A Losers Guide to Photography: The Good Photo

The Good Photo

Recently I've been toying with idea of what makes a good photo. Besides following basic compositional rules and, arguably, even photos that break compositional rules are still following some obscure photo and/or graphic rule. Basically we are bound by rules. 

I don't want to argue about a photos composition. I want to argue about the uniqueness and impact of a photo. I pose the following question, is a photo good if everyone has seen [with their own eyes] the subject? This is an interesting question - if someone has been inundated with a certain amount of material or style of material does the photo lose its impact? William Mortensen said that a good photo needs to have a high level of impact to retain the viewers attention. 

Photography is subjective. Since photography is subjective, is there room for any absolutes? One could say it is true that a photo is objectively better by being unique, where there is little to no experience with the subject. By being unique the impact of the photo is increased. A unique photo will have a higher impact and require it to be less compositionally correct. So then I ask, does this [uniqueness] make an objectively better photo? 

PERSONAL THOUGHTS

I believe the uniqueness of the subjects makes it an objectively better photo than any subject seen by the entire populace. While the subject seen by the entire populace can be photographically compositionally better and have its own impact, it, in general, will never have a higher impact than a unique subject. Then I guess you could say, "while this subject has been seen by everyone, this photo had a unique approach in capturing the subject". This is valid and a perfect argument against the generalized argument that a unique photographed subject is objectively better. There are plenty of examples of a subject seen by everyone having its own uniqueness - mostly seen in landscape, street, architectural and rarely improved upon in portrait/fashion photography. 

Basically, what I am saying is there is a correlation between the uniqueness of the subject and the success of the photo. 

Not every unique photo will resonate with the viewer. And so, I believe these types of photos live almost between two realms of objectivity and subjectivity. I don't have a word to describe what that gray area would be. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Losers Guide to Photography: Perspective Compression

Image
Perspective Compression, the New Way Background I had a conversation at work with a coworker about the benefits of Medium Format cameras. One of the main talking points was what he called "compression" or "lens compression", or what I think is a better fitting term Perspective Compression. I wanted to know what would justify the cost expense of upgrading from an APS-C or Full Frame camera to a Medium Format camera, other than professionalism. I wanted tangible evidence to prove Medium Format was worth an extra 100%+ dollars. We had a long conversation about "compression" and the confusion surrounding that term because of it's interchangeability with other components of photography, like JPEG or PNG. I spent some time thinking about a better term to define 'the background appearing closer to the foreground'. I came up with Perspective Compression because it can be measured in terms of high and low and the words describe what is actually happenin...
Read more

A Losers Guide to Photography: Life is Purpose

This post is a bit off topic. I've been having a bout of depression that's self-induced. I've been pontificating what's the purpose of life  once you have accomplished everything you desired? I've been having this thought for a few months now and I have tried to create obstacles to keep the depression held at bay. I was scrolling Facebook when I saw a post regarding a South Korean actress Yoo Joo Eun. I don't follow anything Korean, but I found this particularly interesting. She was a young girl, about my age. She was in a similar position where she was doing what she wanted to do, act, but wasn't really successful at it. Her suicide letter was interesting because it wasn't from a position of self-loathing, hatred, remorse or anything. It was almost like her brain said, "this is enough". Her sense of purpose in life was left unfulfilled - or maybe it was fulfilled in some masochistic way. There was another lady I watched on YouTube talking abou...
Read more

A Losers Guide to Photography: Additive and Subtractive Negative Space

Image
Defining Negative Space Wikipedia's definition of negative space is, " Negative space , in art , is the empty space around and between the subject(s) of an image.  Negative space may be most evident when the space around a subject, not the subject itself, forms an interesting or artistically relevant shape, and such space occasionally is used to artistic effect as the "real" subject of an image." Negative space is in nearly every piece of art. The major difference between art pieces [photos] is the amount of negative space and the intent of negative space. My personal definition of negative space is - a separate element of space within a photo that compliments the main subject or detracts from the main subject.  I believe negative space can be broken down into two components: additive and subtractive . I think instinctively we, the photographer and observer, know the feeling of good negative space. It's a calming feeling where the space around the subject c...
Read more