The $1000 Photo

[keith204]

Take a type of photography. EXAMPLE: Basketball. What would make the perfect basketball photo?

Or, baseball... racing, soccer, gothic portrait, aerial photo, etc. Just give an idea of what would make a photo "perfect" in your opinion.

 

[ScottS]

When its worth a million words instead of a thousand....

That's just the thing, whats perfect to one person, is just OK to the next.

 

[yardism]

What makes one photo Pulitzer Prize worthy and not another? I agree, its mostly subjective. Some of the famous photos aren't exactly great shots except in the story they tell. Technical perfection certainly isn't it, eg. Iwo Jima Flag, Vietnamese Napalm Victim, The Kiss (WWII sailor celebrating), etc.

 

[keith204]

in dirt track racing, that 'perfect shot' (in general, IMO, etc of course) is when the back tires are kicking the back of the car out to the side, and the front tires have to turn the opposite way to keep the car going in the right direction.

Obviously there are other poses that make the 'perfect picture' depending on who is spending their money! But, this is just for ideas.

Does anyone have advice in their specialty?

 

[hyakuhei]

Nice shot there, positioning could be better though IMHO...

I.e, lower, a little further away and 10-20 degrees to the left.
Of course I realise this most likely isn't possible but the lower elevation would draw the viewer into the photo more and the rotation would really show off the angle of attack and improve the "speed" effect.

I wouldn't be that picky normally but unless you nearly die taking the photo, I ain't giving you the $1000

 

[shundaroni]

A $1000 photo had better tell a very interesting story. I have yet to see a single photo that I would shell out that kind of cash for strictly on the basis of artistic merit.

Especially nowadays, with near-global access to the "tools of the trade" that allow for advanced photography and post-processing, the value of aesthetic work, in my own eyes, has declined substantially. In truth, it's largely a matter of simple economics...supply and demand. At one time in the not-so-distant past, seeing a Dragan photo, for example, would have been remarkable. Today, anyone with a pirated copy of Photoshop and access to Google can produce a near-perfect replica.

The exclusivity of pretty pictures doesn't really exist anymore. But, at the same time, with the prevalence of digital cameras and our flood of media photographers, just pressing the shutter release at the appropriate time to capture a significant event isn't really all that impressive either. For $1000, I would demand a mix of both aesthetics and historical importance. As an example, I was browsing through Getty's shots from Bhutto's assassination yesterday, and none of them are worth $1000 because the key photos (of the moment before the shots were fired and of the following explosion) were out of focus and showed no sign of composition. Sure, it's a little demanding, but that's just the way it is anymore.

 

[usayit]

Nice shot...

the thing that I've never really liked about automotive/autosports photos is that they always seem to lack the human aspect that is so important to the sport. All you ever see is some car navigating some course. The car doesn't show any emotion.. no zest. It doesn't look different in one photo from the next.

I saw a photo posted on the internet a few years ago that captured the disappointment of competitor's DNF due to a failed engine... that was one I did like.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

A $1000 photo had better tell a very interesting story. I have yet to see a single photo that I would shell out that kind of cash for strictly on the basis of artistic merit.

Especially nowadays, with near-global access to the "tools of the trade" that allow for advanced photography and post-processing, the value of aesthetic work, in my own eyes, has declined substantially. In truth, it's largely a matter of simple economics...supply and demand. At one time in the not-so-distant past, seeing a Dragan photo, for example, would have been remarkable. Today, anyone with a pirated copy of Photoshop and access to Google can produce a near-perfect replica.

The exclusivity of pretty pictures doesn't really exist anymore. But, at the same time, with the prevalence of digital cameras and our flood of media photographers, just pressing the shutter release at the appropriate time to capture a significant event isn't really all that impressive either. For $1000, I would demand a mix of both aesthetics and historical importance. As an example, I was browsing through Getty's shots from Bhutto's assassination yesterday, and none of them are worth $1000 because the key photos (of the moment before the shots were fired and of the following explosion) were out of focus and showed no sign of composition. Sure, it's a little demanding, but that's just the way it is anymore.

I could not disagree more about the Bhutto photos by John Moore. Even though some are out of focus and there is a lack of composition, they are nontheless, compelling images. The photographer was shooting under extreme duress and being jostled about as he shot, plus I would imagine his own fear and adrenaline kicked in as well. It is a hell of a thing to try and shoot while at the same time trying to save your own life. I found the photos fascinating. Usually in times like this, a PJ's instincts will kick in and all he is usually concerned with is trying to get a shot- any kind of shot of a volatile situation. I am sure that proper composition was the last thing on his mind.:lmao:

 

[VJM]

A $1,000.00 photo ?

Front cover of a Ranger Rick issue .... that's a $1,000. photo to me.

 

[Big Bully]

A $1000 photo had better tell a very interesting story. I have yet to see a single photo that I would shell out that kind of cash for strictly on the basis of artistic merit.

Especially nowadays, with near-global access to the "tools of the trade" that allow for advanced photography and post-processing, the value of aesthetic work, in my own eyes, has declined substantially. In truth, it's largely a matter of simple economics...supply and demand. At one time in the not-so-distant past, seeing a Dragan photo, for example, would have been remarkable. Today, anyone with a pirated copy of Photoshop and access to Google can produce a near-perfect replica.

The exclusivity of pretty pictures doesn't really exist anymore. But, at the same time, with the prevalence of digital cameras and our flood of media photographers, just pressing the shutter release at the appropriate time to capture a significant event isn't really all that impressive either. For $1000, I would demand a mix of both aesthetics and historical importance. As an example, I was browsing through Getty's shots from Bhutto's assassination yesterday, and none of them are worth $1000 because the key photos (of the moment before the shots were fired and of the following explosion) were out of focus and showed no sign of composition. Sure, it's a little demanding, but that's just the way it is anymore.

I personally think that the Bhutto pictures were jam packed with emotion and telling a story. Especially since he put all of the photo's in a series of events type setting. If any one of those pictures were taken out of that series the set of pictures would be ruined. But I think that the pictures that are blury or have a spinning type composition to them, really express the emotion of the time.

A $1000 to me.. would be a truely once in a life time shot. Whether or not the picture has to do with motorsports, kids, landscape, nature of some sort, doesn't matter. As long as it wasn't your typical average shot.