I have just viewed a photograph from Stephen (Working Light in the B/W forum) that I had seen before a long time ago and it made me think.
It wasn't so long ago that I was guilty of looking at a photograph but not actually seeing it. I'm sure you know what I mean. I knew if I liked a particular pic or not but I could never say exactly why either way.
I still miss lots of photographic errors and can't always identify the good points until someone else refers to them, but I have noticed that I spend a lot more time studying each one, searching out detail and noting composition etc. Now I'm sure that there is no definate formula for examing a photo because each one is different with it's own faults and merits but......
what do you look for in a photo generally?
how do you seperate technical data from visual impact?
Obviously the more adept a person is the more he/she will read into a photograph but there must be some sort of guidlines.
??
It wasn't so long ago that I was guilty of looking at a photograph but not actually seeing it. I'm sure you know what I mean. I knew if I liked a particular pic or not but I could never say exactly why either way.
I still miss lots of photographic errors and can't always identify the good points until someone else refers to them, but I have noticed that I spend a lot more time studying each one, searching out detail and noting composition etc. Now I'm sure that there is no definate formula for examing a photo because each one is different with it's own faults and merits but......
what do you look for in a photo generally?
how do you seperate technical data from visual impact?
Obviously the more adept a person is the more he/she will read into a photograph but there must be some sort of guidlines.

Comment