>>>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. > >> Personally I find the two aspects (emotional involvement vs what makes a >> good photograph) are not mutually exclusive? FWIW, I find that the more >> emotionally involved I am with the subject (be it a person, music, event, >> whatever) the better my pictures IMO. But then again, I only make pics >> for myself ;-) > >> The closer I am to something, the more I get lost in it when filming/ >>shooting. > >but when you've finished shooting you have to look at the picture >dispassionately, and not let the way you felt at the time cloud your >judgement about its value. Other viewers won't have experienced the >thing as you did, so they won't be bringing that to their reading of >the photograph - all they see is the finished goods. They don't care >how you felt while you were taking them, or how difficult it was for >you to get them.
But surely it can be the mark of a "good" photographer (whatever that is) to convey the emotion and feeling of the scene, and present it - either passionately or dispassionately - in such a way that it may be possible to give either a hint or a even a total feeling of what it was like there at the scene when taken, man. I suppose I'm hinting at (in my roundabout way) that I don't actually subscribe to the 'dispassionate photograph'. I used to, but I don't anymore. Worse: objectivity in photography is impossible! Can>worms. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________
