Do You Need To Have An Emotional Connection With A Picture For It To Be Good?

milster

milster

Messages
2,438
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry about the lengthy title but I couldn't think how to shorten it. I've discussed this a few times with people but have yet to come up with a conclusive answer....For me the answer is a definitive no but for many I've discussed this with seem to say you can't take a good picture unless you have an emotional connection with it.....discuss.
 
Last edited:
The answer's obviously no, but then there are many types of 'good picture'. A picture can be good just technically, or by having social or other reference. As with all statements or discusssions, you should start by defining your terms.
 
Definite no from me

I've taken some technically great photos that I don't care about at all and some technically rubbish ones that I love. All 'good' in their own way.
 
I can appreciate a picture and accept that it's good even though I don't like it, so it's a "no" from me :D
 
Or will a good picture connect with you emotionally, regardless?
 
milster said:
Do You Need To Have An Emotional Connection With A Picture For It To Be Good?
Click to expand...

It's all down to how you've pitched the question.

'Need' is going to result in a pretty unanimous NO

'Good' is very hard to define.

My thoughts:

I think a picture (photograph) is like music.

A capable photographer or a capable musician can probably distinguish between what's technically strong or weak.

Likewise people can feel an emotional connection to a photograph or piece of music regardless of whether it's technically strong or weak.

Who is best placed to say how we should define 'good'. It's different things to different people.

With that in mind - if I had to say yes or no then I'd say no. You don't HAVE to have an emotional connection with a picture for it to be good.

shreds said:
Or will a good picture connect with you emotionally, regardless?
Click to expand...

That's exactly where my own train of thought took me as I also flipped the question on it's head however (after a load of waffle and backspace deleting) I decided the answer was still no.
 
Last edited:
Simes123 said:
Think you need to define good to be able to answer that.
Click to expand...

Exactly

With 4 kids our house was busting at the seams and my good lady wife insisted I took a run (several as it turned out) to the tip.

There was decent stuff and there was stuff I had an emotional connection with.

She told me to sort out the good stuff from the bad :confused:
 
In most cases regarding international photography, of war zones and the like, the last thing thing I would have thought you wanted was an emotional attachment to the subject in hand; you'd never get anything done.

I am a parcel delivey 'boy' and sometimes I deliver coffins, or ashes, or any sort of emotional goods. Do I have an emotional connection with the recipient? No. How would I do my job if I was concerned with everything I delivered? Same with photographers, although they do have to get much closer to the subject's lives.

One can enjoy a picture, one can get emotionally involved if one likes but is it necessary? Unless the subject has a direct emotional significance to you, the answer has to be a resounding NO.
 
milster said:
Sorry about the lengthy title but I couldn't think how to shorten it. I've discussed this a few times with people but have yet to come up with a conclusive answer....For me the answer is a definitive no but for many I've discussed this with seem to say you can't take a good picture unless you have an emotional connection with it.....discuss.
Click to expand...


Define good? I think the answer really rests on that.

Also... your question is can you TAKE a good photo without an emotional connection with it. The answer is yes you can. However, what makes it good is not whether YOU as the photographer have an emotional connection with it, but whether the audience does. If the audience feels nothing... will they think it's good?
 
dinners said:
Exactly

With 4 kids our house was busting at the seams and my good lady wife insisted I took a run (several as it turned out) to the tip.

There was decent stuff and there was stuff I had an emotional connection with.

She told me to sort out the good stuff from the bad :confused:
Click to expand...


I take it you now have a rented lock up between the house and the tip, full of good stuff or crap - depending on whose definition we use?

An emotional attachment can help me enjoy a photograph I've taken (or indeed that someone else has taken) but my enjoyment doesn't rely on any attachment I might have to it.
 
I think I maybe worded the original question wrong, maybe I should have said an emotionally engaging picture. The thing that always seems to come up is, if you're not engaged with the picture as a photographer how can the audience be.
 
It all depends on the audience.
The only ones I get emotionally involved are some of our family photographs, mainly becuse of the subject - Other family members like them also.

#1 The owner/driver of #161 loves this photograph - and I was not emotionally involved when shooting it.

#161 John Tarran 1970 Lotus 61M by dicktay2000, on Flickr

#2 Sometimes when photographing you do not have time to be emotionally involved as you are too busy "working", however you may get emotionally involved latter.
In my case it was when I recorded a horrific motor racing accident sequence where the driver did not walk away. The investigating police loved it. I wished I had never seen it let alone photographed it and the few people who have seen it say they images are too "graphic".
It took me 12 months to get over it and didn't happen untill I met and with the driver a year later (he wasn't racing).
 
milster said:
I think I maybe worded the original question wrong, maybe I should have said an emotionally engaging picture. The thing that always seems to come up is, if you're not engaged with the picture as a photographer how can the audience be.
Click to expand...


I agree with that. If an image doesn't evoke an emotion... even if it's hatred... it can't be good.. hmmm. If you literally feel nothing.... then it's probably because it's boring.... however.... It's not quite that simple though. In reality, how many images evoke literally nothing?

I think what makes a good photograph is purpose. Good photographs DO something, or show something of interest that makes you think.. OR evoke strong emotions. I think the problem with your question is that it polarises good or bed based on emotion only, and I don't think that's the case actually.


RichardTaylor said:
#1 The owner/driver of #161 loves this photograph - and I was not emotionally involved when shooting it.#161 John Tarran 1970 Lotus 61M by dicktay2000, on Flickr
Click to expand...

The owner of eth car will obviously love it.. it's his car. He'll probably want to hang it on the garage/workshop/office wall. However... the wider audience is a different matter. Those who have a passion for racing will love it, as it will evoke all manner of emotions about racing such a car... the limited grip... the harking back to old fashioned racing where grip, throttle and skill dictate the race, not money and aero and overtaking opportunities...

To anyone else... it's of no interest. So is it good or bad?

See my point? It's not that simple.

I love this image.....

View attachment 35358

It's not a great photograph... but how many other people would? I only like it because it's me, driving my car.... and I'm winning :) As a Photograph... it's not that great.
 
It's going to depend on the subject matter, the occasion, and most of all your intention when taking the photo. You won't have an emotional connection with every photo, although they may still evoke an emotional response from some viewers. On other occasions a photo can be admirable for many reasons with no emotional input or output at all.
 
Not all photography is Art. Not everyone likes all Art. If your photographs invoke an emotional response in a viewer, it's good to them. If it doesn't in another, doesn't make it not good. But it may be not good to that person. As photographers we tend to get emotionally invested in our own work. We work on our best shots with pride, love and view them with joy. To us they are good shots as we become invested. Others may or may not agree. (My wife usually disagrees). And some photography just isn't trying to be art. Doesn't mean it's not good.
 
I think you'll always have an emotional connection with what you think is a great photograph. What you think of as great is subjective, same with evoking feelins. But if a photo makes you feel nothing then regardless of how technicaly good (or otherwise) then its not a good, or great photo.
 
No.
 
Not necessarily. But I do find that the pictures I share on Flickr don't receive the same view/favs as I might expect. There are some on there that I absolutely adore because they are either linked with a person/place/event that is special to me. Just looking at them brings back the memories of that moment I took the photograph. Yet others might see something completely dull and uninteresting. I use the below photograph as an example. If I look at it objectively I can appreciate it as a standalone picture. I love the shallow DoF, the muted colours, the grain and stain of the wood and the geometric shapes within it. It was the supporting pillar of a temple in Bali that myself and my wife went to on our honeymoon. Of course anyone not aware of the location or the grander picture might just dismiss it out of hand. But I see more than they do.

But then again there are shots that make other people feel the emotions that you do. Be it a dramatic portrait or scenic shot that takes your breath away. Managing to communicate that to the viewer is very important.


Pillar of Society by RFMphotography, on Flickr
 
I wouldn't say so. Photographers know all the rules about photos so I'd say in general for these people it's more that the photo can tell the story without an explanation as to what you've taken the photo of. From experience, the general public tend to see photos that look nice to like them. It really comes down to what you like. I've heard many people saying things are great pictures but they don't like them. It's odd but then again photography is subjective so I don't think you'll get an answer to this question unless you answer the question yourself and what it means to you.
 
I have taken pictures which I have thought to be no good and didn't appeal to me in any way, but others have thought them good. Conversly I have looked at pictures others consider good and thought 'What's all the fuss about?' So I don't think an emotional connection with the photographer is necessary for a picture to be good or great. Normally the viewer needs an emotional connection but great work can be appreciated even if it is not liked.
 
milster said:
Sorry about the lengthy title but I couldn't think how to shorten it. I've discussed this a few times with people but have yet to come up with a conclusive answer....For me the answer is a definitive no but for many I've discussed this with seem to say you can't take a good picture unless you have an emotional connection with it.....discuss.
Click to expand...

I have zero emotional connection with a lot of the things I photograph. Emotional connection, liking your subject, or liking your own photos has no bearing ion your ability to create a technically strong image which is well composed, with narrative, and impact. There is a proportion of the work I do (subject wise) that I could very happily live without (to put it mildly). But the pictures are successful nonetheless (they have to be), and this comes down to experience, some creativity, and at times some acting skills which will cover up my boredom or irritation if the subject isn't to my liking. In fact some of what I do I literally dread, but as a professional I have to deliver the same standard for every client or subject. A lot of my images which have been the most successful (either commercially or in competitions) have often been the ones I haven't particularly related to, but they fulfil the criteria necessary for that purpose.

Still, it should be said that if you do have an emotional connection with certain subjects then you're likely to be more enthusiastic about actually photographing them in the first place - therefore the number of 'good' pictures of those things are likely to increase, statistically speaking - particularly if you're new to photography and you want to enjoy it. This isn't really the case if you shoot professionally because you're shooting to please your clients more than yourself. And as has been said, it also comes down to what you define as a 'good' photo - one that you like because you enjoyed taking it, or is it good because it achieves a certain level of technical competence? And of course what is 'good' to you might be regarded as inconsequential drivel to someone else - so the intent of the photograph needs to come into play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top