What does it matter

[chauncey]

why am I taking a shot from this location. Who is this photo aimed for. what is the message I wish to convey.

Another rant...I got this response in my email this morning concerning a posted C&C request on a nameless site. Thing is that, I seem to get these valueless responses quite often. So I gotta ask...
am I the only photographer that gives absolutely no thought to the message/emotion/audience of a picture? Why is it that, simply wanting to take a pretty picture isn't enough?

[DanK]

I have the same reaction. My answer to the first would usually be either "it looked best from there" or "that's where I happened to be and I had no time or way to get someplace better." I would not be able to answer either of the other questions for the large majority of my photos.

[AB26]

Chauncey,

Once you start posting images on a “photographic” forum where you want the opinion of others about how you can improve your photographs, these questions are valid.
Posting images on a forum aimed at a specific field of expertise, you wish to be part of a specific group of people. In the case of CiC it would be those whom are eager to learn more about Photography. Taking a snapshot that you will file in an album, for you and your family to enjoy, is a little different from images posted with the aim of learning something.

I would think all of us are here because we no longer have the desire to simply take snapshots. We aim to improve our skill to be able to take beter pictures than the average snap shooter. Therefore the questions, what are you aiming to achieve, who would you like to reach with your images, do your images tell something to your audience, etc.?

Valid questions if you wish to improve your skill but inappropriate questions if you aim to do happy snaps for your own pleasure only.

[Donald]

why am I taking a shot from this location.

Because I wanted/chose to

Who is this photo aimed for.

Me, but if you like it as well, that would be nice.

what is the message I wish to convey.

Read Ansel Adams - "... you either get it or you don't get it, but there's nothing on the back of the print that tells you what you should get."

Now, stop being so anal and get out there and make pictures!

Now, the foregoing doesn't mean that I am not thinking very deeply about the emotion in an image, because that, I hope, is what all my photography is about. But if I'm not conveying that through the picture, then there is no point in adding words to try and explain it.

[MattNQ]

Chauncey, I guess something must make you 'want' to take that pretty picture. what do you see in this ink blot..tell me about your mother...... Sometimes we do over-analyze.
If I'm standing waist deep in a cold creek at 5:30am waiting for a sunrise, it's not because I'm thinking my image will generate a meaningful response in someone. It's because I want to try & capture something that looks good and makes me go 'wow'
I am stoked however if someone else really likes it & it happens to generate some feeling in them.
But other times, if I've got a really wide angle & GND on and trying to get the scary a threatening clouds looming behind a decaying abandoned building , then yes, I am trying to convey some emotion or mood. I think the image is cool..but then my wife will look at it & question why I need a photo of random old building (she doesn't get it) So no matter how much thought we put into a shot, sometimes nobody will 'get it' anyway.
Shoot what you want to shoot, from wherever you want. Sometimes it will speak to ourselves or others. Sometimes it won't.
Just have fun doing it!!

[flashback]

I dunno, it all sounds like pretentious claptrap. Those three questions most likely work if you're in advertising because the image IS the message but for most everyone else it's about artistic expression. Maybe there is a group of people to whom those three questions are paramount in 'creating' (and interpreting) images but for me, I let the image tell me what it tells me. If it's a crafted message I may or may not get it. It don't mean eyes ignernt, it just means I see what i see the way I see things.

[HaseebM]

Dunno about them questions but some very good responses to read.

[chauncey]

My message is rarely nothing more than "what do ya think of my pretty picture/could I make it better with different PP". Nowadays, most of my images are the WYSIWYG variety....with "blind squirrel" luck playing an important part in a fair number of the better ones. I set up and wait for something to happen is my game plan.





The humor in the first one went unseen until I opened it on the computer
There were eleven of them in flight with luck playing a role...all in focus.
Where's the why/audience/emotion...except to say pretty pictures.

[pnodrog]

I went to a photographic convention and Elliott Erwitt (Magnum etc) was one of the keynote speakers and had a display of photographs. I always remember when he was being interviewed and asked about the message/meaning of one of his photographs. He shrugged his shoulders and with a smile said "I am just the photographer it is for the viewer to understand".

[Manfred M]

1. Sometimes I take a picture because I like what I see;

2. Sometimes I take a picture because I want to provoke a reaction; and

3. Sometimes I take a picture to make a statement.

It’s up to the viewer to figure that part out. Most of my pictures belong to the first category; “I took the picture because something here caught my eye”. I guess I’m pretty shallow….

If someone wants to delude themselves into thinking that I am subconsciously trying to make a statement, they are digging far too deeply. That being said, they are quite welcome to keep on deluding themselves….

[Mike Buckley]

am I the only photographer that gives absolutely no thought to the message/emotion/audience of a picture? Why is it that, simply wanting to take a pretty picture isn't enough?

It seems to me that wanting to take a pretty picture actually does give thought at least to the audience. That's because, at the minimum, the audience is you. A photo can't be pretty and devoid of emotion because concluding that something is pretty requires using emotion. Last, if you have determined that the photo is pretty, that in itself is a message that the scene itself is pretty.

So, hopefully that proves that you actually do give thought to the message, emotion and audience even though you might not think of it in exactly those terms. I know for a fact that I never do, but this was an enjoyable exercise.

[chauncey]

"I am just the photographer it is for the viewer to understand".

There's a quote that meets my attitudes to a "T"
Donald, I give new meaning to the term anal retentive.

[NorthernFocus]

If one assumes that the commenter was genuinely interested in providing feedback that could be helpful, then asking oneself such questions can be productive. I'm sure we have all had (and at least in my case continue to have) the experience of seeing something that looks like a great photo and then the results don't at all match our mental image. Perhaps that is the point of the comments. When some unique lighting situation etc. catches my attention, I now try (usually without success) to pause long enough to ask my version of those questions:
1) What is it about this scene that caught my attention. The point being, what should be included/excluded in the image.
2) What feeling does the scene illicit in me. The point being that I want to repoduce that feeling in the image. NOTE: This is the part about the audience and the audience primarily is me. If others like it that's gravy.
3) Having answered the first two questions, now what is the best angle, FOV, DOF, etc. to accomplish what I now (hopefully) have in my mind's eye. Then it becomes a technical process of physical position and camera settings...

All that said, this is one reason I do so few serious landscapes. It's axhausting

As I've said in prior posts, wildlife is relatively easy. You much around in the bush until something happens and then try to capture it in action. You can't control how the critters behave, what the lighting is at the time, etc. Simple and fun

[Glenn NK]

I've read all the previous responses - all very good comments and impossible to pick one that is best.

The comment by "flashback" (aka Jack P) probably comes the closest to my reaction.

On the one forum where I do post occasionally, I once had a positive suggestion that read as follows: ". . . . . in regard to the log on the beach in the FG, it would have been better to have included all of it and not chopped it off with the edge of the image". That was a good lesson.

Otherwise so much of it is just claptrap. IMO, the comment that the OP got was in this category.

Glenn

[Brev00]

Does a critique that lands in your email but makes no sense actually exist? I think it is an essential part of a critique for it to be understood. But, not just understood. I want the photographer to have a response. When I give a critique, I want the person to say, "Yeah, I can see how that might make a difference." If my critique is brilliant but does not speak to the photographer, I don't think it has much value. Just more passing digits. In this case, the critique seems reflexive. The questions could apply to any image by any photographer. Kind of like Critique 101. No matter how valid the words may be, they do not touch you. So, you are free to dismiss them. Even if you do ignore them, the trick is that the words may return to visit you the next time you are on a shoot. In that case, the critique exists.

To add my critique: those are two seriously sweet images. I know, not a very deep comment.