Differentiating photo niches

The_Traveler

Completely Counter-dependent
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
18,743
Reaction score
8,047
Location
Mid-Atlantic US
Website
www.lewlortonphoto.com
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I was reading a comment by Mannheim and he made some reference to street photography as opposed to candid photography.

That stirred me to make up this diagram below.

The only two that aren't self-explanatory are 'complex' and 'objective.'

'Complex' photos are those that intentionally use different areas as important arts of the image rather than just incidental support for the main intent. An example of a omplex image would be a yong woman posed beside a waterfall and stream where the beauty of the two natural features are significant parts of the image.

"Objective' images are those where an object or objects are the main subject of the image, e.g. a vase with flowers in a shaft of light or an intricate set of mechanical cogs.

Note the purposeful overlapping of street and 'candid' and 'street' with 'cityscape.'
I was wondering how this fit with other people's understanding.



diagramof-types_zps345b30d3.jpg
 
Are there axes in here, at all? That is, do you think of left-to-right position or up-and-down position as being meaningful, or is this just about categories and overlaps?
 
This schematic doesn't make much sense to me, Lew...I mean...can there "not be" a complex photo that is also street??? I am not sure what this schematic is attempting to convey. I don't wish to belittle your efforts, but this schematic just doesn't seem to be very useful. The category of "abstract" for example...there are abstracts from the natural world, and those that are man-made. Abstracts can be found at the microscopic level, the macro level, the close-up level, and the distant view level...AND these abstracts can be found in the landscape, in rocks and minerals, in the parts of animals and their feathers, bodies, or fur, or in buildings, fabrics, machines, and so on. I just...don't see how this is supposed to "work".

Not enough holes for all the pigeons...
 
This isn't an end point or even aimed at being useful; I was just trying to sort out different niches
Any comments/redo's are more than welcome - or it may not be worth it.

The only one I was interested in was the overlap of cityscape street and candid
 
Altho I could have put a very, very large circle off by itself, suggested by a friend, for those who love cameras but don't care much for photography.
 
A street photograph may be a candid photograph but a candid photograph may not necessarily take place in the street.
 
Don't like your roadmap Lew.

for 'street photography as opposed to candid photography' Just show some pix to illustrate.

I consider street photo to include street portraits as well. But if the hardcore street shooters reject someone standing still for a street shot, they can argue for that point of view. But I won't go that far.
 
Categorizing photography is surprisingly tricky.

I think that to do it right you probably wind up with a bunch of fairly low level attributes like:

- contains people
- contains natural landscape
- contains urban landscape
- poses questions without answers
- suggests a narrative
- is in color
- in b&w
- and on and on..

and then given whatever attributes the thing has, you can lump it in to one or more named genres.

While potentially kind of interesting to do, it's not clear what the value of the end result would be.
 
I think it's pretty simple.

Capturing a moment - Capturing an emotion.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but that is how most of my stuff breaks down.

$BSgraph.jpg
 
actully, in a way i agree...here is my take on it, and a photovenagraph i made.
i combined abstract and objective as i feel they are opposite sides of the same coin.
yes, there are overlaps....in any and all directions, as well as combinations of subject matter... just my .02

 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top