are we just pleasing ourselves?

slow231

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
273
Reaction score
45
Location
Maryland
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"?
 
Sophisticated tastes are developed in layers over time.

The trick is to not forget where you come from. Don't forget to stop and eat the nuggets from time to time just because you've learned to appreciate Tartare Beaujolais.

When you lose the ability to appreciate the nuggets, you've lost you soul. you've sold out. you've become one of them.

;-)
 
I see it like this.... (this is a very rough summarization of a rather complex thought process... difficult to describe)

Poor technical, poor subject, poor location , bad aesthetics = YUCK!

Poor technical, good subject, poor location, good aesthetics = Maybe Good, probably not... depends on viewer, and what was good and bad (and this is true of any 2 out of 4 image.. with the merits in any order).

Poor technical, good subject, good location, good aesthetics = Good image (and almost any 3 out of 4 ( in any order) can be a good image..)

Good technical, good subject, good location, good aesthetics = GREAT image (and to me, a great image needs all four!)

Of course, there are always exceptions.. where just a single good can outweigh all of the bad... but those are unusual images.

( and a lot of the above is very subjective also.. depends entirely on the viewer!) (just my thoughts... )
 
Any time you get relatively insular groups of people passing opinions and ideas around, those opinions and ideas tend to get distilled and to evolve into pure silliness.

The "Art World" is a pretty good example of this.
Internet forums are another pretty good example of this.

If you want to know if your photograph is "good" you're not going to find out posting it on an internet forum. What you will find out is a set of reactions from a pretty small community of people who have been living in an echo chamber for more or less time, and that can be interesting as well. As long you don't confuse it for absolute judgements, you'll do fine.

Internet forums about photography tend to place far too much importance on technical details, because that's what people can agree on, and it's what relative newcomers tend to focus on. How sharp is it? Is it in focus? Does the lighting match some more or less arbitrary standard of how lighting is supposed to look? Did you use an expensive camera? Does the histogram look like it is "supposed to" whatever that means? And so on. All of this can actually be quite interesting, often helpful, occasionally hilarious. It's not at all the same thing as "is it any good?"
 
Its like the wine snobs. You and me see something that tastes good and makes ugly women marginally more attractive. Snobs on the other hand can prattle on for hours about a bottle wine that came from the north east corner of some grape field in some far off baguette-oriented country. Photographers are the same. To me a cool photo is a cool photo. I don't care if you took it on a point and shoot or used some camera made mostly out of stones, twine and animals hides.

When you can't see the forest for the tree or the wine for the grapes it's time to take a step back and reevaluate life.
 
In the end I think its always important to keep your gut.


As you develop as a photographer (or as any form of artist or craftsman) you'll see your own skills improving through time. Alongside that you'll also see a change in your tastes and your own standards. The better you get and the more you study the higher those standards tend to become and thus the more critical one can become of ones own work.
Indeed its a risky time because you can end up losing track of your gut feeling of "I like/dislike" and you end up thinking "Should" I like/dislike this. It's not a bad question to answer, but its a risk that it can come to dominate your view on photography (especially your own). The problem is the more you think "should" the more those "rules" of composition and exposure start to become more and more rules and less guidelines.

So don't lose your gut feelings; allow them to change for certain, but always keep a hold of them. Also I tend to find that its very easy to be overly self critical of work when you've only just completed taking the photos. Sometimes I'll hold back a week (I'm a hobbyist I can do that ;)) before I'll really sit down and look at some photos, because then I've not got a 1001 "you should have done" thoughts in my head. Instead I'm able to view the photos as photos without worrying about "what I did wrong".
 
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"?

My own belief is that technical issues, including composition, don't count unless they interfere with the impact and your enjoyment of the image. And so you can see that as you get more sophisticated and your tastes change or get more subtle and appreciative of different issues, then your value will differ from the values of someone with less experience, etc.

That being said, since you must manage the technical issues, again including composition, of your own images, you are perhaps improperly sensitized to the technical issues and so assign them more importance than they deserve.
Look at any picture and ask yourself whether you like it and whether any technical issues you see would make you like it more.
Force yourself to push back from the technical rules and elements that make up an image and look at pictures as an entire construct.

This is latest picture of my own that I like a lot.
Do I care about the technical issues? Not at all.
Could they be better/different? Maybe but changes aren't important.

It is only when technical issues hurt your appreciation of an image that it falls apart from a window into an alternate reality and become a set of technical issues.
 
I have zero interest in what is "generally considered to be good".

if I wanted that, I'd be taking pictures of sunsets, half dome and moulton barn positioned on the left or right third of the frame and the Tetons in the background. Nothing holds back photography more than this attitude.
 
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"?

My take on "bad subjects" is that it's the viewers problem. If I see a photo and am thinking it's boring, that's my problem, not the photographer's. The photographer obviously thought it was interesting enough to photograph, so then I must be the one who's missing the point. But that's MY problem, not the photographers.

Cliche subjects are the only thing that differs. The cliche is an attempt to live vicariously through other photographers by emulating their work. It's not so much about the subject, it's about the photograph they has seen before.
 
I have zero interest in what is "generally considered to be good".

if I wanted that, I'd be taking pictures of sunsets, half dome and moulton barn positioned on the left or right third of the frame and the Tetons in the background. Nothing holds back photography more than this attitude.

Don't forget to include sun glare / haze, and selective color! ;) (ohhh.. and a HUGE Watermark!) lol!

I agree... much of what is considered good today is driven by Facebook / MWAC photography! Or copying previous photographers that started a particular genre.....
 
The "importance of the subject matter" and the "artistic value" are two different things.

Pictures of one's great grandparents might be important, but not artistic.

A prize-winning photograph of nothing in particular still wins the prize.

I don't know what "keeps it real" for you.

Use whatever system works for you.
 
Artists are not always happy, some even cut off an ear to prove a point. Do art for yourself because not everyone sees it the way you do. Back in the day I went for the money....commercial advertising, photographer friends were always chasing "art" and fine art prints. They would live in a crap building, have to wait until they had enough money to buy film and paper, do shows where people would like their work and maybe sell one print. This thread will be very interesting as it progresses as those that think they know tell others how wrong they are. You got to love this because it will make your blood circulate and make you feel warm and fuzzy all over.
 
If I like it. It's good. :thumbup:
If Joe or Jane Doe thinks it's less than good, Joe and Jane are entitled to their opinion too. :biglaugh:
 
I have zero interest in what is "generally considered to be good".

if I wanted that, I'd be taking pictures of sunsets, half dome and moulton barn positioned on the left or right third of the frame and the Tetons in the background. Nothing holds back photography more than this attitude.

Don't forget to include sun glare / haze,

My two current pet hates of many new computer games are the inclusion of sun glare and expectation that my eyes work like a 5 year old entry level DSLR with regard to dynamic range (or in other words really bright parts are just presented as pure white - no detailing).
 
I think that any photographer who says they don't care what other people think of their photos is lying, especially if they willing post their photos on an online forum.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top