slow231
No longer a newbie, moving up!
Sometimes i wonder if the experts in a field get so immersed and skilled at their art, that they evolve their own idea of aesthetics that's completely divorced from the general idea of "good". i definitely feel that way about abstract art, and i think this sometimes applies to things like photography or cooking as well (i love me some chicken nuggets, but i don't think many chefs would consider this "good" food). when i first got into photography i wanted to consciously try and stay close to what looks good in a raw sense, and to me that meant an untrained, unbiased eye. the thing is, to get better you have to get so immersed in trying to classify, quantify, and describe what looks "good". in doing so you're always looking at rules, techniques, and analysis. Now a days i feel like i dive in and analyze flaws in shots before ever sitting back and just thinking "does that look good?".
before when i would go through a shoot and pick out the best shots, my picks would generally coincide with what my wife would also choose. She wouldn't know exactly why she liked one more than another (that's where my "photography skills" differentiated me), but our picks would match. now a days i'm rejecting her favorites because of "technical flaws", and i'm starting to think, are these "technical flaws" really worth a damn if they aren't actually linked to the photo's aesthetics? after all these rules are meant as guides to making things that look "good", and if by that measuring stick they are not adding up, what good are they? am i spending too much time generating technical shots that are just meant to please other photographers?
I think maybe the biggest disjoint is not being able to quantify the importance of subject matter. A not so great shot (technically) of a good situation is worth more than a perfect shot of a boring situation. maybe i need to change from a demerit system (only accepting photos with the lowest number of flaws), to a reward system which allows for accounting for positive influences like subject matter. any thoughts on this situation? any advice on how i can "keep it real"?
before when i would go through a shoot and pick out the best shots, my picks would generally coincide with what my wife would also choose. She wouldn't know exactly why she liked one more than another (that's where my "photography skills" differentiated me), but our picks would match. now a days i'm rejecting her favorites because of "technical flaws", and i'm starting to think, are these "technical flaws" really worth a damn if they aren't actually linked to the photo's aesthetics? after all these rules are meant as guides to making things that look "good", and if by that measuring stick they are not adding up, what good are they? am i spending too much time generating technical shots that are just meant to please other photographers?
I think maybe the biggest disjoint is not being able to quantify the importance of subject matter. A not so great shot (technically) of a good situation is worth more than a perfect shot of a boring situation. maybe i need to change from a demerit system (only accepting photos with the lowest number of flaws), to a reward system which allows for accounting for positive influences like subject matter. any thoughts on this situation? any advice on how i can "keep it real"?