What is most important. Subject matter, lighting or editing?
CalmNudes said, 1714825828
Perception said
I’ve been trying to do a blog on what makes a good image, personally I think off the bat, the question here is wrong. I think it’s very difficult to answer and I’ve slightly given up on it myself! Basically I think the answer is way more complex than this question you’ve put, to think critically 99% of the time the questions just wrong.
I think you may be right that question is wrong. But you if you though you could answer "What makes a good image" that was probably a failure to grasp the complexity of the question:-) It's been bothering those who paint and draw for hundreds of years and bothering photographers since glass plates. And I think that has dawned on you :-)
If you're going to try to write that I would start with the how difficult the question is and images which we say are "Good" often have these characteristics, but an image can have these and flop, and it can be a success with none of them. Even then you look at the out of camera shots - I'm fascinated by old contact sheets - and think "the light's the same, the subject's the same, the composition is roughly same in all of them, yet that one has something I can't define what lifts it above the rest" .
One of my all time favourites is Terry O'Neill's shot of Faye Dunaway the morning after she one the Oscar, which I initially knew as a mono copy, but was shot in colour. The contact is here along with one of his shoots of Bowie. A couple more Bowie ones below.
and this one of Bowie
https://www.modernrocksgallery.com/david-bowie-prints/david-bowie-heroes-sukita (what's really interesting is that page has the previous roll of film they shot, and it's all duds, what magic happened as they went on ?)
Some parts of my shoots with models the pictures are "just snaps". Others I think are great photos. Where I get a cluster of 'snaps', I reckon it's a mix of lighting the shots in a way that is just meh, or directing the model(s) to something that's unflattering, banal, or naff, or picking a bad angle to shoot from (sometimes framed too tight so I can't crop to the ideal composition; more often I should have changed the height of the camera). Where I get a bunch of "great" shots in a row, the light's right, the on-set atmosphere's right and I've given the model just the right amount of direction so that she's doing her best work; and on top of that I've got the camera in the right place with the right lens on it, and then I just pick the right moment to press the button.
J.S. creative images. said, 1714828201
If you get the first two right the third one becomes less important.
Perception said, 1714829516
CalmNudes said
Perception said
I’ve been trying to do a blog on what makes a good image, personally I think off the bat, the question here is wrong. I think it’s very difficult to answer and I’ve slightly given up on it myself! Basically I think the answer is way more complex than this question you’ve put, to think critically 99% of the time the questions just wrong.
I think you may be right that question is wrong. But you if you though you could answer "What makes a good image" that was probably a failure to grasp the complexity of the question:-) It's been bothering those who paint and draw for hundreds of years and bothering photographers since glass plates. And I think that has dawned on you :-)
If you're going to try to write that I would start with the how difficult the question is and images which we say are "Good" often have these characteristics, but an image can have these and flop, and it can be a success with none of them. Even then you look at the out of camera shots - I'm fascinated by old contact sheets - and think "the light's the same, the subject's the same, the composition is roughly same in all of them, yet that one has something I can't define what lifts it above the rest" .
One of my all time favourites is Terry O'Neill's shot of Faye Dunaway the morning after she one the Oscar, which I initially knew as a mono copy, but was shot in colour. The contact is here along with one of his shoots of Bowie. A couple more Bowie ones below.
and this one of Bowie
https://www.modernrocksgallery.com/david-bowie-prints/david-bowie-heroes-sukita (what's really interesting is that page has the previous roll of film they shot, and it's all duds, what magic happened as they went on ?)
Some parts of my shoots with models the pictures are "just snaps". Others I think are great photos. Where I get a cluster of 'snaps', I reckon it's a mix of lighting the shots in a way that is just meh, or directing the model(s) to something that's unflattering, banal, or naff, or picking a bad angle to shoot from (sometimes framed too tight so I can't crop to the ideal composition; more often I should have changed the height of the camera). Where I get a bunch of "great" shots in a row, the light's right, the on-set atmosphere's right and I've given the model just the right amount of direction so that she's doing her best work; and on top of that I've got the camera in the right place with the right lens on it, and then I just pick the right moment to press the button.
I know, it’s infuriating that every time I come up with some theory, I often try to test the theory by looking at the recent images and I’ll find an image that ticks all the boxes I’d set out, but generally I don’t like it.
im currently thinking that “taste” for lack of a better word has a lot to do with higher level images, ones that are above just being effective. For example very famous fashion images, the models are far more serious and restrained in expressions and poses than 90% of the images here, the colour are a far more refined colour harmony, the clothings and makeup usually more restrained and refined. Clearly a lot of people with refined tastes have had input into getting of the images right for their brands. But this quality’s difficult to express in words. Its also an aspect that sounds pretentious and nobody really cares for, but in fact could be the most vital element in good work. It could also be a complete red herring lol
with models, my next shoots going to be really pedantic about expressions, that’s my next focus on trying to improve my own images. I read a book years ago on beauty theory and “the human condition” is high on the agenda. Most model poses and expressions seem to bypass any meaningful connection from viewer to subject by being too dreamy faced or ego focussed.
In a nutshell be got loads of theories, read loads of other theories and none seem to work when tested against good and bad images.
CalmNudes said, 1714830609
If you get the first two right the third one becomes less important.
Edit is not just photoshop, but also selecting the right frame from many that were shot, deciding how to crop it (especially if the final aspect ratio isn't the camera's - like 10x8 for instagram portrait format), and maybe selecting more vivid or more muted colour, increased or reduced contrast etc.
franky.fine.art said, 1714847003
CalmNudes Absolutely, I would argue that “curation”, picking the “best” shot, is an art of its own and would deserve its place among the trio “subject”, “light” and “editing”.
Guillaume de Lafontaine - DWAMPIX said, 1714847839
CalmNudes said
Edit is not just photoshop...
Yep! Long before Photoshop, togs used to buy film rolls/brands for their specific look and feel (now turned into "presets" for Lightroom, CaptureOne...), they opted for some chemical products and papers that gave them what they need for their style... They also had several projection optics if they wanted more sharpness or softness... "Editing" is not a new thing... In fact Photoshop was designed so photographers can replicate into the digital photography what was done in film labs for decades (crops, dodging and burning, masks ...) and retouching terminology is based on words that were used long before computers even existed...
Those who think that "proper photographers" don't edit should think a bit more and dive into history facts...
JPea said, 1714856852
The subject matter ( I don't like this choice of words) is the most important thing and also having everythingin the image in the right place.
Without the correct light for that image, you don't actually have an image
You then have to release the image from thee media that you captured it in.
Everything matters , but unless the first requirement is achieved, the rest is of no consequence. .