Printed large and placed in the right room, this piece could help produce some drama. But I think in that case, it would be the room itself that would be the art (interior decoration can be an art) and this piece would be just an element in the design. On its own it doesn't work all that well for me. It is a well executed texture shot, but there is no particular point of interest within it to attract my eye. I don't feel much when looking at it.

I have a passion for jazz. In that field I often hear young musicians (often young saxophone players) whose fingers can fly across the keys of their instruments and whose level of technical proficiency is stunning. And often, I find their music emotionally empty.

I see stunning advertising images constantly. The technique of their production is often impeccable. Often, however, I just feel bothered by their visual intrusion into my life. They don't move me.

In a closet in the basement of my home is a photograph by a well known California based photographer. My wife got it after assisting the photographer with a photo shoot. My wife told me that the photographer is of the type who will spray paint the grass and bring in wind machines and use helicopters to get the image he wants. The picture in my basement closet is technically perfect and striking on first glance. It might be worth some money -- so we keep it. But its emotional content (for us) is close to zero and it lives in our closet.

So now to Steve's question: Communicating emotion is what most art is about. So it is all about emotional content. However, without some technical proficiency it is hard to communicate emotional content. So, the two qualities (emotional content and craft) are always intertwined.

And how do I use the delete key in regards to all of this? I delete the images that I don't like.

This is a fine list. But I am surprised that subject matter has not been mentioned. A photographic image freezes a moment and directs our attention to one set of details in a world overflowing with details.

Subject matter does not by itself make a great image and a mundane subject can still make a great image if handled skillfully. However, having a compelling subject certainly helps. I think that the single most important decision a photographer makes is at what to point his or her camera.

I have an on-again, off-again relationship with the UHH. There is much I love here but then I start reading a thread and negativity strolls onto the scene. Then I get depressed and think I could more profitably spend my time in other ways. So I take a break and then I miss it all and come back.

So, a reaction to the image:

I like this picture. It sets the somewhat gritty urban scene well with pertinent background elements. And, it tells a compelling story. The subject is a man who is dealing with mobility limitations and who appears, none the less, to be in fine spirits. The image makes me feel good.

Now into which categorical cubbyhole should this image be placed? Does anyone seriously care about the answer to that question? And, if we don’t care about the name of the bin into which we sort this image then we don’t need to care about whether or not it satisfies some arbitrary “rules” about what fits in any particular photographic genre.

I have a friend named Mike who was homeless for five years here in the town where I live. His fall into homelessness was triggered by a serious mental illness. He still has the illness but now he takes medication to help control it and his life is pretty much under control these days.

Mike has become an advocate for the homeless members of our community. As part of that work he has taken up photography. He goes around town to the places where homeless folks tend to congregate and interviews and photographs homeless individuals. This is part of a national project to show the humanity and individual stories of homeless people. Mike tells me that the results of his work, and the work of others in various cities around the country, are collected and published. I have not seen the resultant work, but this discussion has reminded me that I need to do so.

Mike has explained to me that one of the worst parts of being homeless is that the housed members of the community refuse to interact with you. It is, he explained, like being invisible. People look through you and around you and make great efforts to avoid eye contact. Mike believes that one of the most important things that can be done for our homeless neighbors is to recognize their humanity by saying, “good morning” or “hello.”

I have not had tremendous success in making images of homeless folks. Part of the reason is my own squeamishness about intruding on or taking advantage of their plight. As a result, I generally don’t take such photographs without first engaging my subjects in some kind of conversation and asking permission to take pictures. My experience is that many homeless folks seem to appreciate the human interaction. I also often contribute some money to the collection plates the homeless often use.

Based upon my limited experience, I think interaction with the subjects in this kind of photography is often a good thing. When homeless folks sit around all day in a public place with nothing much going on in their lives, their faces can show a kind of dullness. When I interact with them, their internal humanity seems awakened and their expressions become more animated. I think the examples used to start this discussion illustrate some of that. What I have learned from this discussion is that taking such pictures from eye-level may be an effective technique. I’ll think I’ll give that a try.

I don’t love the three images that started this discussion. The lighting somehow seems harsh to me. However, I think they show an interesting human being, I would encourage ebrunner to do more of this kind of work and see where it takes him.

Graham, these are great images and they tell a very compelling story. They are among my favorites among UHH postings. Some of my other favs include examples of your black and white “decisive moment” type images. Many of those also tell stories about the nature of human responses to difficult or challenging circumstances.

I agree with Minni that photography can and (I think) should address social and humanitarian issues. It is true that many discussions on the UHH tend to be technical in nature (e.g., is the image “tack sharp” or is the depth of field adequate?). However, I disagree with the occasionally stated view that because of the technical nature of most discussions we should avoid posting images of homeless subjects of others facing adversity. There is another choice. We can expand the nature of our discussions.

I have noticed that this series of images has stimulated discussion about volunteering and helping others. That, in my view, is evidence that these are successful images. And that kind of discussion feels enormously more engaging to me than would any discussion of f-stops, equipment or leading lines.

In any event, I am moved by this set of images.

I managed to catch up with this interesting thread really late in the game. It has fascinated me. Steve’s original question had two parts: When (1) taking a picture, or (2) when presenting it to others, does it always have to be of the quality where I’d want to print it?

My first answer to each part of his question is “no.”

As far as the first part of the question (about taking the picture): I take many images and generally decide afterwards which to delete. I don’t think about whether or not an image is printable until I see it in some form on my computer screen. So, I don’t really know which (if any) will be of high (or printable) quality when I press the trigger – although there is something that makes me believe that there is potential for a good image when the shutter clicks.

In terms of the second part of the question (about showing images to others): I show images to others for all kinds of purposes that are unrelated to great artistic merit. One of the uses of photography is just documentation. When I take a picture of my daughter’s new puppy, I try to compose the image as well as I can (in view of the squiggly nature of the subject) but I don’t expect the resultant image to grace anyone’s wall.

But those aren’t the issues that people have actually been discussing here. The question being discussed is really whether prints are – or should be --the ultimate objective of artistic photography. My answer to that question is also “no,” although I love fine prints. I made an image that I like and that I see on my laptop screen whenever the computer fires up. It would make a nice print (I think) but I get pleasure from visiting with it on a regular basis when the computer screen comes to life.

Also, my house has a finite amount of wall space and that space is already chock full of art of various types. If I made many of the kind of large prints that I so love, where would I put them? (The stuff on the walls of my house includes some photographic prints.)

And yet …

There are several aspects of a fine print that I miss. One of those is that a great print is a beautiful thing. However another is that the print is a finished product. It is done.

Digital images can seem always to be in process because they are so easy to tweak. And the critiques of digital images that I see on this forum tend to reflect that. For example: “I think you should reverse the image, clone out the power pole and saturate the colors more.” Of course, that is not really a critique at all because it doesn’t explain why any of those actions is necessary or would improve the image. But that kind of “critique” would probably not be made about a print because a print is presumed to be finished, done, published and in final form. A reviewer would probably not suggest tweaks to a finished product. Instead, a reviewer would probably discuss whether he or she likes the print and why. It is the aspect of finality in a print that is something I miss. And, I suppose, it is something I aim for when working on an image. So, in that sense maybe my answer to Steve’s questions could be a qualified “yes.”

I thought about that – but wasn't sure how the people in the background would look standing on their heads. What do you think?

I once read about a man who interviewed George Gershwin about how Gershwin wrote so many great songs. Gershwin explained that there are a lot of tricks to be used. For example, if he wrote a phrase and didn’t know what to do next, he sometimes just repeated the phrase in an inverted form. In other words, he wrote it upside down. Maybe that is what this piano player was trying to do.

Nobody listens!

(Download)

I have followed the thread and this is what I think I am reading so far:

1. Most folks like the weekly contests and wish that they would continue.

2. Everyone is grateful for the fine work that Steve has done on this project.

3. If the contests continue, there are varying views on whether or not the time limitations within which to take pictures should be changed.

4. No one has stepped forward and volunteered to take over the task of running the contests so that they can continue.

Is that where we are?

I think that it not necessary to carry all your gear everywhere. Maybe you can take what you want to carry on a particular occasion and then adjust your picture taking based upon what you have with you. That is what I did when I traveled in Portugal last year. I took my Nikon with one zoom lens and a Fuji x100t. I used the Fuji for 80% of the pictures I took because I was walking all over the place and having the very compact camera was easier than lugging about the somewhat larger DSLR. Of course there were some shots I couldn't take with the fixed 35mm equivalent lens. But I got some great shots with that little camera. I used my Nikon less frequently but got some shots I love with that as well.

In answer to your specific question: My opinion is that many amateur photographers carry too much equipment with them. After all, for us amateurs this is supposed to be about having fun.

I think the better question is whether the bride and groom have the right to forbid photography at their wedding event. In most cases weddings are private events taking place in private venues. Attendees are present by invitation. So it seems to me like the bride and groom can decide that they want everyone to enjoy and participate in the event rather than to transform themselves into recorders of the event. If the bride and groom make that decision, they might also decide to relegate all the picture taking to a single person they hire for that purpose.

I love to take pictures but when I do, I sometimes have the sense that I have removed myself from being a real participant in a scene and feel more like an observer of it. For that reason I sometimes make a conscious decision not to use my camera during some life experiences. On those occasions I want to fully experience the life event rather than record it.

Of course, the implication of the original question is that it is the photographer who is insisting on a kind of non-competition clause so that he or she can sell more prints to the newlyweds. I don't think a photographer who is confident about his or her abilities needs to do that and personally, I wouldn't agree to a contract clause that would stop family and friends from grabbing some shots. However, that is a decision for the bride and groom to make. If they asked me not to take pictures at their wedding I would respect their wishes.

I love this photograph. Is it because I love music? Yes, probably the subject matter helps. However, I also love the clarity of the image and the rich tones in the B&W treatment. I love the concentration evident on the musician's face. This image really appeals to me.

I like this version.