- Messages
- 7,918
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Rowell isn't a photographer I knew anything about, but have seen his name mentioned a bit (mostly by Thom Hogan) and while what I found of his work didn't interest me he struck me as having and interesting approach. So I picked up a cheap and tatty copy of 'Galen Rowell's Vision', which is a collection of essays/articles about how he went about his photography. His concept of 'Image Maturity' made a lot of sense to me.
Basically it's about the knowledge a viewer has of the subject and how that affects their response to a picture. His example is of a familiar animal such as a deer or an unfamiliar one like a snow leopard. If you show someone a photo of a deer, the whole deer, they're not too impressed. But if you maybe show just a close up of it behind some foreground objects it is more interesting to them, but they'd still know it was a deer. Whereas a detail of a snow leopard might baffle them yet a photo of the whole animal would hold their attention. I guess it's a variation on the 'make the common uncommon' advice - with a twist.
It resonates with me because it's something I battle with when taking sheep photos - different photos suit different audiences. Particularly as I'm trying to bring together people who know the sheep world and those who don't as viewers. And I guess it applies to all photography of a documentary nature if you are trying to make the uninformed aware of something. Don't make your photos too 'clever' if you want to get a message across. It's also related to my wish not to make photographs for photographers. If you know what I mean!
Just thought I'd raise the point.
Basically it's about the knowledge a viewer has of the subject and how that affects their response to a picture. His example is of a familiar animal such as a deer or an unfamiliar one like a snow leopard. If you show someone a photo of a deer, the whole deer, they're not too impressed. But if you maybe show just a close up of it behind some foreground objects it is more interesting to them, but they'd still know it was a deer. Whereas a detail of a snow leopard might baffle them yet a photo of the whole animal would hold their attention. I guess it's a variation on the 'make the common uncommon' advice - with a twist.
It resonates with me because it's something I battle with when taking sheep photos - different photos suit different audiences. Particularly as I'm trying to bring together people who know the sheep world and those who don't as viewers. And I guess it applies to all photography of a documentary nature if you are trying to make the uninformed aware of something. Don't make your photos too 'clever' if you want to get a message across. It's also related to my wish not to make photographs for photographers. If you know what I mean!
Just thought I'd raise the point.