Is it the picture that matters?

[Patrick]

not and I repeat not as a criticism of the particular thread I just use it as an example. The author was in fact asking for opinion and help so the problem of equipment and position become relevant.

I simply offer the thought as a topic of discussion for the interested.


Patrick

[DTD]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

To me, the end result is what matters.
But sometimes a picture is interesting because of context.
Sometimes it becomes more interesting because of information in a caption for example.
Many great iconic photographs were originally shown as part of photo stories, we see them in a different way when they are shown as individual images. (Blimey I think we're back to urinals in art galleries again.)

Last year I saw the Rene Burri exhibition at Manchester Art Gallery, it was interesting to see some of the pictures had never been shown as individual pictures before. It was also interesting to see some photographs in their original form as spreads in a magazine.

[Patrick]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

To me, the end result is what matters.
But sometimes a picture is interesting because of context.
Sometimes it becomes more interesting because of information in a caption for example.
Many great iconic photographs were originally shown as part of photo stories, we see them in a different way when they are shown as individual images. (Blimey I think we're back to urinals in art galleries again.)

Last year I saw the Rene Burri exhibition at Manchester Art Gallery, it was interesting to see some of the pictures had never been shown as individual pictures before. It was also interesting to see some photographs in their original form as spreads in a magazine.

Not quite the point I was making, I do agree with you though, captions become part of the image. However images that are part of a body of work shown together or singly are judged by the viewer on merit, not by what camera was used or the fact the situation was difficult, this is what I am getting at.
Probably the most difficult picture of all time was that of the earth from space, namely getting the camera up there to do the job. When we view the picture it is the wonderment of seeing our planet suspended in space that catches the breath, the mechanics of how it was done is merely an interesting side issue.

We do in the club world get judges that will give higher marks to an average but good pictures over better images because he or she thinks it was more difficult to capture, and say as much.

This is what I was trying to debat, is difficulty relevant to the finished product?

Patrick

[Stephen]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

Patrick, I'm really glad you broached this subject, especially as I had very similar thoughts when I read the comments in the same thread.

It seems to be more and more common for photos to be posted for critique, then when comments and criticism are made, some form of justification follows from the person posting the photo. Usually in a sort of defensive way as though an explanation of the problems is relevant to the photo.

Much of the time for me, any excuses for a photos shortcomings are irrelavant to the critique. The picture should surely be judged on what the viewer sees. Any constructive comments should be seen as that, helpful and with good intentions.

If we use the example of the Heron, where it was suggested the bird was too small, any justification for that through equipment shortcomings will not make the way we see the image different, the bird is still too small. The purpose of critique is so we can learn and potentially present images in a better way in the future. If however the photographer, and again I use the Heron pic only as an example, can say they disaggree about the bird being too small and explain and justify that, then thats a different matter.

[Patrick]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

If however the photographer, and again I use the Heron pic only as an example, can say they disagree about the bird being too small and explain and justify that, then that's a different matter.

Agreed

Patrick

[yoshi]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

Hi Patric, thanks for this interesting and substantial topic. I usually do not post a comment when I've just come back on foot from a nearby pub for going to bed straight, I however thought it difficult to follow my rule-of-thumb practice.
My comment is just general and not related to any specific threads including the one you referred to, although I read it through.

Just shortly.
In many cases photographers comments are helpful and important but it should not restrict other viewers' free interpretation, when it comes to "INTERPRETATION". How to use such explanation given by a photographer is fully up to viewers, IMHO.

- A Beethoven's nice music can be appreciated nicely without having deep knowledge of his particular surroundings, including political and other situations of the day he composed it, though good additional information does help further appreciation of his music.

By the same token, a photo should also be allowed to interpret even without having knowledge of the specific situation the photographer took it. - This is especially the case when cultural background is relatively different. Even if cultural background does not play a big role, the lack of such knowledge can not be an obstacle in appreciating for instance Ansel Adams's picures.

When it is not interpretation issue but rather another issues such as "HOW TO" or other skill related issues, then the limitation the photographer had should be well taken into account if it is clearly mentioned. He/She cannot take a detailed moon picture when he has only 50mm lens, you see. - but my second thought says that even in this case advice is always possible. Or I would appreciate it. Do not think you are going to take a moon picture but try to take a picture with the moon somewhere in the frame AND some sceneries on the ground. - And that's more moody IMHO. In this case however, needless to say, in turn, the photographer has the freedom to or not to listen to those.

The two issues are sometimes related each other but sorry just let me post at this point tonight.
yoshi

[Patrick]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

Hi Patric, thanks for this interesting and substantial topic. I usually do not post a comment when I've just come back on foot from a nearby pub for going to bed straight, I however thought it difficult to follow my rule-of-thumb practice.
My comment is just general and not related to any specific threads including the one you referred to, although I read it through.

Just shortly.
In many cases photographers comments are helpful and important but it should not restrict other viewers' free interpretation, when it comes to "INTERPRETATION". How to use such explanation given by a photographer is fully up to viewers, IMHO.

- A Beethoven's nice music can be appreciated nicely without having deep knowledge of his particular surroundings, including political and other situations of the day he composed it, though good additional information does help further appreciation of his music.

By the same token, a photo should also be allowed to interpret even without having knowledge of the specific situation the photographer took it. - This is especially the case when cultural background is relatively different. Even if cultural background does not play a big role, the lack of such knowledge can not be an obstacle in appreciating for instance Ansel Adams's picures.

When it is not interpretation issue but rather another issues such as "HOW TO" or other skill related issues, then the limitation the photographer had should be well taken into account if it is clearly mentioned. He/She cannot take a detailed moon picture when he has only 50mm lens, you see. - but my second thought says that even in this case advice is always possible. Or I would appreciate it. Do not think you are going to take a moon picture but try to take a picture with the moon somewhere in the frame AND some sceneries on the ground. - And that's more moody IMHO. In this case however, needless to say, in turn, the photographer has the freedom to or not to listen to those.

The two issues are sometimes related each other but sorry just let me post at this point tonight.
yoshi

[Archangel]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

The way I see it and in order to avoid misunderstandings in the Critique section in the future why don't we do the following?:

If a user complements his pictures with a short comment of what he wishes the critique to be about, then we should strictly stick to his wish.
Otherwise if the photos do not have a user's comment of what he/she wishes the critique to be about, then we can post our own thoughts in terms of anything related to the critique.

Some said that the final result is what it counts. Indeed it does.
But maybe the photographer who is posting his/her photo, is being interesting also in other related aspects and not the photo as final result only.
In this case the photographer needs to state in terms of what he/she seeks critique about.

As far as the photo of the Heron is concerned, used as an example previously too, from the EXIF info I see that it was shot at full 12X zoom (432mm) with a Panasonic FZ7 and the bird couldn't come closer than it appears on the photo.
So while the bird might look small in the photo, the photographers attempt was to the max of bringing it as close as possible.
While I didn't comment on that photo, if I had to, I would comment for things other than the size of the bird.


George

[Patrick]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

The way I see it and in order to avoid misunderstandings in the Critique section in the future why don't we do the following?:

If a user complements his pictures with a short comment of what he wishes the critique to be about, then we should strictly stick to his wish.
Otherwise if the photos do not have a user's comment of what he/she wishes the critique to be about, then we can post our own thoughts in terms of anything related to the critique.

Some said that the final result is what it counts. Indeed it does.
But maybe the photographer who is posting his/her photo, is being interesting also in other related aspects and not the photo as final result only.
In this case the photographer needs to state in terms of what he/she seeks critique about.

As far as the photo of the Heron is concerned, used as an example previously too, from the EXIF info I see that it was shot at full 12X zoom (432mm) with a Panasonic FZ7 and the bird couldn't come closer than it appears on the photo.
So while the bird might look small in the photo, the photographers attempt was to the max of bringing it as close as possible.
While I didn't comment on that photo, if I had to, I would comment for things other than the size of the bird.


George

[Gina]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

There's a wise old proverb that we've all heard off ...


BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER


I bring this to the thread as my interpretation of photography.

Gina

[Patrick]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

There's a wise old proverb that we've all heard off ...


BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER


I bring this to the thread as my interpretation of photography.

Gina

I quite agree with both these statements, but this is not what the discussion is about, images can be good bad and indifferent, in the eyes of everyone. One person will see beauty where another sees ugly, But that isn't really what we are debating here.

Its whether it matters how we got there, is it important to the viewer how difficult or easy it was? and how the photographer may have changed the interpretation to allow for any limitation with his/her equipment.

When I was learning about photography in my early years (I am still learning and will continue to do so) we were encouraged to go out with just one fix focal length lens usually a 50mm lens for a 35mm camera. this affects your interpretation of the scene dramatically, clearly if this single fixed focal length were 200mm we we take very different pictures. I know some that still do this as a discipline from time to time it really makes you think about your pictures.
We use our zoom lenses and get so much flexibility with them we sometimes don't see the woods for the trees.

Patrick

[Mike Parr]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

Now I remember why my mother use to say "guard your opinions carefully"


mike

[Stephen]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

Now I remember why my mother use to say "guard your opinions carefully"


mike

Nothing wrong with expressing your opinion Mike, so long as you don't take too much of a dogmatic approach

Anyway I'll bet your mother told you lots of things you never took any notice of

[Mike Parr]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

I was trying to be diplomatic, I never was one to put things into words correctly, hence my lack of comments on a lot of posts here. I come on here every day but post very few comments.

Your right though, my mother did tell me to beware of girls............ah but I didnt listen I got 4 boys through not listening.

[Archangel]

Re: Is it the picture that matters?

Patrick.
I only used the "Heron in Flight" as an example too as others did and have spoken about size of the bird being too small.
Any written text of a viewer to the author's photo is critique, from the simplest "nice photo" to the most technical analysis of it and to the offered alternative suggestions.
So the "Critique" as a term and approach is always relevant every time a comment of a viewer is offered to the author.


Whether it is important to a viewer offering critique to someone's else photo, of how the image was taken, is up to the viewer to decide, taking into account on what he/she wants to offer critique for and taking also into account what kind of critique the author seeks for.

Personally I do not care to mention any brand camera, as I own and owned in the past different camera brands. I happen to read the EXIF, happen to know the camera and happen to know where the lens was when the photo was taken. So in terms of the context that the bird is too small in the photo, yes it is, but it couldn't be bigger under the specific circumstances the author explained.

Now, if to the average viewer as you say, the fact still remains that the Heron is too small in the photo, then the average viewer is entitled to his/her average opinion.

I cannot say (well actually I can, but this is a different story) what a picture editor or publisher would care of, but I'm more concerned with the critique in the forum, where all of us spend sometime and often come to arguments due misunderstandings and the only way those can be avoided is to approach different the Photo Critique section.


George