Images vs Photographs

[sk66]

(Or however you want to separate them)

The discussion on "gear doesn't make the photographer" made me think of this again...

"We" care about the technical details of an image because we are "photographers". But the technical details do not make a "photograph". The only thing a viewer/client really cares about is what the photograph "says to them".

The "technical details" support (or in some cases detract) from achieving this connection with the viewer.
We need to remember this more often and worry a little less about the "details" and more about "connecting".

[Hutch]

I would agree with this.
I have received (undeserved) praise in the past for images that seemed to strike a chord with people even though the photos (even to my very limited powers of discernment) were technically cr*p. - Go figger.

[Krusty79]

As the old saying goes, "The world doesn't want to hear about labor pains. It only wants to see the baby."

So, our job is to take a three dimensional scene and capture it on a two dimensional print or jpg so we can strike that emotional chord with the viewer.

[digirebelva]

Originally Posted by Krusty79

So, our job is to take a three dimensional scene and capture it on a two dimensional print or jpg so we can strike that emotional chord with the viewer.

Yep, if you want to sell it to them it is...-

[metallion58]

Originally Posted by sk66

We need to remember this more often and worry a little less about the "details" and more about "connecting".

+1 on that.
To quote David DuChemin:
"Gear is good, Vision is better."

[zona5101]

So does that mean we don't have to post the exif data in any of the critique sections???



throws rock. runs.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by zona5101

So does that mean we don't have to post the exif data in any of the critique sections???



throws rock. runs.

Sure, lets give that a shot!

[Krusty79]

Originally Posted by zona5101

So does that mean we don't have to post the exif data in any of the critique sections???

throws rock. runs.

I think it's more useful if the OP says what their vision was for the shot. I wish this was required!

[brianxlt]

You often hear from observers of art (any art) "I don't get it" this is form people who don't understand what the artist was trying to tell (show) them. If the majority of people "don't get it" then the artist failed, if only a few "don't get it" than the artist is a success. With the majority of photographs - other than the abstract - photos are beautiful or not. A well done landscape Color or black and white doesn't give the "I don't get it" response it's either good or bad. A portrait is either good or bad. As I said other than the abstract photograph if they are pleasing to the eye of the observers technically right of not then the artist is a success.

[nickbedford]

Gear is a tool. If you need expensive, big wig gear to pull off your vision, then so be it. If you only need a $500 SLR and a flash, then good on you. It doesn't matter how much it costs to the point that it should either cost as much or as little as you need.

I think people get too hung up with comparing the cost of gear with this argument. You can't create [x] without [y] that is required to pull it off.

Many people like creating photos that by pure coincidence, only require minimal gear. Natural light and a subject. Other people like creating complex, artificially lit photos possibly with some digital compositing and/or illustration added. Strobes, sets, crew.

For example, if I wanted to create an image with a shallow depth of field in daylight with a strikingly lit subject using artificial light against a 1-2 stop underexposed ambient background, I'm going to have a lot of trouble if I a) don't have a ND filter of a few stops or more and B) only have speed lights to work with. In fact, it's probably going to be very difficult. That's when you say, "Okay, my gear isn't holding up its end of the bargain. Let's go and hire some studio strobes and a decent ND filter".