What's interesting to see vs. what's interesting to photograph

[cherry30]

Ah! I still shoot what catches my eye but, thanx to digital I can review it first. If it looks blah then I try to make it interesting by changing angles and settings. But sometimes it doesnt help but, then again sometimes it does.

I do this too. If i see something interesting, I shoot. If it looks good and if I think it will make my audience want to know more, then I shoot again changing the angles. Maybe if I can be a professional photographer someday, I will be stricter when it comes to what i shoot.

 

[skieur]

This is a great discussion, and very helpful for beginners like me. I never thought of it this way, I've simply been taking pictures of what I find interesting, and then seeing how it turns out. But it's true, the camera can't capture what the eyes can, it's like an act of translation, though visually.

But, I have a question, how would you define impact value, because that can be different to different people?

Impact value is made up of two areas: the subject that you have chosen to shoot and the impact you give it through your photographic methods.

In order to accomplish the second, you need to really know the technical side related to lenses, metering, exposure, depth of field, shutter speed etc., so that any technical problems that show up in your work are minor in nature as in perhaps a little crop, bringing up a little more detail in a dark area etc.

Assuming that your technical work is at the appropriate level, the next area is composition and that gets into the effect of lighting, texture, colour, lines, curves, paths, horizontals, verticals, juxtaposition framing, and placement of elements within the photo. www.photoinf.com covers some of the basics of composition well.

A big part of composition is the centre of interest or your subject because that should be the reason for taking the photo in the first place. To put it another way, the viewer's eye should be led into the photo to centre on some element in the picture. If the eye wanders all over the photo at random and the viewer's eye is drawn elsewhere away from the picture then the photographer has failed. The photographer cannot communicate anything to the viewer, if he/she does NOT get his/her visual attention.

Sometimes style and approach can create impact. There are a lot of cliché flower photos around which makes them visually boring unless there is something unique about a particular shot. One answer: shoot flowers during a heavy rain or while they are being watered. Backlight the flowers and the rain through your camera position or make use of a low ISO to give you a dark background and shoot on a slight diagonal toward the light.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

There is also the small point of what is interesting or of value to YOU vs what everyone else will find interesting.

Who will you shoot for, yourself or others? When I am on one of my times when I am just playing or practicing certain aspects, I can literally take hundreds of pics that mean nothing to the rest of the world, but have intense meaning to me.

If you are shooting for yourself, it is easier to please yourself and find things that you like. If you are (for example), shooting a wedding and you are now shooting for the B&G and the parents and guests, your chances of finding ONE picture that everyone loves equally well are slim to none.

You then target the pictures to suit your audience. In which case, YOU may not find the picture of Aunt Nessie picking her nose very important, but her family will find it extremely comical, love it and may even PAY you for it.

Question comes down to... who are you trying to please? If yourself, other opinions do not matter much. If others, their opinions matter more than yours.

 

[skieur]

There is also the small point of what is interesting or of value to YOU vs what everyone else will find interesting.

Question comes down to... who are you trying to please? If yourself, other opinions do not matter much. If others, their opinions matter more than yours.

What is interesting or of value to you is somewhat irrelevant, in that the purpose of taking a photo is to show it to others. The challenge of a good photographer is to take something that is interesting to him/her and make it equally interesting to the average viewer using the various tools and techniques of photography at his/her command. Most of the great photographers were great because they were able to succeed in communicating their own interest to others through their photos.

So it is not so much trying to please anyone, you are trying to express what you find interesting and valuable in a visually effective way and communicate that view or feeling to others who see the photo. Like in any other mode of expression/communication, certain skills and knowledge is required.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

What is interesting or of value to you is somewhat irrelevant, in that the purpose of taking a photo is to show it to others.

Maybe in your world, my friend, certainly not the case in mine. I would say that for me, its about 75% for my eyes only and 20% for family and 5% for friends and public.

I am sure that if I looked at 100% of your pics, you could find pictures that have great meaning for you but are not even worthy of comment from me. Not because they were good or bad, but simply because they had NO meaning to me.

Now once (if) I decide to turn pro, I am not so naiive to not know that the tables are turned and that outside critique has value from someone other than myself (the client or the person paying, if you will).

Ever wonder why I've only posted *1* pic in almost a year for critique? Its certainly not because I do not want critique... its merely that the pictures that I take I can critique myself based on their meaning to me, not to anyone else. Was it not Garbz a few weeks ago that discussed a picture that MEANT something to him... a family member? It was a basically technically crappy picture, yet it held great value to him... not to you, me or likely anyone else on this board. Showing this pic and asking for a critique would be insulting to his perceived value of that picture and a total waste of his time.

Photography is not strictly about showing your pics to others, its about the pleasure of learning, of relaxation, of the enjoyment. Yes, yes, yes, you can share your pics with others, maybe most do... but it is not an exclusive and 100% ONLY existing point of view that everyone shares... certainly not one that I share.

There are many reasons to ask or give or NOT ask or be willing to accept a critique.

The world is not black and white (pun intended... lol) and what is interesting and of value to me... at this point in time... is the ONLY thing that matters to me. Your reason for taking pictures is *obviously* not the same reason I have for squeezing the shutter and I bet if we polled people here why they take pictures, more will side with my reasons (pleasure fun, learning) than will side with yours (to share pics, and be critiqued so you could learn and "improve").

I think that my attitude stems from the fact that I am not born to this world to impress anyone else other than myself. Whether that impresses others or not... well in the end their opinion of me and my pictures means nothing. I am the one that has to live with my results. If I am not happy... what is the reason I am doing this anyways if not for my own pleasure? None... at least for me.

How does this branch out to business concepts? Very basically, if what you are doing day-in and day-out is fun and pleasure, its NEVER work. It's like my current business... I never considered it work, and I get up each and every morning laughing inside with pleasure that people are PAYING me to PLAY 10-14 hours a day!

 

[Alleh Lindquist]

I don't think it has as much to do with things not being interesting to photograph but rather how to take interesting photos of your subjects.

 

[Fox Paw]

JerryPH, that was an interesting and thought-provoking post.

 

[netfiltering]

Impact value is made up of two areas: the subject that you have chosen to shoot and the impact you give it through your photographic methods.

In order to accomplish the second, you need to really know the technical side related to lenses, metering, exposure, depth of field, shutter speed etc., so that any technical problems that show up in your work are minor in nature as in perhaps a little crop, bringing up a little more detail in a dark area etc.

Thanks for your thorough response. For now, since my technical skills are probably not up to par, I will think of it like you said, as the effectiveness of drawing the viewer to the point of interest. This just grounds it even further for me that the technical aspect is just as important if not more so than the artistic/creative aspect of photography.

 

[Chiller]

I do two types of photography. I call one my "memory" shots. They are the ones that, I just point the camera and shoot it with minimal thinking. It is those shots that are "hey, I was there shot", and cant be bothered making a big deal out of it. The other images are more personal. My view of something I saw, and are more thought out then just my "memory" shots.
We had a few Toronto meet ups, and I was always amazed at how 5 or 6 of us could shoot the same subject, and come out with different visions of the same subject.

 

[DRoberts]

What is interesting or of value to you is somewhat irrelevant...

skieur

I in general agree with your thought except this one line.
Saying that "What is interesting or of value to you is somewhat irrelevant..." just doesn't work. In order for someone to be a "great" photographer there has to be dedication or a strong personal feeling towards the content of their photos.
For example, do you think that world famous wildlife photographers just don't really give a crap about wildlife? Are true professional sports photographers fans? Of course they are. That's what makes their photos so great. They have a connection with the game...they know the game, the players,what envokes emotion in the fans as well as themselves. By having that interest or value, that you have disregarded, is how they are able to tell the story of the game in their photos.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

...many things that are intriguing to look at, and even beautiful in some way, do not make interesting subjects for a photograph.

This is not actually true.
Anything can be used to create a good picture. It is the art of the photographer to do this.
Good pictures do not make themselves.
People go through several phases in Photography.
At first they believe that every picture they take is wonderful - but most realise at some point this isn't so.
They then decide that it is the subject matter that makes the picture - that a beautiful picture is nothing more than a picture of something beautiful. Some may eventually discover that this isn't so either. That it is easier to take an ugly picture of something nice than it is to take a nice picture of something ugly.
They then think that lighting and composition are all it takes. That a good picture is one that has 'visual impact'. This is true on a superficial level and it is certainly all that is required of a 'commercial' image.
But one or two find that this is still not enough. That there can be something more.
And that comes from inside the photographer.
It is the ability to see something interesting, exciting, intriguing and beautiful in all things - and then to be able to use photography to communicate that vision to the viewer.
People can get stuck at any level (moving on to the next one can be very difficult and some never make the jump) but this doesn't matter.
All that matters is that you enjoy taking pictures and have some fun.
But if you should ever start to feel dissatisfied with what you are taking... Well, get ready to make the move to the next level.

 

[monkeykoder]

Only one slight correction to Hertz you can conceptualize all the way to the top and still be stuck well behind there.

 

[craig]

Truer words were never spoken Hertz. That may be a little dramatic, but you get my point.

Love & Bass

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Only one slight correction to Hertz you can conceptualize all the way to the top and still be stuck well behind there.

And people who take their technical ability all the way to the top are nothing if they don't understand what they are trying to do in their pictures.
Technical ability and 'vision' have to go hand in hand.
Technical ability without vision is sterile.
Vision without technical ability leads to frustration.
It's a bit like a game of leapfrog

But I would point out that professionals in the 70's, 80's and 90's (and probably even now) never processed or printed their own films. They used labs.
A number of very successful 'art' photographers around the same time also used labs to process and print. They didn't feel that they were good enough to do justice to their own work.
This would seem to indicate that vision is more important than technical ability.
Or maybe it's more like 'singers' being created in the recording studio.
I have an open mind on the subject.

 

[monkeykoder]

It is more the vision lagging behind the concept.