Image

[danalec99]

Instead of hijacking another thread in the Critique section, I thought it would be best to open a new thread here.


::

'what is it that you are after' really only works for such things as editorials, scrap books, or journalism.

don't tell me what you are after. your photo should be powerful enough to force me to think and feel on my own.

if it is for an editorial, newspaper, or scrap book then, sure, tell me. otherwise, create images that speak for themselves.

Hi Motcon,

Do you mean the image should be powerful enough to force the viewer to think and feel what the creator intended?
If so, could you link an image (or more) that meets the above criteria?

Dan

 

[mysteryscribe]

I had a problem with this answer when it was posted.

Yes the image speaks for itself, good and bad, I agree.

In my opinion the USE of the image makes a huge difference in how it should be viewed for improvements. It is totally unreasonable to judge a candid shot of my daughter to send her grandmother with the same set of criteria as one to hang in the museum of art.

For instance in the case in point.. If the image is going to be used as an example of the architecture in a magazine then the distortion is unacceptable. However if it is going to be used in a brochure for the town's website a small amount of distortion is fine.

I don't think I would haul a view camera to town hall to make an image that is going to be 2"x3" in a brochure. So I think what are you going to be using this image for is a reasonable question in a serious analysis of an image's suitability for the intended purpose.

 

[The_Traveler]

I can't speak for Motcon but it is clear what he means.

If you need a title or text to imbue a picture with meaning, the picture is a failure. Pictures should convey a story, an emotion, an idea without a text or title to 'explain' what the viewer should see.

It may not be the 'complete story' but the emotion or idea captured should already be there. Remember the famous Kodak commercials of puppies playing. The images alone made you laugh and smile; you didn't need a title to say happy puppies.

 

[danalec99]

If you need a title or text to imbue a picture with meaning, the picture is a failure. Pictures should convey a story, an emotion, an idea without a text or title to 'explain' what the viewer should see.

It may not be the 'complete story' but the emotion or idea captured should already be there. Remember the famous Kodak commercials of puppies playing. The images alone made you laugh and smile; you didn't need a title to say happy puppies.

I did not imply that an image needs a title or text to exist. In fact I'm of the opinion that text limits the potential of an image and the viewing experience.

The puppy shot would be classified under editorial, scrapshot, snap, and/or pj. A typical image from Darfur or Dharavi needs no explanation. That's not the issue here.
I'm looking for 'successful' images which lie outside the photographic disciplines mentioned.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Im sorry the only images in a vacumm to me are on the wall in a museum and you know their purpose. Maybe in a book as well.

When I shoot an image it is usually to test a camera but when I shoot one for a wedding it is usually meatball and I don't think it is museum quality but the people generally like it. That is my point.

 

[The_Traveler]

I'm looking for 'successful' images which lie outside the photographic disciplines mentioned.

I think that I'll bow out here. I can find images that are powerful and meaningful to me and these could all be non-meaningful, non-powerful to you and neither of the impacts would prove either point.

Lew

 

[mysteryscribe]

Since i shoot posters now and then, I would have a hard time agreeing with most of the people here about this. Hertz and I used to go around and around about this to.

I'm sorry I find the text complimentary to the picture. By the way this is the color which a salt print would have been. One of the earliest forms of photography.

 

[abraxas]

... I can find images that are powerful and meaningful to me and these could all be non-meaningful, non-powerful to you and neither of the impacts would prove either point.
...

If they don't speak for themselves to everyone the same wouldn't that be failure?

 

[mysteryscribe]

exactly an image says a lot more than I have the right elements. The more is what makes it one thing or another thing to someone else. That is based on what they bring to it from their personal experiences.

 

[JC1220]

If they don't speak for themselves to everyone the same wouldn't that be failure?

No, everyone does not bring the same level of maturity in viewing photographs to the table.

 

[abraxas]

... That is based on what they bring to it from their personal experiences.

I think it's more about personal experience than maturity.

 

[danalec99]

In my opinion the USE of the image makes a huge difference in how it should be viewed for improvements. It is totally unreasonable to judge a candid shot of my daughter to send her grandmother with the same set of criteria as one to hang in the museum of art.

That's a great example. The intent matters.


--

I'm sorry I find the text complimentary to the picture.

When you add text in or outside the image, you are forcing the viewer to think what you have to say, you've set the boundary; instead of letting the minds free. More power to you, if that's your goal. :thumbup:

 

[mysteryscribe]

It is to focus them on the posters meaning ... It unlike a pure foto isn't really open to free interpretation. If you dont agree with the sentiment then you wouldn't be interested which most arent