KevinPutman
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 545
- Reaction score
- 19
- Location
- Nebraska
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
So I was recently given some C&C on my latest photos, and it kind of struck me as confusing.
So answer me this. In order to take a good picture, you obviously have to be unique, artistic, creative, and knowledgeable on photography itself. Right? But when my pictures are criticized, people are saying that they're just another attempt to recreate something "cool" I may have seen elsewhere.
In reality, I go somewhere to take pictures, and I just take them. I don't have some concept in mind of what I want it to look like until I'm down on the ground taking the picture.
So how do you be creative with photography?
How do you take pictures and make them look like something that no one else has taken?
I can look at any picture and say, hey I've seen something similar. Were you merely imitating that?
How do "great" photos define themselves as great?
Not sure if my ramblings make sense,
so I'll try to shorten it.
If my photos look like I was trying to imitate another, better photo
then how do I separate mine from theirs?
When in reality, I'm shooting what I have available to me to shoot, whichever way I see fit to shoot it.
Edit
I guess what I'm trying to ask,
is why do people keep telling me that I'm trying too hard, or that I'm imitating something I may have seen,
when in reality, I'm just going out and taking pictures, from whatever angle/perspective/view/way I think they might come out as aesthetically pleasing.
And why is it that when you take a picture, it has to be "understood".
There are very successful artists out there that paint abstract, crazy things, and then sell them for thousands of dollars.
How is photography any different? If a viewer finds it appealing, does it have to have some meaning behind it? Does it have to be understood?
These pictures you've posted just seem to me to be pictures taken because you've seen other stuff that looks like this that was successful.
These pictures mean more to you because they may be the first time you've tried to be 'artistic', they resemble some others pictures that were great, they are in your estimation, cool because they aren't snaps but real attempts. All these thoughts and memories overlay the image in your mind and make it good. It is sort of like every parent thinks their baby is cute and every picture of it is wonderful because of the emotions and memories that baby picture carries along with it - to them.
Other people don't have the memories, they only have the pictures.
One of the hardest skills in photography is learning to be objective about your own work.
Look at pictures that are considered 'good' by a lot of people. Try to understand why they appeal and how the composition, the color treatment, etc create the feeling that you get. Those are manifestations of the 'rules' of photography, which aren't really rules but descriptions of the characteristics that people respond positively to in photos. .
So answer me this. In order to take a good picture, you obviously have to be unique, artistic, creative, and knowledgeable on photography itself. Right? But when my pictures are criticized, people are saying that they're just another attempt to recreate something "cool" I may have seen elsewhere.
In reality, I go somewhere to take pictures, and I just take them. I don't have some concept in mind of what I want it to look like until I'm down on the ground taking the picture.
So how do you be creative with photography?
How do you take pictures and make them look like something that no one else has taken?
I can look at any picture and say, hey I've seen something similar. Were you merely imitating that?
How do "great" photos define themselves as great?
Not sure if my ramblings make sense,
so I'll try to shorten it.
If my photos look like I was trying to imitate another, better photo
then how do I separate mine from theirs?
When in reality, I'm shooting what I have available to me to shoot, whichever way I see fit to shoot it.
Edit
I guess what I'm trying to ask,
is why do people keep telling me that I'm trying too hard, or that I'm imitating something I may have seen,
when in reality, I'm just going out and taking pictures, from whatever angle/perspective/view/way I think they might come out as aesthetically pleasing.
And why is it that when you take a picture, it has to be "understood".
There are very successful artists out there that paint abstract, crazy things, and then sell them for thousands of dollars.
How is photography any different? If a viewer finds it appealing, does it have to have some meaning behind it? Does it have to be understood?
Last edited: