Three most important factors in producing a photographic image

[tkamiya]

Probably the most expensive lens and top of the line body.... no?

 

[cliveh]

Good subject matter is completely subjective, timing is dependent on the nature of your subject, quality of light is a subjective decision and technical perfection is mostly subjective. Good composition however has cultural norms and aesthetic standards that appear intuitive, but are in fact mostly analytical and part reference to the lineage of painting, cinema and still photography.

In that case, if I was forced to choose three, I'd go with education (in visual art, self-taught or otherwise, but disciplined and broad), composition*, and personal integrity.

*Composition - shouldn't be read as a puzzle with one learned, academic solution - it's mostly analytical in the sense that there is soooo much information* and each person will make their own conclusion. That's where personal integrity comes in. We're not computers, despite the word I've used below!

*Information - it's dangerous when making photographs to think in terms of 'objects', which only leads to the defeatist idea that "everything has been photographed". (I'll stop editing here, but...) Some photographers think in terms of 'objects' as symbols, which is information.

I think you have some very valid points. Well said.

 

[benjiboy]

What would you say are the three most important factors in producing a photographic image? For me they are composition, composition and composition.

Then you will have beautifully composed pictures that mean absolutely nothing

 

[NedL]

And my gut tells me that there needs to be something going on behind the scenes. Like having ideas in mind of what you want to get... but being receptive enough to take what comes your way. I get longer lasting feeling from photographs where the idea met reality and I took it home.

This.

I suppose there have been many discussions on APUG about the intention of a photographer vs. a photograph's intrinsic value as an isolated object. I think about this often.

I'd take this even further. For me, the most important thing is my own intention, and how well I achieve it. Usually I'm disappointed to some extent since getting to 100% is something like reaching perfection and probably not attainable. But the success or failure of my photograph is about how close I got to what I intended the picture to be. If a viewer perceives or feels or "gets" some of my intention, then that's another kind of success. Sometimes people notice or like my photos for other reasons, and that's nice but honestly I don't really care that much. I think of this as a luxury and benefit of photography being a hobby and not a profession for me.

So here's a sort of "tree falling in the woods" example: On flickr there is a group called "minimal landscapes, take the long view" which I particularly like. I would never consider submitting a photo that I did not make specifically with the intention of creating that style of photograph. For me this intention implies other things, like searching for the minimalist aspect of a scene that captures some essential quality of it. Many other people dig through their images and then edit them to match the style of the group. For me this distinction is important. It's the distinction between the intent of the photographer vs. the image in isolation, without context as a separate object.
Another example of this is that in my flickr photostream, several of the pictures I'm the most happy and satisfied with have some of the fewest views. I'm happy because the picture came out to be what I wanted it to be; it doesn't matter if that doesn't grab the attention of "flickr viewers" ( notice if I was a professional, this kind of thinking would fail! )

I suspect ( but don't really know ) that photographers and all artists tend to break into groups this way too. Probably for some, the goal is to produce a final result that has intrinsic value in isolation, while for others conveying and carrying some point ( mood, emotion, feeling, message, way of seeing something, etc etc ) is the point and the final picture has little value without that context. Probably we all want some of each, and it's not so black and white.

Anyway, sorry I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion to a different topic. I don't really know what is "important", but I suspect the motive of the photographer probably matters to the question.

 

[cliveh]

This.

I suppose there have been many discussions on APUG about the intention of a photographer vs. a photograph's intrinsic value as an isolated object. I think about this often.

I'd take this even further. For me, the most important thing is my own intention, and how well I achieve it. Usually I'm disappointed to some extent since getting to 100% is something like reaching perfection and probably not attainable. But the success or failure of my photograph is about how close I got to what I intended the picture to be. If a viewer perceives or feels or "gets" some of my intention, then that's another kind of success. Sometimes people notice or like my photos for other reasons, and that's nice but honestly I don't really care that much. I think of this as a luxury and benefit of photography being a hobby and not a profession for me.

So here's a sort of "tree falling in the woods" example: On flickr there is a group called "minimal landscapes, take the long view" which I particularly like. I would never consider submitting a photo that I did not make specifically with the intention of creating that style of photograph. For me this intention implies other things, like searching for the minimalist aspect of a scene that captures some essential quality of it. Many other people dig through their images and then edit them to match the style of the group. For me this distinction is important. It's the distinction between the intent of the photographer vs. the image in isolation, without context as a separate object.
Another example of this is that in my flickr photostream, several of the pictures I'm the most happy and satisfied with have some of the fewest views. I'm happy because the picture came out to be what I wanted it to be; it doesn't matter if that doesn't grab the attention of "flickr viewers" ( notice if I was a professional, this kind of thinking would fail! )

I suspect ( but don't really know ) that photographers and all artists tend to break into groups this way too. Probably for some, the goal is to produce a final result that has intrinsic value in isolation, while for others conveying and carrying some point ( mood, emotion, feeling, message, way of seeing something, etc etc ) is the point and the final picture has little value without that context. Probably we all want some of each, and it's not so black and white.

Anyway, sorry I didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion to a different topic. I don't really know what is "important", but I suspect the motive of the photographer probably matters to the question.

You have not sidetracked the discussion, but enriched it. Thank you.

 

[David Brown]

A brain, a heart, and courage.

(Wait! Wasn't that a movie ...?)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

The way the question is worded, the answer could as well be "a camera, film, and chemicals".

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have the camera with you
Focus
Take the frigging photo

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Say what?

You mean simply respond to what you're seeing and actually "take the friggin photo?"

But, but... without hours and hours of interminable navel-gazing analysis? Analysis until you've succeeded in eliminating any sense of emotional impact from your perfect compositions? Until they become nothing more than volume-level cookie-cutter clinical exercises in narcissism?

Shirley you're joking...



Ken

 

[Chuck_P]

The way the question is worded, the answer could as well be "a camera, film, and chemicals".

I hinted at this back in my post #19, but worded a response for three "type" of reasons that I think the OP was obviously in search of....

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't call me Shirley! But yes I was referring to the Existentialistic Zone System Soliloquies which engulfs some at APUG.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Intentional obfuscation is so popular among the elite that in some disciplines contests are waged to discover who is best at it. And Nature always exacts her price from the guilty, even if those who confer tenure don't. Damn that pesky Second Law... although said Law does allow for far more powerful photographs.

Oh dear... now I have become my enemy...

Ken

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Good grief. Sometimes instantaneous decisions must be made before clicking the shutter. Other times much thought is required. There's more than one type of photography... ya' know?

 

[dmschnute]

I once heard Ansel Adams quoted as saying that "a photographers most important tool is his waste basket". This from someone who said he had heard it at an AA workshop - I don't think it's urban legend.

 

[Bill Burk]

I once heard Ansel Adams quoted as saying that "a photographers most important tool is his waste basket". This from someone who said he had heard it at an AA workshop - I don't think it's urban legend.

That's where a friend of ours got his Ansel Adams print.

 

[Bill Burk]

I want to share a phrase I learned from tgtaylor at LFF.

"A little lagniappe."

It was in a post about black borders. But I took the word to heart and apply it when contemplating landscapes.

For example, in a scene from the John Muir Trail where I explored a depression of boulders, in one shot I turned the camera to compose a shot including a shrub on the other side of a hill.

Guess I'll have to print this one to show you what I mean.

 

[Alan Gales]

My eyes, my brain, and the connection between.

Try again. My eyes, my brain and the connection betwain.

Now it rimes!

 

[Alan Gales]

My eyes, my brain, and the connection between.

Try again. My eyes, my brain and the connection betwain.

Now it rimes!

Try again. Lee Ann Rimes, poetry rhymes.

OK. Now it rhymes!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Say what?

You mean simply respond to what you're seeing and actually "take the friggin photo?"

But, but... without hours and hours of interminable navel-gazing analysis? Analysis until you've succeeded in eliminating any sense of emotional impact from your perfect compositions? Until they become nothing more than volume-level cookie-cutter clinical exercises in narcissism?

Shirley you're joking...



Ken

If you're taking pictures at sea, it would be naval gazing.
Omphaloskepsis is fine, though.

 

[NedL]

I hope I wasn't the chief navel gazer! My long post could be summed up as:
1. Do what you want to do, not what you think others might like.
2. Make intent/vision matter: my final picture has less value to me without context.

I spend an inordinate amount of time gazing at the sky and landscape, even if I'm not taking photos of it! So hopefully I'm just a distracted gazer!

 

[flavio81]

What would you say are the three most important factors in producing a photographic image? For me they are composition, composition and composition.

1. Some sort of "message" or "impact" or "emotion" caused by the relationship of the subject and its context or surroundings, and the viewer.
2. Suitable lighting to enhance (1)
3. The shutter tripped in the precise moment to enhance (1)

Good composition is nice-to-have but not essential to the above, IMO.

 

[Vaughn]

I thought "...the relationship of the subject and its context or surroundings..." was composition. And I suppose if one considers composition to include the 4th dimension, then it would all be about composition. Plucking the light from a period of time and reshaping it onto a piece of paper.

 

[cliveh]

I thought "...the relationship of the subject and its context or surroundings..." was composition. And I suppose if one considers composition to include the 4th dimension, then it would all be about composition. Plucking the light from a period of time and reshaping it onto a piece of paper.

Well said.

 

[blansky]

1. How much are they paying me.

2. I wonder if I can get her clothes off.

3. Does her husband know she's here.

 

[cliveh]

"But is it art or just compositional technical perfection?"

You see, we all have our own biases. Whether we can bring ourselves to admit to them or not.

Ken

No, it is compositional artistic perfection.