G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

To this you can add music.

Some of this revolves about whether the question is about the artist or the viewer. To me, the question can be stated as, "what keeps you looking at or listening to the work?" Or, "why did you take that picture and what does it mean to you?"

Apaflo's comment about street shooting is an example. There are street shots that technically are lacking but that capture your attention (and maybe your imagination). To me, that's the secret. To have a picture tell or suggest a story that pushes your mind to fill in the blanks. This is SO subjective that it can include almost every aspect of a photo, including whether there is a distinct subject, an implied subject, no subject, or just an exercise in any of the multitudes of compositional guidelines.

The shot of the bird is gorgeous technically, and reminds me of the pictures that are for sale in wildlife refuges. They are rarely seen outside of that, however (other than for photography forums), and so they must appeal mostly to a certain "market." This gets back to boberick'sl point - it depends.

bkellyusa Loc: Nashville, TN

Your comment is equally cute!

jsharp Loc: Ballwin MO.

More partial to dogs.

jaimeblackwell Loc: Lewiston, Maine

I look at it this way. An image captured is a moment in time. whether you see it or not a moment is here and gone. I take a picture of something that catches my eye while dozens of people walk by never noticing. But it's my memory. My moment. So you don't get the subject or why I took such a shot. That's okay. It wasn't meant to rattle your brain like it did mine. But someone else looking a the shot might say wow!!! That's a great shot. Lots of subject matter.Are you wrong? Not in the least. Do you see the same thing that the photog saw in the moment? Maybe not..... Remember...... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I'll weigh in here. The subject is what the viewer makes of it, even if the photographer merely wanted a quick snap shot grab shot of a scene with no particular subject or story on which to focus. When this happens, it's up to the viewer to decide.

SterlingRachel

:) Yes kittens are adorable!
But on a more serious note, I am also partial to landscapes, both in my pastel paintings and in the photographs I take.
I particularly love photos that allow me to enter the scene, and don't force me to look at the image in a defined way. When I look at a photo such as the bird on the branch, I am amazed at the quality of color and gasp at the moment caught in time, but they aren't images I choose to put on my wall.
Linda's first 2 landscapes, complete without floating or soaring birds are the type of images I choose to look at over and over and inspire me.
I have more art training than photography and am definitely an amateur, and also definitely have my own perspective on what I like ;), so just my $0.02 worth.

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

Interesting "article" here.....

So much so that I really do not know just what to say...?

That taken .. I shall just keep reading this = It IS highly interesting.

However - I can not resist to add some of my "good" ones.

(I make photographs because I really like to.... If someone else likes them, All The Better.)

All here are digital in making - except for the last one - That was an experiment with the use of Photo Paper as a Negative (the "film base") in a View Camera

Made from a Photo Paper Negative - Ansco 8X10 Camera

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

Just found this in the e-mail to me.....

I do think that it may be "timely" for this thread......

http://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/159c90eb893de9b8

Doug RC Loc: Western Massachusetts

Thank you. ALL, for amazing inspiration and perspectives .. most of my shots are unspectacular and most of my shots end up being
'points of interest' cropped out of the larger picture (trying always to crop out as little as possible) .. even in 'some' of the worst
I can usually find something that makes a ""good"" result if I just dig into it a little bit.
Thanks again.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I generally have a dominant subject or subjects in my images... and I usually follow the various compositional guidelines pretty closely: rule of thirds, S-curve, slight vignette effect, etc.

However I also like to try "breaking the rules". Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. A few examples:

A very off-center subject with much of the image "negative space"...


Horizon line almost perfectly centered, but other elements very off-center...


No single subject... the entire image area is the subject, with no single strong point, for all practical purposes...


Just the opposite.... lots of "blank space" with a small, isolated subject shot from an odd angle...


Or, a perfectly centered subject...


But a lot of the time I "follow the rules" and like the results:

Rule of thirds...


Classic S-curves...


I recall seeing someone's photo that really got me thinking.... It was a seascape with almost no detail, no central subject and a plain but rather indistinct horizon line that was almost perfectly centered. You had to really study the image to figure out what it was depicting.... or even to realize that it was a photograph at all. It was mostly just pastel, tonal gradations. That was possibly the most abstract photography I've ever seen and I found it incredibly simple and striking. I could actually see making a large print from it and hanging it on the wall... odd for an image that had so little "information" in it.

I'm always looking for abstract subjects, but seldom feel I'm very successful capturing them in photos. Some of my more satisfying abstract shots...

bud 77 Loc: Long Beach, WA

Just want to follow this thread.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

What a tangled web we weave:
For those that capture images 'for their own satisfaction' it must be like blowing kisses in the dark. You know what you are doing, but no-one else understands why you bother. Not only will you limit your own skill as a photographer, you may also limit your own satisfaction.

We print or post images to gain approbation, be that compliments or payment. It has been said that there are few truly unique images - there is always a sunset somewhere - so we are not posting an image because it is unique we post it because we want others to enjoy what we saw 'in a way that interests and or pleases them '.

Now you can be the Artist that lives in a garret 'doing their own thing' in the hope that someone eventually will say WOW.. Or you can learn what people generally want and incorporate those aspects into your work. Your aim may not be for commercial gain - but to develop a deeper understanding of what you can achieve for yourself.

The rules of composition are not a single 'master's' ideal, but a long historical discussion as to what makes 'a very popular' picture. Yes the rules can be broken - As Abstracts do. They, like impressionism, did not conform to the normal ideas at that time, but they did develop 'Rules of composition' within their own genre.
They also broadened the appeal of patterns within art in general and encouraged experimentalism in what is now modern art. Hence the advice that : you need to know the rules before you 'break' them...ie Know your market!
Or clearly understand why you have to break that particular rule, in that particular instance, and be able to explain how it makes for a better image.

Like Art - there is a lot of talk 'about' photography. If we did not discuss art we would still be drawing in caves using spit,charcoal and crushed rock. Photography moves on as 'those that please the most' demand better kit or different approaches in order 'to please even more people'.

I am not hijacking SS'S post. What I want to get across is that his post, to me at least, is not born out of criticism. It is a desire, if you like, to discuss the fundamentals of composition in order to see who does what and why they feel that 'their way' makes a strong image. To do that - you have to put personal likes/dislikes aside and discuss 'within what most people think they do'.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Like most dogmatic statements, this one may contain a shred of truth, but is also prone to invalidation. That's why being a heretic is so much fun.

The subject in the second picture is the flow of humanity as it walks through life. Perhaps I too am walking across that bridge/path/wall. If I am choosing to go somewhere, that is one subject. If I am simply trudging after the crowd that is another.

The subject in the second is loneliness, the viewer in the wide expanse who, even so, cannot cannot see beyond the next ridge. This is like most of us.

CSand Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia

Really like your work.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

All photographs have a subject. I see this as being about having a clear focal point and in that case I would say no. As far as images needing to be interesting in terms of having a "wow factor" I would say this is unnecessary. I wonder how deadpan photography such as Ed Ruscha's 26 Gasoline Stations fits into this argument.