eye comes to rest on the anomaly that I didn't even see during the composition phase - the stick of wood near the right edge...<br>

In short, the subject means enough to me, when it appears to be something out of the ordinary. Many others will shoot for the exact opposite reasons, though!</p>

<div></div>

It may help to force yourself to take pics of nothing special. I often need to shoot a roll to test a camera, and hate to use film just for that so try to make something decent out of it. Give yourself assignments confined to your house, your yard, your commute to work. You may not get anything great, but you'll be ready later when that great subject appears.

<p>This is related to the "left-brained"/"right-brained" discussions. Admittedly, taking pictures of "nothing special" has been hard for me, a decidedly "left-brained" person. But the realization I have had is not to look for a thing to photograph in the first place, but think about more subtle things related to the thing that makes it more interesting. So, the rusty nail or the bicycle on the wall may not be the subject at all, it is how light hits the nail to bring out textures and color, or how the shadows of the object interact with the background, the interplay of contrasts/colors/tones, the interplay of different shapes and patterns, etc., etc.</p>

<p>There are some books by Freeman Patterson that talk about this, and suggest some very interesting exercises.</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=313114">John Elder</a> , Feb 11, 2009; 01:39 a.m.<br>

Shoot anything and everything that interests you. Edit later</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That sums it up nicely.</p>

<p>Most artists will repeat studies of the same subjects many times throughout phases of their careers, or entire lives. They may be known for only one particular painting or sculpture, which most folks may not realize was the culmination of dozens or hundreds of efforts.</p>

<p>This is as complicated a question as, "What is art?" Answers vary. Visions vary.</p>

<p>Some photographers just shoot things that catch their eye and work with the more interesting shots they stumble upon.</p>

<p>Some photographers go to events or locations they want to explore photographically, such as the Obama innauguration, and photograph whatever catches their eye, etc., etc.</p>

<p>Some photographers have a vision of exactly what they want to find, and they search for it, do research, etc. (e.g. a homeless woman with her children).</p>

<p>Some photographers choose to create or re-create what they want to photograph (e.g. a studio portrait).</p>

<p>All of this is legitimate. The common thread in all of this is that the photographers find something meaningful in what they are photographing, whether it is a feel, an emotion, a message, or even something that can't be described. If the photographer sees nothing meaningful in it, it certainly has no value.</p>

<p>And then there is the viewer, who might or might not understand the photograph and might or might not share the photographer's perspective. That's legitimate too.</p>

<p>John, sometimes it helps in "defining" your subject to consciously narrow down why you find it interesting as you are shooting it. Often the answer(s) to that question will be very elusive, but more often I find that just asking the question helps me to seek out other perspectives on the subject (trying different angles, DOF, etc.). The simple fact that you find any subject interesting is enough to warrant the shot -- exploration of the question "why?" will likely lead to some surprisingly good shots, and will always lead to a bit more self-knowledge. All in all, if it catches your eye, capture it and then explore more if you can.</p>

<p>A photography is an extention of your emotions from the moment when you saw something worthy to be put on paper/pc screen,is what you thought then, as tory created in your mind.Forget all of them books and magazines,grab your camera and explore the world outside and the people...</p>

<p>>putting this in the Philosophy forum<br>

Not that far - as you ask your self.<br>

You try to find your way, right, not every flower and bee is the target anymore, right?<br>

In the end - realy click when you like the situation. Later review (strong) and you will do the next clicks and so one - finally your do what you like and not what is expected - - - <br>

My camera, my click, no one else has any influence, it's mine - - -<br>

Enjoy Regards Axel</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Shoot anything and everything that interests you. Edit later<br />That sums it up nicely.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What if you are a passionate hobbyist and shooting slide film? Would the same hold true? I think you have to look for something unique and approach it with confidence, knowing that you will produce something worthwhile. I often think that shooting digital makes me lazy because I don't take the time to extrapolate the consequences of my actions, if I screw it up I'll just <em>edit later</em>.</p>

<p>Personally, I spend a lot of time looking at photographs by photographers other than me, thousands of them. It's inevitable that I remember the ones I like and the ones I don't. This memory influences my decisions in the field.</p>

<p>I took this in Joshua Tree a couple years ago (with the OP and his family)...<br /><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/F1Addict/Miscellaneous%20Crap/IMG_6670.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br />"Neat! A Yucca." Then I walked around to the other side of the plant and took this...<br /><img src="http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/F1Addict/Miscellaneous%20Crap/IMG_6671.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="600" /><br />"Wow! That's a great Yucca, you should be a photographer."</p>

<p>While the second image isn't by any means perfect, it's much more interesting than the first one.</p>

<p>Jeff: Actually, both are nice, and you've illustrated exactly what I was talking about above. And it started out being just a plain old yucca!</p>

<p>John: I would caution against falling prey to "the paralysis of analysis" and just shoot, shoot, shoot. Sure, plan your shots, but take 'em by all means. Sure, see if there's a story/emotion/theme (or whatever) that you can express with your shot, but be open enough to see if the subject might tell it's/her/his own story as well. The mere fact that the subject somehow caught your attention at all suggests, in my mind, that there is something to be expressed there... it's your job to find it. Explore, and you just might!</p>

<p>I only shoot film. And I follow the advice of Thomas Sullivan. If the subject that interests me allows, I shoot many frames, horizontal, verticle, different angles , different lens. I have been known to shoot a couple rolls on a given subject. Often totally failing to get a good shot. By good I mean worth printing and hanging on a wall. On a good day weather wise. If I am visiting NYC shooting street from 8am to 7pm in the summer I often shoot 10 rolls of film. If I am at an all day event like the mummers parade in Philly I can shoot as much as 15 rolls in a day. One thing I know for sure after 27 years of doing this is not to second guess my instincts about shooting. If your thinking about shooting, shoot. I love abstracts in addtion to traditional street photography. Some of my best abstracts are shots that I made casually never expecting them to be good , but they were.</p>

<p>I also shoot 4x5 film and study my subject before shooting it. I am very big on unique lighting, cloud cover and so on. Their has been many times I drive or walk a long distance to get a shot only to turn around because its not right, without taking a single shot. In the end they turn out the way I invisioned them no matter how long its takes, but thats just me. I do it because I love it</p>