OK so here's your task, if you choose to accept it.
You must DESCRIBE your OWN photograph, but you can only use THREE (3) words.
This difficult task has been used among prolific imagemasters who will give you a 'generous' 30-second critique. Allegedly, masters such as Winogrand, Avedon, Eggleston et. al., would hold critique sessions for those lucky enough to get them. Part of the magic included few words uttered by them that you had to remember. After all, the first of many 1000 words should be the most compelling, don't you agree?
So the challenge is upon you. Find a photo you consider to be one of your best, post it here and use your best judgment to associate your image with three relevant words to describe it. Don't hang yourself up too much on the lexical aspects of the words themselves, instead consider the usage of more obscure forms of words to convey your feelings as a result of seeing your image. This exercise shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. Just look at your photo and extract the best three words that come to mind.
Chris, I really like the idea here and it's really got me thinking. But, for the sake of clarity, are you asking us to critique our own images, or describe them? I would say you've described your image (very nice image BTW), but you haven't critiqued it. My dictionary "describes" the two words differently.
Sorry I haven't posted an image yet. This is a very creative exercise, and very difficult. I could honestly see going through my Lightroom catalog and keywording my images this way.
Paul, I understand completely. This isn't easy, but that's the idea. Word association is important, because it is only the beginning of a comprehensive examination of a photograph's composition and overall features. The proof of concept is pragmatic, but lends itself to abstraction. I hope this thread isn't a done deal because of this.
Interesting, looking at my own archives, I'm definitely finding that the three-word approach works best for simpler images, especially close-ups and intimates. I suppose it might be one litmus test of whether you've really created a coherent comp in grand landscapes and more complex images. But as somewhat of a fan of complex, even busy images, I do think there are successful shots out there that aren't amenable to being boiled down to three words.
Just curious, does anyone use this approach when visualizing images in the field? I might have to try doing so more consistently.
Discussion
12 repliesOK so here's your task, if you choose to accept it.
You must DESCRIBE your OWN photograph, but you can only use THREE (3) words.
This difficult task has been used among prolific imagemasters who will give you a 'generous' 30-second critique. Allegedly, masters such as Winogrand, Avedon, Eggleston et. al., would hold critique sessions for those lucky enough to get them. Part of the magic included few words uttered by them that you had to remember. After all, the first of many 1000 words should be the most compelling, don't you agree?
So the challenge is upon you. Find a photo you consider to be one of your best, post it here and use your best judgment to associate your image with three relevant words to describe it. Don't hang yourself up too much on the lexical aspects of the words themselves, instead consider the usage of more obscure forms of words to convey your feelings as a result of seeing your image. This exercise shouldn't take more than 5 minutes. Just look at your photo and extract the best three words that come to mind.
Edit: 'describe' your photograph, like what Paul said! I'm hung up on a critique -this is supposed to be different!
Thanks guys!
I hope more folks chime in. This is very enlightening.
I guess this one brings these to me: Gratitude, Humbled, Recharged.
Interesting, looking at my own archives, I'm definitely finding that the three-word approach works best for simpler images, especially close-ups and intimates. I suppose it might be one litmus test of whether you've really created a coherent comp in grand landscapes and more complex images. But as somewhat of a fan of complex, even busy images, I do think there are successful shots out there that aren't amenable to being boiled down to three words.
Just curious, does anyone use this approach when visualizing images in the field? I might have to try doing so more consistently.