[Don Schaeffer]

It seems to me that many of us are judging photographs in terms of the beauty of the the subject, not the photograph as an object in itself. When you are photographing a "beautiful" subject, the clarity with which the subject is shown is the most important criterion. You want to get as much of the subject as possible.

Many photographs have to be judged on their own terms, as objects. Photographs are pieces of paper or spaces on video screens filled with colors and shapes. Where these shapes are, how the colors work together, and what the photograph does to the eye are important aspects of the quality of the photograph. It seems to me that the formal properties of the photograph are more important that the thing photographed.

Maybe it's because I had experience in doing semi-abstract painting and drawing, where it almost doesn't matter WHAT you draw.

How do you guys feel about this? How about a little survey of opinion.

--Don

[jericho]

I agree, to some extent. However there are SO MANY aspects to photography. The subject matter is just one peice of the pie. Lets break it down into just some of the other peices:

exposure
lighting
aspect
color
detail
shadow
form
shape
depth of field
expression
emotion
composition
tone
etc etc etc...

the list is certainly not endless, but definitelty more encompassing. However, there are times when a duck is just a duck, or a flying bird is just a flying bird. I appreciate your eye for the unusual, the different angle, the fresh view of the mundane, but after a while it becomes like everything else: your personal style.

What you see as the formal properties of a photo drastically differ from what I see. And what I see drastically differ from what Toad and Peto see. Is one more striking or photographically connected than another? I don't think so. One of the most valuable paintings in the world was 5 vertical colored stripes. That peice went for MILLIONS and MILLIONS. To be perfectly honest, it looked like the tag on my underwear. Is that art manifesting itself?

Photography will always be what YOU make it. My personal favourite is candids. I strive to find expression and emotion.... to capture the essence of that very moment when the photo was being taken. To ME, that is a successful phtoto.

Sometimes I think you try to hard to get people to like and appreciate "your" style. It is what it is, but keep in mind, its not for everyone.

[EnglishBob]

A great photo of a poor subject will still only be mediocre, a poor picture of the most incredible subject is still going to be avaerage at best. For me you need an interesting subject photographed well.

So a combination options 2 and 3 would suit me, didn't vote as no answer matched my view.

[Kombisaurus]

I agree with you Don that there certainly is and should be a separation between the subject and the formal properties of the photograph which can be critiqued separately... and to a certain extent perhaps it is human nature to have our opinion swayed by how aesthetically pleasing a photograph is.

But I don't agree with your blanket statement that "the formal properties of the photograph are more important than the thing photographed". Certainly the formal properties of a photo CAN be more important, but this is not always the case. I believe this relationship between "subject" and "formal properties" can change dramatically from one style to another, one photographer to another, and even one photo to another.

Personally I think a photo should be judged on its ability to convey the message or intent the photographer was trying to convey, and to a certain extent judged on the message itself. Sometimes this "message" is contained in the subject matter, sometimes in the technique, or sometimes in the relationship between the two. For example, a dirty ugly subject can be made to look quite beautiful in the right circumstances, as a beautiful subject can be made to look unappealing. If this is a deliberate ploy of the photographer and is done effectively then it can be a very effective photo in that it communicates a message that might not be obvious to people judging the scene at face value. In this case, the beauty of the scene (or lack thereof) is a very important part of the photograph, but for more complex reasons.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you though Don, and I think it is all too easy for a photographer to just go and take photos of beautiful subjects in an attempt to end up with beautiful photos.. That doesn't necessarily make them GOOD photos. But neither does it automatically make them bad.
There is certainly a lot more to a photo than how aesthetically pleasing it might be, and sometimes it takes a conscious reminder for us to remember to look deeper into the photo when forming an opinion (which is why posts like yours are really useful as such reminders)... but I have an equal problem with blanket statements that say the opposite is true (ie that subject matter is not important).

People take photographs for many different reasons... and I don't think the same rules or guidelines can be applied when judging photos with differing styles. When looking at photos posted here, I try to tailor my opinion to what I think the photographer was trying to achieve with the photo and how well they met that goal.

The world would be a boring place if every photographer followed the same set of rules.
And I guess forums would be boring places if every person on them shared the same opinion

Edit:
I didn't see Jerry's post when I was writing mine, but I agree with his view and he stated it much more eloquently than me. I just pretty much jumbled all the aspects into the very broad "subject" and "technique" headings to keep things simple. Subject being what is in front of the lens (including lighting), technique being pretty much everything else.

As far as the poll goes, my answer would change among all four of the responses depending on the photo in question. I can't agree with any of them being true for all (or even the majority) of photos.

[slejhamer]

My POV:

The subject is all that matters, but the way in which the subject is represented (light, composition, etc.) is what separates good photos from mediocre ones.

I don't see why this would be different for abstract work.

Also, I think the intended audience is an important consideration, and what works for one audience might not work at all for another. For example, a commercial photographer taking pictures for a product catalog is not going to get too creative with lighting or composition, but a fine art photographer might. In either case, the subject is what matters, but these two photographers will present them very differently.

[Don Schaeffer]

So if someone were living in a place that was basically boring, he could never take a great photograph (in principle).

[Toad]

So if someone were living in a place that was basically boring, he could never take a great photograph (in principle).

Courtney Milne who is a "fantastic" professional prize-winning and published photographer lives in a nearly identical environment to you Don (Sakatchewan) and also shoots the aledgedly "boring" landscape. So I think we can eliminate that argument.

[jericho]

There is an ENDLESS list of photographers who live in what would be considered "non descript" areas of the world. They still manage to capture incredible shots. Howz about a glass being half full for a change instead of always being half empty.

I take hundreds of photos, but only a treasured few become real keepers (despite the fact that I cd burn the others). What makes them keepers? Generally its not what others find interesting about them, though it helps from time to time. My personal favourites are theones I captured when everything clicked for me.

I will come back to my original claim. One man's garbage is another man's gold. If you like photos of cluttered countertops because you can identify with an artisitc struggle, or range of colors, or shapes then so be it. Part of the issue is, its not intriguing anymore if we see dozens of photos a week. What happens is, it gets passed off as a person's style.

Humans are creative people. However, everything eventually comes full circle. I associate my creativity with landscape and people. Abstract, in any regard, is definitely not an interest for me. Nor is water color. Does that mean I am right and Picasso and Monet are wrong? Heck no. But just because someone else says my picture doesn't follow the rule of thirds, or is lacking expression that mine is somehow less interesting? Once again, heck no.

We are a great group of people here, and VERY easy to get along with, but we are also dealing with opinions. If you are not prepared to hear someone else's opinion, then the internet is not for you (this of course being the generic "you").

So, on that note... Let's get out there and enjoy being photographers!

[EnglishBob]

I live less than 2 hours from one of the most scenic places on earth, Yosemite National Park, California. I compete in photo-competitions 2-3 times a month locally and have to date entered 3 international salons...... Yosemite pictures score poorly in local competition, all the locals see them every month!

In the internationals, Yosemite pictures tend to score much better, though not in the California based ones.

My best scoring picture to date has been a peace lily in monochrome... taken on the floor of the showroom for the car dealer I work in!

If a place doesn't have captivating landscapes around it, you just look for a different type of photograph. But I stand by my first comment, a great subject taken badly will fair about the same as a poor subject taken well. The trick is in balancing both elements. I am sure it is very similar when it comes to different peoples personal tastes.

[Don Schaeffer]

Actually guys, I did not mean that this thread should be a whine. I did not mean to imply that Winnipeg is a dull place. Actually Manitoba is a fascinating and unusual place (especially in Winter). I did not mean to imply that it was I that can't be expected to take good photos. I think I do that even though not everyone sees them as I do. Since this is not a job I don't answer to anyone.

To some extent, I think this conversation is missing the point. I am interested in abstracting purely pictorial elements and emphasizing the shapes and movements as they present themselves in the photo. More like cubism than impressionism, although I do like to leave reality in it.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Group of Seven painters. These artists make mountains look like ice cream cakes and trees swerve like dancers. In a way the scene is preserved, but amusing and emotive elements of the scene are brought forward. That's what I like.

--Don

[shuttertalk]

Interesting topic Don...

Personally I believe that subject is just another aspect of a photo which needs to be taken into consideration, others being composition, exposure, etc. as mentioned above. A good subject, in combination with other strong aspects will generally produce a good photograph, while a not-so interesting subject could potentially be made more interesting through creative photography.

I think certain types of environments lend themselves to more manipulation of factors than others, which allows the subject to play a lesser role. In a studio, for example, you can control nearly every aspect of the photograph, so the photographer can be more creative. Compared to an outdoor landscape scene though, it's difficult to control the lighting, it's difficult to vary the distance to subject, which limits your lens choice, etc. In this case, subject is going to play a stronger emphasis on the photograph.


I also think that in some photos, the photography/post-processing technique can become the subject or focus of the picture as such - I distinctly remember Adrian's series of fruit bowl reflections in which the subject couldn't be made out, but the colours and lighting became the primary emphasis.

[loopy]

Bob mate, I'm with you - none of those options are what a photgraph is to me. I'm not really a fan of abstract type photos (sorry Don - that's not to say I don't appreciate the effort that goes into taking them), but on the same token purely "subject" photos generally bore me. Again, this is probably hypocritical, because 90% of my photos are like this - but hey, I'm trying to change

In fact, I think that's what separates a great photo from a really good one - I don't believe that a purely subject or purely abstract photo can ever be "great". I'll probably cop a lot of flack for that statement, but I think to make the transition to a "great" photo, you need more than just a perfectly exposed and processed shot of a good subject. I think that you need emotion in there as well, to the point that when someone looks at the finished print, they're lost for words. Saying that, I've only ever seen a handful of shots I would classify as "great" (and I've never personally taken one). That's also not to knock any photos on this forum - I've seen some really incredible shots on here, and a lot that are very inspiring

Probably the only poll answer I agree with is the last one - I think photos are art objects, and that's why the debate of how-much-photoshop-is-too-much annoys me. A casing point, theres some excellent work done by an Aussie company called electric art (www.electricart.com.au) in the field of advertising. All of these photos are modified in photoshop to some extent, but I'd still call most of them photos - not that it matters, they're still incredible pieces of art.

Anyways, I've had my whinge for the day, feel free to flame

Cheers,


Brad

PS Just to prove I'm open to new ideas, I'll let you all know, because of this sitte, I've added an IR fitler to my "must buy" list. I never really appreciated IR photos until I saw them on this site, and now I want to try it!