style vs substance

elven

Hehe, no, I'm not going to write a page full.

I'm interested though - when you're judging an image, do you appreciate it more for the aesthetics of the final image itself, in terms of colour, shape, texture etc etc etc, or are you more interested in the actual subject of the picture?

No sitting on fences now, I think we all at least nudge over onto one view or the other...

sineadw

Gah! It depends on the image.. I don't think I have a preference for either.. although yes I supposed the style of an image is important if I'm thinking about shots that inspire me. There are some photos though where its all about the moment in time that's being encapsulated. These tend to be more shots of people though - expressions on faces, the way the light is hitting something...

I have to work tonight - go away!:p

elven

Close the browser window, mmk? You can do it

Valentia

I actually don't swing one way or the other. As Sinead says it depends totally on the image. Different images appeal to me for different reasons. I'm not sure the word substance would even come into my head when looking at a photo to be honest.

rymus

Bit of both. If I had to choose one it'd be the image itself. Even the most bland, uninteresting subjects can be wonderful if it's shot from a certain angle, with a certain light, etc..

leinsterman

Not enoough options ... should have given the ability to choose both ... it depends on the image ... since you force me to choose ... I go for style ...

Jaysus but you are a deep thinker wee lass!!!

CraggyIslander

depends, but am gonna vote against the grain here and say subject..... just coz i can Usually take series of shots of one subject and then later pick the ones where the subject comes out best (which usually are the most aesthetic ones)

Roen

Worst part is, it's a day and a half to Friday.

rymus

balls, this thread had me thinking today was Saturday. better get to work

elven

Ach I've been quiet for a while - just keeping you all on your toes

Do you think it's maybe the case that the main situation where the subject/content of the picture is more important generally when it's a people picture?

It's just something I wondered about, after people asking me, 'why would you take a picture of a ______?' and also after people commented on shots that I thought were lacking in visual appeal, making reference to what was actually happening in the picture rather than how it looked.

When it comes down to it, I really struggle to appreciate a picture for just showing something interesting happening and not in a visually stimulating way, because I don't thgink there's much creativity in there, it's more technical competence than anything artistic. I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way...

ThOnda

The subject is part of the image itself ---> I can't vote.

elven

Of course it is, Th0nda. But would you judge a picture of a subject that doesn't interest you, per se, on its visual merits beyond the subject itself?

How important is the content, compared to the way the content is presented?

deRanged

I also voted subject. I'm not a huge fan of beautifully composed shots of something I find boring.
I'd rather an imperfect shot of something I find interesting.

elven wrote:

But would you judge a picture of a subject that doesn't interest you, per se, on its visual merits beyond the subject itself?

I wouldn't really - I'd just move on to a theme I like.
There's too much out there to spend time on something that's not stimulating.

Maybe it's the scientist/engineer in me.
I bought the 50mm 1.8 lens and it's the one I use the least, because it's not suited to the photographs I like to take. My cheap kit lenses are suited, so they're the ones I use. (though if I keep seeing people's work with bigmas etc my credit card is going to take a hit)

ThOnda

Picture is picture. It is an image of some subject.
I can judge picture hanging on the wall or seeing it on the internet.

I have romantic photographs from concentration camp. It is not "the subject" what you see and what you are trying to judge. It is the puicture.

sineadw

elven wrote:

When it comes down to it, I really struggle to appreciate a picture for just showing something interesting happening and not in a visually stimulating way, because I don't thgink there's much creativity in there, it's more technical competence than anything artistic. I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way...

I'd have to disagree here - I think you have to be highly creative to catch a moment just so. Maybe we're thinking of different things here? An ordinary scene can be lifted to a level high high above what its actually portraying by bringing out the moment its caught in.. but not by use of shape or texture or any of the graphical elements you described. Its at times like this I wish I knew more about art and photographers so I could give examples Yep I guess its usually people, but like I was saying the other night - catching the essence of someone. An emotion, or a reaction. That (if I'm reading you right?) has nothing to do with the graphic appeal of the picture as a whole. It sure does take a talented photographer to do it well though. Maybe its all the same 'art' and the same rules apply? I'm sure they do and I'm jus going around in my head and agreeing with you and I don't realise it

I have to go clone dead people again...

Roen

You could be like me and have both

City-Exile

If someone has a talent, to compose a shot with remarkable style, then the subject is secondary. If the subject is particularly interesting, then almost anyone can capture it. It's how you capture it that sets you apart.
It's the ability to make something very ordinary, look fascinating, that points to real talent.

Looking through Flickr, sineadw, Roen & elven can certainly do that.