TSGallantPhotography Loc: SW Florida

Great list!

anotherview Loc: California

You write: "But in making the images he (the photographer) can certainly try to elicit a response in line with his/her feelings about the subject."

Yes he can. Yet consider the innumerable viewers who will see his photograph. To shape his photograph to control a pre-given response from these viewers appears like a preposterous notion.

Let me present another avenue by which to explode this nonsense that a photographer can control how a viewer responds to his photograph.

Photography functions as an artform, a visual one. Traditionally, it presents in two dimensions. It has no natural depth. Yet by artful means the photographer can produce a photograph most appealing to the visual sense of normal human perception. The means to do so every master photographer knows.

Nevertheless, this photographer knows further that this perception along with experience, intelligence, age, education, training, occupation, and state of health can influence how another human will respond to his artwork. At the other end, the photographer may see his work prompt indifference. The variance here the photographer cannot calculate. He can only hope for appreciation. The photographer may as well offer his work as a doormat if he craves a known response to his work.

The age we now live in has developed enough silly notions. We should identify and then abandon them promptly.

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

This is the first time I saw these 12 elements. I don't know if I could use all of them when taking a photo. Most of the elements seem like a better tool for evaluating a photograph after it is printed. My opinion is they are best used to evaluate my photographs to recognize areas for improvement. Perhaps after some time, they could become automatic.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Theses are not “The 12 Commandments” of photography, nor are they part of a religious or political ideology or a plot to inflict uniformity on art. They are simply a set of guidelines and some very basic and rudimentary elements on the path to professionalism and competence in photography. They are not meant to negate creativeness, passion, artistic motivations and serendipitous instincts in photographers.

There are folks right here on this site that have been “affectionately” referred to as the Grammar Police” . I know, I have received a number of “citations” from them. They take folks to task for sloppy usage of the language. They, however, do have a valid argument. After all, how can we communicate effectively, ask questions, provide answers an share and advise each other explicitly if we can't put a sentence together in a clear and comprehensive manner? By the same token, how can we tell a visual story, bring the viewer's eyes to the motif of an image and create all the impact that folks are discussing in this conversation, if we can't put an image together, at least, in a clear and cogent manner and present it in an attractive and interesting display. When a photographer can't or won't master the “elements” they become “visually illiterate”! They may have all the creativity, passion and imagination in the world but if the can't get it right on a sheet of photographic material, all is lost.

Please remember, theses “elements” come form professional photographer's associations and perhaps many folks here, don't fully understand what these associations are and may harbor many misconceptions. Again, theses are not cults, religions or political parties. The are not camera clubs or meant to encourage elitism or snobbery.

Professional photographers are not health, legal, financial or engineering professionals. There are no governmental licensing, mandatory standards or restrictions other than the usual business, taxation and consumer protection laws that exist. If we mess up, nobody gets sick, dies, goes to jail, declares bankruptcy and/or buildings and bridges won't fall down. If health and safety are not part of our job, the governments have nothing to do with our standards. Anyone can print a business card, open a shop, hang a shingle and declare themselves a professional photographer. Affiliation with any association, board, governing body or college is not mandatory and each professional photographer is on their own.

Membership in the major associations is strictly voluntary but seem to attract photographers who seek basic education, continual education and upgrading of their skills, credentials and status in the industry, and voluntary adherence to a code of ethics. The print competitions, merit systems, qualification and degrees programs, again, are strictly voluntary. Many find that competing with one's peers, striving for higher “scores”, earning merits and achieving masterships is stimulating and HEALTHY. Most of the accomplished photographer that I know are not in it for ego, snob appeal or bragging rights. The just want to establish higher standards for themselves, make certain that the are serving there clients with their best work while keeping abreast of all the latest trends, technologies and business practices.

It's fun too! There are great conventions and trade shows- some in rather posh locations! There are social activities, opportunities to talk shop, share ideas, gossip and enjoy the atmosphere. Seminars, classes, workshops, literature, professional publications, business training, motivational speakers are all part of the scene. Some associations advocate for professional photographers on copyright issues, lobby the government, and offer indemnity insurance at good group rates.

On this site, there is frequent mention of iconic photographers of the past and present. Many of theses “names” were gust speaker, lecturers and program presenters as I was growing up in the industry. I'll drop a few names- Yosef Karsh, Peter Gowland, Richard Avadon, Irving Penn, Philippe Halsman, Arthur Rothstein, David Douglas Duncan, and many more. More significantly, there are hundreds of incredibly talented photographers, guys and gals with small town photo studios or working in the photographic departments of major corporations or shooting for local newspapers all doing top quality work- true artists in the own specialties.

The working life of professional photographers can be quite demanding and oftentimes difficult. Of course there is serendipity, spontaneity and and artistry in the hears and minds of many professionals but when their work needs to put bread on the table, pay the bills and provide salaries for the staff , the order of the day is creativity on demand on a daily basis.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Great photographers like Weston and Adams, may have been able to get away with being less “deliberate” when shooting. Their innate skills and natural abilities in composition, exposure, etc allowed them to be more spontaneous. They didn’t need to consciously focus on many of the twelve elements listed, because their depth of knowledge and talent let those elements flourish at an automatic level. It’s unfortunate that we’re unable to ask them, but I’d bet any amount that both Weston and Adams would be able to explain how and why their images conform to, or deviate from well know compositional guidelines.

I would submit that many, if not most, amateur photographers would benefit immensely from understanding and utilizing these elements when creating their images. Actually, I’ll go further and say that the majority of photographers I’ve meet who poo-poo the merits of knowing and referring to composition guidelines, or list such as this, produce “spontaneous” crap most of the time. More often than not, this vocal dismissal of guidelines and standards is merely a way of justifying a lack of knowledge (or talent).

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

These lists, rules, guidelines, etc. are all great, use all of them if they help. But what if I showed you hundreds of images that have almost each and every stellar element described contained within them and you had to pick the very best of this batch, which is the case in PSA competition for example, what would you do? The bottom line is, and no one ever talks about this, it's all about how you Rank and assign importance and meaning to these elements in the final analysis to arrive at some kind of conclusion. That is the question. Being a good judge is not easy.

srt101fan

We seem to be talking past each other and that's unfortunate. I just don't understand how you get from "story-telling" as an element in the list to "nonsense" and "silly notions". I'll blame it on my communication skills and bow out.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Perhaps you would consider staying with the discussion. A discussion needs multiple viewpoints. I didn't personally read any connection between "story telling" and the comment about "nonsense" and "silly notions".

Good images communicate something - "Every picture tells a story", at least to somebody. Really good images communicate something meaningful to a large number of people. On the other hand, in this internet age there is little if any editorial control, and publishing is free. Whatever catches the zeitgeist. Some of it definitely falls into the category of "nonsense" and "silly notions".

There is merit in this discussion, and having informed and meritorious contributors seems to be beneficial.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I have an idea!

TAKE SOME PICTURES! Then scrutinize them carefully, cull the bloopers and keep the keepers. Do the same with images you have made in the past. Then look at some images from your favorite iconic photographer. I'll bet that the images you are satisfied with and the ones you aspire to would do well according to the “merit” list. Just work backward from the images.

I think too much time is spent delving in to the thought processes of all the great photographers, living and dead. Wouldn't it be funny or anticlimactic to discover that Edward Weston was just having fun making vegetables look like nude studies or that Ansil Adams was just trying to make a decent living by exploiting his great talents and technical savvy. Perhaps he spent too much time knocking his nemesis, William Mortensen? Richard Avadon probably became tired of photographing top fashion models and movie stars so his last major exhibition consisted of terribly unflattering and detailed images of his aging relatives- they appeared at a major New York Gallery- resembling passport photos in 30”x40” format- white background and all- go figure!

I feel that experienced amateur and professional photographers have a pretty good idea how their work will be perceived. Professionals, especially need to know theses things in order to address their markets.

Consistently good work should not be confused with cookie-cutter photography. Talented photographers can make many variations within their styles and approaches and are always on the lookout for new ideas, different points of view and creative and technical challenges.

Patience and good people skills are important attributes for successful photographers. When you are challenged by opposing points of view or someone throws a negative critique at one of your images it is not constructive or beneficial to (excuse my French) “get pissed off and pick up your marbles and play elsewhere”. Just about every day, I deal with fussy and sometimes borderline insane art directors, folks who think they are aficionados of fine art photography but really don't know what end of the camera to look through! I have portrait clients who think they look like movie stars and top models- they don't- but they insist on appearing that way in their portraits. Worse- I have portrait clients who actually do look like movie stars and top models but truly believe they are “ugly”! Good photography is 50% problem solving.

Conversations with different and opposing points of view are beneficial and healthy. They are good for you because it improves brain function! Get's ya thinkin'!

srt101fan

Thanks for you comment, Peterff. I felt I was no longer part of a discussion. “anotherview” didn’t respond directly to anything I said and continued with comments I found irrelevant. We were, as I said, talking past each other.

The OP posted what the Professional Photographers of America “considered the most important elements of a well-thought out plan and final presentation for an award winning image”. One of the elements listed is “STORY TELLING" with a descriptor "What does your image evoke in a viewer’s imagination? What do you want your image to evoke in a viewer’s imagination?”

My entry into this discussion started when anotherview agreed with another poster who said: “I don't know who first instituted "story telling' as a criteria for a good photograph, but it is something I have a problem with. A well done image (photograph or otherwise) does not have to tell a story!” anotherview went on to say “a photograph cannot tell a story in the conventional sense…. Further, the dogma that a photograph must tell a story presents a false claim.”

While I tend to agree that a photograph doesn’t HAVE to tell a story (we should define story!), I do believe that it can and very often does. And I don’t know how the repeatedly used word “dogma” comes into play. Who is saying that this is dogma?

When we moved to the descriptor for Story Telling (“What does your image evoke in a viewer’s imagination?") anotherview said: a photographer cannot “reasonably predict the way any given viewer will respond to his photograph” / “The photographer may know …. that a well-composed photograph correctly exposed of an interesting subject will likely gain favorable attention. He cannot know much more if anything else.” When I, citing examples, responded that, “…. in making the images he (the photographer) can certainly try to elicit a response in line with his/her feelings about the subject” anotherview seemed to agree but went on to say: “To shape his photograph to control a pre-given response from these viewers appears like a preposterous notion” / “Let me present another avenue by which to explode this nonsense that a photographer can control how a viewer responds to his photograph.” / “The photographer may as well offer his work as a doormat if he craves a known response to his work” [at this point I thought of Picasso’s “Guernica”!] / “The age we now live in has developed enough silly notions. We should identify and then abandon them promptly.”

Sorry for the rant, but I thought you deserve an answer ….

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Thanks for the response, and I tend to agree with you...

If one is thinking, one tries to think about what one is communicating in an image. Sometimes that produces an image that only a few people relate to, sometimes one that many people relate to. If the latter, for myself that is when the story telling element comes into play, and it requires both the photographer and the viewer to make their own interpretations. There could be many different individual stories.

That said, a good image does not need to tell a story, it can stand alone as a pleasing visual image.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

There was life before "storytelling"! The term "storytelling" as part of the list of elements is comparatively new. Back in the day when I was very active in print competitions, the term use was "statement". It was said that an image should make a concise statement about the subject, especially in portraiture.

The "statement" concept was widely used in teaching various more specific elements such as color harmony, placement of highlight in any given image, and composition.

As an example" In a low key portrait, if the subject is wearing dark clothing, photographed on a dark background and the major highlighted element is the subject's face, hands and perhaps a simple appropriate prop the "statement:" that the image makes may be something like "a gentlemen", "a young lady", "a musician" a farmer"- whatever, but plain and simple to the point! If however, the subject was wearing a bright red garment the "statement" may change to something like "a bright red dress with a young lady wearing it" and therefore may the qualify as a fashion shot as opposed to a classical portrait.

This does not mean that every image should conform to certain rules or criteria. It is just a way a analyzing images to determine where, who or what is the main point of interest and therefore the motif of the photograph. This could be applied to composition as to where the main point of interest is place, the inclusion and elimination of distracting elements in a work and much more.

There was also a promotional aspect of the term "storyteller". The P.P.of A used to suggest marketing strategies. At one time they would place institutional ads in bridal and wedding publication encouraging the hiring of a qualified professional photographer. I recall, at one point there othere institutional ads with a tagline to the effect of "Professional Photographers...the story tellers", perhaps having to do with family portraits, commercial photography or corporate work.

I once took a photojournalism class sponsored by the New York Press Photographers Association. One of the instructors, a Life Magazine staffer, was illustrating how picture editors select "front page" and cover images. He said that the best news photographs tell the story without a caption!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Communicating a concept, could be a different way of expressing the same thing. I've spent much of my professional life being a communicator in one form or another, but that said most people relate to a story, it's central to how people absorb information. That said, a good photograph can tell a story without any need of a caption, it speaks for itself. The question remains how many people does it speak to?

srt101fan

Interesting... Maybe I like "statement" better than "storytelling" for the element's name. I also think these are somewhat related to "impact" and perhaps should be combined?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Good question!

Some folks are VISUALS and respond more significantly to what they see. Others are AUDITORY so they better process what the see and read. KINESTHETICALLY inclined people depend on their sense of touch and smell. Hopefully an impactful image can transcend all of theses responses. That's the challenge of visual art and that's why we try so hard to create striking, sometimes emotional and meaningful images.

Obviously, many of my commercial images are accompanied by copy- captions, specifications and stories but at very least the image has to attract the attention of the viewer and help create interest in the subject.

I certainly can't speak for every photographer but this challenge is what encourages and incentives me every day at work. Some of my assignments are very mundane- the other day I worked on a catalog job for a medical instrument manufacturer. Last week it was saw blades for power tools. Some days bring fashionable clothing, exotic foods and beverages, posh interiors or interesting people for portrait sessions. So...my question before each job comenses is "how and what am I going to communicate with this image"? AND who is my audience? Keeps things lively and prevents boredom and humdrum imagery. I can't reach everybody with every shot but I can certainly try!

It's been over 50 years- gotta keep the enthusiasm going!