The real picture -- The big kahuna

[bogleric]

Does anyone else ever feel like the "big picture" is lost in many photographs because the photographer got too concerned with the "artsy" part of it. Lately when I look around, not just in the forum, it seems like the overall story is discarded.

So at what point does the artsy stuff just have to suffer to let the real picture shine through?

 

[Jeff Canes]

:scratch: i need to think about this

 

[Dew]

for me personally .. i shoot what i see .. im not always concerned about the technical or the art ... each photo i shoot with whatever feels right ... if my highlights are blown .. then their blown ... if the angle is too off.. then its off ... if i crop it too tight ... then its cropped

i feel like, its my photo and i can shoot it the way i want regardless of rule

i also like to direct my subjects (if its people) .. i dont have that much confidence in people that they will do the right thing in front of the camera ... i need to take full control and leave them with little

overall, the photo has to be aestetically appealing to me .. no validation necessary

 

[ksmattfish]

I don't know if I understand what you are asking.

I guess I don't feel that it is necessary for a photo to contain a story or art. It can be some of both, or only one or the other. It depends what the photographer's vision is. I see lots of documentary photos that I feel contain little art, and there are abstracts that have no story, but are still beautiful photographs.

I can't remember who said it, but isn't there a famous quote that goes something along the lines of "There is nothing worse than a bad idea executed perfectly", or maybe it goes the other way "nothing worse than a good idea executed poorly".

I try to avoid worrying about what is and isn't art. To me it's like arguing about what is a cloud. The scientist and the poet will have completely different conceptions of the same thing. I'm like Dew; I'm more worried about whether it makes me happy (or fulfills some other need) as the creator.

 

[terri32 3]

I'd have to agree with what Dew and Matt are saying, generally speaking. It would be helpful if you were able to show us an image you felt had lost "the big picture" because the photographer got too lost in the "artsy" part of it. But I appreciate that that's not possible. Maybe you could clarify verbally what you mean?

 

[vonnagy]

Hi Bogleric,
could you give an example of what you are talking about? If you see something of reference in one of my posts, you can thrash it - thats fine

 

[Jeff Canes]

The first think I thought of was Adams F64 philosophy super sharp and no playing around with photographs. Is this a long the line of your thinking or not?

Yes, I have nosiest that artsy technique sometime seems to be the subject of images. I do personally like that. But I understand that techniques need to be practiced. And because of this you get artsy photo with you subject. It is part of the learning for each photographer.
I try to focus on composition and use techniques to save a photo.

 

[Dew]

i think as photographers or hobbyist .. we put too much pressure on ourselves to have the "perfect" picture .... for real .. the average joe smoe doesnt know the difference

my clients always love the ones that im not crazy about ... my hubby's favorite of mine are the ones i think are trash ... its relative .. every photographer/hobbyist have their own bag .. if anything, i think the next photographer is a photographers worst critic

 

[ksmattfish]

Some famous photographer once said something along the lines of never point out the flaws in your images to the viewer, because most likely they won't ever notice them without your help.

I think it's good to be your own hardest critic.

 

[craig]

Yeah, what they said. " Do what you feel and never follow". We all know that photography can be taken on a lot of different levels. Some people measure focus, some people shoot with pinhole cameras. All make art at one point or another.

We can critique photos 'till we are all blue in the face. That is how we develop our craft. The fact remains that somewhere, someone loved that photo. No mortal should judge that.

 

[Dew]

this post got me thinking and hit a cord with me (as u can tell )

i just cant imagine anyone taking a photo that they dont feel passionate about ... my photographs are like my babies (even the crappy ones ) ... photography is so up close and personal

the past few days, i've been photographing painters .. each one of their styles are so different but yet reflects their individual personality ... the first painter i photograph, his art was very urban and chaotic ... very fascinating... exciting ... felt like fire

... the artist i photographed the day after him, his paintings were very different .. very "strict" and conforming .. very "organized" ... colors geled perfectly .. very beautiful paintings ... i could also tell he was a little more conservative (it also showed in the photographs i took of him) ..

i liked the first artist better because i could relate to his "chaotic" sense of style.... but that doesnt make him the better artist ... i felt like his art was more from the heart instead of "the rules of art" ...

however, the second guy had some beautiful paintings right up there with the big boys.... his were more "pretty" ... the other more "wicked"

i beleive there is a place for both of them

i enjoy seeing other's landscape portraits even though i couldnt produce one to save my life


footnote: "you ain't got to give me my props or nominate me, cause dam'mit i love this." - trick daddy

 

[jack]

its difficult to say. i think perhaps somepeople treat the viewfinder
as a canvas and some are purely interested in framing a pre-meditated
subject in a conventional way. those are the opposing extremes.
we all judge a photo-opp at various places in between.

there are cliched things which people, who aim to be recognised
pursue as rites-of-passage. same in painting, playing electric guitar,
dance etc. thats the (perceived) pressures dictating approach, review of
ideas and outcome.

a 24mm on a 35mm cam is useful and versatile lens.
it tells a story. look through the lens and everything looks like a
camera-journo' photo in a broadsheet newspaper. you can be right
in amongst your subject. it gives nice close-up people shots too.

Does anyone else ever feel like the "big picture" is lost in many photographs because the photographer got too concerned with the "artsy" part of it. Lately when I look around, not just in the forum, it seems like the overall story is discarded.

So at what point does the artsy stuff just have to suffer to let the real picture shine through?

 

[bogleric]

It is quite difficult to explain what I have noticed since I can't drag all sorts of photos in here and lay them on the table. Perhaps I won't be able to accurately explain this.

From the people who have replied, I have not noticed this trend in any of their work. Overall I would say that something inspired them and therefore they took the shot, which is excellent. I also realize that people have different tastes, etc..

I suppose the easiest way to explain this is I have seen a lot of pictures lately all over the web where someone had an expert use of one technique, but in turn really destroyed the picture. However they do a disservice and make it to be the best in the world.

I typically take pictures that inspire me an then try to save them with techniques later on if need be. Some rules are good to keep in mind, but none of them should be rock solid and strictly adhered to. This strict adherence is what I am attempting to explain... I think. Overall one little thing is aced and the "big picture" is lost.

Photos should make you experience something when you look at them, something like an emtion or feeling. They aren't just great because of one shadow or something. Anyways I feel like I am beating a dead horse.....

Perhaps I have just made you more confused than I have helped here, but hey its friday and I need the weekend. :?