This discussion follows from Jeffrey's interesting post about whether we get tired of landscape/nature images.
I feel that, as we are exposed to so many good images, we no longer are so easily moved by something which the majority of people would find beautiful. Often I find friends or relatives exclaim their delight at what they think is a beautiful image of mine or posted here. To my own images I would then say, well, but the exposure could be better here, or the composition could be better there etc... Most people don't care, they just think it is great.
So here is my question: When we judge a picture to be good, is this according to guide lines which for most people actualy play no role in their emotional reaction to an image? Do we apply criteria in analyzing pictures that to most people are of very little relevance but which satisfy only us few rather obsessive photographers?
Perhaps we should just step back and be less analytical about images and try to appreciate a beauty that most other people would see.
I've sold tons of photos because "it'll match the sofa" or "I like the colors" and "because we visited there once", so, yeah, I think we do over analyze our photos.
Absolutely not. While I would like everyone to sit back & enjoy my photos, I also would like people to analyze them. Getting your work critiqued & analyzing other people's work is an important part of the learning process. I have been able to improve many images by reworks/retakes based on the advice of people on this forum. While my photos may impress the average person off the street, that is not good enough for me. I want my work to stand up to close scrutiny by myself & my peers. Looking at the work posted on this website, or even the fact that they have joined as members tells me most are perfectionists & obsessive.
Posted by Richard Wong on June 30, 2007 at 2:22 PM
There are some bad prints I made several years ago that I hate, but my mom loves them and always asks if she could take them and hang at her office. I won't let her because I don't want those prints associated with my name. So yeah I think I might be a little weird compared to non-photographers.
If you allowed anyone plenty of time to choose between a photo with technical flaws and the same photo without them, don't you think even the most photography illiterate person would choose the technically superior photo? The fact that many people are satisfied/happy with poorly crafted pictures makes me think it's even more important that we are picky. If we aren't, who is going to be? Photographers need to be discerning with their own work and the work of their peers or there would be no point in striving toward excellence at all. To take the "best" photos we're capable of, we need to be dissatisfied with the pictures that we could have made better. We might even be dissatisfied with certain parts of our favorite photos.
On the other hand, I think we do miss out on the connection we could make with a photograph when we approach it with the intent to analyze. Some photos are crafted well enough that they strike us no matter what, but others can be short changed by approaching them the wrong way. It's a balancing act between letting the photo involve you emotionally and looking for ways it could have an even stronger impact. I think it's a good idea to make an attempt at the former first before moving on to the latter, but it's not always the case that both steps are possible.
Since you draw a pretty broad generalization (not sure that "we" and "most other people" are clearly defined) then think on a broad scale - if most people's criteria for liking images are so different from those of the most discerning photographers, nobody would ever buy their photographs.
Obviously some consumers and viewers are more discerning than others. If you're making photographs strictly for the purpose of selling them then you should only put as much effort into them as it takes to satisfy the demands your target market (e.g. if you sell photographs to tabloids, you can probably be less discerning than if you wanted to sell them at a fine art gallery).
Personally I create images primarily to satisfy myself and I'm pretty hard to please
I agree with Kent that it is incumbent upon us as photographers to take the best photographs we can and to process them to the best of our ability. I think this will help elevate photography to an art form, and probably more importantly, to better convey the experience of nature to the viewer and draw them in emotionally. I think we first need to be critical of our images, and after we have done the best we can with them, we need to just sit back and enjoy the beauty that was captured. Just like anything, balance is the key.
Photographers look at images differently than the non-photographic public. Might even have been on this site that a link was posted some months ago to an eye-tracking exercise that compared where photographers' eyes locked on an image compared with where non-photographers looked. As I recall, the non-photogs' eyes remained on and near the subject of the image, while the shooters' eyes roamed all over the image. It was an image with a fairly discrete subject, however. I'd imagine a landscape photo may show a different result.
I don't think photographers over-analyize images, in general. But we talk about and examine the intricacies of our craft among ourselves just as do, say, auto mechanics or painters. Mechanics view auto engines differently than those who simply buy and drive a car. Just human nature.
My wife is actually a much better judge of what will sell and what won't. Many is the time I've been viewing a day's work on the computer screen with her looking over my shoulder. I see an image and shrug "whatever," and she sees the same image and says "WOW!" Invariably, when it comes to sales, she is more right than I am.
While I prefer to present images that reflect my interpretation of nature -- images that I love -- to the public, I realize that many people see things differently than I do. Because I'm trying to make a living at this, I can't afford to simply please myself. I also have to please enough of the folks who are in the market to buy images, and that means I'm more apt to experiment with angles, views, compositions and colors, because while I know what I like, I need that variety to ensure I'll be able to market images pleasing to others.
I'm also harder on my own images, and you here tend to be harder on my images, than the public is. That's just because our technical standards must be higher within our craft than among those on the outside.
A great photograph is actually pretty difficult to over-analyze I find. Everything just seems to come together perfectly and the photo seems to become above analysis. Perhaps that is why these are the shots on the forum that get 50 "WOW" comments. On the other hand it is easier to make specific comments on photos with flaws.
There are just so many different varied tastes and types of photography. I mean heck, I've had people rave over a shot that has (gulp) human beasts in it. The eh, eh perfect shot anywhere by anyone, I have not seen yet. I've seen close, but there is always something someone sees, thats not to their taste. Thats whats so great about it, we keep striving and looking, pushing harder to try and get it.
Anyway, just IMO and I think we do over analyse sometimes.
I think humans over-analyze everything, whether it is a photograph, the scent of a flower or the song of a bird, or an inter-personal relationship.
"People don't watch enough. They think. It's not the same thing"
Henri Cartier-Bresson
I will argue that over-anaylsis blurs the real joy that exists, and clouds our spiritual connection to the world.
When you look at a photograph and start to analyze it for flaws, or color balance, or saturation, or a host of other qualities, do you realize that you have lost the connection to the image that drew you to it in the first place?
Preston, that's as well written as I've ever read it, though not all humans over analyze. I have come into contact with people from two indiginous cultures who rarely ask "why?" They look with wonder and a bit of fear upon people who never stop trying to explain things, and simply appreciate as fully as possible what is presented to them each day. Thank you for reminding me of the importance of that.
And I think that Henri Cartier's quote in Preston's response is something we all should be mindful of.
Kent, I agree with you. Lets look at it this way. Lets say you take a technically perfect image of the sun setting over a mass of water. No strong foreground element, just the sun and water. If it is a beautiful sunset, most people who are not serious about photography will say, wow beautiful sunset. But we would say: Well, yes, it is a pretty scene but it lacks a strong foreground element, or thehorizon is in the middle etc... Don't get me wrong, I do feel that these criteria would set two technically perfect photographs apart, even if analyzed by the nonphotographic eye, but we should not dismiss the fact that a simple scene,as the one mentioned above, is beautiful and should not be discounted by us because it lacks some stronger elements we could think of. As you said yourself, if one approaches an image analytically, one will be less inclined to like the photograph if it does not match one's criteria -although it still is simply beautiful. And as Preston has so well put it - if we analyze it, perhaps too much, then we loose the connection with what it is that we found so beautiful in the first place.
That certainly does not mean that we should not be stringent and very serious about creating as powerful an image as we can, but we do need to strike a balance between our emotional awareness of the beauty of an image and analyzing which criteria it does and does not meet.
As a relative newcomer to nature photography I find the critques on this & other websites very helpful in the development of my skills as a photographer. I see many parallels in this thread with my other life as a sound engineer in a recording studio where people become obsessive to the point of paranoia about the 'sound' of a snare drum, the 'balance' between vocals and instruments, the 'ambience' of a song the 'timing' of the guitar etc. etc. Many musicians make music for other musicians, not the general public who, on the whole, don't care that much & are happy with a nice tune that sticks in the head. I'm sure it's the same with photography. Like the song, what's important is, does the image 'say something'?
However, having said that, humanity will always strive for it's perception of perfection.
Regards,
Pete
To me, that's one of the main points of NPN, analyzing and critiquing. Sure, it's nice to hear an "atta boy'" (or girl), but I would rather have critiques or suggestions. I post on NPN in order to improve my photography first and foremost, and the only way that will happen is if you receive critiques and suggestions for improvement.
NPN is a family, and the comraderie is wonderful, but the comraderie is built around mutual respect, enjoyment of each other's work, and the desire to assist one another to grow in this endeavour. Just my opinion of course....
Bill, I totally agree. I am not trying to say that we should not criticize each other's pictures or that I don't like being criticized. A critique is a lot more useful than a "very nice" comment. I am just trying to say that maybe we should be more aware of the criteria according to which we criticize - I feel that sometimes the technical aspects, important as they are, dominate our initial emotional reaction or even blind us from truly seeing the image.
I find myself trying to strike a balanced opinion between the two extremes. While I absolutely believe the we should do the best we know how ( and who among could live with himself if he slacked off?) I also agree with Kent
On the other hand, I think we do miss out on the connection we could make with a photograph when we approach it with the intent to analyze. Some photos are crafted well enough that they strike us no matter what, but others can be short changed by approaching them the wrong way. It's a balancing act between letting the photo involve you emotionally and looking for ways it could have an even stronger impact.
I see a tendency to analyse a photograph with too much emphasis on the numbers and completely miss the picture. I've had it happen that I submitted a photo which was exactly what I "saw" when I made the exposure but it failed the histogram/shadow detail test in the view of the photographer who critiqued it. I almost trashed the picture as a result and, like Steve Foss, it took my dear wife to re-kindle my belief in that picture. As it turned out, that picture has sold more from a local gallery than any other in the same time frame.
On the other hand I've recieved suggestions on other pictures that have significantly improved them and I'm tremendously grateful for that.
Recently I've been spending a lot of time in Frontenac Provincial Park. This is a beautiful place and it's about as good as it gets for this part of the country. Every time I come home from a weekend canoe trip with a couple of CF's full of raw's I get really turned on by the prospect that I'm bringing home little bits of Creation to share with poeple who cannot see it for themselves. I suppose this is what motivates me more than all the critiques or accalades from other photographers.
Point well taken. I tend to be a very "analytical" person, and I'm sure I'm guilty of the very thing you bring out. While I enjoy the emotional impact of a nice image I find myself immediately looking for nits. I don't do this to be critical of the effort or just to find something negative to say, but as a method of improving my own photography. I try to imagine what a change in perspective would do to the image, a different comp, time of day, shutter speed, etc. would do. This is why I tend to learn more from critiquing others than receiving crtitques myself. I can be more objective in reviewing others work than my own. Of course, there are those images that just bowl you over where the only response is emotional in nature, as there are other, less dramatic images where just a "very nice" is a way of encouraging the poster when an in depth critique might be viewed as "piling on". I will sometimes write a more encompassing opinion to some of these images, but send them privately as an email, along with a note of encouragement.
I remember back when I first started posting on NPN and how imtimidating it was. On whole, I received very few comments, and a few of them stung a bit, but they were all very helpful in nature. Had I been a little more "thin skinned" I might have exited NPN but if you want to learn you've got to be willing to hear some things you might not want to hear.
Well, it appears I've gotten off your original topic yet again! Emotional impact does have a definite place at NPN, and yes, we probably look at images comepletely different than most of the genral public. However, instead of changing the way we view them completely, perhaps we can just add the emotional impact to the critiques or analysis.
Posted by Larry Cooper on July 1, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Examining why a photograph works or fails is useful on many levels, but does a thread that analyses the analysis of photos indicate that there is too much analysis going on?
Yep we probably do, or at least in many cases should.
One of the hardest things I have to do when talking with other photographers is explaining how to get "good". They already have the basics down - their technical skills are not in question.
But the how to make that next step. One thing which I consistantly see is a photographer lookig at their own photos and going "these are good photos." I'll look at the photos and see "Well, there are some pretty obvious problems here." It is not that the person wasn't aware of the flaws in general. The person just didn't see them in their photos.
I think one of the biggest keys in getting past technical competence is being able to step back from your own work and overanalyzing it. What could I have done better? What can I do different next time.
I think that most of the best photographers here have that ability and are comfortable with others saying negative things about their work which is less than successful. That, I think, is why they are so good. It is too easy to become blind to your weaknesses as a photographer and it is lot of work to get past that.
And there is nothing wrong with just plain looking at an image and going "WOW!" Sometimes a photograph just deserves that.
Most of what we seem to do here on NPN is analyze how the image was made (and offer suggestions for improving that process). We don't, however, seem to analyze what the image is about - i.e. why was it made in the manner it was? I am not dismissing the former as being unimportant. Its just that the latter is what "really" makes discussions on photography (or any other art) interesting for me. So for now I believe we are far from over analyzing images.
I don't think we over analyze images. If anything, I think we under analyze them.
But there's a catch. The analysis should take place before the shutter is tripped. The purpose of post-shutter analysis is to determine whether or not we achieved our pre-shutter goal.
I think those that are serious about learning always strive to improve their work (school, career, photography sports or whatever). I don't think most people analyze a photograph like a person that makes a serious work, hobby or study of the art. I personally love analyzation, I learn how to improve and begin asking more of myself. But I don't think a customer cares.
I had this very discussion with David West yesterday (www.davidjwest.com) in his gallery at Zion NP. He said, look I know I can improve and I try and want to but most important is that my customers like what they see......
Well, thanks again for all the comments. I think I am beginning to agree with most of you - that in order to create the best possible images we should always consider the possibilities for improvement, even though it would likely be lost on most people who are not serious about photography. Today, I walked around at a flea market and looked at some photographs for sale- although most of the photographs for sale would have received a somewhat luke warm response here, I could see how many passers by were simply taken aback by what they perceived to be beautiful images. I wonder sometimes whether improving those images would have made even a stronger impression on them or whether their response would pretty much have been the same. I also wonder why I no longer feel that initial emotional impact images such as those on show would have had on me two or so years ago - I really have become jaded by viewing so many images.
Anyways, I am rambling. I feel we should be as critical and perfectionist as possible, but we should also see more with our emotional rather than our technical eye.
Look at Art Wolfe's or any published photographer's images from even 10-20 years ago. They are terrible IMO...only because I have seen better crafted images in just the last 5 years. These better images are due to technologies, all the way from the camera, to the printing processes.
Take a person who hasn't seen the great photography online these days, and they still have those old images to compare them by...and thusly, they have a lower standard for what is beautiful. I call these folks ignorant, but not in a bad way...it's not their fault.
I have images from 4 years ago that I am almost ashamed of, but they get attention at art shows as well...but not as much as my later work. I commonly get questions as to how I can get the images to look that vivid. I tell them it is "High Definition Photography" much like the difference between analogue TV sets and the new high definition LCDs. I just bought a new 50" LCD and set it up at home and now all I can watch is the few HDTV channels that are out there. I can no longer go back and watch the low resolution channels because I have plucked that apple from the tree and tasted it's sweet nectar. I have a higher standard now of what is to be expected from the tube AND photography.
So, as time goes on...I will weed out my older images as folks become more and more accustomed to the new scope of photography that is fastly becoming mainstream and commonplace. I do this both because I need to see better images AND so does the customer. There will always be those few images that will stand the test of time though...
That being said...I just had a European photography magazine pick 7 images for an article on abstract photography. They chose images which I was kinda suprised by. They really weren't ones that I would have chosen...but they really liked them. Actually, one of the original picks was one that I had already tossed in the garbage. So, with all that I wrote about high defintion photography, there will always be personal differences in taste. That's what makes art, art. You just have to decide if you want images that will satisfy only your tastes or you want to please more people. It is a choice we all have to make, and one that I still wrestle with as well...
For me, the photo HAS to grab my emotions or I judge it a "failure." Art is feeling/emotions, and if a photo can't connect to an emotion, it didn't work for me. I do understand there are product photos, news photos and so on that generally don't have to grab an emotion, or so it might seem at first glance. I'll point out that the most successful of those kinds of photos actually do attach an emotion.
I try to get as technically perfect as I can get. I also try to show 'what I have seen' while taking a picture.
What I want is to 'show' what I 'felt' when I 'saw' the image.
I think what we will all acknowledge is that our subject is inherently beautiful. A well presented technical shot can show the beauty of a creature or scene and leave the viewer with a sense of awe at the wonders of nature. A well angled view can make us look again at a common site. Some of us are more technically led and others more emotionally driven.
I am always trying to strike the balance of satisfying my own crtisisms technically and maintaining a subjective approach to my picture taking.
If I had to pick a picture to put on my wall however I would always pick the one that 'moved me', whether it is technically perfect or not.
Rick T
Analyzing according to me is to study my images, in camera and after, and ask myself "how can I improve this?" We ask for our work to be analyzed when we post here. I do not think you can over analyze your work.
I do not want to sell work that I am not fully satisfied with myself. Stop analyzing and eventually someone else will. I do not want someone to buy my work only to find out it was in a garage sale a year or two later
About two months ago I posted two similar soft focus abstract shots of the same flower that I was going to take to my art shows and wanted the flora people here at NPN to pick which one of two images was the better. I had 20 replys and one of the images had almost 100% of the vote as the better comp. Since then I've taken both images to 5 art shows and have sold none of the image that the NPN people had picked as the best, and sold five of the image they didn't pick. The photographers seem to have a different perspective then the art buyer.
Mike, I think it is like this with most endeavours. The famous painters are famous mostly because of the critical acclaim of their peers and art connoisseurs. The general public would most likely not have chosen these artists to be among the best had they be given the choice. And, as we know, many of the famous artists and composers were anything but prosperous during their lifetime. So, many of the images that serious photographers feel to be among the best most likely will be lost on the general public or at least may not be preferred over less critically acclaimed images. From that point of view I feel we are over analyzing. Likely, many of the images that would get a luke warm response here would sell quite well. However, that does not mean that we should not try to perfect what we are doing.
We may be over analyzing too by giving too much weight to technical aspects. They are essential, but as others have mentioned above, one may be less open minded. I remember a critique of an image (not posted by me) which said there was too much negative space. First of all, I felt it was a great image, I didn't know what the critique was about and when I found out what negative space was, I didn't see at all how that would change the fact that it was a great image. And I felt that the greatness of that image was lost on that person simply beacuse he or she felt that some technical aspect was not satisfied. In fact, it likely was great exactly because it had too much negative space. This is where I feel people may be over analyzing. I feel that nowadays I also tend to approach images with "technical blind folds" and it takes a lot of effort to overcome that.
When I stumble in a really wonderful photo for me I am not able to analize it. The emotion, the pleasure felt for the sight prevent me for spoiling the image with useless, often diminishing words. I give a sigh for the beauty and I am able to write only a word: beautiful!
That's why I appretiate very very much the analysis of my pictures, the comments and suggestions that allow me to improve but I always look for the comments of only one word.
Cheers.
this really boils down to who and what your market is IF you are selling your images....
I just like to take pictures, be out in nature and bring home a visual memory of where I was and how it looked.....I never expect to be published by National Geographic or have numerous travel calendars with my name on them.....100 percent of my work has been sold to non photographers who just want a pretty picture....
the people I am selling images to are not spending their days online looking at the 1000's of images we look at....they really don't know a bad one from a good one.....
I will not get tired of looking at images here online or in galleries. I am always curious how the other parts of the world look through other photographers eyes....
Landscape, Nature, and Scenic is where it's at for me!
I quite agree with Mark's statement that we "under" analyze them. Most posted images here on NPN or any other photography forum at most, save a few rare instances, just get a few brief comments. Of course most replies are merely strokes. But for those that do offer critique, they usually just target sub elements of an image like stating "the tree in the foreground is a bit soft" without doing an exhaustive A to Z analysis.
Every good image I bring back from my field trips gets far more personal analysis than anything one would read in a forum. Of course if that level of analysis were written down and posted in a forum like this, it would likely be quite boring for any audience. Interesting yes but only to the photographer. Its one important way we grow as photographers, critiquing our own images. Mediocre images usually get quickly rejected without much viewing while the better an image, the more likely we will scrutinize it closely. Likely over several sessions. For instance with my big 4x5 transparencies, if one is good enough that I might consider getting an $80 drum scan for, I'm going to check critical focus all over a frame to make sure it will look sharp so I won't be wasting my money with an eventual large print of. Also will check to make sure there aren't any blown highlights so will look at such areas very closely. Then too are all the usual aesthetic issues. Some of the aesthetics don't come across in ways one could effectively describe verbally. And when preparing a printer file for a large 30x38 inch print, I am going to be extremely nit picky about the exact image boundaries I crop for. Any small hot spot near a frame edge will be under consideration of being cropped out. Much more too. Generally if I were with a group of you viewing prints at a gallery or art fair, I would have a ton more to say about images we were looking at than one would ever read from a web post I make.
As for the way average non-photographers often put value on pictures, an individual person will often like or prefer images for reasons that have little to do with an image's artistic merits. They see a hoorse and because they love horses, the aesthetics have little impact on their attachment to an image. A better way to pose the question would be to consider how a large number of viewers would relate to an image. One would likely have considerably better correlation to what serious photographers value. However there are certain subjects like colorful sunsets or pictures of puppies that ordinary people would predictably value highly regardless of flaws.
...David
Posted by Leann Greene on July 3, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Yes of course we do and that can also help us go with our strengths or work on our weaknesses. The beauty of having both "inside" feedback and that from others is wonderful and fickle too!
If someone whoever they are likes an image-don't correct them! What we are partial too is very personal(as it should be).
Discussion
34 repliesI feel that, as we are exposed to so many good images, we no longer are so easily moved by something which the majority of people would find beautiful. Often I find friends or relatives exclaim their delight at what they think is a beautiful image of mine or posted here. To my own images I would then say, well, but the exposure could be better here, or the composition could be better there etc... Most people don't care, they just think it is great.
So here is my question: When we judge a picture to be good, is this according to guide lines which for most people actualy play no role in their emotional reaction to an image? Do we apply criteria in analyzing pictures that to most people are of very little relevance but which satisfy only us few rather obsessive photographers?
Perhaps we should just step back and be less analytical about images and try to appreciate a beauty that most other people would see.
Regards,
Christoph
On the other hand, I think we do miss out on the connection we could make with a photograph when we approach it with the intent to analyze. Some photos are crafted well enough that they strike us no matter what, but others can be short changed by approaching them the wrong way. It's a balancing act between letting the photo involve you emotionally and looking for ways it could have an even stronger impact. I think it's a good idea to make an attempt at the former first before moving on to the latter, but it's not always the case that both steps are possible.
Obviously some consumers and viewers are more discerning than others. If you're making photographs strictly for the purpose of selling them then you should only put as much effort into them as it takes to satisfy the demands your target market (e.g. if you sell photographs to tabloids, you can probably be less discerning than if you wanted to sell them at a fine art gallery).
Personally I create images primarily to satisfy myself and I'm pretty hard to please
Guy
I don't think photographers over-analyize images, in general. But we talk about and examine the intricacies of our craft among ourselves just as do, say, auto mechanics or painters. Mechanics view auto engines differently than those who simply buy and drive a car. Just human nature.
My wife is actually a much better judge of what will sell and what won't. Many is the time I've been viewing a day's work on the computer screen with her looking over my shoulder. I see an image and shrug "whatever," and she sees the same image and says "WOW!" Invariably, when it comes to sales, she is more right than I am.
While I prefer to present images that reflect my interpretation of nature -- images that I love -- to the public, I realize that many people see things differently than I do. Because I'm trying to make a living at this, I can't afford to simply please myself. I also have to please enough of the folks who are in the market to buy images, and that means I'm more apt to experiment with angles, views, compositions and colors, because while I know what I like, I need that variety to ensure I'll be able to market images pleasing to others.
I'm also harder on my own images, and you here tend to be harder on my images, than the public is. That's just because our technical standards must be higher within our craft than among those on the outside.
Anyway, just IMO and I think we do over analyse sometimes.
Danny.
"People don't watch enough. They think. It's not the same thing"
Henri Cartier-Bresson
I will argue that over-anaylsis blurs the real joy that exists, and clouds our spiritual connection to the world.
When you look at a photograph and start to analyze it for flaws, or color balance, or saturation, or a host of other qualities, do you realize that you have lost the connection to the image that drew you to it in the first place?
-PB
And I think that Henri Cartier's quote in Preston's response is something we all should be mindful of.
Kent, I agree with you. Lets look at it this way. Lets say you take a technically perfect image of the sun setting over a mass of water. No strong foreground element, just the sun and water. If it is a beautiful sunset, most people who are not serious about photography will say, wow beautiful sunset. But we would say: Well, yes, it is a pretty scene but it lacks a strong foreground element, or thehorizon is in the middle etc... Don't get me wrong, I do feel that these criteria would set two technically perfect photographs apart, even if analyzed by the nonphotographic eye, but we should not dismiss the fact that a simple scene,as the one mentioned above, is beautiful and should not be discounted by us because it lacks some stronger elements we could think of. As you said yourself, if one approaches an image analytically, one will be less inclined to like the photograph if it does not match one's criteria -although it still is simply beautiful. And as Preston has so well put it - if we analyze it, perhaps too much, then we loose the connection with what it is that we found so beautiful in the first place.
That certainly does not mean that we should not be stringent and very serious about creating as powerful an image as we can, but we do need to strike a balance between our emotional awareness of the beauty of an image and analyzing which criteria it does and does not meet.
Regards.
Christoph
However, having said that, humanity will always strive for it's perception of perfection.
Regards,
Pete
NPN is a family, and the comraderie is wonderful, but the comraderie is built around mutual respect, enjoyment of each other's work, and the desire to assist one another to grow in this endeavour. Just my opinion of course....
Regards,
Christoph
I see a tendency to analyse a photograph with too much emphasis on the numbers and completely miss the picture. I've had it happen that I submitted a photo which was exactly what I "saw" when I made the exposure but it failed the histogram/shadow detail test in the view of the photographer who critiqued it. I almost trashed the picture as a result and, like Steve Foss, it took my dear wife to re-kindle my belief in that picture. As it turned out, that picture has sold more from a local gallery than any other in the same time frame.
On the other hand I've recieved suggestions on other pictures that have significantly improved them and I'm tremendously grateful for that.
Recently I've been spending a lot of time in Frontenac Provincial Park. This is a beautiful place and it's about as good as it gets for this part of the country. Every time I come home from a weekend canoe trip with a couple of CF's full of raw's I get really turned on by the prospect that I'm bringing home little bits of Creation to share with poeple who cannot see it for themselves. I suppose this is what motivates me more than all the critiques or accalades from other photographers.
Bob
Point well taken. I tend to be a very "analytical" person, and I'm sure I'm guilty of the very thing you bring out. While I enjoy the emotional impact of a nice image I find myself immediately looking for nits. I don't do this to be critical of the effort or just to find something negative to say, but as a method of improving my own photography. I try to imagine what a change in perspective would do to the image, a different comp, time of day, shutter speed, etc. would do. This is why I tend to learn more from critiquing others than receiving crtitques myself. I can be more objective in reviewing others work than my own. Of course, there are those images that just bowl you over where the only response is emotional in nature, as there are other, less dramatic images where just a "very nice" is a way of encouraging the poster when an in depth critique might be viewed as "piling on". I will sometimes write a more encompassing opinion to some of these images, but send them privately as an email, along with a note of encouragement.
I remember back when I first started posting on NPN and how imtimidating it was. On whole, I received very few comments, and a few of them stung a bit, but they were all very helpful in nature. Had I been a little more "thin skinned" I might have exited NPN but if you want to learn you've got to be willing to hear some things you might not want to hear.
Well, it appears I've gotten off your original topic yet again!
L.C.
One of the hardest things I have to do when talking with other photographers is explaining how to get "good". They already have the basics down - their technical skills are not in question.
But the how to make that next step. One thing which I consistantly see is a photographer lookig at their own photos and going "these are good photos." I'll look at the photos and see "Well, there are some pretty obvious problems here." It is not that the person wasn't aware of the flaws in general. The person just didn't see them in their photos.
I think one of the biggest keys in getting past technical competence is being able to step back from your own work and overanalyzing it. What could I have done better? What can I do different next time.
I think that most of the best photographers here have that ability and are comfortable with others saying negative things about their work which is less than successful. That, I think, is why they are so good. It is too easy to become blind to your weaknesses as a photographer and it is lot of work to get past that.
And there is nothing wrong with just plain looking at an image and going "WOW!" Sometimes a photograph just deserves that.
Most of what we seem to do here on NPN is analyze how the image was made (and offer suggestions for improving that process). We don't, however, seem to analyze what the image is about - i.e. why was it made in the manner it was? I am not dismissing the former as being unimportant. Its just that the latter is what "really" makes discussions on photography (or any other art) interesting for me. So for now I believe we are far from over analyzing images.
But there's a catch. The analysis should take place before the shutter is tripped. The purpose of post-shutter analysis is to determine whether or not we achieved our pre-shutter goal.
Cheers,
I had this very discussion with David West yesterday (www.davidjwest.com) in his gallery at Zion NP. He said, look I know I can improve and I try and want to but most important is that my customers like what they see......
Anyways, I am rambling. I feel we should be as critical and perfectionist as possible, but we should also see more with our emotional rather than our technical eye.
Regards,
Christoph
Cheers,
Take a person who hasn't seen the great photography online these days, and they still have those old images to compare them by...and thusly, they have a lower standard for what is beautiful. I call these folks ignorant, but not in a bad way...it's not their fault.
I have images from 4 years ago that I am almost ashamed of, but they get attention at art shows as well...but not as much as my later work. I commonly get questions as to how I can get the images to look that vivid. I tell them it is "High Definition Photography" much like the difference between analogue TV sets and the new high definition LCDs. I just bought a new 50" LCD and set it up at home and now all I can watch is the few HDTV channels that are out there. I can no longer go back and watch the low resolution channels because I have plucked that apple from the tree and tasted it's sweet nectar. I have a higher standard now of what is to be expected from the tube AND photography.
So, as time goes on...I will weed out my older images as folks become more and more accustomed to the new scope of photography that is fastly becoming mainstream and commonplace. I do this both because I need to see better images AND so does the customer. There will always be those few images that will stand the test of time though...
That being said...I just had a European photography magazine pick 7 images for an article on abstract photography. They chose images which I was kinda suprised by. They really weren't ones that I would have chosen...but they really liked them. Actually, one of the original picks was one that I had already tossed in the garbage. So, with all that I wrote about high defintion photography, there will always be personal differences in taste. That's what makes art, art. You just have to decide if you want images that will satisfy only your tastes or you want to please more people. It is a choice we all have to make, and one that I still wrestle with as well...
Kent in SD
What I want is to 'show' what I 'felt' when I 'saw' the image.
I think what we will all acknowledge is that our subject is inherently beautiful. A well presented technical shot can show the beauty of a creature or scene and leave the viewer with a sense of awe at the wonders of nature. A well angled view can make us look again at a common site. Some of us are more technically led and others more emotionally driven.
I am always trying to strike the balance of satisfying my own crtisisms technically and maintaining a subjective approach to my picture taking.
If I had to pick a picture to put on my wall however I would always pick the one that 'moved me', whether it is technically perfect or not.
Rick T
I do not want to sell work that I am not fully satisfied with myself. Stop analyzing and eventually someone else will. I do not want someone to buy my work only to find out it was in a garage sale a year or two later
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
We may be over analyzing too by giving too much weight to technical aspects. They are essential, but as others have mentioned above, one may be less open minded. I remember a critique of an image (not posted by me) which said there was too much negative space. First of all, I felt it was a great image, I didn't know what the critique was about and when I found out what negative space was, I didn't see at all how that would change the fact that it was a great image. And I felt that the greatness of that image was lost on that person simply beacuse he or she felt that some technical aspect was not satisfied. In fact, it likely was great exactly because it had too much negative space. This is where I feel people may be over analyzing. I feel that nowadays I also tend to approach images with "technical blind folds" and it takes a lot of effort to overcome that.
Regards,
Christoph
That's why I appretiate very very much the analysis of my pictures, the comments and suggestions that allow me to improve but I always look for the comments of only one word.
Cheers.
this really boils down to who and what your market is IF you are selling your images....
I just like to take pictures, be out in nature and bring home a visual memory of where I was and how it looked.....I never expect to be published by National Geographic or have numerous travel calendars with my name on them.....100 percent of my work has been sold to non photographers who just want a pretty picture....
the people I am selling images to are not spending their days online looking at the 1000's of images we look at....they really don't know a bad one from a good one.....
I will not get tired of looking at images here online or in galleries. I am always curious how the other parts of the world look through other photographers eyes....
Landscape, Nature, and Scenic is where it's at for me!
Every good image I bring back from my field trips gets far more personal analysis than anything one would read in a forum. Of course if that level of analysis were written down and posted in a forum like this, it would likely be quite boring for any audience. Interesting yes but only to the photographer. Its one important way we grow as photographers, critiquing our own images. Mediocre images usually get quickly rejected without much viewing while the better an image, the more likely we will scrutinize it closely. Likely over several sessions. For instance with my big 4x5 transparencies, if one is good enough that I might consider getting an $80 drum scan for, I'm going to check critical focus all over a frame to make sure it will look sharp so I won't be wasting my money with an eventual large print of. Also will check to make sure there aren't any blown highlights so will look at such areas very closely. Then too are all the usual aesthetic issues. Some of the aesthetics don't come across in ways one could effectively describe verbally. And when preparing a printer file for a large 30x38 inch print, I am going to be extremely nit picky about the exact image boundaries I crop for. Any small hot spot near a frame edge will be under consideration of being cropped out. Much more too. Generally if I were with a group of you viewing prints at a gallery or art fair, I would have a ton more to say about images we were looking at than one would ever read from a web post I make.
As for the way average non-photographers often put value on pictures, an individual person will often like or prefer images for reasons that have little to do with an image's artistic merits. They see a hoorse and because they love horses, the aesthetics have little impact on their attachment to an image. A better way to pose the question would be to consider how a large number of viewers would relate to an image. One would likely have considerably better correlation to what serious photographers value. However there are certain subjects like colorful sunsets or pictures of puppies that ordinary people would predictably value highly regardless of flaws.
...David
If someone whoever they are likes an image-don't correct them! What we are partial too is very personal(as it should be).