Must I shoot artsy photos to be a good photographer?

[nico]

There's nothing wrong Raid in your family photos ( I still remeber some good shots) but maybe, as FrankS stated, you're just lookin for new point of views.

I cannot say a lot about it except that I feel quite the same problem: I don't have enough time - in this period - to go along my city for street shooting, so I mainly shots portraits of people I know and all I can try to do is see how other members shots the same themes and try to get some inspiration; I can remember - about kids - some shots of Bud Green, Langdon auger, Tuna and matti (and I know in the galleries there are so many other good shots of family life but I can remember all the members' names so I beg the pardon for not quoting other names...).

Kids are wonderful artistic subjects, you can shot asking them to pose or not, concentrate on some details (your daughters' curly hairs worth some 90mm/135mm experimental shots!), shot when they sleep or wildly play...and what about when they laugh or cry?
You only have to shot, shot and shot...

Bye.
Nico

 

[drmatthes]

Obviously, to be a good photographer, one has to shoot pictures that look good, nothing more, nothing less.

This became clear to me when a friend of mine visited me yesterday with his 15 yr old daughter, and we talked photography a lot, and then took a walk through the town with our cameras (Contax II with f/2 - 8 cm Sonnar for me, Panasonic Lumix for him, 4 megapixel Kodak something for her).

We were doing architecture, street and "each other". Don't know what my shots will look like, but as far as the digital part is concerned, her pictures were great, slightly better than her father's.

I don' have children so far, but to me it seems a nice idea that while we are discussing how to do good shots of our children, our children do the better shots of us.

Reminds me of FrankS's Avatar which I like so much.

Jesko

 

[Macpod]

yes, they do have to be arty. but any subject can be artfully done

 

[grantray]

Then I got into married life, and we had two children. Since then, I am quite content with limiting my photography to the outlets that arise as I am with my family.

Raid

A fair amount of what I see in the galleries here in NYC, including ICP, are focused on the intimate and very near things to the photographer's personal life. Some of the work sucks, some of it is awe-inspiring. Some say taking photo's of dogs is not art. They should tell that to Erwitt.

You have a good eye, so I get the feeling you're taking shots within your circle that you're not posting, such as your wife. Of course, you may have no choice in that. If you're looking for something to push yourself, shoot nonstop while with the family- at the store, cooking, on the way to school/work, happy AND sad etc. Try developing new narratives. Some of it may suck, but some of it...

-grant

 

[FrankS]

So, can we say that the difference between a snapshot (simple direct documentation of a subject) and a photo that is "artfully" done, is that for the latter, the photographer has done many of the following:

-made a decision on focal length to use to achieve a desired foreground/background relationship
-made a decision on f-stop, eg. to achieve out of focus areas to isolate the subject
-made a decision on shutter speed, eg. to achieve a slight amount of blur to indicate movement
-made a decision on exposure
-decide where to place the zone of focus if using limited DOF
-considered the importance of the background as well as the primary subject
-avoided distracting visual elements within the frame
-explored different framing possibilities
-adjusted framing so as to arrange visual elements within the frame in a pleasing way
-considered changing camera position so as to alter subject/background relationships
-considered how a smaller part of the image could represent the whole
-decided how much environment to include within the frame to provide a context
-considered the qualities of the lighting (direction, diffuseness, distribution) and made adjustments so that they are suitable for the desired outcome
-captured a mood, an emotion, an interaction, a defining or poignant moment

My impression is, and I say this respectfully because my friend Raid has asked, that he could improve the artfulness of many of the family photos he has posted by considering more of the factors listed here.

By successfully managing these aspects of an image, a photographer is more likely to end up with an artful/strong image than one who doesn't. Of course to do all this takes time and is not appropriate when a simple snapshot is desired.

 

[raid]

Several of the last postings have hit the target I was initially aiming at with my posting, even though it may not have been totally clear what I was looking for. I am not totally unhappy with my family photos, because I love my family and I love seeing them the way I captured them. It is also necessary for me to capture my family in a way that records daily events for the extended family in Baghdad. I still get questions from my family about why I used B&W film "when everyone is using color (with digital)".

The points stated by you are well taken. I strive to improve. It is good to see so many of you go beyond giving a smart brief comment. This shows me that the RFF is in good shape after all. I hesitate saying "Thanks" now because this typically kills a thread, but Thanks.


Raid

 

[BudGreen]

That looks like a good list to me, Frank.

One thing that someone once suggested to me was to shoot a few rolls of portraits without faces. I was skeptical at first, but the exercise helped me see possibilities that I had previously overlooked. I think Todd Hanz has some pretty nice shots along these lines in his gallery.

 

[VinceC]

Raid,

I think I understand what you're asking.

I'm also taking photos for the extended family, including friends and relatives across the country and overseas. In addition, and on a very personal level, I photograph my children in order to share with them and with the rest of our family and friends, particularly in years to come, my own passion for photography. I do snapshots, but I also make portraits, and I use photojournalism to document important or mundane events ... recitals or parties, or just brushing their hair (or recently cutting it off to donate) or taking a walk across the Golden Gate Bridge.

What I do is make photo essays of the children, using photojournalism and documentary techniques. I feel very passionately about this. It's how I share myself with them (though they don't know it yet) and with the rest of my family. I tend to use the digital point-and-shoot for snapshots and the film-loaded RFs for my photojournalism. Separating the tools helps me to keep the right frame of mind. By its very nature, the film camera requires more thought, more inuition, more artistic and technical input. Setting exposure and selecting focus, metering or mentally calculating the light, all these help get me into the frame of mind of serious photography. I think it very much helps to have your "art" cameras and your "snapshot" cameras separate. I even go further; I often try to use my SP for black-and-white work and my S3s for color work. I shoot very differently when doing black and white, so it helps if the interface is a bit different.

Hope that helps.

 

[mc_vancouver]

I guess another consideration is what one would consider an "artsy" photograph. You go through the galleries here, you see some photos you respond to, and others you don't; but each of us has our unique set of cultural "rules" if you will for what we think of as art. Personally, I like straightforward shots that have a bit of an accidental look to them, but someone else may prefer the well composed shot of a deserted farmhouse, and so on. Eye of the beholder sort of thing. I do recommend to anyone interested in the range of photographic art to visit a well-stocked gallery that deals mainly in photography, if you have one in your city, or to visit one online. Peter Fetterman in Los Angeles; the Photographic Centre Northwest; Gallery 44 in Toronto; Presentation House in Vancouver; the Photographer's Gallery in London; one of my favourites is the Maison Européenne de la Photographie in Paris; perhaps other users can add their favourite photo gallery.

(By the way, click on any of those galleries above to get the URL hyperlinks)

 

[FrankS]

Raid, and others, if you look at BudGreen's gallery you can see family photos elevated beyond the snapshot level that IMO clearly demonstrate artistic strength. Not all our family photos are going to be this artistic, nor should they be because often a snapshot is what is called for. But Raid asked about family photos and artistry. Here are great examples!

 

[raid]

Frank,

I like Bud's photos (Excellent work!) . I can see my kids in some of them when they get a little older. I have taken literally thousands of photos of my family, and I have posted a few here in the RFF.


Raid

 

[BudGreen]

Thanks for the kind words, guys. It's really nice to hear.

 

[Chuck A]

Frank:

I appreciate what you and others are adding to this thread.
I have to agree with the view that taking family photos doesnot have to limit
Creativity.

Raid


==================

If you take photos of what you love and work on your craft, it will show. You have a beautiful family Raid. Keep photographing them and be a strong critic of your own work.

I hadn't looked at Bud's work before but Frank is right, there are some very nice shots that rise above the snapshot level. Nice work.

 

[John Camp]

So, can we say that the difference between a snapshot (simple direct documentation of a subject) and a photo that is "artfully" done, is that for the latter, the photographer has done many of the following:

-made a decision on focal length to use to achieve a desired foreground/background relationship....<snip>

The best and most artistic photo I ever made of my son was a quick snapshot that is over-exposed and blurry from camera movement, and if i'd hesitated .0001 of a second, I would have missed the expression that is the essence of the shot. The best and most artistic photo my son ever made of his sister is a weird under-exposed shot of her turning to look back as she rides her bike into a fog bank. If he's waited .0001...you get the idea.

To counter Frank, I'd say that the best shots of your own children are probably done with an autofocus Nikon SLR and a zoom lens set on "program" so that you absolutely do not have to think about the camera or photography or anything else, only about the kids; and you should be involved in the action that the kids are involved in, and they should be enjoying themselves in some way; engaged in what they are doing.

On the original question, "artsy" is not the best word. To me, artsy means "fake art." The essential element of the best photo art IMHO is sincerity and immediacy, and there are few things that most people will be more sincere about than their own children. I really don't like what Sally Mann did with her children, but her sincerity shines through (and would shine through even if her technique weren't so perfect.) By comparison, I thought her latest work, on death, was pretty ordinary and not very interesting.

 

[raid]

Raid, does it make you happy to shoot photographs?

I also do many pictures of my daughter --- IMHO, they are better than many so called "artsy" photos --- shoot what drives you, shoot what you like...

Yes, it makes me very happy to take photos.
I try to learn from the photography done by some people, but I also like my own style. I enjoy recording interaction between by children and I also try to capture their facial expressions as they grow.

Regards,
Raid

 

[StuartR]

I am not sure if anyone said this outright, but I think the key is to look at your family photos as if they were not of your family. In other words, would you find this a good photo if it was not of someone you loved? Does it have anything to make it interesting to someone who knows nothing of, and possibly has no interest in your family at all? I am not saying that that you have to judge all your photos this way, but if you want them to be viewed by others as more than just family snapshots, you have to view them critically. As Frank said, snapshots can be great if THE MOMENT is great. So if that moment is universally interesting, then a snapshot can be great, but otherwise you have to step up your artistic game a bit.

You also have to understand that you are not going to please everyone. Some people just don't like or find photos of children very interesting. I knew a great photographer who didn't like photos that had people in them...period. He took beautiful landscapes and cityscapes, but he just wasn't interested in portraits or street photography at all. Overall, I would say that the big problem with photographing kids is that so often if relies too heavily on them being "cute". Perhaps it might even help to pretend that your child is REALLY REALLY ugly and then ask yourself, would this still be a good photo? That's only half a joke...seriously, you need to be aware of when you have taken a cute photo and when you have taken a good photo. They are not mutually exclusive, but the danger is to use cute as a crutch.
Anyway, just some thoughts, none of which have to do with your photography in particular, just with the topic in general.

 

[raid]

Your point is well taken, Stuart.
Raid

 

[StuartR]

Another thing to remember when you photograph a loved one is that you are seeing a lot more than anyone else. When you look at a particular expression, you think: "That is what X does when X is pleased...or upset...or proud etc". Other people see someone with a certain smirk or frown or whatever. They can't read the subtext of the photo because they don't know the subject. Your job is to make that subtext readable for them. You need to do that by capturing a particularly expressive moment, or telling situation etc. You should view each photo as its own single work. That work needs to be able to stand by itself with added explanation or context.

 

[Pherdinand]

Look, Raid, what i think is the following.
You can go out and burn tons of film on rocks and clouds in the dusk, or city scapes, and produce a number of beautiful postcard-type shots, but the shots that will be appreciated most by you (and people close to you) will probably be the ones you make of your children and beloved.
Many photographers can take those beautiful postcard shots you would do, but not too many will record the important events in the life of your family or friends.
So, yes, you can make artsy shots and feel like a great photographer, but the question is, what for?

 

[Pherdinand]

You must also realize, though, that the most precious and beautiful photos of your kids might be just not interesting enough for people who don't know you, like us here. Out of respect and/or politeness we probably won't say that the shot is boring, but you can't expect strangers to react in the same way as grandparents do.
I'm talking in generalities here. You do have some great shots of your family that can be appreciated as being "artsy" even by strangers.