What is an aesthetically pleasing image for you?

[kel_madics]

<p>After reading the post "<a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00VLuV">How to produce this look? Post processing?</a> " thread by Otto Harring I kept wondering what is a good or great photograph at the eyes of different photographers? I know we have different opinions on what is good for us since beauty is in the eye of the beholder so if you dont mind, is it ok for you to post a photograph of yours that you find beautiful and pleasing? And can you please explain why do you find it beautiful? Is it because it has good composition, great background, good lighting, nice leading lines, candid, good post processing, no post processing, grainy/noisy image, etc etc? I hope you get my point.<br>

Im just trying to understand what do you guys look for and maybe by looking at each others work we maybe able to learn a tiny bit of info from each other. Thanks!<br>

(ill post an image when i get home)</p>

[picturesque]

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> As this request comes close to the 'general image or show and tell' threads that are not encouraged in this forum, I am asking that if you post an image (only one, please) with your answer, that it be very specific and that you back it up with a very clear post. If you wish to talk about multiple images, you may post a link to your photo.net gallery, with specific images cited and backed up in your post. General links to your website or blog will be removed.</p>

 

<p>Remember that to post an image which shows up in the thread itself, make your image 700 pixels wide or less, 100 kbytes or less, and <strong>add a caption</strong>.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Hi Kel, here goes.</p>

<p>In one sense it's simple and in another it's very difficult. For me, it is about emotion. If the image does not make me feel something, forget it. That's the simple part.</p>

<p>The hard part is understanding how to create emotional images. I'm not very developed here but so far, this is what I believe it's not about for me:</p>

<p>1) It can not be about technique. So if the photographer is too tied to technique, whether this is photographic technique or photoshop, this is a red flag for me. I want to see a photographer that is looking past technique and getting to the sole of the matter. I want to see a story of depth and meaning, not a perfectly composed, perfectly lit, sharp image of a bride smiling for the camera.</p>

<p>2) It must be about the person/people involved. So, an image of a blazing sunset with a tiny bride standing on the beach is a sunset image to me, not a wedding shot. I think emotion must come from the people involved in the event, not the surroundings.</p>

<p>3) It must be artistic but not "different for the sake of it". The art must support the story. It can't just be different. So an image of a bride and groom standing on their heads is not interesting to me just because we have never seen this image before.</p>

<p>4) It can't be about "tricks". So, if I am drawn to an image because of some form of photographic trickery (over-saturated, over-sharpened, super-wide lens, fisheye, etc., then I don't think it is a great image.</p>

<p>This is what it is about:</p>

<p>1) It must be authentic. I must believe that whatever the image depicts is real. So, the eyes must be real, the expression must be real, the implied emotion must be believable.</p>

<p>2) The technique must not be so bad that it detracts from the message.</p>

<p>3) It must be creative. I need to think that the photographer is not just going through the motions. I want to see a photographer that is searching for something unique to portray the unique story of the day.</p>

<p>4) The image must be devoid of unnecessary story elements. A shot of a bride and groom laughing with an out of focus arm (that should not be there) in the middle of the shot is a problem.</p>

<p>Here is a shot I like. I like it because I think it has most (but not all) of the features I discussed above. Since it's my image, I find it hard to evaluate honestly.</p>

[dawn_tyler]

<p>This is a great question Kel! I think Jeremy has brought about all the main points I would, for me he's hit it spot on.</p>

<p>I am definitely not a stickler for the traditional style of photography as a whole even though I respect it. Odd angles, heads chopped off, all sorts are fine if they capture a great moment well and have a story to tell. This may be artistic blasphemy for some, but it's about what you like as an individual and an artist. And I mean that from the point of the art I like to look at - not create necessarily. I tend to be harsher on my own angles, exposure, and crops than I would be an artist I like.</p>

<p>I am overly critical of my pictures so this was a hard task for me. I like the image I have attached because it captures a moment that is real, the only real adjustments I have made to it is sharpening slightly and a high contrast b&w treatment. It makes me smile.</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>For me it is not a complex question, nor an esoteric notion. While there are running debates as to wether what we do is art or a craft ... I made my own mind up some time ago ... for me it is striving for art, and if that falls short (for whatever reason) then at least it is well crafted.</p>

<p>It pleases me when all circumstances conspire to make an image that illustrates my artistic intent. I subscribe to the "Decisive Moment" school of photography that IMO defines still photography's greatest strength. It is a sobering thought that all of the Decisive Moments I've shot over the years adds up to less than 10 seconds of work (1/1000th here, 1/90th there).</p>

<p>So, my artistic sensibilities are measured in time and space, and those moments can transcend the specific subject with a universal appeal beyond wedding photography ... all the rest is craftsmanship.</p>

<p>One of my older images still sums up this notion. While shooting the formals (which I consider pure craft work), the Bride's estranged father was leaving the reception feeling somewhat unwanted after walking his daughter down the aisle. The Bride broke away to say goodbye ... I grabbed my Contax film camera with a 180mm lens and caught this candid just as God provided the gust of wind. The Father's expression is priceless ... to him, her and just about anyone else with half a heart beating in their chest.</p>

<p>Luck favors the prepared.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[missy_kay]

<p>Anything by Todd Laffler</p>

<p><a href="http://lafflerphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/img_6032-edit.jpg">http://lafflerphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/img_6032-edit.jpg</a></p>

<p>His images are not only executed correctly, they have so much emotion in them. He sees the fairytale in every wedding and brings out laughter in people. I love his editing and attention to detail.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>In general, what makes it for me is the invisble quality, the part of an image that causes me want more of that "something". Esoteric and intangible though it may be, it is this quality that draws in the viewer and ulitmately gives an image, or art, the desirable aspect that we use to buy, or buy into, almost everything we want. Its the suggestion of something deeper that we spend our lives in pursuit of... intimacy, love, comfort, pain, longing, desperation, etc.</p>

<p>Or...it just looks great.</p>

[jeremy jackson]

<p>Sorry, my image did not show up in the earlier post. Here it is. JJ</p><div></div>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Here's a formal shot made at a pond in nice late afternoon light, 1995?. I used only a wink of old-style bare bulb flash from Lumedyne 50ws but wanted just a nice pose with natural relaxed couple expressions not any excessive smiling or activity. More or less a studio shot outside, which I used to do a lot of. They were a great couple to enjoy for the day and I found all their shots very genuine. Aesthetically I find the shot very pleasing to what I was trying to accomplish. Sorry for the quality, I jus shot the photo with my 50mm out of an album, its glued in the book. The original has great detail and color.</p><div></div>

[lukesmith]

<p>For me it's all about the emotion captured and the story it tells, and I would guess this is the case with most wedding photographers. I've had images that have broken rules that I just loved because they were just so pregnant with emotion.</p><div></div>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I believe photography is first a craft that occasionally may be elevated to an art form. Similar to furniture: a college kid can make a shelving unit from concrete blocks and 2x4s, a cheapie prefab shelving unit can be purchased at a discount warehouse, a fine solid oak shelving unit could be purchased from a fine furniture store, and furniture as art might be purchased from an Amish artisan or an upscale shop in Chicago's Water Tower Place.</p>

<p>What is esthetically pleasing to me needs to conform to the basics of good exposure, lighting, composition, and needs to be of an esthetically pleasing subject. Any rule-breaking needs to be done with a purpose.</p>

<p>However, if you're interested in selling images there really is just one primary principle: <strong>ESP</strong>. <strong>E</strong>motion <strong>S</strong>ells <strong>P</strong>hotos! People need to have an emotional investment in the subject, the moment, or both. The image I submitted for the PS-POW of the father-daughter moment was not an image I would submit for a conference print judging competition, it had some over exposure issues along with some composition problems. However, it was very pleasing to me personally, to the bride, and to her father and family.</p>

<p>Below is an image that I consider to be superior in it's craftsmanship and esoterically pleasing in it's simplicity.......with an attractive couple as the primary subjects.</p>

<div></div>

[kim-maru]

<p>Hi Kel and All,<br>

What makes an image good for me is always the same thing---whether or not it makes me feel something when I look at it. This is perhaps, particularly true in a photographic genre such as wedding photography since the subject matter itself is often highly emotionally charged however, for me, it seems to be true of virtually every sort of image. If I don't feel something, I cannot connect with the image---I am not compelled to continue to look at it and if I have stopped looking at it, it was not a successful image. There are of course, many reasons an image might make me feel something, including technique, composition and artistry but these alone, aren't enough. It's is a beautiful thing---a synergy of sorts---when an image is magically better than the sum of its parts---it's this 'extra something' that for me, takes an image from ordinary, even aesthetically beautiful, to extraordinary. <br>

As others have said, I feel a little odd using an image of my own to illustrate my meaning but here goes... The image I've inserted below, for me, has such a synergy in that although no faces (especially eyes) or bodies are visible through which the emotional tone of an image is traditionally conveyed, I feel that something quite sacred and fleeting, perhaps even a little sad is going on... I wonder about the origin of the ring and the feelings of the person holding them whenever I look at this image. For me, the fact that so little of the person and the circumstances is revealed in the image is precisely what compels me to continue looking it. Thanks for taking the time to read my post. Happy New Year! : ) kim</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[jmichaelc]

<p>For me, it's:<br>

A pure photojournalistic shot that captures the atmospheric drama and the unaware emotional aspect of a scene. A shot captured by a photojournalist who doesn't alter the scene in any way or interjects themselves by any means other than position and/or focal length.</p>

<div></div>

[david_brainard]

<p>I must have missed something. How did I get into PPofA land?</p>

[fotografz]

<p>What is PP of A?</p>

[stp]

<p>[sorry; I didn't realize this question pertains primarily to wedding photography. You should have seen what I wrote before this realization! Bye.]</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"What is PP of A?" -Marc</em><br>

<em></em><br>

My assumption would be Professional Photographers of America: <a href="http://www.ppa.com/">http://www.ppa.com/</a></p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>BTW......Missy, Todd used to be a regular contributor to the forum. Personally I miss his participation.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>I think almost everyone has pointed it out: content rules. Content trumps everything. The image has to have content, whether photo journalistic, posed reality, classically posed or what have you. Seeing content can be elevated by itself to an art form. But it doesn't have to be. A grainy, OOF image can still have strong content depending on what that content is. There was an example of an obscure figure that was photographed at some distance. The image was B&W, grainy, and out of focus, but it made the papers because it was of an individual that was rarely photographed. Content. After that comes the science. Did your composition, knowledge of light and so on add or distract from the content. Did it help shape the content. We as photographers tend to discuss these things. And hindsight is usually better than foresight! And then as David points out, different judges will be looking for different things. Submitting an image to be judged via PPA can be completely different than one a paying client likes. As a matter of fact, there can be a difference (and there usually is) between images submitted to be judged for the PPA and image submitted to be judged to obtain your Professional Photographer designation. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>I believe David B.'s comment is tongue in cheek and refers either to one or more of the images shown or the fact that the discussion is about aesthetics, as in the kind of judging that goes on in PPofA contests.</p>

<p>This is not a contest, and IMHO, the topic is a very interesting and valid one. I find it much more satisfying and thought provoking than your typical gear question. The variety of answers and images is also astounding--each is valid in it's own way. We need not be all alike or think exactly the same way.</p>

<p>Putting on my moderator hat, I would say that if you don't have anything constructive to say besides making a cryptic remark, it is better to not say anything.</p>

<p>Kel--where is your image and commentary?</p>

[kiva]

<p><<<strong>What is an aesthetically pleasing image for you?</strong> >></p>

<p>An aesthetically pleasing image for me stops me and makes my eyes widen/brighten a bit. </p>

<p>But, for completion, it's got to make that happen to someone else too. At that point the image has created a connection between human beings instead of just being an object sitting alone in space.</p>

<p> </p>

<h1><br /></h1>

[markonestudios]

It must be one that appeals to me on a level that elicits an emotive response. At the same time, it should have some element of technical prowess in its capture (exposure-wise), although this is not always a prerequisite IMO. Case in point is grabbing an emotional moment but maybe accidentally using a low shutter speed, leading to subject motion. It should be well composed though. The wedding images of one Mr. Ascough immediately spring to mind :)<div></div>