*The* Most Important Thing In Photography...

SciAggie said:
I think I see where you are going with this - and I agree more or less. I think great photos reveal some mental vision or image of the photographer's that the viewer can identify with and appreciate.
Click to expand...

I actually don't want to go very far with it. I don't think it needs to go very far.

There's always a lot of excellent discussion here about what is and is not a good photo. Roger's recent thread about image quality is a fine example.

It just seems to me that the simple ability to recognize the potential for a good photo underpins every photographer. This applies to the casual shooter strolling around on holiday as much as it does to the pro shooter on assignment or the studio artist. The images they produce will all be different, and their "quality" will vary widely. But, the impetus for pushing the shutter is identical for all of them.

For example, see Bob's posts about earlier in the thread about shooting in Cuba. I think they illustrate perfectly how a photographer recognizes something that might produce interesting pictures. Bob -- the photographer -- saw something and took out his camera. Other people saw the same thing and kept walking.

That, or example, is how I interpret the notion of HCB walking around waiting for that special moment. I think he was strolling around with his camera looking for things he thought might make good pictures. When the shot turned out well, it became that special moment. The ones he tossed... well, they were moments, too, but not special. In either case, the label was applied retroactively.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Bob,

Another vote for this one. There's not just "Might work -- has to be worth trying". There's also "Pure accident/stroke of luck." In other words, you have to be open to seeing the picture after you have pressed the shutter release, when you're looking at the negatives/contact sheets/Raw files on the screen. Hardening of the categories can lead to rejecting pictures that are very good, but weren't what we thought we were going to get.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I agree, Roger. I'm not trying to say anything complex, though. Or toss up a scaffold to explain how pictures ought to be taken, with the inevitable limits and constraints. I am generally opposed to the propagation of rules and dictums, and category hardening, too.

I think we often make things much more complex than necessary. We all "see" something that prompts us to use the camera. I suspect many "saw" before they even used a camera, and that the "seeing" was the impetus for the use.

Deciding when to take a picture, and where to point the camera, or seeing an unexpected image emerge on screen or on a contact sheet, seems a simple and blindingly obvious thing. As I see it, though, everything else in photography is built on that.
 
Depends on what kind of photos you are taking:

If you're taking composed photographs, like still-life or architecture or macro, light awareness is the most important thing.

If you're doing a reportage or street, situational awareness is the most important thing (see Bob's description).

So the common ground is awareness. And yes, I believe anyone can develop this, if they are willing to put the effort in.

As for having a functioning camera with you, that goes without saying. We are in a *photography* forum aren't we? 🙂
 
...The most important thing in photography nowadays is "Marketing"[/QUOTE said:
That's the most important thing in commercially viable photography. It is not an inherent requirement to photographic achievement.
Click to expand...
 
Sounds like you look at photography as creating art, I don't have that kind of talent. I wonder if those who do actually started out that way, or did they just start shooting. Those who I have known who create art and make a living doing it claim they have no special talent outside of their field, and wonder if they really have talent in their field, versus just loving what they do, and doing a lot of it.
 
At the first time I tried my old 39, with a 5cm lens, my first impression was a kind of new sensation of a kind of synergetic,cosmic reflections of how mind, motorics and perseptions can rise up to a level I did not had with my first one;the kodak instamatic 50. but it was a really a snap..
 
Beyond the obvious of having a functioning camera, film in the camera, lens cap off ... The question remains: what is most necessary/important for the creation of good photos? I'd say, a photographer with the desire and drive to do so. A photographer willing and able to spend the time and effort to practice, critically evaluate results, learn from this, and strive for improvement. All photographers can become better in this manner, though critical success is not guaranteed for all.

What would be the reason for this? While all photographers can become better photographers, ones full potential may still not make the cut. For example, while I could train to run and would certainly improve drastically my running proficiency, I could never be competitive - running just isn't my forte. My best would not be good enough. The ability to draw realistically is another example. I believe people have different types and levels of inherent/natural abilities. I believe that an "artistic eye" is one of those abilities that people are born with different potentials for.

(the issue I have with totally blind photographers is that they can not edit their work, or evaluate their results in order to learn and improve. I've been called closed minded for this view, but I'm sticking to it.)
 
Last edited:
The most important thing of all is deciding to take a photograph.

After the decision, it can get really complicated really quickly, but without that decision no (good or great) picture gets taken. I am not a great photographer, but through persistence and trial and error have taken some excellent photographs. So, having a good eye is not even a requirement. Taking pictures is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom