"It's about. . . ."

<p>Sometimes it seems that there is one thing in particular that grabs us or that otherwise "makes the photo work."</p>

<p>Can anybody flesh this out for me with examples?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>For me, it's not the same thing each time and it's not always one thing each time. It's often the combination of things. Also, some of my favorite photos don't actually grab me. They reveal themselves over time and with subtlety, slowly.</p>

<p>An example of a photo I love that doesn't grab me is <a href="https://jmombourquette.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/brassai21.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a>, by Brassai.</p>

<p>Photos that challenge me and keep me a little off kilter tend to grab me: <a href="http://potd.pdnonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/moriyama3views-953x639.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a> by Moriyama grabs me for those reasons.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17994714&size=lg">THESE TWO</a>, by Billy K. seem to rely on the creation of an atmosphere, which often appeals to me. They have a depth of mood.</p>

<p><a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6033966-lg.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a> remains one of my own signature photos because it's enigmatic and yet feels very familiar and comfortable, even as the garb and background seem so quizzical.</p>

<p>There are photos that rely on meditativeness, on humor, on intimacy, on sensuality, on all sorts of things. I imagine we each have our examples for all of those as well.</p>

<p>Fred, that photo of yours really is quite fantastic. Everything in the photo seems to lend an air of elegance, dignity, and subdued but obvious refinement. Then this guy comes strolling out and confronts us. I love it, love it, love it.</p>

<p>I like the others you posted, too. I am sure that you are right about how complicated any "formula" would have to be for describing what makes for a successful photo. Of course, there is no such formula, but there is, I believe, often some "Je ne sais quoi" which is there, something which puzzles us, but which somehow works to make the photo compelling and powerful enough to make us want to keep looking at it.</p>

<p>Back to your photo: I am still sitting here wondering what on earth made you come up with this idea. Are those your digs?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>No, not my digs. It's an old Victorian mansion here in San Francisco that was, at the time, being renovated. A friend of mine knew the caretaker of the house (he was the only one living there at the time during the renovation) and invited me and a couple of other photographers over for a shoot with a few guys who are going to be our subjects. When I got there, Mark came down the stairs dressed like this and I wrongly assumed he was one of the guys who we were going to shoot. He said he was actually on his way out to a mud wrestling contest and was just lending us the place for the day. No one else had yet arrived. He was carrying the two oranges with him. I asked if I could take his picture and he rather nicely agreed and also agreed to put one of the oranges down and peel the other. I took two shots of him and this is the one I liked. It was all pretty serendipitous.</p>

<p><a href="http://thomasakiss.zenfolio.com/p158070513/h539081a8#h539089fa">Link</a><br>

This one of my own photos I consider successful. Why? Square vs Circle.</p>

<p>Not the easiest question to answer, Lanny - it's so much intuitive (the 'grabbing'), that bringing it into words sometimes just is kind of floating around in thoughts, ideas, impressions without getting to anything solid. Take this as upfront apologies for what follows ;-)</p>

<p>One thing that can appeal greatly to me is the odd, unseen thing - often compositions that strongly rely on graphical elements, strong forms, and then the odd thing that seems out of place. Rather than choosing one in specific, this is what attracts me a lot in <a href="/photo/17673832">Jack McRitchie</a>'s photos. These photos tickle my fantasy, make me think what is outside of the frame, what happened before, what will happen after. Not strictly storytelling per se, as these are not so much the journalist photos, but implicit or imagined references to the context of the photo. Other local examples: <a href="/photo/18016648">Mark Zell</a>, and <a href="/photo/17994433">Billy K</a> already mentioned by Fred, <a href="/photo/17901622">Drew Bayless</a>, <a href="/photo/17992892">Markku Salonen</a>. Ambiguity is a big thing here, and it is also what often attracts me in portraits: Fred's now hidden work is the first to come to mind. <a href="http://oracoolblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/diane-arbus-18.jpg">Diane Arbus</a>, or the famous <a href="http://genevaanderson.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/sfmoma_avedon_10_marilynmonroe.jpg">Marilyn Monroe</a> portrait of Avedon. <a href="http://photonlab.com/creativevision/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/weston_cabbageleaf_1931.jpg">Weston </a>(for once, not the pepper). The little jarring thing that doesn't fall into place: that element that forces you to go back, make sense of things, itching your brain.<br>

I think the 'unseen' thing is one of the big liberations of photography being more accessible: it's not a financial burden to show those small, simple everyday things that we tend to pass by each day, not seeing how they can be fascinating, visually appealing, funny, or ... . It's also a great way to see the world through other eyes, and re-calibrate your own perspective.</p>

<p>Atmosphere, and creating an atmosphere -already mentioned - is another one. Good street work requires this for me (from this site I'll mention <a href="/photo/17992518">Steve Gubin</a>, <a href="/photo/18004344">Mario Azevedo</a>), but Vivian Mayer fits here for me, . But it's also for example what attracts me in a lot of <a href="http://agonistica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Salgado-Alaska.jpg">Salgado</a>'s work, and definitely <a href="http://www.photographyicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/5.jpg">Brassaï</a>. It's a quality I always hope to bring in my photos, but to actually capture it, it's a lot of things coming together at the right moment - it doesn't happen a lot, I think. Intimicy plays a big role here, for me - getting drawn into a place, somehow feeling a connection to what is shown in the photo. Not a remote dream, but something where I could actually place myself, "see" myself interact and have my place. Portraits again: <a href="/photo/9068851">Carlos H</a>., <a href="/photo/17708492">Marjolein M</a>.</p>

<p>Technically well done photos, or photos that manage to capture that moment that makes you understand more, I can adore them. Photojournalistic work, I can look at all days. Yet, I adore those photos, but they don't grab me as deeply (usually), not that deep fascination, that will to dive in and get into that world. Photos that work manage to convey me something, communicate to me. The elements that make them work can often be intellectually reasoned. But the two things I mentioned above move me - not in ways I can intellectually reason all that well but because they touch me on a different level; I think out of the 'famous' masters, I feel most at home with Brassaï. Each and every time I see his photos, ideas come up and thoughts start to swirl. I guess he grabbed me ;-)</p>

<p>Lanny -- Initially one might think this is a simple question and yet it's not. I did not at all take it as you asking about a "formula" (we all know there is none). It sort of echoes something I have been pondering in recent days which also seems a bit simplistic -- a question roughly along the lines of "Why do we photograph the way we do?" or "What do you like to photograph?".</p>

<p>I also found it interesting that the people who have participated in this thread (and some of the PN photographers who have been mentioned) are photographers with whom I feel a kinship -- not always in terms of us photographing in the same way or in the same style, but a kinship of approach in our own work and toward appreciating the works of others (famous or not famous). I could easily see people responding to your question with platitudes about classic composition, or talking about "decisive moment", "telling a story", pointing to the "usual suspects" of famous photographers, or providing links to easily accessible eye candy. Not there is anything wrong with any of that (these things can all play a role in the impact of a photograph, and in the end what each of us is impressed by is very subjective) but that seems the more conventional road and response. Many of the responses and examples shown in this thread are not what I would think of as the typical "man in the street" selections.</p>

<p>Oh, another thing -- Thomas K -- I looked at your photo and also the accompanying work you have in the same gallery on your zenfolio site: interesting work and I think they all gain strength seen as a body. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sometimes, Steve, I find something of value in a photo during post-processing that I did not see before. <a href="/photo/18033209&size=lg"><em><strong>This</strong></em></a> one of mine, not at all impressive in general (and definitely not an impressive crop), yet meant more to me when I converted it from color to black and white (by going to Layers and then "Black and White"). Specifically, while sliding one of the color sliders during that process of conversion, the flat area across the pond on the left side began to come up in brightness. For some reasons that bright spot became the most interesting shot of the photo for me. I'm not sure why, but it just spoke to me--and I stopped adjusting the sliders when that bright spot seemed to work the best with the rest of the photo. Until I started adjusting the slider, I had noticed only the reflection, and the gaps between the trees. When the very soil began to come alive, the entire photo came alive--for me. I don't necessarily expect anyone else to be touched by it, but for me it resonated with my mood of the day.</p>

<p>As for mood, I was just listening to <a href="

by Marty Balin (recorded in 1981, not long after he left Jefferson Starship), when suddenly I noticed the "clinch" visible from about :55 to 1:10. Context being so powerful (including the bittersweet lyrics and the very special melody), the photo of the couple in a very strong embrace struck me with enormous emotional impact. I'm not sure how I would have responded to it without the music. I'm not suggesting, of course, that we start playing music with our photos, but it did interest me that my evaluation of the photo appeared to be affected by seeing it in that musical context.</p>

<p>Context is everything--or maybe it isn't. It certainly is often important for me. It seems to be also in the case of evaluating Thomas K's entire portfolio, which is excellent.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Steve and Landrum:<br>

Thank you for your kind comments.</p>

<p>Wouter, I have to say that that<a href="http://www.photographyicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/5.jpg"><em><strong> Brassai</strong> </em></a>does it for me!</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could easily see people responding to your question with platitudes about classic composition, or talking about "decisive moment", "telling a story", pointing to the "usual suspects" of famous photographers, or providing links to easily accessible eye candy. Not there is anything wrong with any of that (these things can all play a role in the impact of a photograph, and in the end what each of us is impressed by is very subjective) but that seems the more conventional road and response.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is worth pursuing a little. Steve, you do use the word "platitude" (and I understand why you did and would agree with that characterization). IMO, there <em>is</em> something wrong with at least some of that, some usage of platitudes though, like you, I recognize where these quotes can be important.<br /> <br /> <em>platitude: a remark or statement that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful</em><br /> <br /> Doesn't seem like something that's terribly OK even if it is a personal or subjective choice. There's more to it . . .<br /> <br /> I think your use of the word "platitude" and your mention of those things goes with your observation that the responses here generally lead toward the unconventional as an important factor in what we're drawn to, even though I am also drawn to some conventional stuff.<br /> <br /> I do think, in general, a lot of responses to photography and art are based on convention. People like what has already been likable, what feels familiar and tried and true. In a sense, people tend to like photos and art that are similar in nature to verbal platitudes . . . conventions, hooks, symbols, and approaches that are used often enough to have become somewhat thoughtless and ineffective and, most importantly, devoid of genuine feeling or passion, instead just trying to mimic what has already been working for others. The extreme alternative, of course, is breaking rules merely for the sake of breaking rules, which can also ring hollow.<br /> <br /> Living in Bresson's "decisive moment" or Winogrand's "how the thing looks photographed" is, IMO, now a platitude if not a cliché, even if it wasn't when they said these things. I think if one recognizes the significance of what they've said and can apply it in some ways to their own work, that seems fine. But adhering to their philosophies or holding them up as any kind of standard is misguided, in my mind, and leads to rote and thoughtless work. Most great quotes have a lot of truth but also have counterparts. Every time I find myself admiring one of these quotes, I find an opposite position that can also work. That can lead to some interesting exploration and I think it honors the originator of the quote more than blindly following him. Bresson would probably be more impressed by a student who posed a viable alternative to "decisive moment" shooting (even while recognizing the brilliance in Bresson's thinking) than by those hordes of students preaching his theories for decades to come.<br /> <br /> I think conventions are conventions for a reason and can still serve an expressive purpose. But conventions are effectively handled with awareness of what they are and why. The best work, IMO, has a sense of convention and what it can bring to the table while also breaking some in a thoughtful or even downright revolutionary manner. <br /> <br /> A photo that seems to have a sense of history as well as a forward-looking bent is often one that will get my attention. For me, being "in the moment" is as much having lived and absorbed the past and building toward the future as it is about the present.</p>

<p>Lannie, please pardon the lack of examples. One item that at least can contribute to making a photograph work surprisingly hasn't been mentioned yet. It is invisible - the photographer's intentions.</p>

<p>Well, Michael, I was only thinking of the visible, but you are certainly right. Along the same lines, one might add, I suppose, the passion and mood of the photographer.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I'm not much use at fleshing it out but I know it when I see it. </p>

<p>I often find myself less satisfied in the long run by images which grab me initially. The images that sneak up slowly, tend to linger longer. </p>

<p>Sometimes there is just one element of the photo which is very compelling to me. In this one it's about the</p>

<p><a href="/photo/7614618"><strong>[AFTERNOON LIGHT]</strong></a></p>

<p>Even without the sweet light, the photo would have been nice, but the light adds something special.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Here is one where</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17796375"><strong>[WOUTER DOES ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING]</strong></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I hate to keep coming back to my own work, but here is one whose value I did not see until I got into post, specifically when I went to Layers and then Black & White--and then started playing with the sliders again, allowing me to get what I see as</p>

<p><a href="/photo/18028822&size=lg"><strong>[A CURIOUSLY OTHER-WORLDLY EFFECT]</strong></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Here is one in which Wouter has captured both a great subject and some special lighting to capture the</p>

<p><a href="/photo/14914172&size=md"><strong>[MAGIC OF THE NIGHT]</strong></a></p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Isn't it THE MAGIC OF LOVE? ;)</p>

<p>I guess it is in this case, Fred, but sometimes the night itself can be magical.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, when you compared the two golden light photos, I naturally assumed the first was yours. Someone in an IM made me aware that the photo belongs to Harry Joseph. Just a suggestion that, when linking to someone else's photo, it would probably be a good idea to give them the credit in the post, for clarity as well as due acknowledgment.</p>

<p>By the way, I was being tongue-in-cheek about THE MAGIC OF LOVE and you're right that night can be magical, especially when well captured by the camera.</p>

<p>In terms of your otherworldly effect, it's a bit blatant and too impossible. For me, an otherworldly effect can take place with a lot more subtly. If I have a sense that this could be real but isn't quite, that something odd or haunting is going on, that can be a hook for me. But when it's so obvious that post processing has created an "effect", I'm usually gone from the word "go." Look again, through Billy's portfolio (though he's greatly pared it down recently) to see examples not only of atmosphere but also of otherworldly tendencies that feel so organic and real.</p>

<p>Picking up on what Wouter said about the unseen, often what's either not in the frame or not even outside the frame, what's actually NOT THERE, can be something that draws me to a photo. A lot of Billy's work seems to have a presence. A presence unseen. And yet, it's not a trick or a sleight of hand. In some cases, I can feel HIM standing there, even though he's not pictured. He often manages that through his adopted perspective, which is often so genuine and human. But sometimes it's not HIS presence, but just a presence, as if there's simply more than meets the eye.</p>

<p>Was scrolling through your portfolio to choose one that I thought had that "grabbing" quality and settled on <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5225469-lg.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a>, which interestingly enough I see Drew has already commented on. It's got style, narrative, and seems in the moment.</p>

<p>It's art, so what works for one may not be <em>the thing</em> for others. You can go for the general appeal or just choose what you like (some try both approaches). You are in control what the essence is or becomes of your photos.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just a suggestion that, when linking to someone else's photo, it would probably be a good idea to give them the credit in the post, for clarity as well as due acknowledgment.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Fred. That's a good idea. I just assumed that people would see the title and photographer's name. Is it not even displaying? Either way, the name should be in this thread. You're right about that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A lot of Billy's work seems to have a presence.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure whom you are talking about, Fred. Billy?</p>

<p>You're probably right about over-processing in my "otherworldly" photo. I did go over the top in making that sky virtually black. I violated my own rule of not making the use of Photoshop obvious. I had several more moderate versions. I'm not sure why that one is the one that I posted.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Billy K. here on PN. <a href="/photo/17994714&size=lg">THE PHOTO DUO</a> I linked to above and <a href="/photodb/member-photos?user_id=3936461">HIS PORTFOLIO</a>.</p>

<p>Clearly, there's a lengthy list of visible elements that can contribute to a successful image. I suspect that talking about them ultimately would make little sense without also discussing the photographer's intentions.</p>