Do you think about it or do you respond to it?

I’ve long forgotten about any ones’ evaluation (critique as some title it) except a client. Every client likes what I do as they review my work before hiring me.

The fact is, quite a few years ago I thought I would try out an amateur photo club. It was a disaster for me as the presenter first started out dissing professional photographers. Most of the members were more interested in points scored with their work rather than learning. Learning even the basics of photography.

I quickly found that beauty is in the mind of the checkbook holder.

The rest don’t count.
 
A little of both usually, maybe at the same time or not.
With walk around photography, on occasion, I had previsualized pics based on what I had observed from across the street. I had in my minds eye how excellent the composition would be only to find the scene had changed from what it was to what it is by the time that I made it across the street. Well I'm here now anyway, might as well attempt to salvage something by composing a few snaps.
Perspective, composition and exposure settings are controllable. Most of this is learned behavior which becomes second nature after time/practice.
The only way that you'll know whether you have something or not is by 'doing' and then by confirming through 'looking' at the neg/file.
 
Ko.Fe. said:
Same here. Most of the photos I'm OK with I don't know what I'm doing.
But I understand why I'm doing it. I have no clue about geometry and arts.

Why HCB photos are special? Half of it because he learned and practiced in geometry.
Then he was asked what makes good photo his answer was - geometry and else.
He described "else" as energy later on.
Click to expand...

I think Ko.Fe. is onto something here. Cartier-Bresson's photos indeed were constructed around the geometry of the subject matter. He was so practiced at it, I wonder if he even noticed this construction when he was shooting many of those great photos.

The photos that the psychologist and the artist were commenting about were very "geometric"--angles, shapes and lines of various subject elements forming the composition. It's something I've noticed in my pictures when I look at them later but at the time I'm actually clicking the shutter I don't always consciously see the geometry present. It's more an unconscious process for me.
 
The problem with that analysis is that you can fit virtually any photo within a geometric construct. Just look at the number of compositional rules.
 
An Interior Designer for 30 [very] odd years , I seem instinctually to create interiors with others respond to as 'safe'.
In retrospect , it seems to be autistic response to create 'safe' which others respond to.
My snapshots tend to be equally 'instinctive' but I suspect another element is at work here .
dee
 
When I see something that catches my eye I respond quickly on a gut level. I do look more carefully at the framing to make sure I am including all lines and important objects. It all happens quickly. - jim
 
I previously said that the nature of my photography requires that I be almost totally instinctive. Any time spent dwelling or thinking about a potential photo usually results in whatever interested me disappearing. Photographers with other styles may have much more time.

But, I need to clarify an important point. I already know in general what I am looking to photograph. I work on projects almost exclusively and very often have a good idea of what I am looking to photograph before I see it. That certainly speeds things up.

Now this does not mean I will pass up a potential great photo when it appears in front of me even if not a part of my current project. But that does happen very seldom.
 
Well, when you know what you are doing because you've been doing it for years it will be easy to do. That's not the same as doing it badly.

And from time to time we all do something new and learn from it and that's not bad either.

Regards, David

PS I wish it was easy to be logged in when I've finished typing and have the line spaces as I typed them...
 
I would have to say response based on my own experiences. When I see something I want to photograph that I know won't change immediately, so not candid people or moving scenes etc obviously, I will take an initial pic then progressively take more as I think about composition etc. The amount of times that first exposure has been my ultimate selection never fails to surprise me.
 
Keith said:
I would have to say response based on my own experiences. When I see something I want to photograph that I know won't change immediately, so not candid people or moving scenes etc obviously, I will take an initial pic then progressively take more as I think about composition etc. The amount of times that first exposure has been my ultimate selection never fails to surprise me.
Click to expand...

I find the same thing. I end up burning half a roll when the first shot is the best. Maybe this means we are naturally gifted? :D
 
I never frame my stuff, I just shoot what's interesting but that's just my style.
Studio however or work, prob framing is a much needed thought.
 
Bob Michaels said:
I sense this is commonly a result of not acknowledging what the purpose of the photograph is. There is no such thing as a universally good or bad photograph. It is a matter of the photograph accomplishing the photographer's goal, something that is commonly undetermined by many.

Are you seeking an impactful way of grabbing the viewers attention and communicating information?
Are you seeking a neutral comfortable way to provide a pleasing visual background?
Do you want a record of a personally important event or location?
Do you just want to show what can be done with the very old / very latest zipdeedoodah camera or the boken of the omygoshigon lens?

You cannot score the answer without knowing the question.
Click to expand...

Can this singular post above get a STICKY?

It nails so perfectly the core problem of many people who are "all over the place" with their photography. If you just want to use your camera and happily snap away, occasionally score a nice shot, then it doesn't really matter at all, what questions your shots do answer. But when you want to create a body of work and there is no question (or "project") that you have in mind, there is no connection between the images. They look like a collections of the best shots from a big shoe box.
Sometimes people resort to a certain workflow of Photoshop processing to get a "signature" look to make the images recognizable as their work, simply because they all look alike. If it serves the goal and get's them lots of clicks and likes on social media, well be my guest and process away...:rolleyes:


To respond to the OP's question ... I think you have to practice, practice, practice until certain aspects of balance and composition are just second nature. If you have to think about it too hard, typically the scene or the light is gone before you are about to press the shutter release.
 
For me, it is the spatial relationships of objects that piques my interest and catches my eye. Then the goal is to photographs that geometry in an interesting way.
 
Put two people in a setting with the same equipment and you get two different photos. For the most part we take photos that we like, our compositions tend to repeat as we take variations on a theme.

The result is a body of work that shifts and changes. Everything that came before, including our vision of the future, is present in that moment. World Cup passion played out on the backyard pitch or a 2-2 tie at 1:30 AM local time... we bring it, but being able to adapt is key.

Great question...
 
I try to compose every shot, but in the viewfinder. Before that I say to myself 'look at that.'

One thing that I do is think about DOF and often change my aperture then go back to composing in the viewfinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom