I watch people analyze and critique photos, which is all well and good. However, I want to put a different spin on this.
When simply passing by a photo or have it pop up in a forum, etc.; what makes you do a double-take? Again, you just catch a glimpse of a photo in passing. You aren't out to critique, take a close look or even look at photos, period. Something catches your attention, but just at a glance.
I think subject matter may dictate this for a lot of folks.
A couple for me, off the top of my head:
- A heavier or more extreme HDR look
- Black and whites: low-key, contrasty (is that a word LOL) detail
- Portraits: VERY rare, maybe a black and white with strong facial texture
- Landscapes: VERY rare, something different that I haven't seen a million times, whatever that might be
- Special effects
Just a couple. I'll think of others during my travels.
Something I have seen before but not really seen the way the Photographer has.
I like to see the extra emphasis added to the photo that really makes it pop. It's art and really is in the eye of the beholder.
letmedance wrote:
Something I have seen before but not really seen the way the Photographer has.
Definitely like this, but not sure I, emphasis on I, would notice this at a passing glance. I'll have to see.
Brett, for me, I think a pic has to be WAY better than what I can produce, since what we produce is actually our benchmark.
Subject matter for me has nothing to do with it.
I work in just about every genre and don't consider anything a specialty.
Funny you should mention portraits.
There has only been one pic that absolutely mesmerized me and stopped me dead in my tracks, for a long time, and yes, it was a portrait. And I have seen them all, from Cindy Sherman to Ansel Adams, and everything in between. If I get some time, I'll tell you about it! :lol:
SS
Another one from me.
Wildlife: Some wildly, intense action or a funny (to me) facial expression
SharpShooter wrote:
Brett, for me, I think a pic has to be WAY better than what I can produce, since what we produce is actually our benchmark.
Subject matter for me has nothing to do with it.
I work in just about every genre and don't consider anything a specialty.
Funny you should mention portraits.
There has only been one pic that absolutely mesmerized me and stopped me dead in my tracks, for a long time, and yes, it was a portrait. And I have seen them all, from Cindy Sherman to Ansel Adams, and everything in between. If I get some time, I'll tell you about it! :lol:
SS
Brett, for me, I think a pic has to be WAY better ... (
show quote)
Really?!?! You're gonna whet our appetites like that then not share??? That's mean! :hunf:
BrettOssman wrote:
I watch people analyze and critique photos, which is all well and good. However, I want to put a different spin on this.
When simply passing by a photo or have it pop up in a forum, etc.; what makes you do a double-take? Again, you just catch a glimpse of a photo in passing. You aren't out to critique, take a close look or even look at photos, period. Something catches your attention, but just at a glance.
I think subject matter may dictate this for a lot of folks.
A couple for me, off the top of my head:
- A heavier or more extreme HDR look
- Black and whites: low-key, contrasty (is that a word LOL) detail
- Portraits: VERY rare, maybe a black and white with strong facial texture
- Landscapes: VERY rare, something different that I haven't seen a million times, whatever that might be
- Special effects
Just a couple. I'll think of others during my travels.
I watch people analyze and critique photos, which ... (
show quote)
I've always been attracted to extremes... Either real close up or real far, bright day shots or nighttime images... And LIGHTING. I believe it's lighting and the texture created by the angle of light in an image that makes you stop in your tracks...
There are two portraits that grab my attention. One is of Ernest Hemmingway in b&w and the other was called "The Afghan Woman".
SharpShooter wrote:
Brett, for me, I think a pic has to be WAY better than what I can produce, since what we produce is actually our benchmark.
Subject matter for me has nothing to do with it.
I work in just about every genre and don't consider anything a specialty.
Funny you should mention portraits.
There has only been one pic that absolutely mesmerized me and stopped me dead in my tracks, for a long time, and yes, it was a portrait. And I have seen them all, from Cindy Sherman to Ansel Adams, and everything in between. If I get some time, I'll tell you about it! :lol:
SS
Brett, for me, I think a pic has to be WAY better ... (
show quote)
Just about any photo that does
not have
rushing water with a slow shutter speed.
ronny
BrettOssman wrote:
I watch people analyze and critique photos, which is all well and good. However, I want to put a different spin on this.
When simply passing by a photo or have it pop up in a forum, etc.; what makes you do a double-take? Again, you just catch a glimpse of a photo in passing. You aren't out to critique, take a close look or even look at photos, period. Something catches your attention, but just at a glance.
I think subject matter may dictate this for a lot of folks.
A couple for me, off the top of my head:
- A heavier or more extreme HDR look
- Black and whites: low-key, contrasty (is that a word LOL) detail
- Portraits: VERY rare, maybe a black and white with strong facial texture
- Landscapes: VERY rare, something different that I haven't seen a million times, whatever that might be
- Special effects
Just a couple. I'll think of others during my travels.
I watch people analyze and critique photos, which ... (
show quote)
A photograph with true artistic merit - an image that evokes feelings and thoughts on a deeper level, something that expresses something in a clever way and has meaning. Eye candy by itself doesn't do much for me; living in a city I'm surrounded by flashy, meaningless eye candy all day.
DavidPine wrote:
There are two portraits that grab my attention. One is of Ernest Hemmingway in b&w and the other was called "The Afghan Woman".
Yes, that National Geographic cover shot is very striking.
amehta wrote:
Yes, that National Geographic cover shot is very striking.
Hi,
My friend's close up of a polar bear was almost great , sadly slightly out of focus, he didn't get a chance to refocus.
If anyone sees a photo of a polar bear with a Nikon D300 please let me know .
Hammer wrote:
Hi,
My friend's close up of a polar bear was almost great , sadly slightly out of focus, he didn't get a chance to refocus.
If anyone sees a photo of a polar bear with a Nikon D300 please let me know .
I've got a photo of a duck with a box brownie, but I don't think he knew how to use it.........
winterrose wrote:
I've got a photo of a duck with a box brownie, but I don't think he knew how to use it.........
The shop asked the duck how he wanted to pay for the Box Brownie
He said just put it on the bill.
sorry could not resist it, When I first heard that I quacked ump and almost fell out of my stroller.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.