'content'...to be or not to be, an ongoing thread.

back alley

back alley

IMAGES
Local time
1:16 AM
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
41,289
saw the word content in another thread here and it got me thinking.
how about an ongoing thread composed of images that meet our own personal definition of content.
for me it means no pretty pics for the sake of pretty...no cheap shots of scantily dressed people...but an image that keeps me from asking why the photographer took that image in the first place.

wanna play?
 
I googled "SDP" and I already know about pretty. The problem with personal definition of content is ... it is often not understandable.

I posted this photo on another site:

L10033941.JPG


and this next to above:

L1003401.jpg


Lady has majority of comments and votes. And here is nothing to play about, I'm afraid.

I wanna thread where I could see the content explained and not just placed to be questionable.
 
Content was used in a context in that thread. Meaning photos should be about something else other than technical concerns like bokeh, sharpness, etc. Many of us believe what is in the photo is more important than the technical lens attributes (i.e. a great photo taken with a less than great lens is still a great photo).
 
are you looking for content, or for content being expressed through the means of photography?

i can understand, that plain formalism, or let's call it "technism", doesn't satisfy you. but neither am i happy with interesting content being put in a way completely devoid of good use of the tools of the art.

to give an example not related to photography - when i was young, making music was a very "hip" thing to do. but there was a problem: even if some of those musicians worked on topic close to my heart, it all still resulted in terribly bad music. i couldn't stand that, although the content was fine.
 
Content is just the stuff described in the picture. That tree, My kids face, whatever. Every photo has content (And every photo has form, shape, how the content is described).
 
back alley said:
...images that meet our own personal definition of content.
for me it means no pretty pics for the sake of pretty...no cheap shots of scantily dressed people...but an image that keeps me from asking why the photographer took that image in the first place.

wanna play?
Click to expand...

A photo of a scantily dressed lady, a pretty photo for the sake of pretty sure "keeps me from asking why the photographer took that image in the first place" ;)
Often I find a content that doesn't reveal itself immediately more intriguing, interesting and, to the contrary of the other, one that I can learn from
 
back alley said:
how about content with meaning for the photographer?
and a few words of explanation...
Click to expand...

Yes! Because it is always premium here to see thread dedicated to photography. Even if we have W/NW dozen of threads dedicated to specific content photography. We even have "nothing special" photos thread, so it is time for special photography thread. With few words about what we feel in photography. Content is what we feel, IMO.
:)
 
I am not quite clear of what the real topic is here, but I'll crawl out on the limb ....

This obviously is a door hook.
The "pictoral content" is the door hook.
The "emotional content" is a dreamy feel that has (IMO) wonderful, almost erotic lines, and a shadow of mystery against the wall.
The "technical content" is whatever people will care to discuss or argue about the lighting, the DOF, the rendering of the shades of gray, etc etc etc.
The "point" of making the picture (the "message") is that I like looking at it.
hook0014.jpg
 
Content...
at it's BEST it draws the Viewer in,
Beckons a Smile, A Thought , A Question

At it's worst ...You turn your Eyes away & move on
 
back alley said:
saw the word content in another thread here and it got me thinking.
how about an ongoing thread composed of images that meet our own personal definition of content.
for me it means no pretty pics for the sake of pretty...no cheap shots of scantily dressed people...but an image that keeps me from asking why the photographer took that image in the first place.
Click to expand...

Surely, the opposite? A photograph with content that grabs you makes you ask why it was taken. You're intrigued, you want to know more...

From my Insecta project:

36_DSC_4043.jpg
 
RichC said:
Surely, the opposite? A photograph with content that grabs you makes you ask why it was taken. You're intrigued, you want to know more..
Click to expand...

these had been my thoughts, you express it much more concisely.
There is the distinction between the "objective" content, if such a thing exisits, and the viewers interpretation. Your insect shot is a very good example: there is a dead insect and there are the emotions and thoughts caused when viewing the photo.
There is the further distinction between what the photographers had intended, what the viewer projects that the photographer had intended ( which personally I find to be of rather little interest ) and finally the feelings and thoughs the viewer actually "gets", or better "creates", which arguably is the only reality there is.
 
My thoughts of "concept" have been very much influenced by a photo instructor who when reviewing assignments would ask me questions like:

Why does this photo exist?

What were you trying to accomplish with this photo? How well do you think you did that?

I still try to ask myself these questions when editing my work.

Interestingly she was not a great photographer but had been an excellent newspaper reporter. I came to realize how close the two disciplines were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom