A few days ago, I was deciding on which photo to post as photo of the day. I had one picked out, but my girlfriend suggested I go with the other. She said while the first one was nice, the shot was too easy. Then she said something that stuck with me. She said "that shot didn't take any work to get." She was absolutely right. The shots that are more interesting are the ones we have to find, not the ones we stumble upon. Also, the best way to make a photo your own is to take it in a way no one else has thought of before. Her words are sticking with me, and it's a good thing to keep in mind while shooting.
And for the record, this is the shot she told me to go with.
Yes and no. While I do like to work at a shot, to take time and figure out what I want to do with it, I also think a lot of great photos come from the moment... just being in the right place at the right time
@kmackenzie Agreed. I'm all for capturing a moment. But that is also work. It's quick thinking, and quick reaction. You only have a brief second to line up your shot. That's not easy.
@scuffer True. Perhaps I should have clarified in my post. I'm not ruling out the spur-of-the-moment shots. Those can be priceless. I didn't mention it, because I don't often take those photos. I tend to take more still life type shots.
Whether the picture is hard for you to get or not is irrelevant. Unless you tell people it was hard to get, no one will know that piece of information. You should be able to put up a picture with no commentary at all and let people make their own judgement but it just depends on what you are doing with your project.
So, lets say we know nothing more than what we see here. The first picture is symmetrical and pulls you into it. The second is more of a picture of fire extinquishers sitting on a shelf. It doesn't draw us into it the way the first does. I agree with your girlfriend. The first is a more interactive picture and therefore more appealing.
I find myself thinking about the difference between a technically strong shot and an artistically strong shot. I like to think I'm fairly good at getting a technically strong shot (at least in some circumstances), but not always so good at getting an artistically strong shot.
I was very slightly disappointed when a friend said this was my best photo yet:
Technically it's a shot I'm very proud of -- but artistically there's nothing there at all. It took no discovery, no vision, no composition. Virtually everyone who has ever stood there will have thought 'wow, if only I could take a photo that encompassed all this' -- they just didn't necessarily know how to do it. Had someone phoned me up from that spot with a decent camera, I could have talked them through taking this photo without having to be there.
That doesn't necessarily make it a bad photo to look at, but it makes it a photo I'm less proud of than some others.
The technically strong versus artistically strong shot is an interesting debate. I would always aim for the artistic because that comes more easily to me but I struggle to keep up technically. It's tempting @abirkill to be too hard on ourselves - the shot above looks very complex - and artistic. the point is people can always copy and recreate, but you have to see it and do it in the first place. I don't think many others will have 'seen' what you did here.
The original photos posted sum up the differences - the first one is definitely artisit in my view, the one @pschtyckque didn't go with was more techincal (and could have been in a manual). To make that more artisitc I would have gone for a close up of the tops, or another part to make it more abstract.
The great thing about all this though is that everyone has their own opinions - no one more valid than the other. That's what makes it all so interesting!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Here was the other photo I was considering.
So, lets say we know nothing more than what we see here. The first picture is symmetrical and pulls you into it. The second is more of a picture of fire extinquishers sitting on a shelf. It doesn't draw us into it the way the first does. I agree with your girlfriend. The first is a more interactive picture and therefore more appealing.
I was very slightly disappointed when a friend said this was my best photo yet:
Technically it's a shot I'm very proud of -- but artistically there's nothing there at all. It took no discovery, no vision, no composition. Virtually everyone who has ever stood there will have thought 'wow, if only I could take a photo that encompassed all this' -- they just didn't necessarily know how to do it. Had someone phoned me up from that spot with a decent camera, I could have talked them through taking this photo without having to be there.
That doesn't necessarily make it a bad photo to look at, but it makes it a photo I'm less proud of than some others.
The original photos posted sum up the differences - the first one is definitely artisit in my view, the one @pschtyckque didn't go with was more techincal (and could have been in a manual). To make that more artisitc I would have gone for a close up of the tops, or another part to make it more abstract.
The great thing about all this though is that everyone has their own opinions - no one more valid than the other. That's what makes it all so interesting!