I must be confused...

[freezeframe03]

Help me out with this one because I must be confused. I have critiqued a couple of "scenic" photos and I seem to be the only one who sees the subject as the scene itself. Everyone else seems to be looking for a specific something in the scene to be the subject. When I stand and enjoy a view, I enjoy the entire view as a whole. I don't stand there and search for one specific item in the view to hold my attention. My attention is held by the entire view looking at, around and through it all as a whole...as the subject of my attention. Where am I going wrong with this while viewing scenic landscape images?

[Nicole]

While I appreciate the whole of a landscape, I think the parts of a scene are just as important because it gives me a better way to look at it. Do I enjoy the way the sun hits the leaves or the texture and color of the water or something else? It gives my eyes a place to rest. The individual subject probably wouldn't stand as well on it's own if the rest of the shot were poorly done. But you could kind of equate it to music/sound. If all members of an orchestra were playing at the same time it could be either insanly noisy without purpose or bland because everything is the same, but because of the individual parts and timing there is depth. Works for me at least I think.

[Big Nick]

I think Nicole hit the nail on the head when she said your eyes need a place to rest. Not only that your eyes do naturally gravitate to the focal point of a picture.

[freezeframe03]

I understand a subject with pleasing surroundings that compliment. But as a scene, can the eye not rest briefly on an area then move and rest at the next area and so on? Relating this to your orchestra example, wouldn't that be the same as listening to each individual part but still enjoying the piece as a whole? Not making one particular instrument or part the "subject"?

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by freezeframe03

I understand a subject with pleasing surroundings that compliment. But as a scene, can the eye not rest briefly on an area then move and rest at the next area and so on? Relating this to your orchestra example, wouldn't that be the same as listening to each individual part but still enjoying the piece as a whole? Not making one particular instrument or part the "subject"?

The trouble with this, for a photo, is that if there is nothing strong to hold the eye, then once the viewer has moved around the photo and briefly seen the various bits -- then the viewer's eye is gone, off to something else more interesting.

In real life, standing in the middle of a beautiful forest, we can enjoy the beauty just for what it is. A photo of the same scene, however, will feel "empty" or "hollow" if there's nothing to keep your attention.

Do you want people to briefly look at your photo and say "that's nice", or to keep their eyes on it, really enjoy it, and take away some meaning?

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by freezeframe03

Help me out with this one because I must be confused. I have critiqued a couple of "scenic" photos and I seem to be the only one who sees the subject as the scene itself. Everyone else seems to be looking for a specific something in the scene to be the subject. When I stand and enjoy a view, I enjoy the entire view as a whole. I don't stand there and search for one specific item in the view to hold my attention. My attention is held by the entire view looking at, around and through it all as a whole...as the subject of my attention. Where am I going wrong with this while viewing scenic landscape images?

In my opinion there is limited value in responding the same as everyone else. Continue to critique as you see it. I have had an individual tell me my critique wasn't any good becasue I said I'd liked the poster's image. To some a critique must mean "to find fault" I'd rather think of it as an assessment, an appraisal, or an evaluation where everyone's opinion has value.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by freezeframe03

Where am I going wrong with this while viewing scenic landscape images?

Nowhere.

"Art" isn't just one thing, and doesn't have just one meaning and just one value. Different people like different things, different people see different things in a piece of art.

The artist creates a work that attempts to convey something that the artist wishes to convey. The audience then interprets the art however they please, which might well not be what the artist intended.

The artist is always correct in terms of what the form of the artwork is; each person in the audience is always correct in terms of how they personally see and interpret the artwork.

[freezeframe03]

[QUOTEIn real life, standing in the middle of a beautiful forest, we can enjoy the beauty just for what it is. A photo of the same scene, however, will feel "empty" or "hollow" if there's nothing to keep your attention.[/QUOTE]

If my camera captured that scene just as I saw it, then I must have seen the beauty in real life mixed in with what I see in the photo that someone else will not be able to see. So, it must all come down to personal interest. Some will find the photo empty and hollow and others will see the beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder whether the photo is technically correct or not? You can't please all of the people all of the time? etc etc etc?

If I'm still way off base, just say so and I'll go back into my own little world where they know me there.

[freezeframe03]

Thank you zona5101 and Doug Pardee.

I was commenting while you also were. Your views on this have confirmed my feelings regarding the viewing and critiquing of photos whether it be my own or some else's. I have always found critiquing a valued learning tool for viewing and taking my own photos.

Thanks to everyone for your input. It's great to be able to consider all sides of the angle.

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by freezeframe03

If my camera captured that scene just as I saw it, then I must have seen the beauty in real life mixed in with what I see in the photo that someone else will not be able to see. So, it must all come down to personal interest. Some will find the photo empty and hollow and others will see the beauty. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder whether the photo is technically correct or not? You can't please all of the people all of the time? etc etc etc?

Well, you're definitely right: beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc. But, it is definitely not useful to use that phrase as a justification to say that any photo is good -- in that case, why evaluate (critique) photos at all?

There is something you said which is very important. The camera did not capture the scene just as you saw it. The human eye and brain are quite sophisticated. Together, your brain and eyes have the ability to "edit" scenes in amazing ways: excluding things you don't want to see, emphasizing things which are small and insignificant, changing colors, seeing into shadows while preserving the hilights, adding or subtracting elements you thought (or forgot) were there, and many more things.

Cameras can't do any of that -- which is why simply taking a snapshot of a pretty scene often results in such "flat" photos. Suddenly, the photo includes that telephone wire you forgot. It lacks the depth of the scene as you saw it, as all of the trees appear flat and dimensionless. Its colors are less rich, the shadows are dark, everything looks a bit different than in your memory.

This is where the art of photography comes in -- finding ways to emphasize those parts of the scene which most took your breath away, to still find a way to show them on flat paper, with a limited dynamic range, in 2 dimensions (not 3), to draw the viewer's eye to that beautiful, striking light filtering through the trees, which was very obvious to you -- but which on paper almost disappears among all of the rest of the trees, snow, branches, and junk in the forest.

Anyhow, that's my justification. Photography is an art, and art is highly subjective -- but that doesn't mean that anything goes. If you have good reasons for liking a photo, then great! Enjoy it and feel free to say so. However, perhaps others can still help you with technical details to improve it. But when looking for critique, there are some very real things which you can do to improve the art of your photography.