That was really the whole point of the post. I'm not suggesting that give up subjectivity. I'm talking about the emotion that surrounds some situations. For example, in the heat of a great rock or jazz performance, the photographer may get caught up in the excitement of the moment, be influenced by the rhythms, and may choose to make photos that, what he or she thinks, will capture the magic that's being felt. But the photographer must sometimes suspend involvement with the emotional side and look carefully at the elements that make a good photo: lighting, composition, eye contact, color .... remember, the viewer can't hear the music, the viewer can't feel the rhythm, or the jostling of the crowd. Our responsibility is to find a way to capture that to some degree in order to share it with the viewer. To that end we must calm our excitement, remove ourselves from being a participant and take the position of an observer.
Yes, I suppose there's a bit of a balancing act going on, but that balance has to be weighted properly. I don't think it's equal parts subjectivity and emotion and technical expertise. When we as photographers get excited by a situation, it's all to easy to snap the shutter at the wrong instance. A calm detachment is important, IMO. And with that detachment the photographer may be better able to be creative with things like camera angles, focal length, and so on. Shel > [Original Message] > From: frank theriault > The remark I found interesting is: > > > One of the problems we photographers have is that of separating ourselves - > > our emotional attachment and involvement with a scene - from what makes a > > good photograph. We must train ourselves to see with unemotional eyes, > > thinking of composition and lighting, not so much about how we like the > > subject, or how the music makes us feel, etc. > > And, I guess my response is that there has to be some balance. I'm > thinking that completely separating ourselves from scenes will leave > us with bland, sterile photos, especially if we're dealing with photos > of humans. It's exactly because we become emotionally involved that > we know exactly when to snap a photo. All of the right composition > and lighting in the world won't work if we miss a passing moment. > > I think that what I'm trying to say is that we, as photographers of > people, have to blend the technical, unemotional side of the craft of > photography with the involving, subjective, reactive art of > photography. If we don't have the right blend (and I don't pretend to > know exactly what that is), we might as well do architectural > photography (no slight to architectural photographers intended <g>). > > BTW, I'm in no way trying to say that the particular photo that > started this thread has that emotional element. I'm coming to think > that it's the lack of emotion that leaves it a merely adequate or > mediocre photo for many (including, increasingly, me). > > Oh well. Next PAW will have plenty of emotion, that's for sure! > (ready Wednesday...). <vbg>
