Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
Fotoartist wrote:
Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
For me, the best photo tells a story or reveals a truth and needs very little else. What you perceive is what you believe. Perspective coupled with imagination is a ticket to ride. So be sure to look good while you're about it
IMHO, whatever floats the photographer's boat. I think evocative might be a start. As to stories, genre needs to be considered. A photo of an insect, bird, flower, possibly not much of a story. Street, travel, etc. maybe more so. To me, a great deal is about the light.
Subject matter is everything
Gene51
Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
Fotoartist wrote:
Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
Contemplative Photography adherents say that random junk isn't necessarily random or junk. So an image can have visual qualities that hold interest or connect with viewers - contrast, color, texture, form, repetition, balance - that can create a successful image. This is mostly true for artistic expression, but doesn't quite work for commercial stuff.
Your pictures beg the question. Your pictures have nicely composed subjects even if unintended; I think they're great! Any picture that holds the viewers attention is a success no matter what its subject.
Fotoartist wrote:
Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
When I look at an image, my goal is to understand/interpret what the photographer captured and what he or she is trying to say to me. Many times I don't get it.
I think you pose two topics for discussion. Subject and storyline.
A subject does not necessarily have a story line. It can just be a statement on its own. If the statement is strong or bold enough it will hold the attention of those who view it and they will go away satisfied.
A storyline can and may complement a subject. It may add clarity provider direction as to what the photographer wants the viewer to see.
A subject may stand onits own. A story line has to develop from a subject.
I do strongly agree with quizdraw's final statement. Most successful photographs end up being about the light. Use of light is something Photographers do regularly. It is not something that snapshot camera users actually use.
One man’s junk may be another’s prize. To your latter question, yes, in my book. I enjoy making photos, with good lighting, of what some would consider junk.
Fotoartist wrote:
Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
Does it catch the (your) eye? Is it technically good? If the answer to both is "yes," then one man's junk is another man's treasure. These shots comply with the second, but do not catch (my) eye. That means only that it is not much use to me; it does not mean it would not be to others. If everyone liked the same thing there would not be much variety in our output, would there?
The experiences that come to us through the channel of visual perception are many and varied. It's also true that visual interest comes in many forms and engages our interest in many ways and for all sorts of reasons.
PixelStan77 wrote:
When I look at an image, my goal is to understand/interpret what the photographer captured and what he or she is trying to say to me. Many times I don't get it.
Many time you may not get it probably because the photographer wasn't trying to convey anything in particular.
Fotoartist wrote:
Does a photo need to tell a story or is a pile of random junk (albeit composed) a good enough subject?
As an aside from the premise of your thread, I really like those two images!
Nicholas DeSciose wrote:
Subject matter is everything
Even if it's poorly composed, poorly lighted, unsharp?
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.