Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: RogerW on February 26, 2010, 05:32:10 am
-
A great article about the thought process involved in making a photograph. I reckon this should be compulsory reading for all aspiring camera club members! How about making it available as a pdf?
-
I think the question "what is this photograph about" it just the tip of the iceberg. The more difficult question is why is the "what" interesting? And even more difficult, interesting to me, the observer, as opposed to interesting to the photographer (to put a bit of a spin Jay Maisel's "If it's not interesting to you, why would it be interesting to me?" question)
-
This is a wonderful article!
Exactly what I've been thinking about.
Helps to discern and give words to what I've been thinking, and how I'm starting to have a process!
I'll think of it this morning while trying to capture a panorama on the way to work.
OK
fanboy rocco
-
It's an excellent article with tremendous insight into something that should be so simple to see,
but clearly is not always.
Thanks for posting.
-
Yes, I think this was a good article and I think it asks a useful question. I even take on board the final comment:
When you look at your own photographs, ask yourself that simple qustion and see what answers you come up with. In the end, if you can't answer the question convincingly, maybe the shot is not as successful as you might have thought it to be.
That seems more about the question than the answer. But still I come back with: Why does a photograph have to be "about" anything?
Here's a favourite shot of mine. You don't have to like it, but I do. Perhaps I'm overly fond of it. Who knows?
(http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs45/f/2009/124/7/1/Forster_Dusk_1_by_mfunnell.jpg) (http://mfunnell.deviantart.com/art/Forster-Dusk-1-121401500)
I don't think it's "about" anything. I could come up with various after-the-fact constructions about what it is "about" but they'd all be, well, BS - and they wouldn't explain why I like the photo. (Please remember, you don't have to like it.)
But the fact I don't think it's "about" anything at all doesn't stop me from liking the photo. I have plenty of photos that are about things, but this isn't one. I like this one better than many of "them". Is that wrong?
...Mike
-
Mike
No, it isn't wrong, and I agree with you 100%.
What you must never forget is that people have different agendas, and for some it's all about marketing their wares/services. There is NOTHING wrong with that, but one should never forget that it is only by making statements that make people wonder about themselves and their own abilities that selling opportunities can be created out of the void.
As I said, that's perfectly legitimate, just another form of business and it's up to the individual to take it or leave it, as is this post. Either way, if somebody gets a kick out of following advice - great.
The one place where I would suggest the 'What's it about' message is on target is stock. They sell concepts - answers to generalised questions that can be articulated in that manner.
Rob C
-
Mike, I'd disagree that your photo isn't "about" anything. Without the person alone on the dock and the pelican in the water, it would indeed be not "about" anything, and it would be a bore. But with those in there, what it's "about ", at least to me, is someone enjoying a peaceful evening outdoors. The person is alone on a quiet dock, and we know the surroundings are peaceful because of the calm water and the bird swimming in it, and it makes me want to be that person on the dock. That's what it's "about" to me, and it's a reasonably powerful subject. There's definitely an "about" there...
Lisa
-
... Why does a photograph have to be "about" anything?...
Because it always is... A photograph is always about something... a thing or concept, fact or feeling, documenting or interpreting, concrete or abstract, consciously or subconsciously, in the author's eye or in the eye of the beholder. Whether you intend it or not, there is always a story behind a photograph. You do not have to spell it out, but the story is there. The story could be different for different people, but some story it is. Some photographs could speak volumes, some are more like a haiku, but they do speak. Some are speaking in heavy prose, some are like a music to our ears, but we do "hear" them, as much as we see them.
-
is it possible that the something or about is nothing? Then one can say it is about nothing, wich is different that it is nothing, no?
-
I suggest Mike's photo IS about something. But of course only Mike knows. In spite of his denial, there was a reason for him to hit the shutter button wasn't there?
Com on Mike! Spill the beans.
Gene
-
I suggest Mike's photo IS about something. But of course only Mike knows. In spite of his denial, there was a reason for him to hit the shutter button wasn't there?
Com on Mike! Spill the beans.
Gene
But Gene, I think he already has told you: it is about nothing except that he liked the shape/colour/whatever; that does not imply a narrative, without which there cannot be an 'about'. I have no difficulty in accepting such a concept - indeed, my own 'painting' pics are most certainly not about anything at all, just blobs that please me. There is no story. That certainly doesn't preclude third parties from having ideas or interpretations, but those are their problems, their constructs, nothing to do with the pictures as made!
Rob C
-
... it is about nothing except that he liked the shape/colour/whatever;...
Isn't it about the shape/color/whatever then?
-
Isn't it about the shape/color/whatever then?
But the shape and colour are not about anything...?
Rob C
-
I suggest Mike's photo IS about something. But of course only Mike knows. In spite of his denial, there was a reason for him to hit the shutter button wasn't there?
Com on Mike! Spill the beans.
Gene
Well, I liked the colours around dusk and the quality of light reflecting off the water. I had an idea of how I wanted the geometry of the shot to look. I waited for the pelican to swim into view, because pelicans had been something of a theme of photos taken during the trip I was on. When the girl on the pier seemed to pose "just so" I brought the camera to my eye and took the shot.
But it wasn't "about" the pelican, or the girl, or the reflections. If it was "about" anything it was about the quality of the light and an arrangement of elements that appealed to me, for whatever reason. But if that is an "about" then all photos are about that: light and framing and arranging elements within the frame.
I think more than that is needed for a photo to be "about" something. Perhaps not a lot more - this photo, for example, is about something without having to make it slap-in-the-face obvious:
(http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs23/f/2007/345/d/7/QVB_Bicycles_1_by_mfunnell.jpg) (http://mfunnell.deviantart.com/art/QVB-Bicycles-1-71921363)
...Mike
-
is it possible that the something or about is nothing? Then one can say it is about nothing, wich is different that it is nothing, no?
Sounds like a Seinfeld episode
-
A great article about the thought process involved in making a photograph. I reckon this should be compulsory reading for all aspiring camera club members! How about making it available as a pdf?
I take it this is about Lamp & ladder on the front page of the site? I posted a while ago in the forum in respect to looking at images. If in reality I don't ever see an image similar or the same as Lamp & ladder then how do I "set up" in my mind what has been detailed in the narrative? In real life I normally try hard not to have a lamp post in any of my images so that doesn't help me. You can only see what is in front of you and while taking an image I won't be thinking of what Michael stated if none of the elements are there. This might sound as if I don't have much of an imagination and this is probably so? I know all about the so called rules and use some of them sometimes. I tend to agree with Rob C about this. A previous poster said that if he liked it why would he have to say why? Is liking not an instinctive thing rather than a thought process? If you explain to someone why you liked it and they disagreed then who is right or wrong? Having said this I do from time to time put an image in the critique to get a reaction. There is no right or wrong to this .... only subjective thoughts? This is assuming that the technical aspects of the image has nothing that is glaringly wrong.
-
I think that some folks in this discussion have missed the point of the article. The image I used simply served as an an example of the thought process that I went through in taking and then post-processing one particular image. No "rules" were implied; we take photographs at the time of exposure because something has captured our eye or imagination.
But, then it becomes necesary once in front of the screen to take that score (to use Adam's metaphor) and turn it into as performance.
I often see people's photographs during review and don't "get" what the creator had in mind. It isn't so much "what's it about" as why? – what were you after?
Normally no answer to this is necessary, of course. An image should stand on its own merits. But when the photographer is asked this question in a learning situation then it helps focus the mind, and hopefully leads to a bit of self analysis.
Michael
-
I think that some folks in this discussion have missed the point of the article. The image I used simply served as an an example of the thought process that I went through in taking and then post-processing one particular image. No "rules" were implied; we take photographs at the time of exposure because something has captured our eye or imagination.
But, then it becomes necesary once in front of the screen to take that score (to use Adam's metaphor) and turn it into as performance.
I often see people's photographs during review and don't "get" what the creator had in mind. It isn't so much "what's it about" as why? – what were you after?
Normally no answer to this is necessary, of course. An image should stand on its own merits. But when the photographer is asked this question in a learning situation then it helps focus the mind, and hopefully leads to a bit of self analysis.
Michael
And that's it in a nutshell. Beautifully put.
Eric
-
after[/i]?
Normally no answer to this is necessary, of course. An image should stand on its own merits. But when the photographer is asked this question in a learning situation then it helps focus the mind, and hopefully leads to a bit of self analysis.
Michael
Michael, trust me, that way lies madness! Blessed he who never analysed but simply performed as per divine order of Nike!
;-)
Rob C
-
Because it always is... A photograph is always about something... a thing or concept, fact or feeling, documenting or interpreting, concrete or abstract, consciously or subconsciously, in the author's eye or in the eye of the beholder. Whether you intend it or not, there is always a story behind a photograph. You do not have to spell it out, but the story is there. The story could be different for different people, but some story it is. Some photographs could speak volumes, some are more like a haiku, but they do speak. Some are speaking in heavy prose, some are like a music to our ears, but we do "hear" them, as much as we see them.
Dan, I think there's a shorter saying (that we all know) that validates what you just said: "A picture's worth a thousand words."
Every photo captures something that it would take a lot of words to 'try' to duplicate. Take Mike's photo above as an example. Suppose you tried to relay that same scene in words, as an author. It would probably take several paragraphs, and more than a thousand words, to adequately describe the full setting, the lighting, the mood, etc. Yet with one photo the entire scene is captured.
Thus, as it relates to Michael's article question, "What's it all about?", this kind of question is why I like macro-photography so much. Macro-photography gives me the ability to take the tiny, common things that we walk passed every day and turn them into huge images that "tell a story" that a person seldom takes the time to notice. Sometimes it is simply an appreciation of form, or color, or both form and color. Sometimes it is the feeling of awe at how alien some of the smaller creatures of this world are, when blown-up, that we begin to imagine "what it would be like" to encounter such a creature the same size as you. Tiny things that we barely notice when walking by, when blown-up to life-size, give fleeting thoughts, impressions, and moments of reverence that would not not be possible to get without macro equipment.
So I too believe that every photograph has a reason why it was taken. However, whether or not anyone else cares (or can share the same sentiment) is another matter. Perhaps the definition of a "successful" photograph would be one that accurately transfers the sentiment or impression that the photographer who took it felt. If a photo causes someone else a moment of pause, then in that moment of pause is where the transfer of feeling or sentiment is felt by the viewer, which originally was felt by the photographer and compelled him to take the photo to begin with. By contrast, the photo that is tossed over the shoulder, and effects no such moment of pause, fails to transfer the intended sentiment effectively, at least where that individual is concerned.
Thus it is all about communication. Writing itself is nothing but an attempt to transfer facts, sentiments, ideas, etc. It is, in short, a slow form of communication. Quite obviously, the same is true with our spoken words: they too are used to communicate but they too are slow when compared to other means of communication.
Well, if we default back to the saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," and if we apply it to this discussion (and thus to our photography), this means that the pictures we take are merely an accelerated form of communication. They are an attempt to say "a thousand words" with one click of the finger. And, just as there are people who can talk all day and yet really say nothing, so too are there people who can say a lot with but a few words.
I think this same fact obtains with photography, just on an accelerated level.
Jack
.
-
Dan, I think there's a shorter saying (that we all know) that validates what you just said: "A picture's worth a thousand words."
Every photo captures something that it would take a lot of words to 'try' to duplicate. Take Mike's photo above as an example. Suppose you tried to relay that same scene in words, as an author. It would probably take several paragraphs, and more than a thousand words, to adequately describe the full setting, the lighting, the mood, etc. Yet with one photo the entire scene is captured.
Thus, as it relates to Michael's article question, "What's it all about?", this kind of question is why I like macro-photography so much. Macro-photography gives me the ability to take the tiny, common things that we walk passed every day and turn them into huge images that "tell a story" that a person seldom takes the time to notice. Sometimes it is simply an appreciation of form, or color, or both form and color. Sometimes it is the feeling of awe at how alien some of the smaller creatures of this world are, when blown-up, that we begin to imagine "what it would be like" to encounter such a creature the same size as you. Tiny things that we barely notice when walking by, when blown-up to life-size, give fleeting thoughts, impressions, and moments of reverence that would not not be possible to get without macro equipment.
So I too believe that every photograph has a reason why it was taken. However, whether or not anyone else cares (or can share the same sentiment) is another matter. Perhaps the definition of a "successful" photograph would be one that accurately transfers the sentiment or impression that the photographer who took it felt. If a photo causes someone else a moment of pause, then in that moment of pause is where the transfer of feeling or sentiment is felt by the viewer, which originally was felt by the photographer and compelled him to take the photo to begin with. By contrast, the photo that is tossed over the shoulder, and effects no such moment of pause, fails to transfer the intended sentiment effectively, at least where that individual is concerned.
Thus it is all about communication. Writing itself is nothing but an attempt to transfer facts, sentiments, ideas, etc. It is, in short, a slow form of communication. Quite obviously, the same is true with our spoken words: they too are used to communicate but they too are slow when compared to other means of communication.
Well, if we default back to the saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," and if we apply it to this discussion (and thus to our photography), this means that the pictures we take are merely an accelerated form of communication. They are an attempt to say "a thousand words" with one click of the finger. And, just as there are people who can talk all day and yet really say nothing, so too are there people who can say a lot with but a few words.
I think this same fact obtains with photography, just on an accelerated level.
Jack
Good post, Jack. That's more or less how I view the role of the photograph.
-
Yes, it can be exactly like that, but I have a feeling that photography, like painting or even music, can be about the verbally inexpressible too and is, in fact, more suited to that than to something that can be described in words.
The problem is, where something can be written, the author has the power to be precise (should he wish) and to give a single meaning to his writings unless he chooses to confound, obfuscate, be 'artistic' and mess around with semantics for the hell of it, or in order to further his literary career. The great failure in communication that graphic images suffer is their very inabilty to be as precise as the written word: they are always wide open to viewer interpretation, which can be a huge failure indeed.
So as to a single picture being worth a thousand words - only sometimes.
Rob C
-
I often see people's photographs during review and don't "get" what the creator had in mind. It isn't so much "what's it about" as why? – what were you after?
At the risk of misunderstanding Michael's comment completely, I also happen to believe in the importance of "why". A great image is created by a photographer with some intent in mind. Viewers and critics may or may not interpret the image's intents the same way. But their comments should be supported by "why" they the see it their ways. Comments like "beautiful", and "I love it" without any context are pitifully lacking in meaning and substance. Yet that's all we see in the User Critiques forum:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....mp;#entry338293 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40661&st=0&p=338293&#entry338293)
When you look at your own photographs, ask yourself that simple qustion and see what answers you come up with. In the end, if you can't answer the question convincingly, maybe the shot is not as successful as you might have thought it to be.
Exactly. If you can't come up with such answers for your own work, how can you expect your viewers to?
And for the critics, if you can't articulate "why" you feel a certain way about an image, are you really appreciating it?
-
Good post, Jack. That's more or less how I view the role of the photograph.
Thanks Ray.
_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________
Yes, it can be exactly like that, but I have a feeling that photography, like painting or even music, can be about the verbally inexpressible too and is, in fact, more suited to that than to something that can be described in words.
I agree 100% with this sentiment. I believe a truly good photograph not only "is worth a thousand words" but also effectively transfers moods, feelings, etc. that cannot adequately be put into words.
The problem is, where something can be written, the author has the power to be precise (should he wish) and to give a single meaning to his writings unless he chooses to confound, obfuscate, be 'artistic' and mess around with semantics for the hell of it, or in order to further his literary career.
There is a tremendous complexity to writing to be sure. It is hard enough for most folks to be "exact" in what they say, let alone to have such a command of the language that they can carry subtle (and even twisted/ironic/hidden) meaning to what they say.
The great failure in communication that graphic images suffer is their very inabilty to be as precise as the written word: they are always wide open to viewer interpretation, which can be a huge failure indeed.
I don't follow you here. In fact, my belief would be the exact opposite of this: unless we are discussing mathematical equations in a textbook, it is the written word which will never be as precise as the photograph.
For example, if I describe a woman's beauty to you, I could speak of her full, red lips, the creamy complexion of her skin, the golden curls that dance about her shoulders and back as she walks away ... and you will begin to form "an image" in your mind of the woman ... but it will be an entirely different image than what I am seeing in my mind (what Ray is seeing in his mind, etc.).
By contrast, if I took a photograph of the exact woman I was writing about, then you, Ray, and I would all be seeing the same face, the same complexion, the same golden hair, etc. ... whereas none of us would be seeing the same identical image in our minds based solely on a verbal description. And this truth of infinite variance would obtain whether I was verbally trying to describe a sunset, a mountain range, the detailed intricasy of an insect's body armor, etc., etc. There is simply no way that written words will ever create an "identical image" in all minds in the same fashion as will a photograph.
Thus, in the end, even the greatest writers and authors will never be able to communicate with the same exactness as what is communicated in a photograph, at least not in the ability to describe what we see physically. However, when describing the complexity of emotions (lost love, the "hows" and "whys" behind a smile), then I agree the written word is able to ad lib to the photograph, and so to tell a more detailed human story about what is being seen visually in a person's facial expressions.
For example, if I took a photograph of the golden-haired woman smiling a Mona Lisa smile, the photograph would allow us ALL to be on the exact same page as to what she looks like ... but yet there could be ten thousand "different interpretations" as to why she is smiling, what was on her mind, etc. This is where the written word could be more exact, in explaining the nuances behind facial expressions. For if I personally knew why she was smiling, and I wrote a caption under the photograph stating exactly what that reason was, then there would be no more room for interpretation.
So I guess I see your point that the written word can give more precision than the photograph, in some ways, I still hold that there is no person on earth who can write well enough to exactly transfer what something looks like as well as can a photograph.
So as to a single picture being worth a thousand words - only sometimes.
Rob C
I believe, in virtually every instance, it would take at least a thousand words to describe every detail of all that can be seen in any photograph ... and that after this writing effort had been completed there still would be vastly different "images" placed in the minds of every individual who read the passage (without seeing the photograph) ... and that no writing effort alone could come anywhere near to providing the kind of precision and uniformity of what the actual photograph of that same subject instantly would confer upon the viewer.
Jack
.
-
By contrast, if I took a photograph of the exact woman I was writing about, then you, Ray, and I would all be seeing the same face, the same complexion, the same golden hair, etc. ... whereas none of us would be seeing the same identical image in our minds based solely on a verbal description. And this truth of infinite variance would obtain whether I was verbally trying to describe a sunset, a mountain range, the detailed intricasy of an insect's body armor, etc., etc. There is simply no way that written words will ever create an "identical image" in all minds in the same fashion as will a photograph.
Jack
Jack, I'm not sure that because two people are confronted with the same evidence that they do, in fact, see or make the same interpretation; this may well be unavoidably true when seeing simple mathematics such as 1+1=2 writ large on a blackboard, but as for something as complex and open to interpretation as a face, I seriously doubt that we do see the same thing. Take a photograph of a bearded man wearing a turban: what does that represent without captions? Whatever one might want it to represent.
Conveniently, take the example of Michael's present front page photograph of the old doorway: what do you see? The very first thing that came into my mind was that he had shot something in what, to me, is Keith Laban country, albeit an image made neither in Greece nor with such amazing colours. Unless I am mistaken or just having some hindsight here, I also thought about Eric's work. I wonder how many other viewers thought they were seeing any of those things?
Rob C
P.S. 1+1=2. I had to go check that!
-
P.S. 1+1=2. I had to go check that!
Are you sure, or is that just your opinion? I won't accept it until you provide the raw images as evidence!
Eric
P.S. Which "Eric" were you referring to? Chan?
-
Jack, I'm not sure that because two people are confronted with the same evidence that they do, in fact, see or make the same interpretation; this may well be unavoidably true when seeing simple mathematics such as 1+1=2 writ large on a blackboard, but as for something as complex and open to interpretation as a face, I seriously doubt that we do see the same thing.
I understand your point, Rob, but I still maintain that if a "physical description" of a face were read in a book we would see even less of the same thing. Is this not, after all, why the police utilize mugshots/sketches of criminals at large, rather than a written description?
Take a photograph of a bearded man wearing a turban: what does that represent without captions? Whatever one might want it to represent.
Well, here again, I understand your point. In fact, in my last post I stated that the written word helps dovetail an understanding of the photo, but it sure doesn't replace it. After all, if we are far apart in our interpretation of what a man in a turban looks like in a photo, just imagine how far apart we'd be if it were only described in words.
Conveniently, take the example of Michael's present front page photograph of the old doorway: what do you see? The very first thing that came into my mind was that he had shot something in what, to me, is Keith Laban country, albeit an image made neither in Greece nor with such amazing colours. Unless I am mistaken or just having some hindsight here, I also thought about Eric's work. I wonder how many other viewers thought they were seeing any of those things?
Rob C
P.S. 1+1=2. I had to go check that!
Your point again is well taken that, even with photos, there is still room for interpretation ... different people will be reminded of different things ... etc., etc., ad infinitum ... when presented with any photograph. However, as true as this is, the fact remains it is truer still that there is even more room for interpretation and even more diversity of "impressions" in the minds of people who are only reading words describing the same thing.
Sometimes, a reduction to the ridiculous is necessary to illustrate a point, so I will do so in this example: heck it really doesn't matter whether you're talking about a face, a mountain range, a butterfly, a model, a dog, whatever ... imagine trying to describe ANY object with one word ... how useless and limited you are ... but yet just imagine how much ground you can cover and how exact you can get by describing that same thing with one photograph.
Thus, in conclusion, I hope the veracity of the age-old saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," has been made
Jack
.
-
1+1=2. I had to go check that!
Sometimes. 1+1=10, binary.
-
1+1=2. I had to go check that!
How about this.
[div class=\'codetop\']CODE[div class=\'codemain\' style=\'height:200px;white-space:pre;overflow:auto\']Suppose x = y.
x*y = y*y (multiply both sides by y)
x*y - x*x = y*y - x*x (subtract x^2 from both sides)
x*(y-x) = (y+x)*(y-x) (factor)
x = y + x (remove that y-x on both sides)
x = x + x (since x = y from the assumption in the start)
x = 2x (add)
1 = 2 (divide by x on both sides)
so 1+1 becomes 1+1 = 3, and so on .....
Right?
-
Are you sure, or is that just your opinion? I won't accept it until you provide the raw images as evidence!
Eric
P.S. Which "Eric" were you referring to? Chan?
Why you, Eric!
Rob C
-
...
Sometimes, a reduction to the ridiculous is necessary to illustrate a point, so I will do so in this example: heck it really doesn't matter whether you're talking about a face, a mountain range, a butterfly, a model, a dog, whatever ... imagine trying to describe ANY object with one word ... how useless and limited you are ... but yet just imagine how much ground you can cover and how exact you can get by describing that same thing with one photograph.
Thus, in conclusion, I hope the veracity of the age-old saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," has been made
Can be worth. However, one word can also be worth a thousand pictures - just see all the photo contests with a single-word subject that has a gazillion pictures. When we hear words like 'emancipation', 'religion', or 'soul', we associate a wide variety of images, feelings and thoughts. Good writers can write single sentences that no photo could hope to capture.
When it comes to capturing the exact details of an object, the photo has the advantage. For capturing history, ideas or emotions, words can be much stronger.
-Lars