A good image should grab you.

prosophos

prosophos

Established
Local time
9:31 PM
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
96
My opinion, of course:

http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/

This was posted on my site and a friend linked to it on dpreview. It was greeted with much consternation by some posters there. However, I stand behind what I wrote.

(I also thought it was an appropriate post for this forum).

Whether you agree or disagree, I hope you find it interesting.

Peter.
www.prosophos.com.
 
I think that a lot of good images will grab you immediately, but I'm open to the possibility that there are good images that need some time to grow on you and that you will grow to appreciate.
 
prosophos said:
My opinion, of course:

http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/

This was posted on my site and a friend linked to it on dpreview. It was greeted with much consternation by some posters there. However, I stand behind what I wrote.

(I also thought it was an appropriate post for this forum).

Whether you agree or disagree, I hope you find it interesting.

Peter.
www.prosophos.com.
Click to expand...

Well, regardless of whether your opinion is right or wrong, I like your blog. You have a new subscriber as of today :).

I am not entirely certain that every image should grab you. I think like FrankS, it is possible to have some images that grow on you, or perhaps images that work as part of a larger whole. Sometimes a picture can be a word or a phrase in a story, in some cases it tells the entire story.
--
Bill
 
One indicator for me if an image is good, is if it is memorable; that is, easily visualized for some time after having seen it.
 
I was watching a video on Youtube about Steve McCurry, and he said the most important thing for him was for his images to stand alone and be remembered, even though he conceded that he shoots a lot of editorial pieces which requires the images to work as a set. I think he succeeded to some extent, and I do remember some of his strongest images as stand-alone images.

The most interesting images for me are the ones that intrigues me, and make me want to keep looking at it over and over again to discover something new. Many images such as HDR landscapes catches my eye, but my attention moves on quickly to other images because there's nothing inherently interesting other than the immediate visual impact. Many famous photos are interesting because it makes you re-look at them and ponder about the different levels of the images. That is what makes an good image stand out from the others IMO.
 
prosophos said:
My opinion, of course:

This was posted on my site and a friend linked to it on dpreview. It was greeted with much consternation by some posters there. However, I stand behind what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Link to the thread on DPReview? I'm curious what they wrote.

The issue with a statement such as this is that it's almost as tautological as saying "a good image should be good," or "good food should be tasty." It doesn't really offer anything new to the table.
 
I assumed the use of Grab, a rather imprecise word to use in this context, was going to be a preamble to something more complete ... perhaps you could expand your ideas a little?
 
Respectfully disagree, I find that most street shots don't "grab" me, I suppose it's because I live in the western urbanized world, I rarely find myself saying "OMIGOD! Look at that man walking down the street!!". But that's not to say I couldn't take some time to look at photo and end up really liking it.

My favourite types of photo, nature, landscape, probably are more likely to grab me, but often nature has the natural advantage of being spectacular in a way that people in the street so rarely do.
 
I disagree that a good image should (or "must") have an immediate impact on you. That thinking, to me, is an outgrowth of TV ads that "must" get your attention, stun you with some glitch and get you to buy into something, all in 15 seconds.

In fact, I think that most people are now conditioned to the "grab me" mentality (I made up that term) that REQUIRES a good image or video to "grab" its audience. When "grabbed", the viewer does not have to think.
A "grabber" image has succeed in getting your attention quickly. That is all.

The click-click-click-click-click-click-click environment of the internet hasn't helped either.

I could argue that a good image "must have a steadily increasing visual impact on the viewer", rather than a "grab me" impact.

(I do talk too much, don't I :D )
 
Interesting (but not so important ) topic.
Not being a native English speaker, I may be misunderstanding the whole meaning of "to grab", but a question came to my mind: is every image that "grabs " you a good image ?
Regards
Joao
 
It would be ideal, to make images that convey in a universally understandable way both the Truth and the Beauty.
One of my favourite photographers (HCB) has tried to sink this simple fact in his net of relationsips that have to come together in a "Decisive moment", however in reality, he has been very strongly involved with social issues, and many of his photographs are remembered primarily for the Truth:
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=hcb+...start=49&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,i:249&tx=99&ty=66

while even the "Decisive moment" has been sometimes fruit of long and patient waiting for some human presence to complete the composition to perfection:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=hcb+...h=131&tbnw=86&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,i:71.

In practice, given that nowadays the public for photographs is global, both the Truth and the Beauty, may not be perceived in the same way by everybody. It takes some understanding of current events, to appreciate the significance of this photo, which could be quite without context for an Inuit living in Alaska:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=jame...h=136&tbnw=219&start=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,i:75

While, it could take some time for a western chap, to appreciate the sublime beauty of some chinese ink drawings:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=six+...start=13&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,i:137&tx=87&ty=18

It is similar in photography. You can enjoy better some photos, if you see them in a context of a broader body of work by the same author. Here's a good example:

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=masa...2&start=0&ndsp=13&ved=1t:429,i:70&tx=70&ty=63
 
thegman said:
Respectfully disagree, I find that most street shots don't "grab" me, I suppose it's because I live in the western urbanized world, I rarely find myself saying "OMIGOD! Look at that man walking down the street!!". But that's not to say I couldn't take some time to look at photo and end up really liking it.

My favourite types of photo, nature, landscape, probably are more likely to grab me, but often nature has the natural advantage of being spectacular in a way that people in the street so rarely do.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that many street shots do not grab me, including my own. The best ones that do will often have something extra like an interesting placement of subjects in the photo or an interesting mixture of light and shadow. HCB's photos are very like this.

When i process my shots i will also often take something out. E.g. i may apply a vignette. This both accentuates the main subject and hides part of the image adding some mystery. I find that adds something when it works and makes me think about what's going on in the image.

I have a view that a good image is often like poetry - you have to work at interpreting it. It is this that grabs me and keeps me coming back to it.
 
FrankS said:
I think that a lot of good images will grab you immediately, but I'm open to the possibility that there are good images that need some time to grow on you and that you will grow to appreciate.
Click to expand...

I agree. I also don't think it matters if others like or dislike your images.. As long as I like my own images that's all that matters to me..
 
In my opinion, photography is about telling stories. It doesn't matter whether that's a story told in one image or in a series, so long as the message gets across. It's also bloody hard to do well as most peoples' photos tend to be pictorially attractive but little more.

I can't remember who said it originally but the quote went something like "a snapshot is a image of something whereas a photograph is an image about something".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom