I began to comment on a landscape in ESS today that I thought was a hopeless subject but then in the process of writing a post realized I was having to explain different intents of photographers. The following piece is more a short, first draft, somewhat terse essay that touches on facets of subject selections rather than being a question. Of interest herein because such might to be considered when offering image critiques. Please feel free to offer inputs freely.
It's useful for photographers at least in the early stages of their journey to try and capture as positively aesthetic images as they can in many situations from good to poor light. So one learns what their equipment and or film can or cannot work with and to develop a personal sense of aesthetics. A new photographer is likely to use their camera like a machine gun while the old pro like a cannon with just a few shells. And understandingly for the more experienced photographer on a critique forum like NPN, there will always be many images posted by others they themselves would never bother working that regardless deserve an occasional input of technical advice without having to add criticisms about subject selection. Over time each of us expect to become more discriminating as to what we bother to attempt to capture. With film and a subjects like scenes with contrasty snow, clouds, granite, etc in mid day sunlight, it is usually impossible to end up with anything that is not too contrasty. So most learn early on to leave the camera in the bag and not even bother. For an increasing array of issues we learn over time of other reasons to keep our cameras in the bag.
Of interest today with the wider luminance latitude of digital capture processes and filters, there is something more that can be done. Thus there is some worth for even experienced photographers now to creatively try and capture scenes they would in the past have not bothered with. So many of us are going through a second round of discovery.
Another facet to subject selection is its aesthetic potential. For the novice and especially those that have not been schooled in some of the classic art aesthetics, there is likely to be a broad scope of subjects that will appeal to them. Images the experienced person might quickly reject as flawed. Regardless of where one starts, over years of looking at images, going to galleries, museums, art fairs, hanging work, and learning what appeals to their peers and audience, one will necessarily narrow what one considers pleasant, beautiful, and interesting. So the novice may try and capture a great number of subjects while the experienced photographer is satisfied by less and less they see though the process is necesarily changing and fluid. Additionally as a photographer builds up a body of work, they raise the bar on the best of their own work. So one tends to search for subjects that may result in a capture that is better than any previous material of each type of subject one has an interest in. For the older photographer that in itself may become frustrating when they have little hope of improving on most of their previous work.
There is also an issue of how valuable an image one expects. This is rarely a concern for the novice and hobbiest but rather the more mature maybe more commercial photographer. If one is only producing images for one's own pleasure and or a limited personal audience, one usually has little concerns. As one increasingly produces images for a public audience, that will change significantly as one necessarily then will be aware of the general competition between image subjects and better imagery of others. And as one moves from mere local public exhibition to media awareness across larger regions with commercial success selling hangable photography, the need to produce exceptional imagery reaches difficult high levels. Accordingly one's subject discrimination can rise to levels that necessarily will often be difficult to attain. For those that are struggling with higher constraints, it is useful to continue to produce work with some balance that is only meant to satisfy our personal interests where we can enjoy the process and outdoor environment that originally appealed to us without any expectation of presentation to a public audience.
Not to jump on the pile too much, but I'm not really coming away from reading this with a firm grasp on your intent. I can tell it's not that you think you shouldn't have to comment on other photographer's posts, and maybe it's that the importance of subject selection varies from person to person and with different stages of a photographer. If so, then I graciously disagree.
I'll check back on this thread later, and see if it's appropriate for me to put my thoughts into words. Either way, I appreciate the time you've obviously put into this.
I think the subject matter is not necessarily the most important element of a photograph. If the light is right, the subject matter almost doesn't matter.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on June 19, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I think Buck Ward has it exactly right. Buck, thanks for reminding me that the light is the subject.
Posted by Kent Mearig on June 20, 2008 at 11:33 AM
I think the subject matter is not necessarily the most important element of a photograph.
This statement I can agree with because of the key words "necessarily" and "most".
If the light is right, the subject matter almost doesn't matter.
But this statement is not a logical next step. The subject is absolutely critical to every photograph because photographs are about communicating, and two unique subjects cannot convey exactly the same thing. In fact, what "right light" is must certainly be dictated by the subject. For example, the perfect lighting for a scene featuring a leafed out tree in front of gassy hills is likely not the same as the best lighting for a dead tree in front of the same grassy hills. The resulting images will convey totally different emotions and stories whether they have the same lighting or not.
I'll try to tie the example back to the original thread topic. Through the second paragraph, David is including light right along with his subject in the descriptions he gives. My assertion is that the experienced photographer will be more likely to explore the photographic opportunities offered by both the dead tree and the live tree, knowing each has its own message. The new photographer may walk past a leafless tree all winter until being struck by the beauty of the leafy tree in the morning sunlight in spring.
New photographers do take more pictures...of the same things. Many of us are learning photography through trial and error whether we're new to it or not. When I first began recording images, I could fill an entire CF card with a single subject (if I cared about it) just playing with settings and searching for that elusive composition. Now when I'm dedicated to recording a scene, I'll carefully consider what might be the best framing, timing, settings, perspective before releasing the shutter just a few times. Then I have time to search out a subject I wouldn't have noticed right away instead of spending all night fiddling with my camera while watching the sunset over the horizon.
I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry. Oh, and most people spell it "discrimination" and not "descrimination."
Posted by David Senesac on June 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Buck >>>"I think the subject matter is not necessarily the most important element of a photograph. If the light is right, the subject matter almost doesn't matter."
David >>>"With film and a subjects like scenes with contrasty snow, clouds, granite, etc in mid day sunlight, it is usually impossible to end up with anything that is not too contrasty. So most learn early on to leave the camera in the bag and not even bother. For an increasing array of issues we learn over time of other reasons to keep our cameras in the bag."
---------------
That can indeed be true with some subjects and for some intents and purposes, though maybe not necessarily most. Of course a photograph is the result of several important variable facets besides subject selection like choice and skill at using equipment, intent, vision of the photographer, and composition. At one extreme, a blind person aiming the camera about hearing from others there is "good light" about will have to fire off like a machine gun to end up with a few worthy images. Likewise even a novice photographer standing in front of South Tufa at Mono Lake at dusk on a calm day with the earth shadow rising in glory will likely be able to produce some excellent imagery. For each subject and situation there is a balance between those. Thus my inclusion of the above statement touching on that facet of the creation. In one's journey of experience one is continually learning to discriminate subject choices. In the case of the above rising earth shadow, on a summer Saturday morning there may be a dozen or more photographers with tripods scurring about the dawn landscape making decisions and forming strategies on where, when, and how to set up. Each one bringing a different unique set of knowledge to the task. At times the most novice photographer may in fact by mere chance, set up and capture the best image while at other times it is more likely to be the experienced local that has seen it all gone down many times and repeats their usual process with minor variations over and over until successfully refining the result.
...David
PS. thanks Jim for correcting my spelling, appreciated.
I think I understand the message and can boil it down to one and a half sentences:
The novice/beginner/amatuer uses the machine-gun approach because they can't or haven't learned yet how to recognize a worthy subject; where as the experienced/professional/seasoned photographer only takes the camera out of the bag when they recognize a great subject.
You may be right, Lon, but isn't it the image-maker him/herself who gets to decide what is and what isn't worthy? That same amateur may very well look at the images of the experienced/professional/seasoned photographer and question their worthiness
David, I agree with most of your opinions presented in your post. At least I think so since your way english sometimes exceeds my grasp of this language.
My opinion/experience is: Yes subject matter one consideres worthy of photographing changes with experience, but I don't necessarily think that this is a good thing. I noticed a shift in my approach over the lat 3 years and I think I became more mechanical, controlled and brain-biased when composing instead of emotional and gut-feeling-biased. I think that is never a good thing.
Jim Jirka >>>"I still would like to know the original intent of the post, instead of someone spending time trying to figure it out."
The piece is a generalized summary on subjects we choose over years of the journey. Photographers evolve a narrowing scope of acceptable subjects that they attempt to capture as they become more experienced. However the world of photography is ever changing and today many are revisting what is possible. A facet of that evolution is developing a unique personal aesthetic sense that affects what we produce. As one's photography evolves from a personal hobby to public and possibly commercial, there are other factors like recognition from peers and the public and business concerns that further narrow the paths one pursues.
...David
Posted by Ted Griffith on June 23, 2008 at 5:11 PM
What an interesting thread. I hope that you all won't mind some opinions from a newcomer.
While I would agree that as we progess in our photography our selection of subjects change, I don't necessarily agree that it is because of "experience". I believe that we select our subjects based upon the emotional content that they have (or don't have) for us. We stop taking photographs of images that we have been consitently been dissapointed (emotional) in.
Whenever somone is critiquing an image of mine, I hope that it is someone that has connected emotionally with what I am attempting to portray and will give advice on how they think it can be made better. If my image is something that you consider lost from the beginning, it doesn't mean that you are right or that I am. It just means that we don't see things the same way.
Keats in a poem states that " a thing of beauty is a joy forever' , however David Humes writes in an essay that "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them".
I have never liked the paintings of Dali or Picasso, but others do. That doesn't make their paintings "lost", they are just lost to me.
If you don't find beauty in the things I do, don't feel that you need to comment on them. I welcome suggestions on all of my images, even if I don't agree.
Discussion
14 repliesIt's useful for photographers at least in the early stages of their journey to try and capture as positively aesthetic images as they can in many situations from good to poor light. So one learns what their equipment and or film can or cannot work with and to develop a personal sense of aesthetics. A new photographer is likely to use their camera like a machine gun while the old pro like a cannon with just a few shells. And understandingly for the more experienced photographer on a critique forum like NPN, there will always be many images posted by others they themselves would never bother working that regardless deserve an occasional input of technical advice without having to add criticisms about subject selection. Over time each of us expect to become more discriminating as to what we bother to attempt to capture. With film and a subjects like scenes with contrasty snow, clouds, granite, etc in mid day sunlight, it is usually impossible to end up with anything that is not too contrasty. So most learn early on to leave the camera in the bag and not even bother. For an increasing array of issues we learn over time of other reasons to keep our cameras in the bag.
Of interest today with the wider luminance latitude of digital capture processes and filters, there is something more that can be done. Thus there is some worth for even experienced photographers now to creatively try and capture scenes they would in the past have not bothered with. So many of us are going through a second round of discovery.
Another facet to subject selection is its aesthetic potential. For the novice and especially those that have not been schooled in some of the classic art aesthetics, there is likely to be a broad scope of subjects that will appeal to them. Images the experienced person might quickly reject as flawed. Regardless of where one starts, over years of looking at images, going to galleries, museums, art fairs, hanging work, and learning what appeals to their peers and audience, one will necessarily narrow what one considers pleasant, beautiful, and interesting. So the novice may try and capture a great number of subjects while the experienced photographer is satisfied by less and less they see though the process is necesarily changing and fluid. Additionally as a photographer builds up a body of work, they raise the bar on the best of their own work. So one tends to search for subjects that may result in a capture that is better than any previous material of each type of subject one has an interest in. For the older photographer that in itself may become frustrating when they have little hope of improving on most of their previous work.
There is also an issue of how valuable an image one expects. This is rarely a concern for the novice and hobbiest but rather the more mature maybe more commercial photographer. If one is only producing images for one's own pleasure and or a limited personal audience, one usually has little concerns. As one increasingly produces images for a public audience, that will change significantly as one necessarily then will be aware of the general competition between image subjects and better imagery of others. And as one moves from mere local public exhibition to media awareness across larger regions with commercial success selling hangable photography, the need to produce exceptional imagery reaches difficult high levels. Accordingly one's subject discrimination can rise to levels that necessarily will often be difficult to attain. For those that are struggling with higher constraints, it is useful to continue to produce work with some balance that is only meant to satisfy our personal interests where we can enjoy the process and outdoor environment that originally appealed to us without any expectation of presentation to a public audience.
...David
Care to elaborate, in an inelaborate kinda way?
I'll check back on this thread later, and see if it's appropriate for me to put my thoughts into words. Either way, I appreciate the time you've obviously put into this.
This statement I can agree with because of the key words "necessarily" and "most".
But this statement is not a logical next step. The subject is absolutely critical to every photograph because photographs are about communicating, and two unique subjects cannot convey exactly the same thing. In fact, what "right light" is must certainly be dictated by the subject. For example, the perfect lighting for a scene featuring a leafed out tree in front of gassy hills is likely not the same as the best lighting for a dead tree in front of the same grassy hills. The resulting images will convey totally different emotions and stories whether they have the same lighting or not.
I'll try to tie the example back to the original thread topic. Through the second paragraph, David is including light right along with his subject in the descriptions he gives. My assertion is that the experienced photographer will be more likely to explore the photographic opportunities offered by both the dead tree and the live tree, knowing each has its own message. The new photographer may walk past a leafless tree all winter until being struck by the beauty of the leafy tree in the morning sunlight in spring.
New photographers do take more pictures...of the same things. Many of us are learning photography through trial and error whether we're new to it or not. When I first began recording images, I could fill an entire CF card with a single subject (if I cared about it) just playing with settings and searching for that elusive composition. Now when I'm dedicated to recording a scene, I'll carefully consider what might be the best framing, timing, settings, perspective before releasing the shutter just a few times. Then I have time to search out a subject I wouldn't have noticed right away instead of spending all night fiddling with my camera while watching the sunset over the horizon.
David >>>"With film and a subjects like scenes with contrasty snow, clouds, granite, etc in mid day sunlight, it is usually impossible to end up with anything that is not too contrasty. So most learn early on to leave the camera in the bag and not even bother. For an increasing array of issues we learn over time of other reasons to keep our cameras in the bag."
---------------
That can indeed be true with some subjects and for some intents and purposes, though maybe not necessarily most. Of course a photograph is the result of several important variable facets besides subject selection like choice and skill at using equipment, intent, vision of the photographer, and composition. At one extreme, a blind person aiming the camera about hearing from others there is "good light" about will have to fire off like a machine gun to end up with a few worthy images. Likewise even a novice photographer standing in front of South Tufa at Mono Lake at dusk on a calm day with the earth shadow rising in glory will likely be able to produce some excellent imagery. For each subject and situation there is a balance between those. Thus my inclusion of the above statement touching on that facet of the creation. In one's journey of experience one is continually learning to discriminate subject choices. In the case of the above rising earth shadow, on a summer Saturday morning there may be a dozen or more photographers with tripods scurring about the dawn landscape making decisions and forming strategies on where, when, and how to set up. Each one bringing a different unique set of knowledge to the task. At times the most novice photographer may in fact by mere chance, set up and capture the best image while at other times it is more likely to be the experienced local that has seen it all gone down many times and repeats their usual process with minor variations over and over until successfully refining the result.
...David
PS. thanks Jim for correcting my spelling, appreciated.
I think I understand the message and can boil it down to one and a half sentences:
The novice/beginner/amatuer uses the machine-gun approach because they can't or haven't learned yet how to recognize a worthy subject; where as the experienced/professional/seasoned photographer only takes the camera out of the bag when they recognize a great subject.
Is that close? That's the message I get anyway.
Lon
My opinion/experience is: Yes subject matter one consideres worthy of photographing changes with experience, but I don't necessarily think that this is a good thing. I noticed a shift in my approach over the lat 3 years and I think I became more mechanical, controlled and brain-biased when composing instead of emotional and gut-feeling-biased. I think that is never a good thing.
The piece is a generalized summary on subjects we choose over years of the journey. Photographers evolve a narrowing scope of acceptable subjects that they attempt to capture as they become more experienced. However the world of photography is ever changing and today many are revisting what is possible. A facet of that evolution is developing a unique personal aesthetic sense that affects what we produce. As one's photography evolves from a personal hobby to public and possibly commercial, there are other factors like recognition from peers and the public and business concerns that further narrow the paths one pursues.
...David
While I would agree that as we progess in our photography our selection of subjects change, I don't necessarily agree that it is because of "experience". I believe that we select our subjects based upon the emotional content that they have (or don't have) for us. We stop taking photographs of images that we have been consitently been dissapointed (emotional) in.
Whenever somone is critiquing an image of mine, I hope that it is someone that has connected emotionally with what I am attempting to portray and will give advice on how they think it can be made better. If my image is something that you consider lost from the beginning, it doesn't mean that you are right or that I am. It just means that we don't see things the same way.
Keats in a poem states that " a thing of beauty is a joy forever' , however David Humes writes in an essay that "Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them".
I have never liked the paintings of Dali or Picasso, but others do. That doesn't make their paintings "lost", they are just lost to me.
If you don't find beauty in the things I do, don't feel that you need to comment on them. I welcome suggestions on all of my images, even if I don't agree.
Ted