wgerrard
Veteran
I don't. I think it's a craft that allows, but does not require, someone to leverage technical knowledge and technique. The tools involved can be used to produce art, but that's a whole different discussion as soon as we try to get definitional.
wgerrard
Veteran
That's my thinking, with "important" meaning the thing that everything else depends on.
I'm interested in what triggers us to take a picture. When we are out walking, what is there about one scene that energizes are photographic brain cells, while another does not? What is going on when a studio photographer decides to use this lighting, and not that lighting?
i liked Bob Michaels' explanation of how he sized up a scene and started taking pictures. That requires confidence in one's own skills, and in getting along with people, and in having some intuition about what people might do next.
kosta_g
Well-known
yeahhhhh! I like that one Rob.
andredossantos
Well-known
Only the most expensive and latest gear, of course. DUHHHH. 
Seriously though, I don't think there is any singular "most important" thing but a combination of "things" which vary for each photograph.
Seriously though, I don't think there is any singular "most important" thing but a combination of "things" which vary for each photograph.
sreed2006
Well-known
There are so many different great photographs, from portraits to landscapes to pictures of dust clouds within galaxies, to fetuses still in the womb, that the only common thread is that a photograph was taken. Therefore, to get a great picture, you have to at least take a picture.
I watched two videos this morning of Winogrand. His style, to my eye, came very close to the denigrated "spray and pray" method of photography. He had two thousand rolls of undeveloped film, and was taking more pictures almost as fast as he could. How many of those photographs have you actually seen? Not many.
So, even the most experienced, professional, gifted photographers cannot always take great pictures at will. But, if they take enough, there will be some pretty good ones in there. Ones that are good enough to exhibit and sell, maybe even make you famous.
wgerrard
Veteran
That seems like an obsession, although I doubt that's an original observation.
tmfabian
I met a man once...
I always thought it was to remember to remove the lens cap
redisburning
Well-known
some of us shoot the evil slr and that's less of a concern most of the time (although I am guilty of often just pointing a scale focused camera at stuff and shooting).
ok so on topic:
*the* most important thing in photography is...
finding things that interest you enough to take a picture!
sometimes I see interesting light, or something unusual/alien, my dog/cats are doing something cute/silly, a person is unique/beautiful/an attractive lady, sometimes I even want to take a picture because someone's personality shines through their every action!
a picture you take of something you love will look different than one of something you hate, obviously. but a picture of something that bemuses you, intrigues you, draws up sentimental value or reminds you of something else you saw will look different than something you love and from each other.
to induce me to take a photograph a subject has to bring out an emotion/feeling/attitude/mood sufficiently strong, sufficiently off of "normal" or "even" to begin with. I do believe if you have a mastery of your basic technical issues it will show through. that's the goal, right? that's my goal, anyway!
I love to photograph just as much as I love the photograph itself. there is a satisfaction to it, a flash of brilliance as you trigger the shutter. it's why I don't shoot mirror lockup very much and wish I could afford a real rangefinder setup. it's why I can go through film at an astonishing rate and not feel like Im spraying and praying. I learned very quickly how to take advantage of my pavlovian response to photography and intend to ride it as far as I can.
Turtle
Veteran
I don't know what art is and what it isn't with any sense of certainty. its just that marketing is a factor relevant to business, whereas lots of brilliant photographers have not made all that much money, or have made it only after living off a private income during the early difficult years. Had they needed to be self sufficient in the early years (and did not have private money) they never would have made it, but they did produce brilliant photography in the meantime.
I am lucky. I have another job and I don't have to think about making money from my photographs right now, but in many respects that releases me to photographic tasks important to me and surely that's where photography really blossoms: when the work is important/enthralling to the photographer; whether it is Capa and Taro in Spain during the civil war, or Salgado in Sahel. Salgado's Sahel images vanished into obscurity for nearly two decades I believe, before he shot to fame so to speak.
I am lucky. I have another job and I don't have to think about making money from my photographs right now, but in many respects that releases me to photographic tasks important to me and surely that's where photography really blossoms: when the work is important/enthralling to the photographer; whether it is Capa and Taro in Spain during the civil war, or Salgado in Sahel. Salgado's Sahel images vanished into obscurity for nearly two decades I believe, before he shot to fame so to speak.
pgk
Well-known
Its a partial truth. IMHO 'seeing' a photograph helps to produce better final images, but then again there is no point in seeing a photograph if you can't actually translate your vision into that final image - a bit like a painter who can 'see' a painting but can;t actually paint it - so without technical ability its of limited use. 'Seeing' a 'good' (whatever that is) picture is something else and as has been demonstrated innumerable time, what one person perceives as 'good' is not necessarily to everyone's taste
Michael Markey
Veteran
I think our chief weapon is surprise...
wgerrard
Veteran
Interesting. Do we take pictures without 'seeing' something first, i.e., without being motivated to pick up the camera and frame a shot? I don't. For me, the most enjoyable part of photography is looking for the picture. The rest is just legwork. Rather like a chef who loves to cook but also needs to do the dishes.
(I suspect that there is a strong correlation between our views on "the most important thing" and the aspect of photography we enjoy the most.)
Again, I didn't intend to put a high- faulting' spin on my assertion. "Vision" and "art" weren't in the mix.
mwooten
light user
The most important thing in photography is the act of photography itself. The doing.
And making mistakes and learning from those mistakes.
And editing, and not dropping your camera too often.
(Good question professor.)
And making mistakes and learning from those mistakes.
And editing, and not dropping your camera too often.
(Good question professor.)
taskoni
Well-known
The most important thing in photography might be to be able to see the good picture, not necessarily to soot it
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Bingo!
At least from the responses so far this would appear to have no small amount of truth to it.
I'll echo Bob's comment earlier, a very interesting thread providing some intriguing and intelligent responses...and a few plain funny ones too
alistair.o
Well-known
Assertion: The most important thing in photography, overwhelming everything else, is the ability to see a good picture before you press the shutter.
Assignment: Is this true? If so, explain. What do you do after you see the opportunity for that picture?
Q. Is it true. Yes (to a degree)
I am talking about life and photography; human nature and the commonality of actions and reactions of mankind. Let me explain: I walk the streets of a city with my camera and look and look and look until I see. I am aware of possible situations and so wait and watch and make pictures of the developing scene(s).
Nothing else is ruled out i.e. I love architecture and lines and shadows so, I make pictures of scenes as I see them.
None of this is rocket science! But (stating the obvious) if you live in the pastures your going to make pictures of nature. If you have access to cities and are driven by a love for and curiosity of your fellow beings then there is no greater experience to me than documenting the same - I, personally, am after a legacy. Within good reason, what people think of my work now is not what matters. What matters to me is what is left for future generations.
Assignment: Is this true? If so, explain. What do you do after you see the opportunity for that picture?
Q. Is it true. Yes (to a degree)
I am talking about life and photography; human nature and the commonality of actions and reactions of mankind. Let me explain: I walk the streets of a city with my camera and look and look and look until I see. I am aware of possible situations and so wait and watch and make pictures of the developing scene(s).
Nothing else is ruled out i.e. I love architecture and lines and shadows so, I make pictures of scenes as I see them.
None of this is rocket science! But (stating the obvious) if you live in the pastures your going to make pictures of nature. If you have access to cities and are driven by a love for and curiosity of your fellow beings then there is no greater experience to me than documenting the same - I, personally, am after a legacy. Within good reason, what people think of my work now is not what matters. What matters to me is what is left for future generations.
RichC
Well-known
The assertion is FALSE
I can't believe that this thread has gone on for four pages and no one has asked themselves: "What's photography for?" (and I don't mean why an individual takes the photographs they do but, rather, the point of photography as a whole).
Responses have generally fallen into three groups (1) "seeing/vision", (2) "interest/passion" and (3) "technical stuff" (e.g. composition, the "right" equipment). Let's ignore (2) and (3) because they're common to all human endeavours undertaken through personal choice and which we intend to do to the best of our ability (also bearing in mind that (2) simply implies drive - we don't have to like something to want to do it) and instead concentrate on aspects specific to photography.
So, that leaves (1) - the ability to decide what to photograph. This is important, but I contend that it is only part of the process that is at the heart of photography. I'll return to this later, but, in the meantime, ask yourselves why some things catch your eye as a photographer and, conversely, why certain subjects do the opposite and repel.
Roger Hicks replied "Pure accident/stroke of luck" (i.e. serendipity) (see post 30). And Bob Michaels mentions blind photographers (see post 45), and links to some excellent images taken by blind photographers.
Why have I selected these particular posts? The answer is that they both show that a photographer does not need to physically see a subject to photograph it effectively. There is more to "seeing" a potential photograph than meets the eye: if a photograph is an accident, then no actual seeing has occurred, yet we have all at some time accidentally pressed the shutter and gone "Bloody hell - why can't I take something that good deliberately!?"; and blind people obviously cannot see their subject, so their photographs are entirely imagined (importantly, if you look at these photographs, they are not accidents but are very deliberate).
So, to the crux of things: what is my waffling leading to? I've alluded to "seeing" as being only part of the process that is the raison d'etre of photography: what is the other part of the process? The answer is intent. Photography is simply a means of communication: nothing less, nothing more. A photograph needs to communicate the photographer's intent clearly to his or her intended audience (which may be selective (e.g. the photographer only or friends) or broad (e.g. everyone)).
The most important thing in photography is thus to communicate clearly. This is exemplified by blind photographers: they cannot physically see, so all they have is intent - and many of them are far better photographers than those of us with sight, consistently producing powerful, insightful photographs full of meaning. Blind photographers are also a powerful argument against technique and equipment being important (what use is composition to them?) - all they require is a photographic tool that faithfully communicates their intent (which is pretty much any modern camera): "gear" has nothing to do with good photography - a photographer worthy of the name should be able to produce worthwhile work with any camera.
It's worth pointing out that what's being communicated doesn't have to be, for example, esoteric social comment understandable only by social anthropologists: a photograph could simply be saying "This is a beautiful field" or "This is Sam". What is crucial is that the intended viewers can easily understand what the photograph is saying: a puzzled "Why have you taken a photograph of this field?" indicates a failed photograph.
It's still all about communication.
First, context needs to be considered: how can a photograph be best presented to ensure its message is communicated effectively? This means considering how and where to present the image so that it reaches its target audience efficiently, and its message is understood readily by this audience. Should it be displayed alone or with other photographs as part of a series? Should it be presented in a gallery, book, magazine or old-fashioned photo album, uploaded to Facebook or RFF, emailed, posted to your mum, etc.?
Second, can anything be done technically to the photograph to make its message more effective? For example, cropping and dodging/burning. (NB: "more effective" does not always mean clearer - the photographer may want the message to be deliberately vague.)
Case study
Let's examine the serendipitous photograph a little more, in particular Tod Papageorge's photographs in his "Passing through Eden" project (images), taken in Central Park in New York. Looking at the photographs, they're part of a coherent vision, taken deliberately to say something about people, using public space as a unifying theme. The Magnum photographer Alec Soth says: "The genius of 'Passing Through Eden' is its structure. It is the 'particular combination' of pictures that makes them resonate" (see Soth's blog).
Papageorge works like many street photographers: something piques his interest, and he photographs it. What he does differently to many is how he treats the images afterwards. So, what is it that he does differently? He creates his vision after taking a photograph; any meaning that the photograph initially had is changed and subverted. I went to a talk by him, and he described how he exhibits and publishes his work: he typically has no project in mind, and simply collects interesting images. Later, he has an idea for a project, and then looks through his photographs, selecting those which fit his theme: unlike many photographers, he "post-visualises" rather than previsualises. So, for example, the photographs in "Passing through Eden" were taken over 30 years, and he had no idea what he intended to do with these photographs when he took them initially.
The project containing the carefully selected Central Park photographs was given the provocative title "Passing through Eden", and Papageorge decided to exhibit the project in galleries and to publish a photobook.
This very deliberate approach by Papageorge to ensure his vision for this project was communicated effectively was extremely successful: "Passing through Eden" was exhibited, seen and discussed worldwide, and was nominated for the prestigious Deutsche Börse Photography Prize.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
A stunning analysis! Congratulations and thanks!
Just one further thought: 'communicating' at this point is very close to 'using', i.e. picture as tool, not picture as end in itself. It's a bit like writing: getting the right words in the right order.
Cheers,
R.
A stunning analysis! Congratulations and thanks!
Just one further thought: 'communicating' at this point is very close to 'using', i.e. picture as tool, not picture as end in itself. It's a bit like writing: getting the right words in the right order.
Cheers,
R.
RichC
Well-known
Thanks, Roger.
I agree. Also, I think the word "photograph" or, worse, "picture" has a lot of baggage attached, with an implication of aesthetics being the major or even the only reason for a photograph - which is not the case: communication - conveying meaning - is the purpose of photography as everything made by man has meaning, and this most certainly includes image-making. Human pyschology imbues everything we look at with patterns and symbology - witness how we ascribe portent to mere coincidence that is nothing out of the ordinary mathematically ("Good Lord! What are the chances of that!?" "Well, statistically speaking, no more unusual than 489 other events that occurred here in the last 5 minutes but which you ignored...").
Even if a photograph is taken simply for aesthetics ("That's a pretty shadow"), the photographer is using the image to communicate this meaning. Sometimes, a photographer may not know why they feel compelled to take a photograph, but there is always a reason, even if it's not obvious. And a viewer will read their own meaning into a photograph if the photographer's intent is unclear.
So, yes, photography is simply a tool for communication, if writing is similarly viewed. There is more to a photograph than meets the eye...
Photographers are overly keen on the word "seeing", and which I used in my post above. Again, a word with too much baggage. Perhaps we should all start to talk about "selecting an image" rather than "seeing a photograph" - which not only loses the baggage but more accurately describes what photographers do (especially as the process of "seeing" continues after pressing the shutter, as described clearly in the Papageorge example in my previous post).
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
'Selecting' is indeed the magic word, as it covers the entire process from 'seeing' to 'presenting'. Thanks very much indeed for clarifying my own thoughts on this.
EDIT: I've just said to Frances that I've just learned something really worthwhile from someone who has thought clearly.. This is less and less usual as one grows older...
Cheers,
R.
'Selecting' is indeed the magic word, as it covers the entire process from 'seeing' to 'presenting'. Thanks very much indeed for clarifying my own thoughts on this.
EDIT: I've just said to Frances that I've just learned something really worthwhile from someone who has thought clearly.. This is less and less usual as one grows older...
Cheers,
R.
Last edited: