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

[back alley]

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?

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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:

and this next to above:

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.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Content can be... anything!

Cheers,

R.

 

[fireblade]

I would love to post a pic of me lying in bed with a cigarette in my mouth after a good bonk 😀

 

[jsrockit]

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).

 

[sebastel]

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.

 

[mcfingon]

This couple riding their scooter look content to me.

Sony A7S Elmar-M 50/2.8

 

[gns]

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).

 

[kuuan]

...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?

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]

how about content with meaning for the photographer?
and a few words of explanation...

 

[kuuan]

how about content with meaning for the photographer?
and a few words of explanation...

imo ultimately the meaning or/and intent a viewer ascribes to the photographer always remains the viewer's projection.

 

[Darthfeeble]

This is all about Louie.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

how about content with meaning for the photographer?
and a few words of explanation...

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.
🙂

 

[daveleo]

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.

 

[helen.HH]

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

 

[Dogman]

Sometimes the aesthetics are the content.

 

[RichC]

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.

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:

 

[peterm1]

Stewie from Family Guy defines "content" (I suppose - I still have no idea what it means):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW4MtvyXcVI

And I make an effort to live up to Stewie's comment (except I am not a hot girl)

Stewie Griffin's favourite photo by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[kuuan]

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..

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.

 

[Bob Michaels]

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.