What a photo SHOULD be...

[FrankS]

I have seen many impressive photos with crappy subjects that won't stand on their own, but suit well in the context of those photos. I have also seen a lot of photos that others have liked but I have not, it's very subjective. I think a good photograph only depends on 2 things - the photographer' and viewer's eyes.

I'm not sure what this means.

 

[Godfrey]

I was not attempting to ridicule the statement, simply pointing out that in my view it's pretty meaningless and attempting to explain why. I believe I am entitled to give my opinion without being accused of not being 100% honest.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. It would be easier to understand and more transparent if you didn't wrap it in ridicule and mockery, the usual deceits used in debate.

G

 

[mfunnell]

"A photograph should be more interesting than the subject and transcend its obviousness."

—Jeffrey Ladd
[Quoted on Conscientious, found by Stan Banos]"
[...]
Thoughts? Agree? Disagree?, Depends?

Depends.

For example, this is a pretty dull (and not especially good) photo of my local railway station, taken around 8 years ago:

I'd say it is probably less interesting than it's already dull subject matter and does little more than reflect the obviousness of it's subject.

Does it become more interesting when this photo of the (near) current state of the station is shown?

Will it be yet more interesting if shown alongside a third photo showing completed construction?

It may be of purely local interest, but is that not still interest?

Similarly, this photo of the Sydney Monorail may or may not be of at least some interest:


I'd suggest it's "interestingness" may have increased now that the monorail system has been abolished and it's infrastructure dismantled.

Sometimes a "photo of record" becomes interesting just because it records something that no longer exists, whether it was more interesting than the subject while it still existed and despite not transcending the obviousness of the subject while it was still around.

...Mike

 

[pete hogan]

"Should" as the guy has in the quote is a crappy word to build a case with. You want to make a point, you use "shall" or "will."

 

[airfrogusmc]

Not a new idea:
"I see no reason for recording the obvious." - Edward Weston

I always call the obvious nouns. The real question can you take not what the subject is but what it is to you?

"To photograph truthfully and effectively is to see beneath the surfaces and record the qualities of nature and humanity which live or are latent in all things. Impression is not enough. Design, style, technique, - these, too, are not enough. Art must reach further than impression or self-revelation. Art, said Alfred Stieglitz, is the affirmation of life. And life, or its eternal evidence is everywhere. Some photographers take reality as the sculptors take wood and stone and upon it impose the dominations of their own thought and spirit. Others come before reality more tenderly and a photograph to them is an instrument of love and elevation."-Ansel Adams

 

[Darshan]

I'm not sure what this means.

As another poster suggested, a photograph should be exactly what the photographer intends it to be. The viewer may or may not like it. It's very subjective and there is no right answer..

P.S. You may have taken my use of "things" a little too literally

 

[philipus]

More tautologous waffle, I think:

Q: Which photographs are considered to be interesting?
A: Those that transcend the nature of their subjects.

Q: So which photographs transcend the nature of their subjects?
A: Those that are interesting.

Funny, made me think of this:

All whales are mammals.
All mammals have hair.
Thus, whales have hair.
Shave the whales.

I saw the quote at TOP, shrugged, and went back to work.