Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Why not? I do it all the time! And it works quite well. The point is that rather than spoon-feed them I give them something to think about. And they start paying attention at every little detail as a result - and usually this results in better pictures, and lots of different "takes" on a particular theme or venue.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

One of the best ways to grow as a photographer, learning better composition, better lighting, better moment, better whatever... is to throw off your thick skin and show your work to some people with a lot of experience in photo editing, photography, design, or art. Let them give you all the constructive criticism you can stomach. Then take it seriously and go try again!

I spent five years (8th through 12th grade) doing candids and sports for my high school yearbook. I was fortunate enough to have a RUTHLESS advisor who MASSACRED my work on a daily basis. Call me a masochist, but I thrived on it. I got pretty good from that. Four years using slide film in college taught me to compose in the finder.

Later, as an AV producer, I worked with a designer/artist with a brilliant sense of what works and doesn't. He was the sort of guy who had 42 large file cabinets full of magazine tear sheets in his office, spanning four decades of the best spreads from Look, Life, Vogue, National Geographic, and more! He studied composition, daily, and used what he learned, daily. I learned a lot from him, and he learned a lot of photo technology, computer technology, and project management stuff from me. We had a deal... He massacred my work, and I, his. It was all good natured and constructive, of course!

I don't think I've ever photographed something I couldn't have done better. There's always something to be learned, something more to do the next time.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

You posses a lyrical sense as shown in these wonderful shots!

Thanx for sharing.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

=================

I made a really bad mistake with the resent Link to what was suppose to be about Composition.... I was not Careful in the copy and paste thing here....

The Real link was suppose to be from "Outdoor Photography Guide"...

http://www.outdoorphotographyguide.com/videos/landscape/photography-composition-tips/


The before mentioned link was from my G-Mail where the notice came in... I am very sorry to have caused any confusion with the link that I attached earlier.

So IF anyone had problems with the afore mentioned link (as when you "click" on it ---- It would have taken you to either your e-mail or something like that from Google.... Or my gmail address.

Again ... I am sorry this occurred... I shall be much more careful in the future.

JamesR.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

===============

Sorry about that... I copied and pasted My E-Mail that the link came to me in....

I have written a retraction to this foo-pagh ...

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

=====================

Very VERY good photographs and the explanations ...

Good "Stuff" - Indeed.

CSand Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia

James, I was not referring to the link but saying that I enjoyed the photos that you posted. Sandy

Pkfish Loc: Wilson Wy

That just made my day!

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

---------------

I know - and I do thank you....

But the link to my g-mail has - and may cause misunderstanding and it is difficult to explain - but I did like my g-mail rather than the "Outdoor" photography link.... I wanted Everyone to know
--

Again....

Thank You for the complements on my photos.

JamesR

Silke Loc: Germany

Forgive me for not reading all the responses first (I will go back and do it) but I didn't want to be influenced on my thinking just yet and give a response of what I feel about the essence / subject of an image.

There is a difference between subject and essence. The subject is tangible, easily recognized. The essence (to me) is more about the feeling it evokes in the viewer.
Does a photo need both?
I can't actually answer that.
I believe you can have an excellent image, with a strong subject -- and no "soul".
And you can have an "Oh oops, out of focus, what the heck did I just shoot?" image, with such a strong essence to it, that defies logic.
I went to Australia many years ago, and a colleague took us to the Adelaide Museum of Art. There were many very good paintings. Some where worth a second look for me, and some weren't. (Eye of the Beholder. ) I am not an artsy person, I have no idea what I'm looking at. I don't know if it's a famous painter, nor do I care. I like what I like.
Then I walked into a room with a single, very large painting in it. It was a landscape, brown on brown, nothing special when you looked at the photograph of it in the catalog.
The real thing? I was transfixed. I stood there for over an hour, completely blown away. There was so much detail, so many things to discover, so many little specks of light and shadow... I completely understood why this was the first painting they ever bought.
It had soul.
The subject was (probably) the people in it, but the artist went beyond the subject and managed to draw me into this tranquil river scene, making me a part of it. The entire painting evokes a sense of peace that makes you feel rested.
I went home. I could not get that painting out of my head and regretted not taking a print with me - so much so, I asked an Australian colleague if he'd go down there to get me a copy.
He did. I had it framed, and they wanted to put this big, broad frame on it. Tried desperately to talk me into some flashy, stunning frame. "It'll set it off perfectly."
I balked. I opted for an inch wide, muted frame that echoed the colors of the painting. I wanted nothing to take away from the image.
When it was done, and I picked it up, the framer actually looked at it from across the room and said it was the right choice. That his suggestions would have overpowered the image.
It hung above my fireplace for 25 years. (It's in the loft in the UK now, as I have no way to get it here in one piece atm.)

Take Ansel Adams and his photographs of Yellowstone.
I have seen many shots of the same scenery. In color. In B&W. All stunning. All excellent images.
So far none have quite stuck with me the same way the Ansel Adams ones do. He didn't just capture the subject. He captured the majesty, the play of light and shadow. He drew me in and made me part of it. Made me feel something beyond "Wow, what a beautiful place."

So to me, essence, soul, is more important than the subject. I want a photo / image / painting to evoke a feeling in me. If it doesn't, it's forgettable.
So no, a photograph does not need a subject to be a good photograph.
But it does need soul to be memorable.

I think that's what makes the difference between a good photographer, who does everything right, and produces stunning work, and one you keep coming back to, because they capture more than just what the eye can see.

Does that make any sense?

RichardQ Loc: Colorado

Perhaps I misunderstood your challenge, SS, when you wrote " I'll let others post their interpretations of abstracts they feel work as a subject," If so, I apologise. Anyway, I feel neither of these two images has a dominant single subject (i.e., an object) clearly more important than its surroundings. One displays a juxtaposition of textures, the other a juxtaposition of tensions. IMHO they are not truly abstract, nor are they truly explicit. They can be turned around, upside down, portrait or landscape, without affecting the relationships in the compositions. So I'll stick my neck out and offer these for discussion. They were created in 1951 when I was an art student.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Richard, no, you did not misunderstand, so no need for any apologies. Any and all participation that can glean a bit more insight to understanding this topic is quite welcome.
BTW, in 1951, depending on WHEN your shot was taken, I was not even born until October of that year!!! Glad to have your experience on board.
I just hope we're not just preaching to the choir!
The goal here now is to verbalize either by words or examples just what a subject might be, or not be.
We've got everything from a very graphic element, to which there seems to be no disagreement to the more intrinsic such as the "essence", or a "feeling" or how strongly and quickly an image grabs you!!
There seems to be no lack of any of those in a landscape or in an abstract.
But again, the goal is to by words or example to convey these lessons to those that may not have a good handle of exactly what makes a good image.
It's been said by several that many images are posted here that just don't have the strong enough element to hold our attention.
It doesn't seem to be a very tangible ideas to convey.
Maybe we can hear from those that are or were not sure, if these so far 100 responses have helped in any way to make the matter of subjects any more clear and thus actually help them to produce stronger images?
Maybe this will all be borne out in the next 100 responses!!! LoL
SS

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Exactly! Please read whole truncated quote to see what I'm agreeing to.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The perceived essence of a photograph is the subject. That may or may not be a tangible object shown in the image. Every object is a visual symbol and each is more, or less, dominant than other symbols. Being the most dominant symbol does not automatically make it the subject unless it is also the essence of the photograph!

Composition is about arranging objects and adjusting the heirarchy of dominace with the intention of making your intended subject, tangible or otherwise, the clear essence of the picture.

repleo Loc: Boston

SS ...."Maybe we can hear from those that are or were not sure, if these so far 100 responses have helped in any way to make the matter of subjects any more clear and thus actually help them to produce stronger images?"

Yes, they have helped me. Confused me maybe, but at least made me think. I think Apaflo's response above - 'the perceived essence .. is the subject.. is the one that stands out for me.

Thanks for this string. I didn't contribute, but I read them all.