What is the most important criterion?

In looking at photos, is the subject the most important consideration , or the actual image?

One often sees images that are perfectly composed, and exposed,; yet they are of banal subjects.

Other times one sees extraordianry subjects treated with blurry exposure, alkward framing, etc... ad nauseum,

What do you think?

This is one of those "meaning of life" questions. There's no definitive answer here, as you have to take each photo on its individual merits. Originality and creative vision are what attracts the eye and separates the good ones from the so-so.

I think it's always the image unless you're a "papparazzo", in which case all that matters is the subject -- a celebrity doing something or anything.

I posted an excerpt (to my blog) from an article about what makes a photo
competition-worthy and the elements are listed with most important first, namely impact ("the sense one gets when viewing an image for the first time").

Best Regards

ohkphoto said:

I think it's always the image unless you're a "papparazzo", in which case all that matters is the subject -- a celebrity doing something or anything.

Click to expand...

I would respectfully disagree. In news and sports photography, the subject is also the most important factor. Take a look at many of Robert Capa's most famous images documenting the landing on D-Day, and the Spanish Civil War. Many are grainy, blurry and soft, yet the impact of the image is still there, and is the most important element of the image.

the impact of the image is still there, and is the most important element of the image.

Click to expand...

I think you kind of make my point so I'm not sure that this is exactly a "disagree". Most photos/images have a subject --it's what we're photographing, so we may be comparing apples and oranges. It's what the photographer does with the subject that creates the impact. Photojournalistic images are some of the most moving and powerful images in the world; however, cropping out something or not can change not only the impact of the image but part of the "storytelling".



With regard to Robert Capa's work and other war photographers, I'm not sure it's only the "subject matter" that creates the impact --I think our knowledge of the history of the subject matter has a lot to do with it. And the graininess and bluriness I think is as much of impact of the image as the subject matter --war is hell, and that's what the photos capture.

Perhaps I should have clarified my response; In the matter of Vital Spark's question, with regards to "image", Vital Spark referred to composition and exposure, while regarding "subject", Vital Spark mentioned "blurry". In this definition, and in your response that "it's always the image unless you're a "papparazzo", in which case all that matters is the subject", the point I intended to make was that in news & sports photography, the "subject" is of more importance than technical "image" quality and this element is not limited to papparazzo photography, as I took your response to imply.

in news & sports photography, the "subject" is of more importance than technical "image" quality and this element is not limited to papparazzo photography, as I took your response to imply.

Click to expand...

Great job clarifying this, LensWork, and I agree with you.

Best Regards

I wasn't thinking so much of photojournalism, or genres of any kind.

I am sure that Robert Capa did not make his exposures on D-Day with a full measure of his conscious method (although if you look at the images from the two surviving rolls, they are for the most part framed and composed remarkably well for the atmosphere in which they were shot); and I would think that considering the number of practitioners, and the array of equipment they tote, sports photography is very much concerned with technical values in their end product.

I was querying which aspects of quotidian photographs resonate most strongly.

So, to rephrase: Does a casually shot image of the pyramids have more value as an eye object than a carefully lit and conscientiously composed photo of a flower?

When I look at a photo, being somewhat a photographer, I automatically look at the mechanics. For example exposure, focus and even basic composition. If the image is good in these areas, it is then an excellent candidate for extra treatment for dramatic or artistic effect. We all dump the really bad shots from the getgo I think. It's more than just salvaging a poor photo. We know if it is exposure we can correct some of it, focus we can sharpen or soften. etc. We can crop to improve the balance or whatever but if it is a real barker, we dump it. Back in my film days I remeber being in the pursuit, believe it or not, in grain. I wanted grain for a certain candlelit shot I was imagining. I cranked up tri-x to do this. Now we look at a high iso shot and see some noise it is automatically a poor image. I guess what I am trying to say is a good image is usually good enough on it's own merits to be a keeper.

Another good question to ponder is an image from what we consider one of the masters, the one we really say ahhhhhh over, does a complete non photographer see it the same way we do? It seems to me that when I see a stunning image and show it to my wife it is more of a that's nice than yes that is reallly stunning.

The image is the subject and the subject is the image. The two can't be separated. The one rule of photographic composition that can't be violated is the "WOW factor" or the "impact" or the "ahhhhhh". You can have the perfect composition but without that nebulous and indescribable "WOW", "impact" or "ahhhhh" you don't have a very good shot. It's the factor that allows you to violate any number of rules composition and still have a great shot.

Does a casually shot image of the pyramids have more value as an eye object than a carefully lit and conscientiously composed photo of a flower

Click to expand...

It depends on who's looking at the photo: if the viewer is a "photographer" (and that includes the person who made the shot,), then I bet it's the flower. If it's someone who has never been to the Pyramids, it's probably the pyramids unless the viewer is also a "photographer".

If the Pyramids were blown up tomorrow, then it would definitely be the pyramids in all counts (except for a few "photographers")

IMHO

Best Regards

I agree with the wow factor and Helene's view on subject, I just think as photographers we look more deeply at an image than a non photographer. Maybe what we see as a well composed photo or one that obviously violates a compositional rule is in most cases of little to no importance from a non photographers perspective. Same way when it comes to paintings, if one isn't trained in what to look for, the painting has less importance and admiration.

When Mom's look at pictures of children they don't look at much beyond the faces of the children. Dog lovers look at the dog's. The things we worry about they usually could care less about.

View attachment 918

Just for fun, I wonder where the "wow" is in this oft anthologised and highly regarded photograph by one of the generally accepted modern masters of photography.
I like his work (for the most part) but he captures the very essence of banal for my eye.
WILLIAM EGGLESTON

You know, looking at this shot "cold" as it were, it is actually boring. I mean, whats the point?
Unless you take into account, WHEN it was taken. Then, an entire world of possibilities opens up.
Looking at the style of clothing, the year of the car and the foliage, I would surmise that this shot was taken in 1968
in the South, probably in the bayou. From there, I can see that this is trying to show the well dressed white guy unconsciously
showing his superiority with the newer car over the black guy. In short, man's inequality between man.

I have never seen this shot before, but I think the context of subject matters more than most people would think.

Just my 99 cents worth.

Pete

You know, looking at this shot "cold" as it were, it is actually boring. I mean, whats the point?
Unless you take into account, WHEN it was taken. Then, an entire world of possibilities opens up.
Looking at the style of clothing, the year of the car and the foliage, I would surmise that this shot was taken in 1968
in the South, probably in the bayou. From there, I can see that this is trying to show the well dressed white guy unconsciously
showing his superiority with the newer car over the black guy. In short, man's inequality between man.

Click to expand...

Pete, I believe you "nailed it" and I couldn't have put it better myself. Additionally, both men are standing in exactly the same pose, the facial features of the black man are almost indescernible and there are two pairs of two trees leading off to the right in a diagonal from the two men.

The emphasis here is more on artistic vision, style and storytelling and the impact is subtle (kind of like "Avatar" as opposed to "Little Miss Sunshine" --let me know if anybody needs clarification on that )

While this is not a photo I would hang on my wall, I do find it merit worthy and fascinating, especially for its not so obvious artistic elements (but then I love photo hunts and mysteries!)

Best Regards

I also agree with Pete, without the car it would be the contrast of dress and skin color, with the car it is becomes date relevant, what else was happenning during that time. I'm not sure the younger generations would see it the same way. Helene I agree with you, not on my wall, I would rather have one of yours.

Helene I agree with you, not on my wall, I would rather have one of yours.

Click to expand...

Feeling is mutual, Bill. Thanks

I have to differ on the point of wanting to hang it. I do not have a print, but I have a bound book that contains the photo, and I often gaze into it and consider it's meaning ( along with many other photos contained there-in and elsewhere).

The general opinion seems to be that it has some root in race relations, as it was taken in Mississippi in 1970, I supose it would have been hard not to find that undercurrent.

For me, (looking at a better reproduction) there is a funny reversal of the assumed roles in the postures of the men. The man in the foreground is suited formally, and looks uncomfortable, whilst the man in the car seems to be casually dressed and composed. The man to the back of the standing pair, is much more relaxed in his attire and stance, as if he is in his comfort zone. If I were to impose a story on it, I would imagine that they were at a old family home of the foreground man, perhaps at an estate sale, and that the others were in the place of acquiring property of which he once felt possessed.

Perhaps that is a product of where I come from and the times I live through.

But that goes to my original question. Is this meaningful image, with it's deliberate inexactness and ambivalence as pleasing as this:
View attachment 919
© Irving Penn
An image of precise control over every aspect and fairly concise in it's subject.

But i will posit that the responses I recieved have already settled that.

. . . banal subjects

Click to expand...

I like his work (for the most part) but he captures the very essence of banal for my eye.

Click to expand...

I have to differ on the point of wanting to hang it. I do not have a print, but I have a bound book that contains the photo, and I often gaze into it and consider it's meaning ( along with many other photos contained there-in and elsewhere).

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow the logic here, unless there's a different definition of "banal" ("devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed; trite")

Both examples you posted are merit worthy photos and completely different as you state, and each has a place --different vision, different style. You might as well ask whose artistic treatment of the human body is more "pleasing", Michelangelo or Picasso.

We have had very spirited discussions on this forum about art and photography and you might want to check some past threads on this. Art evokes different emotions in different viewers.

. . . and I posit that you would have as many "pleasing responses" for one as the other if everyone responded (like I said, we've been down that road before) . . . because that's the nature of art.