Subject and composition

While in the heat of discussing the technical merits different gear
someone will often point out that it is the image that really matters
and we tend to lose sight of this.

To this end I thought I would start a thread on peoples views on what
makes a good photograph in their eyes. Not good in the sense of
technically good but good in the sense of being a photograph that they
either compelling or interesting.

There is no right or wrong in all of this just what different people
like and dislike.

For my own part if the subject is not interesting then no amount of
creativity in how it is shot will make it an interesting photograph.
But an interesting subject can be photographed in such a way that its
full impact is not realized. I like to take photos of ocean paddling,
this is a sport that I am involved with and so I find it interesting.
What I have found with paddling photograph is that a telephoto lens
makes it easier to get the photographs but when you get closer and
shoot with a wider angle lens you get much more the feeling of being
there.

This is a much harder way to photograph paddlers, for one thing you
have to get out on the water and close to them. For another they are
only in position to be photographed for an instant in time. They also
have a bad habit of looking at me and smiling. This is very much a
learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.

Whereas this photo is far from perfect it shows somewhat what I am
trying to achieve.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57533611

This shot would not look anything at all the same using a long lens
from shore.
BTW 9 times out of 10 they will turn and look at me ruining the photo.

I would be interested to here what others are finding in their own
endeavors.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
While in the heat of discussing the technical merits different gear
someone will often point out that it is the image that really matters
and we tend to lose sight of this.

To this end I thought I would start a thread on peoples views on what
makes a good photograph in their eyes. Not good in the sense of
technically good but good in the sense of being a photograph that they
either compelling or interesting.

There is no right or wrong in all of this just what different people
like and dislike.

For my own part if the subject is not interesting then no amount of
creativity in how it is shot will make it an interesting photograph.
But an interesting subject can be photographed in such a way that its
full impact is not realized. I like to take photos of ocean paddling,
this is a sport that I am involved with and so I find it interesting.
What I have found with paddling photograph is that a telephoto lens
makes it easier to get the photographs but when you get closer and
shoot with a wider angle lens you get much more the feeling of being
there.

This is a much harder way to photograph paddlers, for one thing you
have to get out on the water and close to them. For another they are
only in position to be photographed for an instant in time. They also
have a bad habit of looking at me and smiling. This is very much a
learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.

Whereas this photo is far from perfect it shows somewhat what I am
trying to achieve.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57533611

This shot would not look anything at all the same using a long lens
from shore.
BTW 9 times out of 10 they will turn and look at me ruining the photo.

I would be interested to here what others are finding in their own
endeavors.

Scott

But so much depends on what people are using their photography for. Not all
pictures are supposed to have artistic merit. I used to take stereo slides
of the wired panels in IBM office machines. With these, I could rewire a
stripped down panel back to its original configuration. These pictures were
miserably dull to the average viewer, but to me, they were invaluable. I
once completely disassembled an Akai tape deck down to a basket of
individual parts, being careful to take stereo photos along the way, and
then reassembled the whole thing about a month later, (when the spare part I
ordered came in). My friend, (who's son belonged to the recorder), was
completely blown away by this........

William Graham wrote:
"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
While in the heat of discussing the technical merits different gear
someone will often point out that it is the image that really matters
and we tend to lose sight of this.

To this end I thought I would start a thread on peoples views on what
makes a good photograph in their eyes. Not good in the sense of
technically good but good in the sense of being a photograph that they
either compelling or interesting.

There is no right or wrong in all of this just what different people
like and dislike.

For my own part if the subject is not interesting then no amount of
creativity in how it is shot will make it an interesting photograph.
But an interesting subject can be photographed in such a way that its
full impact is not realized. I like to take photos of ocean paddling,
this is a sport that I am involved with and so I find it interesting.
What I have found with paddling photograph is that a telephoto lens
makes it easier to get the photographs but when you get closer and
shoot with a wider angle lens you get much more the feeling of being
there.

This is a much harder way to photograph paddlers, for one thing you
have to get out on the water and close to them. For another they are
only in position to be photographed for an instant in time. They also
have a bad habit of looking at me and smiling. This is very much a
learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.

Whereas this photo is far from perfect it shows somewhat what I am
trying to achieve.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57533611

This shot would not look anything at all the same using a long lens
from shore.
BTW 9 times out of 10 they will turn and look at me ruining the photo.

I would be interested to here what others are finding in their own
endeavors.

Scott

But so much depends on what people are using their photography for. Not all
pictures are supposed to have artistic merit. I used to take stereo slides
of the wired panels in IBM office machines. With these, I could rewire a
stripped down panel back to its original configuration. These pictures were
miserably dull to the average viewer, but to me, they were invaluable. I
once completely disassembled an Akai tape deck down to a basket of
individual parts, being careful to take stereo photos along the way, and
then reassembled the whole thing about a month later, (when the spare part I
ordered came in). My friend, (who's son belonged to the recorder), was
completely blown away by this........

This is very true and many if not most of the photographs I take are
more to document something. But this does not mean that we can't also
strive to take photographs that we like for themselves. I don't go
after an artistic look as much as trying to capture the feeling of
being there. I want to take photographs today that 10 and 20 years
from now will give me a strong feeling for the time and place that the
photograph was taken. I find that often a using a long lens works
against capturing this feeling.

Scott

Scott W wrote:

...many if not most of the photographs I take are
more to document something. But this does not mean that we can't also
strive to take photographs that we like for themselves. I don't go
after an artistic look as much as trying to capture the feeling of
being there. I want to take photographs today that 10 and 20 years
from now will give me a strong feeling for the time and place that the
photograph was taken. I find that often a using a long lens works
against capturing this feeling.

A wide view throws you into the scene, maybe the long view feels too
detatched, distant (because it is). But also long views can be very
intimate as in portraits or macro work. But I can imagine wide is best
suited to those sea kayaks. It would be a challenge to do that in an
interesting way.

I'd also like to say that your photo is great! The water looks smooth
as silk and the paddler is really working hard.
Good work!!

Scott W wrote:
While in the heat of discussing the technical merits different gear
someone will often point out that it is the image that really matters
and we tend to lose sight of this.

To this end I thought I would start a thread on peoples views on what
makes a good photograph in their eyes. Not good in the sense of
technically good but good in the sense of being a photograph that
they either compelling or interesting.


Often there is a lot lost in colour and the often obsessive use of
artificially saturated colours for the sake of colour, not the picture. It's
true that photographs are not "real" as in a faithful reproduction of a
scene. They are a creation of what you - the photographer imagines the scene
to look like in 2D and as such, should have your interpretation of the scene
as the key point of the image. Plenty of people can shoot 200 pics and get 2
or 3 that look OK, even pretty good. This is not necessarily a bad thing for
those with no artistic imagination.
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/sunset
Is one of mine which exemplifies my statements in this area. It conforms to
the rule of thirds although I did not compose it to that rule. It is not
cropped, shot with 10D not long after moving to digital.

Others I take, following the "advice" or suggestions of people who seem to
think that highly saturated colours are in themselves the essence of a
photograph... Are less than pleasing although sometimes I go out of my way
to saturate colour, and get pleasing results like this one:
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/galler...01/pano_sunset

This produced an image of what I wanted in the scene. I very rarely crop
pictures, preferring to make the composition in the camera but I cropped
this one to a panorama because in creating the image, I "saw" with my mind's
eye, the picture I created this way, is a long way off the scene as it was
at the time I took the picture. Photoshop was used to do this.

I suppose then, in the context of the thread, a "good" photograph is one the
photographer feels they have achieved what they wanted to, in taking it. I
often paint pictures rather than try to Photograph them because in doing
this, I achieve the end picture I wanted but could not produce with a
camera.

I took my first serious photo with a Box Brownie in 1957. I say serious
because it won a local photo competition. The judge ( a prominent Portrait
photographer of the time) commented that it was rare to see a picture from
someone so young which enhanced the rule of thirds so precisely.

I didn't have a clue what he was on about until 2 years later when he chose
me over 20 or so other applicants for the position of apprentice
photographer - in those days it was a trade, not a profession. I like to
think his teachings have not been entirely in vain.

There exists some rules of correct composition which were formulated many
decades ago by those who understood light and shade, colour and tone and
used to mix natural elements into colours so correct, so close to true life,
that we newcomers can only look in amazement at the paintings they created.
Anyone seeking to produce pictures with wide appeal, should seek them out
and study them. It is not a prerequisite to use them but when you do, more
people will like your pictures than if you are not aware of them.

--
www.photosbydouglas.com
www.weprint2canvas.com
If you really must write,use my
name at an above domain.

I doubt that this is quite what you are after, but for those who like
lists, here's mine. In order of importance (which is of course a
personal thing), and for most images:

1. Subject Matter (the emotional response thing - what are you trying
to say?)

2. Quality of Light ('unusual' light (dawn, dusk, mist, etc) = more
interesting photo)

3. Composition (get in close, reduce image to 'all it needs'.. *then*
consider the rules - you know, the ones that are meant to be broken)

Whenever I'm stuck for a good image, I try to remind myself of those 3.

On 20 Mar 2006 16:59:34 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

[...]
learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.

well, i like the photo you've linked, but i don't know if i can say
it's an interesting subject. i find it to be a nice image, that gives
a sense of quite, but what's the definition of interesting subject?

for me, a duck washing in the public park here in faenza was so
interesting that i've shot a couple of rolls of velvia 100f to him (i
say him because that was a male of Anas platyrhynchos, perhaps the
most common duck in europe) until i thought i got a good blurred image
of him. well, being sincere you're never sure you got a good shot when
doing blurred images, but chances are that with some experience you
get at least 3 or 4 goot images out of a roll or two.

another very interesting subject for me is panning sports images: i
love pannings with "fast" sports, such as cycling, motorcycling and
cars in general.

on the contrary, i don't find interesting the many images i see of
african and/or indian children or old people. i'm so tired of seeing
those images that i can't feel anything when i see them; but i still
love images taken in southwestern nat'l parks in az, ut and nv even if
i've seen thousands of them --and i've taken around 1.500 during 2
different holidays there--.

all the above is to say that i agree with you that a photo shouldn't
be only technically perfect but needs to "say something"; however the
interest in an image is at least a matter of likes/dislikes as
"blondes or dark haired?".

i want to add also that i'm really disappointed by the fact that
nowadays techniques have so improved that often, at contests and
shows, you see images which are *awful* from a technical point of view
and that have been chosen only because of their "strong" emotive
impact or their being "different" and "uncommon". the net result is
that more and more often you see unpleasant photos taken in... well,
that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
mean.

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com

Gianni Rondinini wrote:
On 20 Mar 2006 16:59:34 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

[...]
learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.

well, i like the photo you've linked, but i don't know if i can say
it's an interesting subject. i find it to be a nice image, that gives
a sense of quite, but what's the definition of interesting subject?

for me, a duck washing in the public park here in faenza was so
interesting that i've shot a couple of rolls of velvia 100f to him (i
say him because that was a male of Anas platyrhynchos, perhaps the
most common duck in europe) until i thought i got a good blurred image
of him. well, being sincere you're never sure you got a good shot when
doing blurred images, but chances are that with some experience you
get at least 3 or 4 goot images out of a roll or two.

another very interesting subject for me is panning sports images: i
love pannings with "fast" sports, such as cycling, motorcycling and
cars in general.

on the contrary, i don't find interesting the many images i see of
african and/or indian children or old people. i'm so tired of seeing
those images that i can't feel anything when i see them; but i still
love images taken in southwestern nat'l parks in az, ut and nv even if
i've seen thousands of them --and i've taken around 1.500 during 2
different holidays there--.

all the above is to say that i agree with you that a photo shouldn't
be only technically perfect but needs to "say something"; however the
interest in an image is at least a matter of likes/dislikes as
"blondes or dark haired?".
And this is largely the point, what one preson finds interesting others
might note.
I paddle and so canoes interest me.


i want to add also that i'm really disappointed by the fact that
nowadays techniques have so improved that often, at contests and
shows, you see images which are *awful* from a technical point of view
and that have been chosen only because of their "strong" emotive
impact or their being "different" and "uncommon". the net result is
that more and more often you see unpleasant photos taken in... well,
that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
mean.
Yup, I know what you are saying.
It seems to some that if a photo is technically bad then it must be
art, but of course it
can also just be junk.

Scott

On 21 Mar 2006 11:46:07 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:

be only technically perfect but needs to "say something"; however the
interest in an image is at least a matter of likes/dislikes as
"blondes or dark haired?".
And this is largely the point, what one preson finds interesting others
might note.
I paddle and so canoes interest me.

i don't, then i didn't find your subject interesting per se pecause of
the paddle, but the photo had nice colours, nice composition, nice
overall mood, then i liked it.

that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
mean.
Yup, I know what you are saying.
It seems to some that if a photo is technically bad then it must be
art, but of course it can also just be junk.

sure!
that's my point.

i mean, if the subject is important --and i don't think that anybody
thinks the contrary--, technique is important, too. a "wrong" or an
"ubly" image is wrong or ugly. full stop.
a good idea developed in the wrong way is a wasted good idea: i think
it's absolutely wrong to give a prize to an ugly photo because of the
subject or the idea, but it's happening more and more often and this
is why i'm giving up with contests. it's not because my photos are
rejected (i *really* can loose without getting angry or sad), but it's
because i'd like to see the winning images and say "god, i'd have
really loved if that photo was mine".

regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com