What makes an image "worth looking at" ?
Jun 11, 2022 08:47:55 #
Jun 11, 2022 08:57:58 #
The 12 basic emotions (Interest, Joy, Surprise, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, Contempt, Self-Hostility, Fear, Shame, Shyness, and Guilt) can contribute to the “what” and “why” question, but that is only a start…
Jun 11, 2022 09:05:37 #
SkyKing wrote:
The 12 basic emotions (Interest, Joy, Surprise, Sadness, Anger, Disgust, Contempt, Self-Hostility, Fear, Shame, Shyness, and Guilt) can contribute to the “what” and “why” question, but that is only a start…
Each felt differently by each individual viewer.
Maybe...
Jun 11, 2022 09:22:13 #
Longshadow wrote:
👍👍👍It depends.....
What has an effect on some may not affect others.
But the "majority" may feel one way or the other.
Context may help shift a perception.
What has an effect on some may not affect others.
But the "majority" may feel one way or the other.
Context may help shift a perception.
I look at between 1 and 3 million pictures a year. Any pic I spend more than 3 seconds looking at has something, and it could be anything, that attracted my attention. Could be subject, lighting, color, sharpness, about anything. No one is precisely attracted to the same things I am, and even I am attracted to different things at different times. In other words, "it depends" seems about as accurate as it gets.
Jun 11, 2022 09:36:09 #
Personally, I feel that, as much as I enjoy trying to make my family and travel photos as perfect as possible, it's the memories they evoke in later years that gives me the greatest pleasure. And now..shooting my new Great-Grandson regularly puts me in an amateur's heaven! Wish I could post, but the parents are private. My Z50 works great Indoors with no flash. Love the EVF!
Jun 11, 2022 09:48:03 #
Bubbee wrote:
Personally, I feel that, as much as I enjoy trying to make my family and travel photos as perfect as possible, it's the memories they evoke in later years that gives me the greatest pleasure. ...
I shoot for myself also. If others like them, that's great.
If they don't, no problem.
(Not everyone likes what I like.)
Jun 11, 2022 09:52:54 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
The key to a worthwhile image is whether or not it evokes emotion. That’s how we respond at our basic instinctual level. Many factors go into that and are different in each viewer. One viewer's "boom" can be another viewer's "bust".
Jun 11, 2022 09:58:29 #
gvarner wrote:
The key to a worthwhile image is whether or not it evokes emotion. That’s how we respond at our basic instinctual level. Many factors go into that and are different in each viewer. One viewer's "boom" can be another viewer's "bust".
Jun 11, 2022 10:03:51 #
dbrugger25
Loc: Raleigh, NC
Any photograph that presents beauty, invokes curiosity, maked you think, causes emotion, recalls memories, inspires action or makes you want to emulate the photographer is a great image. I'm sure there are other factors that I haven't thought of. It is far more than composition, color, focus and exposure. There are great photographs that are technically flawed but have some compelling feature about them. Some are an accurate capture of reality. Some have an unreal looking, dreamy quality. A great photographer can create illusions, freeze a moment in time, or distort reality through creative technique. There is no absolute definition of a great photograph. A few of the best ones are the ones that broke all the rules.
Jun 11, 2022 10:07:45 #
bikinkawboy
Loc: north central Missouri
And photos don’t even have to be “good” or well made to be considered interesting. In fact, sometimes it’s the flaws that make it of interest to people. An example is that famous out of focus, grainy photo of Bigfoot looking over his shoulder. The indistinguishable details are what has gotten it published countless times over. We’re it in sharp focus with good detail we’d know if it was some guy wearing a flapper era raccoon fur coat, a genuine un-cataloged forest creature or my big hairy ex-brother in law.
Same way that conspiracies can never be proven. If you have actually proof, then it’s not a conspiracy but is instead a criminal action, a covert military action, a bribery scandal, etc. Some things cannot survive the light of truth. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity ceased being a theory and became fact when it was proven decades later that his guess was correct.
Same way that conspiracies can never be proven. If you have actually proof, then it’s not a conspiracy but is instead a criminal action, a covert military action, a bribery scandal, etc. Some things cannot survive the light of truth. Even Einstein’s theory of relativity ceased being a theory and became fact when it was proven decades later that his guess was correct.
Jun 11, 2022 10:41:44 #
Longshadow wrote:
Each felt differently by each individual viewer.
Maybe...
Maybe...
You’re hinting at the REAL answer to the question! That which makes an image “worth looking at” has absolutely nothing to do with “12 basic emotions”, “subject, lighting, color, sharpness, about anything”, or whether it follows Ansel Adams ideas – or anything else you would care to name!!!
You all here would attempt to impose YOUR rules, likes and dislikes as to “worth” on me???
“Worth looking at” can be defined only by any individual observer at the time of observation – and it’s as simple as that!!!
Loren – in Beautiful Baguio City
Jun 11, 2022 10:55:07 #
Jun 11, 2022 11:07:30 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
rlv567 wrote:
You’re hinting at the REAL answer to the question!... (show quote)
Wow, you sure have an itchy trigger finger. Your grievances are showing.
Jun 11, 2022 11:19:28 #
billnikon wrote:
An interesting photo is one that invokes an emotional response from the viewer.
Absolutely agree - emotional engagement is my #1 criteria for what I consider to be a superior image... that's one reason I love photographing old barns, buildings, farm equipment, landscapes, etc... Tells a story unique to the sensibilities of the viewer...
Jun 11, 2022 12:04:12 #
gvarner wrote:
Wow, you sure have an itchy trigger finger. Your grievances are showing.
I'm curious as to what you mean by grievances! I posed a rhetorical question in the attempt (obviously, failed) to point out that what may be interesting ("worth looking at") to me may not be of interest to anyone else, and that it involves criteria which can be defined only by EACH observer only at the moment of observation.
I'm sure we all can come up with valid definitions regarding those elements which will tend to make "most" observers interested, but in the final analysis, this is something which is totally personal, and, again, can be defined only by each individual viewer - and even so, is subject to change.
Loren Varner - in Beautiful Baguio City
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.