srt101fan wrote:
Somewhere I saw photographic “content” defined as the “subject, topic or information captured in a photograph”, the “subject” being “the main object or person(s)” in the image.
We see a lot of discussion of the importance of sharpness, exposure and composition of an image but I’ve seen relatively little talk of content. How important is content relative to the technical merit of a photograph? What does it take for the content of a photograph to cause viewers to overlook technical deficiencies?
I believe content is the most important attribute of a photograph. In my view, sharpness, perfect exposure, composition, etc, as important as they are, are of no value if a photograph doesn’t have a content that grabs the viewer. On the other hand, there is a limit to how many technical flaws a viewer can tolerate before even great content becomes irrelevant. I’m interested in your views on this. Feel free to post any images you think might help illustrate this topic. I will do so in my next post.
I appreciate any constructive comments you might have.
Somewhere I saw photographic “content” defined as ... (
show quote)
Unanswerable. The reason it's unanswerable is that the variables are probably in the thousands. Here are the variables as I see them:
"Content." It has been true for centuries that all art--from religious, to fine, to commercial, to popular--has to have it. Yet, even within each grouping, and the many others, what is good content varies. For a while, Michelangelo was considered a minor artist, if an Artist at all. Gerhard Richter's photo-paintings (
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/607634174701253656/)are totally out of focus and bland, yet considered so full of content that they are in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. The tradition understanding of content is much more than "subject." It is the idea/emotion created by the subject PLUS the elements (technique, color,shapes,teztures, values, edge.....), and composition--at a particular time.
"Viewer."Your local bartender is not likely to "see" the same thing that a curator an art museum or the editor of a photo magazine would "see."
Without noting what specific viewing audience is being talked about, you don't stand a chance of balancing content/technique. Even within each audience, the gray area is likely to be quite large.
The edit I made has some out of focus. The intended audience is fine art photography. The content is the irony that the girl is locked in ordered geometry, while the nuns, considered to represent order, are blurred and indefinite. The composition, edges, and values all contribute to this content. Art is meant to share a unique view, idea, or emotion. Lack of technical things like shadow detail, range of tones, sharpness not only do not harm the photo, they MAKE the photo.