Upon consideration...

[Cogito]

Trev, unless you've been editing the EXIF data, both images were shot within a 15 minute period. Both seem to offer very reasonable alternative "solutions" to a bird in flight. Personally, neither image does much for me but I can certainly understand your step-daughter's liking for the first image.

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.

I don't think I can agree with Manfred here - I'm pleased that you preserved both images. It may take disk space but you can't reproduce any image if it's deleted. So keep them all!

I've kept this! Lord knows why. But one day I might remember what it actually is!

[JBW]

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.

In my experience you have it backwards Manfred. In another time and place I spent hours crafting my sermon. About one hour for every minute. But at the end of the day my perpetration was meaningless. What was meaningful was the message that the people took away.

[Manfred M]

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

Ted - we all take some snapshots.

Having seen some of your watch photos, there was definitely a fair bit of thought and deliberation that went into taking those.

[Manfred M]

In my experience you have it backwards Manfred. In another time and place I spent hours crafting my sermon. About one hour for every minute. But at the end of the day my perpetration was meaningless. What was meaningful was the message that the people took away.

I think you have it backwards Brian.

I can't think of any field where expertise (knowledge and skill) and experience (a.k.a. "practice") doesn't make a lot of difference in the final result. Professional athletes spend hours practising and tuning up their skills. Good musicians do the same with study and practice. Artists plan out their work and try out ideas before committing them to whatever medium they are working with.

Perhaps delivering a sermon is different, as the audience is likely expecting a particular message, and the delivery is less important.

[JBW]

I think you have it backwards Brian.

I can't think of any field where expertise (knowledge and skill) and experience (a.k.a. "practice") doesn't make a lot of difference in the final result. Professional athletes spend hours practising and tuning up their skills. Good musicians do the same with study and practice. Artists plan out their work and try out ideas before committing them to whatever medium they are working with.

Perhaps delivering a sermon is different, as the audience is likely expecting a particular message, and the delivery is less important.

No I don't. Perhaps the greatest Jazz recording in the known universe is Kind of Blue by Miles Davis. It is the greatest not because it was planned (it wasn't) nor because they practiced the performance (they didn't). It is arguably the greatest because it moves the public in ways that most other jazz recordings don't .

Professional athletes practice their skills because their skills keep them professional. It doesn't matter if you are a villian or a good guy it is your skills that count.

Painters and photographers may or may not plan out their work.

In the end game it is the audience and what they take away from the artistic expression that makes something a masterpiece.

[Tronhard]

Trev, unless you've been editing the EXIF data, both images were shot within a 15 minute period. Both seem to offer very reasonable alternative "solutions" to a bird in flight. Personally, neither image does much for me but I can certainly understand your step-daughter's liking for the first image.

One of the things I look at is context within which a photo was taken. That could include purpose, environment, technology among others. Actually, since my purpose is of such significant apparently, I was trying out some new gear at the local gannet colony, changing tracking and focusing settings to see how they coped - I wasn't trying to create a masterpiece in photography. I had the photos on my laptop when my step-daughter borrowed it to do some project and when she stumbled upon it she loved the image - she is inclined more to the abstract than anything else. I am simply happy that she is happy, is that not a good reason for it to exist?

When I consider the value of a photo I am perhaps more flexible than Manfred - I consider that people take images for a myriad of reasons, but once the photo is taken then it is up to the interpretation of the viewer, and that includes the photographer as to whether the image has merit in one way or another. That can also change over time. For example: I took images that I sold to corporates with my own intention as to what the photo would "say", and sold them as such. Yet I had seen them published in a context very different from that. So was the image a failure - I got paid for it and my customer and their customers were happy with the results for their purposes.

I believe that given any artistic piece: be it music, a play, a painting or a photo the viewer adds their own context and purpose to what is offered. There has been a long discussion as to whether some of the most celebrated works of art - Shakespeare's plays for example, were created with the degree of intellectualism that some scholars give them. One argument is that when a piece reaches a certain level of authority or recognition, it is enhanced by the efforts of those who attribute to it characteristics that suit their own agendas.

I also believe that there is a wide range of photographers who appreciate abstract and those who don't - and that's fine. They will judge the works of others based on their own preferences and biases - that is the nature of art, it's not a yes/no situation and it's not absolute. For example a realist or impressionist will look at an image and judge it based on their own definition of what works or does not. They would likely not sit well with something like the paintings of Edvard Munch, who as a symbolist painter believed that art should reflect an emotion or idea rather than represent the natural world in the objective, quasi-scientific manner embodied by realism and impressionism. His paintings have be critiqued as poorly formed, repetitive and bourgeois, yet his works have a significant following and value.

One of the great sayings about human decision-making is that it is made on emotion, be it a purchase, a relationship or art appreciation.

I think that is not only to be accepted but cherished.

[Manfred M]

No I don't. Perhaps the greatest Jazz recording in the known universe is Kind of Blue by Miles Davis. It is the greatest not because it was planned (it wasn't) nor because they practiced the performance (they didn't). It is arguably the greatest because it moves the public in ways that most other jazz recordings don't .

Let me guess that Miles Davis was accomplished musician who had lots of practice playing his instrument and had lots of experience in impromptu performance. This "greatest recording" wasn't his first recording either. The fact that it moved audiences was because an accomplished musician happened to make an emotional impact on his audience.

I think I lasted about 2 minutes listening to the music in the link you posted. A jazz lover could probably listed to it for hours and be very moved; for me it had the opposite effect. That is what our personal taste is all about.

Painters and photographers may or may not plan out their work.

The good ones do have a plan / goal. They also practice. Their plan doesn't always work out the way they had hoped.

In the end game it is the audience and what they take away from the artistic expression that makes something a masterpiece.

There is a very fine line between what one person considers priceless and another considers worthless.


I still maintain that in all these cases, the creator of the work will make a decision as to whether or not that they will share their work with their audience.

[lovelife65]

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.

Oh geez forgive me. I suppose it depends upon what genre you are interested in, as to how much careful planning and predetermined execution there is. I also suppose there might be some who consider such as quite boring. (No emotion, no real story just pure technical excellence). But of course, those people would just be “snapshot takers”.

[Manfred M]

Oh geez forgive me. I suppose it depends upon what genre you are interested in, as to how much careful planning and predetermined execution there is. I also suppose there might be some who consider such as quite boring. (No emotion just pure technical excellence). But of course, those people would just be “snapshot takers”.

I think you misunderstand what I am trying to say. A good picture is just that; period, regardless of genre. Good pictures generally do not happen by chance, but require a lot more than simply pulling out the camera and pressing the shutter release. Taking a good picture is the result of a conscious effort on the photographer's part as well as the skill to capture the image.

Carefully said, planning can be as simple as selecting the appropriate aperture, shutter speed, ISO and focal length and getting a shooting position that presents the scene in a positive way. A tricky, long exposure night-time shot could involve a lot more work, equipment and planning. Figuring out how to capture the viewer's attention on an emotional level takes some forethought.

The difference between a photograph and a snapshot is just that; the additional thinking and setup to line up the picture one is trying to get.

[xpatUSA]

Ted - we all take some snapshots.

Having seen some of your watch photos, there was definitely a fair bit of thought and deliberation that went into taking those.

Thanks for the compliment, Manfred. Yes there was, back then.