antiquark
Derek Ross
You mean, in terms of the picture being a failure? I was thinking about the usual complaints you might see on the internet, such as
- the image is too grainy
- the pole is centered (should be at a "third", rule of thirds you know).
- no detail is visible in the dark parts (need some HDR here!)
- the pole seems a little out of focus (sharpness is king!)
- it's a sunset, which is something of a cliche.
- the subject of the picture, the pole, is not compelling.
Of course I think the gestalt of the picture is what counts.
(I should mention that that is not my picture, in case I gave that impression).
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry I misunderstood; I was thinking in the wider understanding of composition not the aggressive twaddle you get on some internet sites.
So while I agree there are a few images that buck the trend the appeal of that one actually is the clash between the classical composition and the Avant-garde treatment and subject
yanidel
Well-known
I think in the end it comes too much too personal preferences. Could a classissic painter and a cubist agree on what are the general canon of beauties and their representation of the world?
Is Egon Schiele appealing to masses ?
HCB was one of the best photographer ever but an average drawer. He said several times that taking painting class with a master obsessed with composition that was helped make his photography so good. It did not help his drawing though.
I think that in the end there is the inexplicable, that something that make a photo great. Some lucky ones have the ability to detect/feel it instinctively and some that compensate through techniques. In both cases, some really good pictures might come out.
Is Egon Schiele appealing to masses ?
HCB was one of the best photographer ever but an average drawer. He said several times that taking painting class with a master obsessed with composition that was helped make his photography so good. It did not help his drawing though.
I think that in the end there is the inexplicable, that something that make a photo great. Some lucky ones have the ability to detect/feel it instinctively and some that compensate through techniques. In both cases, some really good pictures might come out.
Nh3
Well-known
I'm more interested in how the picture feels rather than how it looks. The looks should complement the feel.
The reason why there are so many bad photos around have to do with the fact that people think that a photo which looks good must be 'good'.
The reason why there are so many bad photos around have to do with the fact that people think that a photo which looks good must be 'good'.
Morris
-
Recognizing patterns is complex.
Though a lot of it is cultural, thus learnt.
Westerners "read" an image from top left to bottom right, just like a book. You're going to recognize patterns and shapes in a certain order.
Folks that write from right to left, or from top to bottom "read" the image differently, the order of recognition is changed.
A face in profile looks "better" looking to the right (to a westerner).
This might all be rubbish, Cartier-Bresson often checked to see if a composition worked by looking at it in a mirror, for him it had to look good both ways.
Sparrow
Veteran
circle......what circle? no circle here we're too complex for that??
just these two curved lines
Last edited:
Morris
-
circle......what circle? no circle here we're too complex for that??
just these two curved lines
Don't know why you're telling me that, I thought I was agreeing with your point of view?
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry I misunderstood, my interest is based on the stuff that are hard-wired; the instinctive “find interesting/attractive” things that all humans born with not those that are learned.
I do photos for pleasure but I’m a designer for a living so analysing any artwork is important to me as it allows me to predict the public’s reaction.
Last edited:
victoriapio
Well-known
I had the good fortune to take four years of photography classes with Garry Winogrand while he was the photography instructor at the University of Texas Art School in the mid-to-late seventies. Garry did not differentiate between "taking" and "viewing" photographs. His philosophy was that if you can properly "see" what you are photographing and overcome any "problems" that stand in the way of making that photograph a great one, then the result is a great photograph. He also admitted that most photographs are failures and great ones are very rare. He also admitted that no one failed as much as he did; of course no one I am aware of ever shot like he did either
This is what I learned from Winogrand when it comes to taking/"viewing" a photograph:
1. There are NO rules of composition.
2. A photograph does NOT have to be in focus to be a great photograph.
3. A photograph does not have to be properly exposed to be a great photograph. (His classic phrase when critiquing photos in class was "this photograph has "classic composition, sharp focus, excellent exposure and it still sucks."
4. Photographs are a battle between form and content (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread with slightly different terms ).
5. Good photographs tend to be on the edge of failure.
6. Most photographers let their emotions judge the quality of their work. Wingrand often would not process his work for months, even years, to keep his emotions and memories of that photograph out of the "viewing" process.
As I read all the comments above about graphic elements, composition, focus and exposure, I chuckle knowing that one of the greatest street photographers (yes I know he hated to be called that and he never classified his work as "street photography") would have rejected almost everything that has been said.
I post this not to critique anyone, but to show that the taking/viewing of photographs are related, and that regardless of your experience and expertise, it is the viewer that ultimate judges the quality of a photograph, NOT the photographer. In my opinion, that is a good thing
(Most of you have probably read my article about taking Winogrand's classes during my years as a photojournalism student at UT. If not and you are interested, click here http://www.ocgarzaphotography.com and click on the article at the top of my home page "Class Time with Garry Winogrand." )
This is what I learned from Winogrand when it comes to taking/"viewing" a photograph:
1. There are NO rules of composition.
2. A photograph does NOT have to be in focus to be a great photograph.
3. A photograph does not have to be properly exposed to be a great photograph. (His classic phrase when critiquing photos in class was "this photograph has "classic composition, sharp focus, excellent exposure and it still sucks."
4. Photographs are a battle between form and content (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread with slightly different terms ).
5. Good photographs tend to be on the edge of failure.
6. Most photographers let their emotions judge the quality of their work. Wingrand often would not process his work for months, even years, to keep his emotions and memories of that photograph out of the "viewing" process.
As I read all the comments above about graphic elements, composition, focus and exposure, I chuckle knowing that one of the greatest street photographers (yes I know he hated to be called that and he never classified his work as "street photography") would have rejected almost everything that has been said.
I post this not to critique anyone, but to show that the taking/viewing of photographs are related, and that regardless of your experience and expertise, it is the viewer that ultimate judges the quality of a photograph, NOT the photographer. In my opinion, that is a good thing
(Most of you have probably read my article about taking Winogrand's classes during my years as a photojournalism student at UT. If not and you are interested, click here http://www.ocgarzaphotography.com and click on the article at the top of my home page "Class Time with Garry Winogrand." )
Gumby
Veteran
Very original!
FrankS
Registered User
I had the good fortune to take four years of photography classes with Garry Winogrand while he was the photography instructor at the University of Texas Art School in the mid-to-late seventies. Garry did not differentiate between "taking" and "viewing" photographs. His philosophy was that if you can properly "see" what you are photographing and overcome any "problems" that stand in the way of making that photograph a great one, then the result is a great photograph. He also admitted that most photographs are failures and great ones are very rare. He also admitted that no one failed as much as he did; of course no one I am aware of ever shot like he did either
This is what I learned from Winogrand when it comes to taking/"viewing" a photograph:
1. There are NO rules of composition.
2. A photograph does NOT have to be in focus to be a great photograph.
3. A photograph does not have to be properly exposed to be a great photograph. (His classic phrase when critiquing photos in class was "this photograph has "classic composition, sharp focus, excellent exposure and it still sucks."
4. Photographs are a battle between form and content (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread with slightly different terms ).
5. Good photographs tend to be on the edge of failure.
6. Most photographers let their emotions judge the quality of their work. Wingrand often would not process his work for months, even years, to keep his emotions and memories of that photograph out of the "viewing" process.
As I read all the comments above about graphic elements, composition, focus and exposure, I chuckle knowing that one of the greatest street photographers (yes I know he hated to be called that and he never classified his work as "street photography") would have rejected almost everything that has been said.
I post this not to critique anyone, but to show that the taking/viewing of photographs are related, and that regardless of your experience and expertise, it is the viewer that ultimate judges the quality of a photograph, NOT the photographer. In my opinion, that is a good thing
(Most of you have probably read my article about taking Winogrand's classes during my years as a photojournalism student at UT. If not and you are interested, click here http://www.ocgarzaphotography.com and click on the article at the top of my home page "Class Time with Garry Winogrand." )
Thank you for this interesting contribution! You are very fortunate to have had this opportunity/experience.
As one who has mentioned technical considerations (focus, exposure,etc.) as aspects of a photograph, I think that G.W. and I only disagree on the value of composition in creating a good image. Clearly compelling content (or narrative as another way of expressing this) is the most important aspect of an image. I and others would completely agree with the remark, "Classic composition, sharp focus, perfect exposure, but it's still crap." Strong composition however, does have the ability to "freeze" a viewer leafing through pages of images. This is related to Sparrow's hard-wired pattern recognition point.
G.W. was considering street-type photography as opposed to studio or formal landscape work. Most would consider Ansel Adams a good photographer (though it is popular by some to put him down). Certainly A.A.'s photographs would not be as successful as they are, if focus, exposure, or contrast were off!
So, for street photography, I agree that content/narrative is trump.
For general photography, the more aspects that are favourable, the better. In fact, some photographers have focused on the banal (lack of compelling content/narrative) in their work, which is regarded as successful.
Sisyphus
Sisyphus
All incredible contributions and ideas. Thanks for the links and articles. I agree and disaree with a few of the comments, but overall it is all good, and the most important aspect is what works for you.
One comment that I will make is that I think the artist or photographer is the best judge of their work not the viewer. The photographer or artist generally has a specific idea in mind, which the viewer is not always aware of. The piece overall may not be very successful, but it may be successful to the artist or vice versa.
Enjoy your day, it is Friday, and hopefully, it will be a productive, photogrpahic weekend.
One comment that I will make is that I think the artist or photographer is the best judge of their work not the viewer. The photographer or artist generally has a specific idea in mind, which the viewer is not always aware of. The piece overall may not be very successful, but it may be successful to the artist or vice versa.
Enjoy your day, it is Friday, and hopefully, it will be a productive, photogrpahic weekend.
victoriapio
Well-known
Frank,
I somehow meaked out a living as a pj for two decades and agree with you 100% when you say "the more aspects that are favorable - and this is especially true when photographing as a pj for print publications - , the better."
victoriapio
Well-known
Common logic would say yes. But my experience (again IMHO) indicates otherwise. I always looked as the photographer as the "one who submits" and the "viewer" as photo editor and judge.
And I agree this is an interesting thread with many interesting opinions.
Sparrow
Veteran
I think that's why retrospective review is so important, but again that's an analytical function, not a gut feeling, as you seemed to be recommending earlier
regards
gns
Well-known
I still hold...
That a successful photo (or painting or short story or song, etc) must be complete. The smallest thing can change the overall result so every element in the frame should contribute to this overall sense of completeness.
And that there are no rules or formulas for how to get there (whether evaluating or making a picture). If you know what you are looking for going in, are you likely to find anything new?
And that because of this, you have to take each picture on its own. Each picture will solve the problem in a different way. If you want to be specific about how a photograph works, then you need a specific photograph to talk about.
Some have claimed that one element (like composition or technical quality or content) is king and will override the others. I don't think this is generally true, but I'm not saying it couldn't happen and be a success in a given instance.
Others have suggested that you could evaluate the individual parts to decide if the whole is any good. The more parts that are good (say composition or technical quality) then the greater the chance of success. First problem with this is that you don't have a success unless all of the parts are working. If there are elements which don't work, then the photo does not work. It might be a very interesting miss, but still a miss.
The second problem is that, taken alone, I don't think there is such a thing as good composition, a good subject or good craft. They are only "Good" in so far as they contribute to the overall picture. In other words, the part is good WHEN it supports the whole.
I think the Moriyama picture is a good lesson. It seems to adhere to none of our preconceived notions about what makes up a good photograph. Yet, it has this underlying coherence and balance. Everything working to give us this perfect description of the quintessential stray dog. It seems so casual and off the cuff, but is really quite amazing.
Cheers,
Gary
That a successful photo (or painting or short story or song, etc) must be complete. The smallest thing can change the overall result so every element in the frame should contribute to this overall sense of completeness.
And that there are no rules or formulas for how to get there (whether evaluating or making a picture). If you know what you are looking for going in, are you likely to find anything new?
And that because of this, you have to take each picture on its own. Each picture will solve the problem in a different way. If you want to be specific about how a photograph works, then you need a specific photograph to talk about.
Some have claimed that one element (like composition or technical quality or content) is king and will override the others. I don't think this is generally true, but I'm not saying it couldn't happen and be a success in a given instance.
Others have suggested that you could evaluate the individual parts to decide if the whole is any good. The more parts that are good (say composition or technical quality) then the greater the chance of success. First problem with this is that you don't have a success unless all of the parts are working. If there are elements which don't work, then the photo does not work. It might be a very interesting miss, but still a miss.
The second problem is that, taken alone, I don't think there is such a thing as good composition, a good subject or good craft. They are only "Good" in so far as they contribute to the overall picture. In other words, the part is good WHEN it supports the whole.
I think the Moriyama picture is a good lesson. It seems to adhere to none of our preconceived notions about what makes up a good photograph. Yet, it has this underlying coherence and balance. Everything working to give us this perfect description of the quintessential stray dog. It seems so casual and off the cuff, but is really quite amazing.
Cheers,
Gary
FrankS
Registered User
Thanks for that, Gay! I understand what you are saying: individual aspects are "good" only insofar as work to contribute to the whole, on an image by image basis, as in the gestalt of the image.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
I find it odd in the extreme that many people seem to be suggesting that it is better to remain ignorant as to why we prefer some images to others.
If by analysing a photo you, or Gary Winogrand for that matter, could learn lessons from them why wouldn’t you?
Few people would you apply those same standards to other art, so that the poem that didn’t rhyme and a song sung off key were as appealing as an ill composed photo.
If by analysing a photo you, or Gary Winogrand for that matter, could learn lessons from them why wouldn’t you?
Few people would you apply those same standards to other art, so that the poem that didn’t rhyme and a song sung off key were as appealing as an ill composed photo.
gns
Well-known
"...many people seem to be suggesting that it is better to remain ignorant..." Huh?
Sparrow
Veteran
Yep, Frank was asking about analysing, looking rationally at images and inquiring why some are successful.
A lot of the replies appear to be arguing that the emotional reaction is a more useful measure
The former requires some measure of knowledge the latter of ignorance
PS I’m not using ignorance as a derogatory term, just as in the opposite of knowledge
Last edited: