What's your photography philosophy?

[JennEcho]

I've been wondering about this lately. Is there a right or wrong to photography?

 

[Designer]

Your question is not clear to me, but I'll stick my neck out and take a blind stab at it.

I think you mean "journalistic" photography. Yes, yes, I know; words don't always mean what they used to mean in days gone by, but journalistic photography in my definition means taking pictures of people places and things in an effort to report news-worthy stories. This by extension furthermore means "in the moment" when something happens, and anything and anyone is fair game.

Journalists have claimed special privilege for a long time, and the courts have mostly held that their photographs are covered by the concept of "free speech".

We don't always agree that some photographs are actually free speech, and sometimes we are embarrassed by the photographs, but for now it seems to be "protected".

Did I miss the point of the question?

 

[TCampbell]

Since it's "art", you might say there are no "rules" -- just "guidelines". BUT... even in art, some art is obviously much better and more refined than others.

With that in mind, there are lots of things that experienced photographers see that would be criticized as "wrong". E.g. missed focus, incorrect exposure, very bad composition, etc. It's hard to show a horribly underexposed and out of focus shot and explain that, artistically, it was the result you were hoping to produce.

A good photographer should be able to take a clean "straight" shot. Then if they want to depict something a bit more non-conventional and rule-breaking it'll be more believable that they mean to do that because they've already established that they can take conventional shots.

You might say there's no "right or wrong" but there's definitely "better and worse".

 

[kathyt]

Not anymore it seems. I was just looking at some lovely images on Facebook from a "new" photographer in town. She only charges $50 for the session fee AND for a CD of all the images! What a steal! I am booking a session as I type!

 

[JennEcho]

Your question is not clear to me, but I'll stick my neck out and take a blind stab at it.

I think you mean "journalistic" photography. Yes, yes, I know; words don't always mean what they used to mean in days gone by, but journalistic photography in my definition means taking pictures of people places and things in an effort to report news-worthy stories. This by extension furthermore means "in the moment" when something happens, and anything and anyone is fair game.

Journalists have claimed special privilege for a long time, and the courts have mostly held that their photographs are covered by the concept of "free speech".

We don't always agree that some photographs are actually free speech, and sometimes we are embarrassed by the photographs, but for now it seems to be "protected".

Did I miss the point of the question?

I totally appreciate what you've said! Sorry the question wasn't more clear, though. I've been around some photographers who have this philosophy that photography should be solely about the art and to get enjoyment from it a person should concentrate only on the enjoyment aspect and not be concerned with being the best or achieving ones own best just for the sake of conquering the craft. Does that make sense? IOW, photography is only about the art, not the skill. If you worry too much about becoming the best, skillwise, then your photography philosophy is considered to be just wrong. It's not what I believe ... just an attitude I've come across recently, and I'm not really sure how I should respond to that sort of thing.

Since it's "art", you might say there are no "rules" -- just "guidelines". BUT... even in art, some art is obviously much better and more refined than others.

With that in mind, there are lots of things that experienced photographers see that would be criticized as "wrong". E.g. missed focus, incorrect exposure, very bad composition, etc. It's hard to show a horribly underexposed and out of focus shot and explain that, artistically, it was the result you were hoping to produce.

A good photographer should be able to take a clean "straight" shot. Then if they want to depict something a bit more non-conventional and rule-breaking it'll be more believable that they mean to do that because they've already established that they can take conventional shots.

You might say there's no "right or wrong" but there's definitely "better and worse".

I agree with you... I think! LOL So, you're saying it's a combination of art + skill? right?

 

[KmH]

I've been wondering about this lately. Is there a right or wrong to photography?

It depends on the type of photography.

 

[JennEcho]

I've been wondering about this lately. Is there a right or wrong to photography?

It depends on the type of photography.

I personally lean more towards photography that doesn't have people in it. I can shoot those kinds of photos, but I'm rather shy about asking people "can I take your picture for this photo challenge?" So, whenever a photo challenge comes along I nearly always do something that I find creative.

 

[MiFleur]

To me photography varies and it is part
- Souvenirs
- Art
- Information

So it takes more than one skill to be a good photograph, so to answer your question to know if there is a right or wrong...
I would ask are you achieving what you want?

if so ... right
if not.... wrong

I am not, that's why I am here.

 

[rexbobcat]

I want to be the very best

Like no one ever was.

 

[runnah]

I do not own a beret so I tend not to assign too much meaning to my photo taking.

runnah's sure fire process
1. Find something vaguely cool looking
2. Use my fists of ham and fingers of butter to take photo of said cool object
3. Edit the crap out of it so it looks like I have somewhat of a clue how to operate a camera
4. Post on here and check thread every 5mins for any positive feedback
5. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Designer]

I totally appreciate what you've said! Sorry the question wasn't more clear, though. I've been around some photographers who have this philosophy that photography should be solely about the art and to get enjoyment from it a person should concentrate only on the enjoyment aspect and not be concerned with being the best or achieving ones own best just for the sake of conquering the craft. Does that make sense? IOW, photography is only about the art, not the skill. If you worry too much about becoming the best, skillwise, then your photography philosophy is considered to be just wrong. It's not what I believe ... just an attitude I've come across recently, and I'm not really sure how I should respond to that sort of thing.

Let's see if I understand it better now:

The statement actually seems to be a non-sequitur in that if someone is concentrating on "only the enjoyment" and not the "art", how can anyone say what that enjoyment consist of? For many hobbyists becoming fairly good at the art and the craft is the enjoyment.

Meanwhile, according to the statements that you heard, some people try to be good at the technical aspects, but are missing artistic expression.

Any better?

 

[bunny99123]

I think it like ice-cream...each to it's own. It is subjective, so each person has their own opinion. I have seen wonderful composed photos...boring, out there shots... What was the photographer thinking. Cool pics completely with horrible mechanics...if it was just focused.........,,,

 

[KenC]

My philosophy is to enjoy myself by doing what makes me happy. Any discussion of art vs. skill or rules is just a distraction.

 

[JennEcho]

To me photography varies and it is part - Souvenirs - Art - Information
So it takes more than one skill to be a good photograph, so to answer your question to know if there is a right or wrong...
I would ask are you achieving what you want?

Sometimes, I think I am, but then someone comes along and tells me I'm not good enough, I didn't do it the *right* way as they see it... you get the idea. A recent challenge was called "Selective Color", and I found this desk lamp sitting abandoned in a storage room and took a photo of it, then edited it for selective color. When I looked at the image it made me feel something deep ... as if I was imagining the person who used to use it had now retired and also retired the desk lamp. Several things went through my mind when I processed the image, but the feedback was nothing but crickets chirping. I thought ... 'how could I feel something and no one else see it too?' So, I took a photo of something that felt like art to me, and I thought it said something beautiful .. maybe it didn't? Why am I not seeing what others are seeing?

I want to be the very best
Like no one ever was.

me too! eventually!

I do not own a beret so I tend not to assign too much meaning to my photo taking.
runnah's sure fire process
1. Find something vaguely cool looking
2. Use my fists of ham and fingers of butter to take photo of said cool object
3. Edit the crap out of it so it looks like I have somewhat of a clue how to operate a camera
4. Post on here and check thread every 5mins for any positive feedback
5. Rinse and repeat.

I LOVE IT! LOL I think I feel the same way ... or something pretty close to that.

Let's see if I understand it better now:
The statement actually seems to be a non-sequitur in that if someone is concentrating on "only the enjoyment" and not the "art", how can anyone say what that enjoyment consist of? For many hobbyists becoming fairly good at the art and the craft is the enjoyment.
Meanwhile, according to the statements that you heard, some people try to be good at the technical aspects, but are missing artistic expression.
Any better?

Yes .. Better ... Additionally, they were saying if you didn't get your enjoyment from just the sheer artsy aspect of photography, something was wrong with you.

I think it like ice-cream...each to it's own. It is subjective, so each person has their own opinion. I have seen wonderful composed photos...boring, out there shots... What was the photographer thinking. Cool pics completely with horrible mechanics...if it was just focused.........,,,

Yes.. me too ... I agree.

My philosophy is to enjoy myself by doing what makes me happy. Any discussion of art vs. skill or rules is just a distraction.

I think I enjoy the challenge of reaching a specific goal and seeing how quickly I can attain that goal, and somewhere within that I mix in what I see as art.

 

[amolitor]

Photography is so many things that it's almost meaningless to try to nail down anything general about it.

I will say that posting things online for critique or feedback is mostly worthless if you don't want technical feedback. People with the time and inclination to offer online critique are disproportionately people who like cameras, not photography. If you want to know how to improve your lighting, solve a sharpness problem, what traditional poses and so on look like, and how you have completely failed to meet these various measurable criteria (and let me be clear, this is all valuable stuff) online critique is great. If you want people to actually look at the picture and tell you if it made them feel, well, not so much. These aren't people who look at pictures to feel things, mostly.

It seems like you're interested in art photography, and things are definitely much more open ended there. Almost everything has been tried out as Art in the world of photography, and in this modern world nobody seems willing to say "nope, not art". Commercial of various sorts is quite a different kettle of fish, and you really do need to cross your tees and dot your eyes there if you want to succeed in any meaningful way.

Art that doesn't make anyone feel is, arguably, art that doesn't work. I don't actually know how to get attempts at art in front of people who are willing to examine it in that way, in any reliable way.

I do know that just because it makes you feel doesn't mean that it makes anyone else feel. Most of us seem to be pretty bad at judging that sort of thing. I know I am awful at it, stuff I think is kind of throwaway work gets a really positive reaction, and stuff I've worked on which feels so very very right just gets panned.

Mostly, I make work that I like. I record things I want a record of, I make photographs that make me feel something. If it's going on my wall, it should appeal to me, right? It's not going on your wall, ultimately I don't care that much if it doesn't make you feel anything.