"What are you trying to say with this shot?"

[Joves]

Hell I just shoot things I see through my travels. No deeper meaning so, Im guessing Im a minimalist pretty much. The only deeper meaning is I saw it and, it looked interesting to me.

 

[Alex_B]

That says "fun, recreation, reproduction, and procreation" to me..

Oh my god, your brain works so complicated.

For me it is simply reproduction ... or was it procreation?

 

[Bifurcator]

LOL! Yup, that's me... Overly complicated. I like to think of it as "sophistication" though.

 

[Garbz]

I don't think a photograph has to have a message. But what it does have to have is an emotion. A photograph which doesn't inspire an emotion of some kind is instantly forgotten.

But the key is also to be a good photograph it doesn't have to inspire an emotion for everyone. I took a photo of grandma a few years ago with a point and shoot, direct flash. Subject centred, slightly out of focus too as she was preparing food at a family feast. The mirror behind her with bevelled edges reflected the flash too. I think the photo is horrible.
She on the other hand, a religious old lady, nearly cried when she saw the flash directly over her head and refracting from the bevelled edges almost creating a halo. So while I was about to delete it, she has framed it an hung it in the dining room.

Hope that story emphasises the point. Even a snapshot can have the deepest of meanings to some people.

 

[JerryPH]

Even a snapshot can have the deepest of meanings to some people.

Amen.

 

[Photoguynorth]

That something might just be that the light hitting a flower (or doorknob) was interesting. The problem is when a picture says too much - minimalist pictures work because they have a single item of interest. If you had a scene with a jumble of interesting subjects it would fail to have a message - I look at it like saying 4 sentences jumbled together - it becomes meaningless. Not every sentence is a hugely significant message - but it says *something*. For example, a sunset pic works because it says the sky was beautiful (no deeper meaning needed). But if you had a sunset, with a lighthouse, some joggers and a big rock all prominently featured - then it is not at all obvious what you took the picture for.

 

[Bifurcator]

I took a photo of grandma a few years ago with a point and shoot, direct flash. Subject centred, slightly out of focus too as she was preparing food at a family feast. The mirror behind her with bevelled edges reflected the flash too. I think the photo is horrible.
She on the other hand, a religious old lady, nearly cried when she saw the flash directly over her head and refracting from the bevelled edges almost creating a halo. So while I was about to delete it, she has framed it an hung it in the dining room.

Hope that story emphasises the point.

For me it illustrated that the intensity of the message was affected by subjectivity and potentially completely different as a result of that subjectivity.

I guess the only photograph that holds absolutely no message or meaning is the one that no one is aware of - including the photographer themselves.

 

[JerryPH]

I guess the only photograph that holds absolutely no message or meaning is the one that no one is aware of - including the photographer themselves.

I almost agree. For me, the only photograph that holds no message or meaning... is the one that is missed or never taken.

Any and every picture that is taken with purpose will have some meaning (small or large), to someone somewhere. It may not be obvious nor profound, it may not be the photographer that feels this, but I sure bet that it does something to someone somewhere. This I feel is most true.

 

[BTilson]

I'll chime back in here really quickly, since I am the OP and several comments have been directed at me. There is definitely a difference between meaning and message. I fully agree that every photograph has some meaning, some intention, some purpose.

That is to say, being in control of your technique enough so that the viewer can get the essence of your intention.

I fully agree here as well. I think maybe I misworded my original post somewhat. What I was wondering about was the attitude that if the "essence of your intention" wasn't some grand observation about humanity or some other "deep" meaning, but instead was to show a unique view of an interesting object or something similarly "shallow", then your photograph wasn't worth looking at. THAT is what I disagree with.

Seems I started up a nice discussion here. *pats self on back*

Thanks for all the conversation everyone!

 

[Photonic Harmony]

I've not come across this attitude before, in anyone. If someone did share that view I'd say they're pretty narrow minded and naive where photography is concerned.

Still, they're entitled to their own line of thinking.

 

[youbetcha1018]

They say that every photographer expresses their feelings through their shots/works. If they saw a very wonderful place and fell inlove with it, they will take a good capture of that scene, no meaning but still the feeling is there.

 

[abraxas]

Certainly, every shot has to say something to be worthwhile to look at, even if it is, -just a pretty day, or a beautiful flower. However, I occasionally find it enjoyable to attempt to manipulate the viewers feelings into something they weren't expecting, to come away from the image different from when they went in. To say this should be a requirement in every photo is a bit outlandish. I would never discount trying to incorporate a deeper meaning into a photo for the sake being contrary to what others have either miscommunicated or I misunderstood.

 

[DeadEye]

I've been asked that question, and sometimes it makes sense. Even in modeling photography, I try to paint a STORY behind the photo. For example:

That picture is about the model's duality. Outwardly she's a nice girl, who feels somewhat lost, but behind that version of her there is a darker person, someone who knows what she wants, but feels trapped and cannot come out.

Perhaps that's too much for most people to read, but it was what I was thinking when I took the photo.

Then again, some photos are just PHOTOS. When asked what the deeper meaning in this shot was:

I'd simply say... "the model is HOT!"

RM ~ Gotta say the first image spoke to me. It held my attention, made my one good eye wonder about with interest as to what story there was there. Thoughts were well she ~ could be ~ Displaced from a party above ~ Drunk and or depressed ~ ect ect . A great image that held my attention and had me looking for a story in it.

The second could not hold me. It was simply a hot model without a story to tell. Technically good but lacking in interest due to being a norm. Viewers like to see things out of the norm because that is what makes them interesting.

If say in the first image the model has just walking down the stairs it would have been a norm and the "holding" would have been lost for me.

Just my opinions.

Thanks RT for a few great images to disguess this topic over.

:thumbup::thumbup:

 

[cherry30]

Maybe because sometimes when we take a shot we have a story as to where it was taken, what made you take it, who was with you, etc... This may be the reason why people always ask the story behind your every picture.

 

[switchesmd]

It's the age old question of the value of art. Once the photo is snapped though, and it's out of your hands, also the interpretation leaves your hands. That's the beauty of it. The meaning is more in the eyes of the person seeing the photo than it is in the hands of the person who took it. Once your photo is displayed it no longer matters your intentions--rather what matters is its value to the viewer and any responses it may stir up.