Do non-togs know a good photo?

Harvey_nikon

Harvey_nikon

Messages
3,749
Edit My Images
Yes
For the second time I have found myself looking at facebook photos taken by "uber amazing photographers" or "amazing photos" and thinking WTF?

Is it just us togs that have learnt to appreciate a good photo when we see it?

One of the girls at work is top model material and i've been umming and arring over asking her to do a shoot once I get more experience. But her "oober talented photographer friend" has just done an outdoor shoot for her and uploaded her photos on to facebook.

They are ok, but nothing special. Shots are blurry, backgrounds are awful, lighting needs some work etc. it's a case of not making use of what they had!

Then last night I was reading a article in this weeks AP magazine that had a photo in of 3 army guys in a helicopter on the last day of the gulf war and the image struck a cord, the story really pulled on that cord as well and I was really emotionally effected by it. My wife just went "meh" and normally she's the one that gets effected by stuff!

So, is it just that I've spent too long with you lot and now I know what to look out for in a photo I am being over critical or are the public just ignorant to what a good photo is?
 
I think it varies to be honest. My girlfriend can spot a good photograph and she isn't really into photography. But sometimes she'll pick out a photo and I'll go "meh", but I'll ask her why she likes it. And she gives a bloody good answer each time! Other times I'll see a photograph and go wow! And she'll say "meh", but will appreciate why I like it. Just have different tastes.

On the other hand, you've definitely hit on something there, and I think it's that when you start learning how to compose a shot, how to use colours, different techniques, how to provoke emotion... you then spot these things and they strike a chord with you. I think this is quite frequently almost only associated with photographers, but definitely not limited to. I agree that there are definitely more non-togs that will love photos that are quite frankly rubbish photos. But on the other hand I can just mention a few photography techniques and a lot of photographers will go MEH to them too! Things like HDR, vignetting, white backgrounds, over processing, etc. Lot's of togs cringe when they see those photos, others love them.

I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people just have a higher tolerance for crap!
 
I think photographers can get more hung up on the unimportant things - sharpness, lighting, will it print to A3? - whereas normal people can respond on a more emotionally appropriate level.
 
i have put the same photo on here and on faebook a few times. The variation in responses are obvious. I think people can tell the difference between something good and something pants, but something average to good, non togs will say "yeah, nice", and togs will say "horizon a bit off, this is over / under exposed" - thanks to here, I find myself being a lot more critical..........
 
I think the answer is yes. Before I was into photography I would know that a portrait photo taken with a fill in flash and nice bokeh was better than an underexposed one with no bokeh. It's the same with the 2/3rds rule - it looks aesthetically pleasing, and before I even knew what 2/3rds was I'd known that a photo conforming to the rule was nicer than just having your subject slap bang in the middle.
 
I usually upload my pictures both on facebook (to show my friends) and on flickr (to link on forums).

The response on forums and facebook usually don't match up. The response on the forums is mostly what I expect. But on facebook, sometimes my least favorite shot of the day becomes the most commented on.

I don't know, maybe it should be a sign to not be so critical of our work?
 
I agree ^

I've taken shots that, at the time, I thought were poo. A few months later when I've been browsing through my sets, I've thought 'cor, what a picture!' and spruced it up, and uploaded it.
 
The general public is more interested in the subject and the context, not the artistic work. If they see a celeb or their mate in embarrassing situation then it is a winner for them. Anything else pretty much doesn't matter. We, however, care about the artistic part of it, the quality of work as well as the subject.
 
I think generally FB etc you're not uploading your pictures for crit, so if someone did it could be perceived as rude.

also people tend to look at who is in \ what is happening the photo etc and if that brings a smile to their face, will be great shot. And if it achieves that it is a great shot, even if maybe not technically.

On a forum, crit is generally expected (and appreciated).
 
It's like asking do you need to be a good composer to appreciate a good song......no, it's all subjective!
 
Varies hugely, depending on the person. I know people (my ma for instance) who only need to recognise a familiar face in a photo to say "ooh, that's a good one of X". Others, will respond on a higher level and "get" the subtleties of light and composition and colour and so on and appreciate a decent photo for what it is. I tend to think that togs can get a bit hung up on some of the technicalities, but generally, we'll not only recognise a decent shot but understand what it must have taken to capture it. I think.
 
Jayst84 said:
I don't think most photographers know a good photo (or a bad one for that matter). :suspect:
Click to expand...

How dare you! All my photos are great! And don't you dare try to deny that fact! :nuts:

On a more serious note, I think a lot of photographers get caught up on technicalities as opposed to content. There's nothing worse than posting a photo and somebody editing it and deciding how they think it should look. I've sorted out that bit, just tell me you do or don't like it (usually the latter but they're obiously :cuckoo:). I think we need to realise that we primarily take photos that other photographers will like, because at the end of the day it's mainly photographers that will spend their days looking at other peoples photos. Non togs will generally browse photos that either they took, they are in, or their friends or family are in. I suppose the same counts for most professions. You get hooked to photography because you like taking nice photos. So you appreciate the opinions of people in the same profession as opposed to those outside it. Doesn't make their opinion any less valid, I suppose it's just a fact of life or something.

Jeez I can talk some crap sometimes :lol:
 
gingerjon said:
I think photographers can get more hung up on the unimportant things - sharpness, lighting, will it print to A3? - whereas normal people can respond on a more emotionally appropriate level.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the answer i'd give only more eloquently and far more concisely :lol:
 
If you go shopping and in the shops you spend more time looking at the wall art featuring a beautifully dressed model and thinking "nice" while dissecting it and thinking how you would create that shot, rather then look at the cloths there,

then your pretty much stuck on photographer mode!

come to think about it, my arms still bruised from being punched every time I looked and went "now that's an image!"

but I have to agree, all to often we get hung up on the real technicality's rather then just enjoy making the image!
we become photographers for photography,
joe public look at photos looking to spark an emotional response.

we often forget that.

But then again, photographer or not ive seen some real polished turds on facebook, and more then likely the model likes them for the photographer rather then the photograph.
that's assuming they are REALLY bad.
 
I think its subjective, I have good photo's and I love them, put them on here and you would rip them apart :) I comment on other peoples photo's not about the tec side of it as I am no where near that level and would insult them and myself if I tried.

However, if I like it I say I like it :) - what one person likes, another may dislike - bit like wine .. subjective to the consumer :)

Maybe further down the line I will be more critical, kinda hope not.
 
I'm far from being any good at photography just yet, but I look back at some of my old P&S photos and laugh at myself for thinking they were good at the time. So I must be improving. :thumbs:
 
its the same vice versa, i take a bad image but people say its nice and im like WTF its poorly composed, lightings terrible etc. and people dont care about it. i think its us togs and we just adapt to photography and when we see an image it speaks to us.
 
gingerjon said:
I think photographers can get more hung up on the unimportant things - sharpness, lighting, will it print to A3? - whereas normal people can respond on a more emotionally appropriate level.
Click to expand...

:clap: Very well put :clap:

I often show pics to my family and they are not interested in the technicalities at all but will tell me when it's a good 'un. They do have an appreciation of what works that is at an instinctive level rather than a technical level. I'll be looking at the depth of field and focus and they could not care less! :lol:
 
My wife has no interest in the act of photography but enjoys looking at my pictures, even the motorsport stuff. So yes she does :D
 
daugirdas said:
The general public is more interested in the subject and the context, not the artistic work. If they see a celeb or their mate in embarrassing situation then it is a winner for them. Anything else pretty much doesn't matter. We, however, care about the artistic part of it, the quality of work as well as the subject.
Click to expand...

Thats to sweeping a statement - yeah sure some people assess only on those things.

There are enough people out there able to tell a good photo from a bad one, without always being able to tell you why in a technical way, same as there are people who enjoy music and can tell carp from great without having the technical knowledge to explain whats makking it great.......

You don't need to be an artist to appreciate art
 
Actually, I think contrary to what some have said, that a good editorial photographer (such as the Gulf War image from the OP) knows and appreciates the context and subject matter of their photo. The technical stuff is secondary.

example:
Todd Heisler's 2006 Pulitzer Prize winner (Feature Photography).

heisler-04.jpg


Technically, the ISO is high and there's noise...the focus point is more on the passengers than the casket etc. Getting really pedantic, it looks like it's not quite level. Possibly didn't use a tripod.

However, compositionally, and in terms of the subject, the photo chokes me up a bit. Editorial photography certainly is a compromise between getting the picture that matters (so that the "general public" can appreciate it) and getting your settings right.
 
the eye of the beholder old chap...who takes it makes no difference
 
jamesb84 said:
Actually, I think contrary to what some have said, that a good editorial photographer (such as the Gulf War image from the OP) knows and appreciates the context and subject matter of their photo. The technical stuff is secondary.

example:
Todd Heisler's 2006 Pulitzer Prize winner (Feature Photography).

Technically, the ISO is high and there's noise...the focus point is more on the passengers than the casket etc. Getting really pedantic, it looks like it's not quite level. Possibly didn't use a tripod.

However, compositionally, and in terms of the subject, the photo chokes me up a bit. Editorial photography certainly is a compromise between getting the picture that matters (so that the "general public" can appreciate it) and getting your settings right.
Click to expand...

Of course editorial photographers know their stuff. I don't think the technical is secondary to them. It may be second nature to them, as with any decent photographer. But it's not secondary, afterall, that's why they got the job.

In your example picture, I'd put money on Heisler having intentionally focused on the passengers, it would not be such a powerful photograph had their faces been out of focus. Had he lowered the ISO and used a tripod and slow shutter, it would again, be a weaker image as everyone would be blurred. All up I think the technicals are pretty bang on in that shot. :thumbs:
 
I notice there tends to be a big difference when it comes to images taken as a hobby and commercial images. On forums people tend to complain about cropped heads\arms, wonky angles etc.. yet open up magazines and these tend to be the norm.
 
I know that my wife hates me for ruining her perception of pictures since we met. whereas she used to see wedding pics etc on facebook and say how lovely they are she now notices chopped feet, bad composition,lighting etc and realises that it can ruin a shot technically.

needless to say she often gives me a slap and reminds me of simpler times when a photo was 'just' a photo that could be looked at without dissecting it. :D
 
I think many people can tell a good photo but they can't tell a bad one. You have to be careful though, sometimes it can be all to easy to get stuck looking at the compostion, focus, lighting etc and totally forget the actual content and if that's the whole point of the photograph then often you'd be better off with a less technically correct picture.
 
Jayst84 said:
Of course editorial photographers know their stuff. I don't think the technical is secondary to them. It may be second nature to them, as with any decent photographer. But it's not secondary, afterall, that's why they got the job.

In your example picture, I'd put money on Heisler having intentionally focused on the passengers, it would not be such a powerful photograph had their faces been out of focus. Had he lowered the ISO and used a tripod and slow shutter, it would again, be a weaker image as everyone would be blurred. All up I think the technicals are pretty bang on in that shot. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Sorry, yeah, I did mean to say second nature...

I used that example to say it's about compromise, you kind of proved my point there ;):D

You're right about all the things you said, which of course shows that instead of it being a great photo it could've been awful. I'm not sure that a non-tog would appreciate that or know which would be the good photo and which not!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top