Upon consideration...

[Tronhard]

I reprieved this from the trash. As is my want I try to take nice crisp shots of birds on the wing, not such an easy thing with gannets belting along in a stiff on-shore breeze. When I saw this photo of a gannet coming in to land at the Muriwai colony I initially thought it was a complete dud, but something made me keep it and going back to view it some time later I actually liked the image in a somewhat abstract way.



So worth keeping or not?

[ST1]

As an abstract image it works Trev. But as to being worth keeping I’ll leave that decision to you. As I have quite a few images in my archive that others would probably delete


Sent from somewhere in Gods County using Tapatalk

[rachel]

Yes, I also like it. Some people work hard at deliberate camera shake to get images not as interesting as that

[lunarbo]

Well this gannet photo has 3 fans but it’s not for me I’m afraid.

Yes it shows nice motion of bird and background. But for me as a “rule of thumb” if it’s to work it has to have one thing in focus to show you meant it.... the beak or the near wing, say.

Only if it was a flying dodo would I keep it- just to prove I’d seen it!

But , as Peter says, we’ve all got some “individual” images in our collection

[Tronhard]

Thanks to Peter, Rachel and Barbara for your comments.

As a literal photograph of a bird in flight I rejected it out of hand, as I said. Normally I would go with something like this:



It was a comment from my step-daughter who is an artist and wanted a copy as an example of impressionism - a style of art that is definitely not universally appealing. That forced me to take a second look at it from a different perspective. She got me to think outside my default space, and I realized that I had not deleted it because there was something there that I liked.

[Manfred M]

Trev - in these situations, I find that if it looks like the effect was created on purpose, then the shot may be worth keeping. On the other hand, when the effect is too subtle and it looks like a blown shot, then the image probably belongs in the deleted group.

For me, this the shot does not pass the test.

[Tronhard]

Hi Manfred:

I see your point, but I am struggling with this... and not specifically to do with this photo, so let's put that to one side for a moment...

If an image is taken, perhaps not as intended yet is appreciated by others for something despite its flaws, is that image still a failure? Let me give you an example:



This image could be considered to have many technical faults, yet it is considered one of the top 100 images of the 20th century. I know the history of this photo, how it is one of a very few to survive a production screw-up. But if all the images on that day had been processed even Robert Capa agreed it should have ended up on the floor. Yet it was appreciated and has been lauded for the very things that make it technically unacceptable - the chaos, dynamism of the moment are all captured in this.

[Manfred M]

Capa's famous picture works because of the emotional impact, which trumps the technical issues with the shot. His "Death of a Loyalist Soldier" is also not technically good, but once again wins on pure emotional impact. It is also generally viewed as a fake...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C...st_Soldier.jpg

So, yes, some images make the cut because of this. I'm not sure if your image is in the same league or has the same level of emotional impact...

[Tronhard]

I am not talking about my photo - I already said that. So again let's leave my own photo out of this. My step daughter likes it for her own reasons and that's fine by me.

I am unsettled about what I understand to be your view that the value of a photo being defined only by what the photographer intended. I believe that the person seeing any work also has the final say. There are lots of examples of things that were created for disposal but now have intrinsic value, and quite frankly the reverse. If you like you could say that I believe that the beholder has a role to play, and is in essence the final arbiter.

[rachel]

If an image is taken, perhaps not as intended yet is appreciated by others for something despite its flaws, is that image still a failure? .

There was a similar question raised recently when someone here (sorry, can't remember who) posted a touching photo of a couple talking, one laughing. It wasn't technically brilliant and received some criticism for that, yet others really liked it because of the emotion in it.

I suppose we all try to balance the technical with the artistic or emotional but at the end of the day, probably most of us lean, at least on occasion, towards one or the other.

And while it was stated on the other thread that, as a photography forum, we should put more weight on the technical side, I'm not sure I agree with that.

If you like you could say that I believe that the beholder has a role to play, and is in essence the final arbiter.

Absolutely agree that the impact on the observer is important. Isn't that a definition of what art is?

[James G]

This is an interesting discussion to me for a number of reasons. I think that Trev's point concerning the 'beholder' does have a significance.
I remember getting into a debate a good many years ago about 'great art'. I think I caused a stir because the art being discussed was ancient Egyption.
The person I was arguing with was suggesting that the art was 'great', was doing so essentially because of it's antiquity. I rather preferred to consider it as something other than 'great' because as a 20th Century observer (at the time), I was unable to see and appreciate the material in a way which referred to it's original context because I did not have the ancient Egyptions' belief system, nor any way to properly understand the world they lived in and how that connected to/informed their 'art'.
I am very sure that whoever created it was not out to inform me of anything in this day and age.

I think that once an image is 'out there' it's popularity/merit is usually defined by the observer regardless of the producer's intent.

I have a friend who often see's 'faces' in images. She is fascinated by this and collects examples. Several of my images are in her collection solely because of this!

ps I've just seen Rachel's comment... kind of more succinct thamn my ramblings!

[lovelife65]

I tend to believe it doesn't matter always what the photographer "intended", maybe there wasn't even an intention.
In the end, it's the final result, and what one makes of it themselves, as a "viewer" that matters.
Everyone will have different reactions, regardless.

For an abstract, this works. It doesn't matter if it was intended.
Often our intentions aren't realized, but we still come up with something, once in a great while, that is fantastic.

(forgive typos, grammar, etc. been a crazy couple of weeks )

[Wavelength]

I like it somehow;that's all

[dnperfors]

Although there might be situations where I would accept a at is out of focus, this wouldn’t be one of them. For me the head is just too far out of focus that it is make me uncomfortable.

[JBW]

I am not talking about my photo - I already said that. So again let's leave my own photo out of this. My step daughter likes it for her own reasons and that's fine by me.

I am unsettled about what I understand to be your view that the value of a photo being defined only by what the photographer intended. I believe that the person seeing any work also has the final say. There are lots of examples of things that were created for disposal but now have intrinsic value, and quite frankly the reverse. If you like you could say that I believe that the beholder has a role to play, and is in essence the final arbiter.

To paraphrase: The best shot is not necessarily the sharpest or the more technically correct shot. It's the shot that speaks to you.

It is legitimate and proper to place restrictions and demands on a photographer who wishes to place a shot in a competition. A full color shot simply doesn't belong in a monochromatic competition.

But to say that a shot, any shot must meet requirements A through Z to be worth keeping or displaying is simple arrogance.

All that matters is that at the end of the day someone is moved by the shot.

[xpatUSA]

<>

I suppose we all try to balance the technical with the artistic or emotional but at the end of the day, probably most of us lean, at least on occasion, towards one or the other.

And while it was stated on the other thread that, as a photography forum, we should put more weight on the technical side, I'm not sure I agree with that.

A most insightful post, if I may say so! I liked the introduction of "weighting" into the discussion.

[Manfred M]

I am unsettled about what I understand to be your view that the value of a photo being defined only by what the photographer intended. I believe that the person seeing any work also has the final say.r.

Ultimately this is correct as the photographer makes the decision on whether to show the image to someone else or not. Unless the image gets released by the photographer, we won't even know that the image exists. Many photographers apply a level of self-censorship regarding the image(s) they have captured and make certain decisions about it, including hitting the "Delete" key.

Once the image is released, whether as a print or by sharing it on social media or a site like this one, the photographer has entered into the realm you are writing about and that is when others get to form their own opinion about the work. Here I again give the photographer the benefit because only he or she knows what they were trying to achieve as they composed the image, dialed in the camera settings and took the picture.

Does the beholder play a part? Almost certainly, but for the most part, that will be a fairly minor role, as the observer only deals with what they see. Ultimately the photographer has made a number of decisions along the way and what the beholder sees is what the photographer has decided to show them.

[Manfred M]

There was a similar question raised recently when someone here (sorry, can't remember who) posted a touching photo of a couple talking, one laughing. It wasn't technically brilliant and received some criticism for that, yet others really liked it because of the emotion in it.

I suppose we all try to balance the technical with the artistic or emotional but at the end of the day, probably most of us lean, at least on occasion, towards one or the other.

And while it was stated on the other thread that, as a photography forum, we should put more weight on the technical side, I'm not sure I agree with that.

There are three aspects that we tend to look at when we observe an image:

1. Technical - which really boils down to the colour, the light, the exposure, sharpness (or lack of sharpness) and photographic technique;

2. Organizational - distractions, use of space and composition; and

3. Emotional impact - the mood of the image, the impact on the viewer, the subject matter itself and the imagination applied by the photographer.

From a photographic standpoint, #1 is generally the easiest to accomplish, #2 is something that many of the photographers positing here on CiC have figured out and are trying to include in their image making. #3 is the toughest of all to achieve and in my view is the one thing that takes things from a good image to a great one.

Absolutely agree that the impact on the observer is important. Isn't that a definition of what art is?

That of course assumes that the photograph is art, and most of the photographs that we see are definitely NOT art. Most are little more than a form of documentation.

If it is art, then personal tastes and biases play a role in our "appreciation" of it. We can say that an image is technically good, is well organized and has a significant emotional impact on is; but that doesn't mean we will like it.

[Manfred M]

I tend to believe it doesn't matter always what the photographer "intended", maybe there wasn't even an intention.

That is generally how we define a "snapshot". An image taken without a lot of forethought and planning. Every so often one ends up with a "lucky shot" that is good.

In "serious photography", the photographer will tend to have a view on how he or she wants the image to turn out. This "careful consideration" and "predetermined execution" is the point when the photographer has the skill and expertise to make the image that he or she wants to. This does not necessarily take a lot of time; an experienced photographer can sometimes do this very quickly; even in a matter or seconds.

Once you have gone out to shoot and come back and looked at your images and say to yourself "I have taken the image(s) I was planning to", you have graduated to the ranks of being a photographer rather than someone who takes snapshots.

[xpatUSA]

That is generally how we define a "snapshot". An image taken without a lot of forethought and planning. Every so often one ends up with a "lucky shot" that is good.

In "serious photography", the photographer will tend to have a view on how he or she wants the image to turn out. This "careful consideration" and "predetermined execution" is the point when the photographer has the skill and expertise to make the image that he or she wants to. This does not necessarily take a lot of time; an experienced photographer can sometimes do this very quickly; even in a matter or seconds.

Once you have gone out to shoot and come back and looked at your images and say to yourself "I have taken the image(s) I was planning to", you have graduated to the ranks of being a photographer rather than someone who takes snapshots.

Since I take more snapshots by that definition, I guess that I am not a photographer at all ...