I want to push....

[molested_cow]

I am not saying that I am better than any other people here, because I am not. However I see this trend of people putting too much emphasis on technique critique as opposed to content analysis.

For an example, Jim Walczak put up his gallery for opinions, and 90% of the critiques are based on techniques.

Then the thread in the critique forum with Lee Friedlander's "boring" receives more negative feedbacks than positive, and most of the negative feedbacks are based on the physical composition and camera technique. Not many people mentioned anything beyond that.

What about the story? The content that makes the photograph YOURS?! Like I said in Jim's thread about his photos, I personally feel strongly about every of my photo, because that's how I felt when I decided to make the shot. It's that urge that made me push the trigger,. Identifing the urge and presenting it is my goal. Before, I took photos just because I think it looks nice and take it for the sake of not wanting to miss the opportunity. Now, I take photos because I want to, and I try to present that very desire or reason why I took the shot.

I think technique is limited by experience and equipment. It's the content that gives me all the fun and meaning of photography. I feel good not when I am able to take a photo in a new way. I feel good when I successfully tell the story that I want to tell.


Hmmm..... I guess the mad cow disease is taking effect.... I better return to my barn and eat my grass...

 

[Goofup]

But that's you. You have to have a strong emotional reaction to a scene before you punch the button. That's fine! Nothing wrong with that!! But you're not beside us explaining the picture when we view it- all we have is the picture to go on, and if it fails to convey the "why", there's nothing left to look at but the "what". It can be the sweetest picture of kitten exploring his surroundings ever taken- but if it's fuzzy and dark the thing the viewer notices is that it's fuzzy and dark.

Now this is just me, and I too will probably set some people off, but let's look at this in the extreme. You go to a club and try to shoot band pictures. It's dark- the band members are constantly moving. This is like trying to take a picture of a black cat running with a stick of licorice in his mouth at midnight. It's not gonna happen and why people insist on trying is beyond me. I've only seen 1 in 500 "club band" shots that look worth a darn. Yes, it can be done, but only if you have one of those Classified cameras that only the government can afford. (Rant off)

Anyway, the photographer wants to convey the energy, excitement, power, and mood of the moment. It always fails miserably because a) it's a still picture for crying out loud! (Get a movie camera- they can even record sound these days and it'll work in the dark!), and b) the pictures are dark, blurry mess- and that's all we see.

The point is, I think a picture can certainly convey a mood effectively, but it's much more effective if the technique is there first.

(PS: In case you're wondering, I played in bands for about 30 years, and nothing ticked any of us off more that some butthead firing a flash off in our face!!! Did you ever think that if you bought them a drink they might pose for you on break so you could get a decent shot?)

I'll go take my meds now.....

 

[molested_cow]

It always fails miserably because a) it's a still picture for crying out loud!

And that's what I am trying to point out too. It seems that you don't believe in the power of photography. Perhaps you haven't had such experience, or you haven't seen enough photographs taken by others to realise it, but although a photograph may be a still picture, it can be that one very moment that explains the entire story. I look at journalist photos everyday on news websites, and everyday I find photos with strong messages. I don't think a moving picture can do the same as photography, because it's moving, it doesn't help to capture that EXACT MOMENT that you want people to see. A still photo enlarges the message of that specific moment because it allows time for people to digest and feel the message.

Also I am not trying to dismiss attempt to improve on technique, I just want to point out that most people neglect the emotioncontent part of a photograph. Of course if it's just a technique exercise, then it's only subjected to tecnhique critique. However I take photos for fun, to enjoy, and I get most enjoyment when I get the prints/scan back seeing that I have achieved what I wanted to.

 

[ksmattfish]

I think I understand what you are saying. Was it Ansel Adams who said something like "There's nothing worse than a great photograph of a bad idea."?

Without more commentary from the creator I often find it hard to discuss content. It's just too personal, both for the artist/photographer and myself as the viewer. I can come up with my own story for the image, but unless that's what the creator asked for, what's the point? I'll enjoy my version, and the artist has their meaning for the image.

I wish people would give more info on why they took a particular photo, or what they were thinking about. I love it when I go to a gallery or show and there are lots of comments by the artist. I can critique content much better if I understand where the photographer is coming from.