R.G. Loc: Scotland

In How Many Ways Can Photos Be Categorised?

The reason I'm asking that question is because a photographer's intent will be determined by which category they want their photos to end up in. And a photographer's intent will be one of the main factors determining what they deem appropriate (currently being debated elsewhere).

My suggestion goes as follows -

Photos can be:

1) Aesthetically pleasing (which usually means beautiful but it's not limited to that. Beauty is just one possible aesthetic).

2) Interesting (that would include intellectually interesting as well as visually interesting).

3) An accurate representation.

These categories are not mutually exclusive and there is room for overlap.

As far as I can tell that covers all the bases, but if you can think of any other new categories (as opposed to sub-categories of the categories already listed), please add to the list.

To see some of the implications of those categories we can consider a subject like post processing. If the intention was to create a photo for category 1), most photographers would be willing to employ an extreme level of PP if necessary. For category 2) the photographer may have more in the way of reservations about how much PP they are willing to use since the interest may be closely linked to the factual nature of what's being portrayed (facts can be interesting because they're true whereas anybody can make things up). In the case of category 3) they may want to limit their PP to the absolute basics.

The point is that what we deem appropriate is determined not just by our personal ethics or values or by our personal tastes or preferences. Our intentions play a significant role as well, and what we might consider inappropriate for one category may well be seen as acceptable where another category is concerned.

Hopefully, thinking about these subjects will help us to clarify what we deem appropriate, and more importantly, why we make the exclusions that we do.

Feel free to extend the category list and/or share your own take on the subject.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

Not My style. Don't like it.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

You may be making exclusions that are unnecessary, inhibitive and unproductive.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Your categorization is valid - for you. Others will have their own, good / bad, keep / don't, or none at all, and live the photographic life happily without constraints.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Do you have an alternative way to categorise photos? I attempted to make my list complete. If you have anything to add to it I would be interested in hearing your suggestion.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I made suggestions in my last post. Personally prefer not to file things in rhetorical boxes.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

The categories I suggested reflect the possible objectives that a photographer may have concerning the type of image that they have in mind. I can't think of anything that falls outside of those objectives. Knowing and understanding our objectives should help us to achieve better results. I wasn't interested in just inventing labels.

CO

It seems like what you listed is closer to the PPA 12 elements of a merit image than categories. The camera club I'm in has an end of year competition. These are the categories in which photos can be entered.

Categories for camera club end of year competition
Architecture
Flora
Landscape
Pictorial
Portrait
Wildlife
Assigned Subjects
Creative Art (This category is for extensive Photoshop editing like the #1 item you listed above)

The Professional Photographer's Association 12 elements of a merit image
Impact
Technical Excellence
Creativity
Style
Composition
Presentation
Color Balance
Center of Interest
Lighting
Subject Matter
Technique
Storytelling

Quixdraw Loc: x

Without the boxes - Learn from every photo, based on that learning, try to make every photo better than the last. Full stop.

CO

Accidently entered the same twice.

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

You might add Salable/Self-Marketable - which can include one or more of your categories, but adds the viewer's perspective. I have made my share of aesthetically pleasing, interesting and accurate images - at least to my eyes and sense of aesthetics, but only a small fraction of them attracted enough public interest to provide me revenue. I am fine with selling 10-12 different images a year from my personal collection - aka, photography I shoot for myself. I've had to rely on work for hire, product and assignments for the rest.

Marketability does open up another facet - doing work for a client with a creative director is another world - Aside from the basic rules, the CD calls 95% of the "shots" (pun intended) and you as photographer must play by her/his rules, including abandoning all of your personal views on your three categories.

User ID

That categorization attempt is close to useless cuz the amount of overlap is so frequently rather large. IOW they are seldom separate or independent. Those are ASPECTS of photos. They are not functionally independent CATEGORIES.

Looks looks like you based them on the intent or reason for making the photos. Same problem ... reasons/intentions are elaborate cocktails, not straight up shots.

Best advice, which will fall on deaf eyes:
Pretend you never started this thread. Never look at it again ... or at least don’t look for a month and then just read it for its entertainment value.

Truth is there are only two classes of, types of, categories of ... photographs:
Mine and everyone else’s.

See ya in the funny pages .....

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hi, Coz’,
I think your suggestion that categorization of one’s images is an intellectually laudable activity to pursue.

It is also necessary to recognize that “there are two kinds of people...” who categorize (anything) as “lumpers” and as“splitters”... and ....

It is equally necessary to recognize that no two individuals, regardless of how similar their respective interests may be, will “lump” and “split” the things they mutually find of interest in purportedly the “same way”, with identical esthetic senses (?), with identical personal experiential histories(?), with identical bases of factual knowledge(?), with identical “tastes”(?), and with identical senses of the innumerable potential aspects of “relative importance”(?).

Categorizations - of anything - has been (IMO) among the most fascinating aspects of our shared - and clearly individual - humanity.

Avoiding the very real risk of blathering on, and in search of a means of fairly summarizing the above thoughts, the only closing concept that comes to my mind at this nebulous juncture is, simply, the French expression:

“Vive la difference!”

Which impels me now to dig out my two big boxes of images: “Picture of Scotland” and “other pictures”.

Best regards,
Your Coz’ in the Colonies

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

I don't see any reason to strictly and "microscopically" categorize photographs, just for the sake of doing so, unless there is logical or organizational purpose. In a photographic competition, there may be categories so the judges or judging panel are not comparing "apples to oranges" and again perhaps, judges or a judging panel can be selected to specialize in specific areas of expertise.

In the business of photography, there are specialties and sub-specialties- categorization helps the consumer to select the appropriate photographer for the requirements.

In analyzing or critiquing photographs, for the sake of organization and logic, there may be criteria to opine o, advice or judge images, things lie composition, technical excellence, story-telling content, lighting usage, etc.

The rest? There is too much overlap, crossover, and other complexities- the list would be endless. A photojournalistic image can be aesthetically pleasing or butt-ugly- so what! A portrait can be flattering or not- it's still a portrait. A landscape image can be picture-postcard pretty, gloomy, uplifting, depressing, whatever the photograher wants to express and whatever the viewer perceives. There is some photograhers that call their work "nude landscapes".

I like to categorize and super-organized my file cabinet and my toolbox and the pegboard in my workshop- I am reluctant to overly-categorize photography.

The lists that have been posted, thus far, are pretty comprehensive, if you like lists. Breakig it down any further? That's an interesting excesize.

srt101fan

Well, R.G., you knew you were going to stir things up with this one! As soon as people see the word "categories" they're apt to run with it in all kinds of different directions, including accusing you of cyberspace littering!

I'll try to stick with what I think is your aim. You are looking for categories that can be used to group photos based on what the photographer was trying to achieve: aesthetically pleasing works, interesting works, accurate representations of what he/she saw. From there you feel we can discuss the methods used by the photographer to achieve his intent. And that can lead to a discussion of ones perception of the acceptability of those methods.

Tall order task and possibly one that leads to brain cramps (I can see that some would opt to jump off this train before they even got on it!). Your categories make some sense to me, and I have no suggestions to add to the list. There are, however, artworks that I have trouble fitting into your categories. Expressionism and surrealism come to mind. "Aesthetically pleasing"? I don't think that was necessarily their intent. Creating an "accurate representation"? Definitely not. "Interesting"? Yes, expressionist and surrealist paintings can definitely be interesting. But is creating an "interesting" work ever really a stand-alone intent or aim of an artist?

I better quit before the brain cramps set in......