An Interesting Read

[chameleon]

This just showed up in my mailbox, and I thought it made some interesting points about judging photography. Any comments or arguments?

(PRWEB) May 17, 2006 -- John Warton actively works at reviewing and evaluating photography submissions for a photography association called photography laureates (www.photolaureates.org). He sometimes reads skeptical comments in Internet forums, some from professional photographers, which sometimes doubt his ability to judge photographs. Does photography only belong to professionals? Can professionals decide what is publishable or not on behalf of amateurs?

John says, “The answer is a resounding 'no!' Inflexible and rigid professional photographers have laid down certain 'rules' and then, being a certain sort that they are, call them 'guidelines' and see themselves as rule-makers of some sort. I say to them: Diversity is a source of creation. I embrace the diversity of the creations of my fellow amateur photographers, their passion and interpretation of the thousands of daily instances that make our lives memorable. They deserve the promotion and exposure that I work on getting for the most talented of them.”

Perhaps a more interesting and relevant question for John Warton then, would be the following: can photography be judged?

According to John, photography is subjective, art is subjective -- but it can be judged. And it can be judged, differently. If one prefers a particular style, that does not make one wrong. For example, the F/64 school insisted upon sharp photographs, which notion still dominates much thinking, today. So they therefore judged certain work - bad - because it was fuzzy, the so called pictorialism – while others seek to add that dimension to their work.

As part of John Warton’s evaluation of photographs at photography laureates, he has a basic rule. The photograph must speak for itself; regardless of the photographer, the equipment, or the history of the shoot. This is the “painting-must-stand-by-itself”, rule, without some elaborate exposition in artsy double-speak as to the 'real meaning' of the thing. One may speak of the meaning of the photo, but whatever that meaning is, it must be reasonably presented to the viewer. What you see is what you get! John always keeps this in mind when selecting entries for photo laureates.

Hence, another rule might perhaps be – have a reason for why everything in that photo is there. Why is the subject there? What is the object, or the point, or the 'effect', or the emotions, even? Does anything detract? Is it a clean shot? Can something be removed by the angle at which the amateur photographer shot? Is the photo just of what you wish it to be? Amateur photographers: Think about what the shot is all about. Less is more.

Finally, John looks at the line, or composition, taken from art - sculpture, painting, etc. to determine which photographs he recommends for publication in the anthologies at photo laureates (www.photolaureates.org). This line must stand out. John looks for referential points within the photograph. He looks for amateur photographers that successfully manage to find shapes that emphasize lines, curves -- even repetition of same.

[su-fi]

I have been struggling with the question myself. I have a few friends who are photographers and I really can’t help but ask myself when they show me a picture: Is this good? What should I say? What is a good photograph? To me it is all the same. I have seen some great photos taken by some of the members on the forums, but those pictures seem to have been taken with some sort of technique which makes you focus more on the pictures effect rather then the actual picture. Lets take a regular shot of a living thing, object or even a scene as an example. How do you tell when a photographer is talented or not? In the eyes of a person like me, the photographer by profession is only as good as his or her equipment and or the clients that he photographs. A photographer for the art of it is only as good as whatever it is he or she is taking a picture of, regardless of how he or she takes the picture; it would have been the same if either you or I had taken it. One thing comes to mind from what I have read in this post: “The photograph must speak for itself; regardless of the photographer, the equipment, or the history of the shoot. This is the “painting-must-stand-by-itself”, rule,” If there is any such thing as a good photo I would have to say that makes sense.

[chameleon]

I think when it comes to photographing people/pets/animate things, the photo becomes a sort of sum-of-the-parts, a record of the interaction between the photographer and subject. You can see this on a small scale even at your local Olan Mills or Sears photography where the photographer usually... well.. isn't a photographer. How is it that one photographer can regularly coax stunning shots from kids and babies - and others can only manage the run-of-the-mill cute baby shoots? It's about interacting with the subject, pushing for expression/movement/reaction - and having the instinct to snap the photo at precisely the right moment.

I think that's where the artistry comes in - knowing when to snap the photo, knowing what makes a good photo. It's a blend of composition, color, light and meaning. You can say 'well, anyone using that equipment and taking a photo of that dandelion would have got the same picture' but... would just anyone have seen that that dandelion was perfectly framed against the blue sky and the contrast of yellow, blue and three different greens was so perfectly sharp that... do you see what I mean?

Technique is something that anyone can learn - and I've heard that the artistic eye can be trained, but I think there's an instinct for the 'right there!' moment that makes a great photographer.