Looking at a photograph

[janet cull]

Last night I wanted to print something and thumbed through a notebook

of negs I haven't printed yet. I pulled out one from when we went to

the coast (NC) last summer. Our son (of our old age) was playing

with an old friend's son of his old age. It was a really nice time

and reunion of families.

 

Anyway, the boys were playing in the water and a lighthouse was in

the background. I thought it may be kinda nice, not remembering

anything at all about when I'd shot it.

 

I was so pleasantly surprised when I developed it to see all this fun

life going on in the water and on the shore. It blew me away. (Do

you get carried away when you see something you love, and print it

over and over?) I can't tell you how many images of that I have

drying right now.

 

My question is this? What if someone looks at it and sees a

lighthouse, an almost nice composition, a dock going into the water,

and a couple'a boys playing? That's not all there is! I know this

is so silly, but I don't even want to show it to anyone because maybe

they won't see what I see and I'll be disappointed.

 

Surely there are many ways people looks at photographs. (Good grief,

it's ridiculous that I even care about this - am I obsessing?)

 

I think my goal will be to show an image and give no prompting, no

explanation, no help seeing or pushing to "enjoy" what I enjoy about

it.

 

Pardon my rambling but maybe I'll feel better now.

[edmo]

That's what it's all about, enjoy.

[ben conover]

Hi, I am a beginner in photography, so I really don't have much experience of my own work yet. However I do find that many people see a photo and that's it, they look no further, it is very sad.

 

I am glad you had much happiness from your memories via photography.

Everyone sees a photograph once in a while, but some people see things that others do not, hopefully.

 

I wish there were many ways to look at a photograph, but most of the time people are not so open minded. Of course some people may spend alot of time looking at photos, it is good that we try to do that.

 

Sometimes people actually need an explanation of a photo to understand it, otherwise it could merely be an abstract image.

Other people are happy in their abstract selves and want no titles.

 

I guess one way of looking at a photograph is with other people.

 

Cheers.

[aardvarko]

the bigger the print, the more people will see details

[dickhilker]

I think, Janet, it might help if you decide for whom you're making the picture: if it's for your own enjoyment, then other folks' opinions don't really matter. But, if you're doing it for their approval, then make it as big and well-printed as possible, frame it attractively and promise yourself you don't really care what they think, 'cause it really looks great just the way it is!

[matt_borengasser]

*I think my goal will be to show an image and give no prompting, no explanation, no help seeing or pushing to "enjoy" what I enjoy about it.*

 

Your goal to do the above is admirable, but you might find it a bit difficult. I sometimes think it's a mistake to think that really great works are *universal*--that is that they can appeal to anyone. So, I wouldn't make universality a goal...just keep striving to make the best works you're capable of.

 

At the same time however, there's still that yearning for others to get what you get. Why not think of a title that relates to what they are not getting. People sometimes respond to this by thinking a bit deeper, i.e. Why is it called that?

 

I know a lot of people think works should stand on their own as purely visual experiences. But I don't think it always works out that way. People need clues and hints a lot of the time. I'm thinking of Duchamp's *Nude Descending a Staircase*. Today it's obvious what it is because our modern eyes can *read* it. But when it was first created I'm sure he got quite a few *what is that??*

[michaelhills]

<i>Janet wrote: "Surely there are many ways people looks at photographs."</i><br>

<br>

Wholeheartedly agree. And it's a better world for the great diversity. I find great joy in people commenting on my work with remarks about how that particular composition elicited a emotion, thought, reaction etc. Several times, the emotion elicited was totally different from my vision of the composition. Beautiful. <br>

<br>

This also shows me that I need to think a lot harder about my compositions to enable them to convey the messages I want them to convey. <br>

<br>

Its also very rewarding to seriously look at another's composition and then to tell the author how that composition impacted on you. They usually gain much from your honest response.<br>

<br>

More to the point of this thread, I also find it fascinating to discover that many (most?) humans 'naturally' scan an image from left to right (same as reading) and that you should compose your compositions accordingly to benefit from this. It gets me wondering if this scanning from left to right is a 'western world' phenomenon. How do other cultures that read (for example) from right to left, or from top to bottom then across interpret compositions? Does the same composition elicit different emotional responses depending on the cultural reading norms the viewer is from? Maybe someone here can shed further light on this?<br>

<br>

And then we get to the previous life experiences of the viewer and how that has an enormous influence on how a composition is interpreted.<br>

<br>

And the list goes on...<br>

<br>

M

[janet cull]

Thank you for your thoughtful answers. Yes, Matt...I think that's a good idea - naming prints. And I think you're right that my aim is "admirable" but probably not attainable. Sometimes I get too much into it, then other times I can relax and just enjoy. I think I'll attach the image, at the risk of being smacked. :o)

[gerry_calona]

I know this is so silly, but I don't even want to show it to anyone because maybe they won't see what I see and I'll be disappointed.

 

Do you take photographs for yourself or for other people ?

[chelsea]

Gerry's right. When you're showing your images to others, keep in mind that they don't have the same emotional attachment to the subject that you have, or may not even share your view of what makes a "nice picture". Yes, it can be highly disappointing. If you're showing your work to others, you have to step back from it for a minute to look at it objectively. The quickest way to learn about this is enter your photographs into a contest...and then brace yourself for the judges' comments. LOL! By all means if you enjoy certain pictures you've taken, blow them up and make the most of them. I have some happy crappy snappies that are my all time favourites, but I won't show them around, if I were to post them to p.net they'd be lucky to rate a "1.0". Then I have some shots that people insisted I make into art cards and ordered 8x10s. And a couple of those, yeah I get carried away and enjoy printing them over and over. You say your goal is to "show an image and give no prompting, no explanation, no help seeing or pushing to enjoy what you enjoy about it"...maybe the way to start is to study the comments on photos posted to photo.net and other sites, go through the top photos and try to see what it is about these pictures that attract people to liking them. Critiques can be brutal, but they're certainly a good way to learn. Just develop a thick skin and continue to have fun with it.

[marcofrancardi]

A picture comes with a feeling embedded by the author. I don't think there is a way out of this. There should be an explanation by the author on some "not so evident" pictures, so to understand and keep in mind the intentions, mood or whatever element would be deemed useful by the author. The "naming" option is a good start, sometimes not sufficient if it is too "cryptic". Some other elements embedded in that picture are not explicable because they form part of the personal history. that's why couples in love have "their own" love songs. To other people those songs would be just another love song.

[gerry_calona]

Surely it depends on what the subject is. If it is a scientific subject such as a plant or insect then a title is necessary. If it is what one might consider as "ART" then emotions/imagination/asthetic leanings, influence the viewer accordingly. Recently I have discovered that the discarded shells of rock oysters here in New Zealand stuck together as they have grown on the rocks exhibit all sorts of wonderful sculpted forms. What I see in them might be totally different from what other people see in them if anything. Like gazing into the emblems of a fire if you look long enough all sorts of faces, monsters and forms appear. I see all sorts of things in driftwood, tree bark and indeed what I now call natures ART has become the subject of many photographs. But give them a name or a title, that would be imposing MY vision instead of letting the viewers vision and somehow I feel that this is an egotistical thing and somehow me wanting to control other people. Hard to explain in words but this is how I feel. That's why I take pictures for ME and not to influence someone else.

[janet cull]

I typed an answer to you, Gerry, but when I looked in later, saw it didn't show up. Guess I didn't confirm it. Anyway, here's my answer to your good question;

 

>>>"Do you take photographs for yourself or for other people ?"<<<

 

I'd say I take photographs for both myself and others. While I mostly shoot for my satisfaction, I find art is something that's even more satisfying when it's shared. Art is to be seen, not hidden away. Otherwise our photographs would only go in an album and put away on our shelves. That's why musicians share their songs, painters exhibit their paintings, poets publish their works, all artists share their art with others. And feedback is valuable for many reasons - for growing, for affirmation, for encouragement to go forward, for more reasons than I'm exhausting.

 

Otherwise we wouldn't congregate here and we wouldn't seek the help, critique, opinions, dialog of others who enjoy the same. So while I want to nurture and be true to my "inerds", I also like to know that what I'm seeing and trying to "speak" is being understood by others. Or at least speaking *something* significant or enjoyable to someone.

 

Good insights and advice here and I'm gonna go for a critique like some of you suggested. Hopefully I'll get responses from some who haven't read my input before seeing the image so their reactions won't be tainted with my own thoughts.

 

Again, thank you all for your replies. I always enjoy reading all your contributions!

[gerry_calona]

Appreciate your comments Janet but in my experience, particularly when dealing with a varied audience such as so called judges at camera clubs etc., you get responses which are biased by the viewers own ideas of what is good or what is bad. Then if you take too much notice of this biased opinion, your own creativity gets altered to suit their tastes and ideas. The ultimate judge should be you and if you like what you have done then that is really the creative you.

" This above all to thine own self be true."

Cheers.

[michaelhills]

Totally agree with your thoughts, Gerry.<br.

<br>

M

[janet cull]

Gerry, I wasn't thinking that far ahead, to judges or juried shows. Yes, I see what you mean and I agree.

[gloria_hopkins]

Interesting. Don't worry about it too much. The human form immediately becomes a main focal point in any image with inanimate objects. Our eyes gravitate to them like magnets because we recognize them as something familiar and we're naturally curious.

 

You'd have to have something really overpowering and dominant take focus off the kids for any significant time. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[clauder]

completely OT I know, but taking a quick look at the picture I could swear that the patches on the lighthouse are (at least look) actually red, not B/W... Kinda weird how ones own conception seems to fake reality!

[hertz_van_rental]

This problem is a fundamental one in Photography. Few people recognise that

Photography is in fact two seperate acts. The first is taking the picture the second is

viewing it.

The photographer has the experience of what has led up to taking the picture. Naturally

when he views it all this is layered on to the picture giving a much richer response.

A viewer who is divorced in time and emotional involvement only has their own

experiences to draw upon so they will see the image differently.

[ben conover]

For me a photograph is a memory, we all have separate memories although we can 'share' them sometimes. The procces of learning to understand my memories, and other people's, is what I am interested in, and that is why I use a camera. The photo itself is irrelevant.

[hertz_van_rental]

I can't see how the photograph can be irrelevant to someone who takes pictures. If this

were truly the case then why bother putting film in the camera? Or using a camera at all?

The end product of Photography is the photograph - this is an inescapable fact - and this

is in our minds (conciously or otherwise) when we use a camera. We are conditioned to

accept it. To say that you use a camera but the photograph is irrelevant is the same as

saying 'I write but what I write is irrelevant' or 'I cook but what I cook is irrelevant'. I am

not saying it is beyond the bounds of possibility - only that if it is truly the case then you

need to seriously examine your motives.

[ben conover]

Hi Hetz, perhaps my words were a little too black and white, sorry.

 

I do think that the photo is 'relevant', of course. However I think that the process of achieving that goal is of more importance to me,

and so the end result is not an absolute certainty. I will question my motives anyhow!

 

I like lots of peoples photos and I enjoy learning from you guys.

 

Cheers.