Perhaps a better title would be "What does a photograph mean to you?.
We all have our likes and dislikes, favourite themes, and different reasons for taking a photograph but I suggest they all fall broadly into three categories:
A SNAPSHOT: Could be anything from a new baby or puppy, or 'Where we stayed last summer', to 'I saw this and thought it was amusing', etc., taken by somebody with or without experience using whatever camera comes to hand;
A PHOTOGRAPHER'S PHOTOGRAPH: Must be as close to perfection as possible in one or more ways, whether technical or artistic, and preferably both, often with emphasis on the technical specifications of the equipment used.
RECORD OR JOURNALISTIC: Accurate and detailed representation of an object, with angle and lighting chosen for maximum effect, or an event in progress,
captured at exactly the right moment in the action.
All of these can be sub-divided ad nauseam. We all have our own preferences, and in my view none is superior or inferior to any other. What matters most is that the picture should serve its intended purpose, and invite others to enjoy or perhaps ask questions about it and maybe even feel inspired in some way.
I have known the agony of having my 'bestest ever in the whole world' photographs rejected, while other people's lesser efforts have been applauded, but also as a picture editor for many years I had the sad duty of explaining to a rejected and dejected photographer that although his/her photograph was undoubtedly the best of the day, the blurred Box Brownie image I chose to publish instead fitted the story much better.
I know I am likely to be condemned for a willingness to accept 'sub-standard' results when the occasion demands, and was even hissed once when I stated these views in a camera club lecture, but realistically, what do others here think?
Thank you, Gill. You have covered the two extremes there. I can say unashamedly that although the first paragrah most closely describes my work I do admire the ambition in the second. My technical prowess and progress stopped quite early on after I won a minor prize in an open exhibition at Brighton College of Art in 1947 and hied me thither to offer my services to the editor of the (now long defunct) Brighton and Hove Herald. I never scaled the greasy ladder to perfection but after earning a meagre crust on various newspapers and magazines I was invited to try my hand at picture editing on a national daily paper, which brings us right back to paragraph one about pictures 'fit for purpose'. In retirement I now take photographs every day for my own pleasure but still play the role of picture editor, alternately praising and cussing myself for a "The boy done good" kind of shot or a "Could do better; see me after class" near miss.
Photography for me is, like life, what you make of it and how your pictures communicate, but let's hear some other points iof view.
I once took a photo class in college where the professor spent the entire semester discussing snapshots, and what a snapshot really is as compared to art. His point of view was that if it isn't in a gallery, it's not art yet. :D Don't know if I agree with him totally, but thought I'd throw his opinion out there.
To me, photography is an art form and is still a two stage process - taking the shot then developing it. However, we use the "Digital Darkroom" now as opposed to the "cupboard under the stairs".
Stage 1 is taking the photo, a capture with the physical eye, and this can fit into any of the categories you mention. When I get back to my PC and transfer the raw photos, I then try to capture in my mind's eye how I want the final photo to look, what impact it should have on the eye of the beholder and what mood, if any, it should create. The development takes place within an Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop environment.
If I manage to create a photograph that looks how I want it to look and I'm happy with it, I'm generally not too bothered what other people think because it is so beholding to subjective opinion. It is for me, more than anything, a personal quest.
However, I recently went on a trip to India and the set of photos I took inspired someone else on the trip to purchase a higher level camera and take up photography classes. That's a good feeling.
Amy's comment brings up a question for me. What makes a photo "art"? I mean, you see all kinds of beautiful stock photos, but they wouldn't necessarily be found in an art gallery. So what would make a photo artsy enough to be exhibited in that way?
@amyhughes thats interesting because I would say that only a few photographers would call themselves artists (therefore art), but as I see it with post processing (digital darkrooms) within the reach of many there are more budding artists than ever.
The mention of art vs. photography reminds me of a visit many years ago to a newly opened gallery in London where I saw a framed 10"x8" black and white print of a plain brick wall with an 'art' price tag. The print was perfect, the image was sharp and nicely squared-up in the frame, and it could not be faulted in any way. It was indeed excellently executed but, as I mentioned to the curator, similar prints could be found in the the rubbish bin of many a professional darkroom because a brick wall was a handy subject for testing a new lens and judging its quality.
The dear man did not disagree, but pointed out that this picture had been signed by the artist and the negative had been destroyed so that there could never be another print just like it. It was therefore an original and unique work of art.
I couldn't argue with that, but it has bugged me ever since, although it was no less a work of art than Tracey Emin's unmade bed. Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder (and often the depth of the pocket), but I am not knocking it and do enjoy quite a lot of abstract and experimental art, whether photographic or otherwise.
well as for me, a good photo tells a story, speaks beyond uttered words, has heart.. not thinking about rule of thirds and stuff, if you were drawn by the photo in a good way.. thgat for me is a good photo...
my friend, who's a photog, once told me.. photography is like painting.... you are painting with lights...
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Photography for me is, like life, what you make of it and how your pictures communicate, but let's hear some other points iof view.
Stage 1 is taking the photo, a capture with the physical eye, and this can fit into any of the categories you mention. When I get back to my PC and transfer the raw photos, I then try to capture in my mind's eye how I want the final photo to look, what impact it should have on the eye of the beholder and what mood, if any, it should create. The development takes place within an Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop environment.
If I manage to create a photograph that looks how I want it to look and I'm happy with it, I'm generally not too bothered what other people think because it is so beholding to subjective opinion. It is for me, more than anything, a personal quest.
However, I recently went on a trip to India and the set of photos I took inspired someone else on the trip to purchase a higher level camera and take up photography classes. That's a good feeling.
The mention of art vs. photography reminds me of a visit many years ago to a newly opened gallery in London where I saw a framed 10"x8" black and white print of a plain brick wall with an 'art' price tag. The print was perfect, the image was sharp and nicely squared-up in the frame, and it could not be faulted in any way. It was indeed excellently executed but, as I mentioned to the curator, similar prints could be found in the the rubbish bin of many a professional darkroom because a brick wall was a handy subject for testing a new lens and judging its quality.
The dear man did not disagree, but pointed out that this picture had been signed by the artist and the negative had been destroyed so that there could never be another print just like it. It was therefore an original and unique work of art.
I couldn't argue with that, but it has bugged me ever since, although it was no less a work of art than Tracey Emin's unmade bed. Art is indeed in the eye of the beholder (and often the depth of the pocket), but I am not knocking it and do enjoy quite a lot of abstract and experimental art, whether photographic or otherwise.
my friend, who's a photog, once told me.. photography is like painting.... you are painting with lights...