Have you ever taken a photo and cannot understand why you like it?

Messages
3,616
Edit My Images
Yes
I took a photo yesterday which before I'd even looked at it on the PC thought it would be naff too much water and sky and low tech point and press camera. I then looked at it on the PC and still thought it is off a pretty poor subject matter but the more I looked at it the more I liked it I cannot understand why but I do. The photo is of the Rezza as it's known to Dudley folk but is of Netherton reservoir. The white blobs are far away swans and the camera was a Olympus x775 point and press inherited from my dad which I have started to take everywhere with me. I think the colours even before I processed it were really rich. Has this happened to you ?
rezza.jpg
 
I've got a photo of a very uninspiring subject that I really love. Probably the rich colours, as that is a common theme with my own.
The great highlight control in the exposure without losing a lot of detail in shadows will also help.
 
I can’t say the photo does anything for me I’m afraid, but that’s the beauty of photography, what has meaning and significance for one person can be meaningless for another. And creating meaningful photography is a worthy goal.

I’ve definitely been surprised by some photographs that I’ve taken once I’ve got home. It’s hard to judge them accurately on the 2 inch telly on the camera, they really do need to be judged full screen or as a print to make a decisive judgement.
 
I then looked at it on the PC and still thought it is of a pretty poor subject matter but the more I looked at it the more I liked it I cannot understand why but I do.

I think you might find it more valuable to work out why you liked it, rather than wonder whether others have had this experience. That way, you gain something you can use in the future.

As to the camera - you've presumably just discovered that any camera used within its limitations will give superb results.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it depends on personality type.

I'm quite analytical, and know a small amount about art theory, so I can easily see why an image is 'attractive'.

In fact I'm perplexed that people who have spent some years in photography lack that ability, I can understand beginners lacking the skill to assess an image, but it's something we build along with camera craft, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure the phrase “I like a photo but not sure why I like it” applies, but rather when I look at a photo I can tell whether it is worth sharing or not, besides the technical side like sharpness and exposure which is a given, I can tell, or something in me can tell if it’s a keep or reject. It’s just something you need to have or learn, a self critique ability, otherwise you might as well not bother because you end up either processing too many shots or showing people crap photos and that just reflect badly on you.
 
Judging photographs is an analytical skill that can be developed over time, and I'd say that it involves lots of looking (at others' work) as well as an awareness of processes and possibilties. But maybe the technical side of things is for many people more accessible and easier to assimilate than the artistic side. But it all needs to be thought about.

If I could offer a clue to the overall appraisal of any image, it would be to ask 'what does this image mean?'. Without that, it's just wallpaper.
 
Last edited:
in that while I know why I like images
I assume Toni that you could explain this 'liking' in words to another person, if asked? Because I think that we're talking here about communication - by images, and about images.
 
I assume Toni that you could explain this 'liking' in words to another person, if asked? Because I think that we're talking here about communication - by images, and about images.

Absolutely. I took a decision a couple of years back to try to critique images in the crit section that had not received any comments in order to learn about what worked, what didn't and how to read an image. I found it useful both to help me develop and to explain what I was seeing and why I did what I did.When I post a pic I'll often add just a few words to try to clue the viewer in to what made me take & show the picture too.

A part of the 'problem' if that's the right word, is that we don't just take pictures for ourselves - if we did then we'd never post anything. Part of what pushes my photography is that I want to create images that appeal to others and from a commercial POV that they'll possibly want to own. A part of that is understanding target viewers and producing the things that work for them, but there is the need for aesthetic and storytelling in there too to be personally satisfying.
 
I struggle slightly differently, in that while I know why I like images, I find it hard to know what will excite others outside of things that are designed to work for 'facebook' type viewers.
Ditto I took a photo of a duck once which I almost deleted but it went to explore on Flickr
EF7A9888duck by davholla2002, on Flickr

I think this photo (sadly slight blurred as I had the wrong speed and probably should have had f6.3 or f 7.0) is a lot better (I could lie and say that I wanted the blur to show movement but I didn't).
RaceEF7A00370032 by davholla2002, on Flickr
 
I took a photo yesterday which before I'd even looked at it on the PC thought it would be naff too much water and sky and low tech point and press camera. I then looked at it on the PC and still thought it is off a pretty poor subject matter but the more I looked at it the more I liked it I cannot understand why but I do. The photo is of the Rezza as it's known to Dudley folk but is of Netherton reservoir. The white blobs are far away swans and the camera was a Olympus x775 point and press inherited from my dad which I have started to take everywhere with me. I think the colours even before I processed it were really rich. Has this happened to you ?
View attachment 112748

That comes under the scope of Evocative Photographs.
It is not the content so much as the atmosphere and memory it stimulates or the mood it generates, that people respond to.
It need not be a specially "Good" image to achieve this.
 
Ditto I took a photo of a duck once which I almost deleted but it went to explore on Flickr
EF7A9888duck by davholla2002, on Flickr

I think this photo (sadly slight blurred as I had the wrong speed and probably should have had f6.3 or f 7.0) is a lot better (I could lie and say that I wanted the blur to show movement but I didn't).
RaceEF7A00370032 by davholla2002, on Flickr
I think the duck picture is better.
 
TBH I probably agree with Ben, though if the BIF pic had been framed differently then it might well have been a winner.
 
Ditto I took a photo of a duck once which I almost deleted but it went to explore on Flickr
EF7A9888duck by davholla2002, on Flickr

I think this photo (sadly slight blurred as I had the wrong speed and probably should have had f6.3 or f 7.0) is a lot better (I could lie and say that I wanted the blur to show movement but I didn't).
RaceEF7A00370032 by davholla2002, on Flickr
That's a perfect example of how photographers are often appalling picture editors.

The value you've assigned those images is due to the fact you prize a BiF image, because it's technically difficult to do, whereas, shooting a duck on a pond is 'easy'.

Whereas the obvious reality to the viewer is that the duck is a fairly neat composition, shot in good light it's simple and effective, engaging. Whereas the BiF image is a messy composition with the main subject at the wrong angle, suffering from motion blur and the other elements are distracting.
 
Instead of "I don't know why I like it", I can say "why I like this".

It's actually not the dress, which is the purpose, so that is the expected result, if I didn't like the dress, which is a typical shot that a bride normally ask for then it would be a fail photo, but I like actually because i just like the small portion of the face you can see, the smallest hint of a smile, the way the small strands of hair hangs and I like the way the clouds turned out.

StJUkWz.jpg
 
That's a perfect example of how photographers are often appalling picture editors.

The value you've assigned those images is due to the fact you prize a BiF image, because it's technically difficult to do, whereas, shooting a duck on a pond is 'easy'.

Whereas the obvious reality to the viewer is that the duck is a fairly neat composition, shot in good light it's simple and effective, engaging. Whereas the BiF image is a messy composition with the main subject at the wrong angle, suffering from motion blur and the other elements are distracting.
That is correct.
 
TBH I probably agree with Ben, though if the BIF pic had been framed differently then it might well have been a winner.
I know and the herons in Hyde Park barely ever fly - it could be years before I get another chance like this.
 
This is what our downstairs bathroom is for (among other things). Technically good shots with accurate focus and an interesting subject (plus wife's approval) go up on the normal walls but the ones where the focus is out, framing is lousy or there is motion blur yet for some reason we still like the shot go up in the loo. We usually get more comments about those, of course.
 
I have the reverse.

I take a photo and when I get home and download it, I think "Now why the heck did I take that?"
Are you sure that someone else has not got hold of your camera? I often find lots of photos of me on my memory card - normally when I have asked my son or wife to hold it for a minute. The fact that it is setup for macro and often has a 60mm lens does not make good photos of me.
 
One of the things I discovered when I joined my local photo-club a couple o' years ago, is just how subjective photos are. After entering piccies in the various competitions held through the year and having them examined by outside 'professional' judges, a pic I entered into 2 competitions came last in 1 (out of approx 18), and 2nd in t'other (approx 12~14 entries).....


Cutty Sark at night.....

 
One of the things I discovered when I joined my local photo-club a couple o' years ago, is just how subjective photos are. After entering piccies in the various competitions held through the year and having them examined by outside 'professional' judges, a pic I entered into 2 competitions came last in 1 (out of approx 18), and 2nd in t'other (approx 12~14 entries).....

Pedantically - the judges award places subjectively, the photographs themselves are objective.

More seriously - at least they should have informed you what the basis of their positioning was. If they didn't, what was the point of the competition except to score points (and not add to your knowledge/skill)? Not knowing what the other entries were like I can't muddy the waters by giving my own placing :D Personally, I'm not keen on it, but I can tell you why (but won't, as it's off topic).
 
Back
Top