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.
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.
Assignment: What do you do after you see the opportunity for that picture?
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.
