What makes a shot successful?

Juano

What makes a good shot? Composition, treatment, subject... While some shots are clearly winners, others are flops and others have a certain appeal that is hard to describe and that works for some people and not at all for others. I like to experiment with stuff in search for that elusive essence of a good shot. Since I don't clearly know what I'm looking for, more often than not I fail... or end up with something that catches my eye for a while and then fades away. An idea of mine is that by photographing simple things that essence might be more readily understood and captured.

Thoughts?

Seefutlung

For me, success is measured by how close my final image is to my previsualized image. If I am happy with the image, then it is successful. If others like the image as well ... then it is even more successful. If only others like the image, then it is less than successful. Mao Tse-tung said that you only learn from your failures.

Gary

Juano

Seefutlung wrote: »

For me, success is measured by how close my final image is to my previsualized image. If I am happy with the image, then it is successful. If others like the image as well ... then it is even more successful. If only others like the image, then it is less than successful. Mao Tse-tung said that you only learn from your failures.

Gary

I agree with your perspective. It is very true that you learn from your mistakes but you need to know it is a mistake first!

Seefutlung

Juano wrote: »

I agree with your perspective. It is very true that you learn from your mistakes but you need to know it is a mistake first!

... yes. Often that delete button is far too easy not to push.

Gary

ziggy53

I rather like the concept of converging, diverging and parallel lines, created both by the objects and by their reflections. Good job spotting this one! clap

AlexShark

The title
I can only measure success of a photograph once I know what was the intent. And what can express the intent better than the title!

Yep, the title is the most important part of a photograph. All the "untitled" ones are already perfect, for who am I to say that they fall short of the mark? First, I need the mark.

Example:



Is this good or bad? Did I go overboard with wiping out the details? Was the linear burn judiciously applied? The misplaced horizon line makes the whole deal annoyingly vertically unbalanced. So what!

One can only start assessing this one once the title is there, the rest is trivia.

The title: LOT'S WIFE.

Seefutlung

I completely disagree. The more successful the image the less crutches one needs. For many photographic genres, the image can tell the complete story. The written word can be used to set the stage or take the viewer beyond the image. Often, the image needs no words. Text is a crutch.



Gary

AlexShark

Gary,

Interestingly, the titles appear under the photographs on your website. Clearly you found it necessary to furnish them, even the obvious one's like "Jimmy Carter."

I am talking about the titles, Gary, not an accompanying article. Though I would be hard pressed finding a work of art without external references. Unless, of course, they are abstract art. Even the photo above sports "Citrus Picker" on your website. If it were called "Home Depot CEO on a Field Trip" I'd have to judge it completely differently, as the story would have changed radically.

An image may or may not need words, but the intent of a photographer is almost never obvious to the viewer without the pointer of a title.

I'll give you an example of a fresh out of the oven piece (and hence still lacking in decisiveness) that requires the viewer to be familiar with a certain literary classic.



The above is a meaningless mess along the lines "Look Ma what I can do with fractals and Photoshop blending modes!" I can't fathom how would one approach offering critique of this image.

Now, the title is: THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS IN TEL AVIV.

This would still be entirely meaningless to those who have not read the John Wyndham's classic. One needs to have read this: The Day of The Triffids on Amazon before a word can be uttered.

Quite an overboard example, but hopefully brings the point across.

Seefutlung

I do not think the fact that I have titled many of my images invalidates my point ... for me, it actually adds punctuation, most/many/all of my images require titles because they are not as successful as I would like. There is always room for improvement. As you noted some images, that I have titled, may not require a title ... that is an individual assessment. (Thank you for noting that.)

As an example:


This image has text describing the location. I do not think that being armed with that knowledge enhances the image. You claim your abstract image is enhanced by the title. (Having not read the Wyndham's classic I will accept your reasoning as gospel.) Even though many images are enhanced by the title, I still believe that every image does not need a title.

For general photography, I think shooting with the intent of explaining the image via text, will lessen your photographic eye. I think we should all shoot to capture images which are exceptional and can communicate sans text ... images which can stand alone on their own merit.

I recognize doing so is a tall order, but that is one reason why I shoot ... for The Challenge.

Gary

PS- Your image has prompted me to review "The Day of the Triffids" for possible reading.
G

rwells

I believe this is a question that millions of photographers over many decades have asked.

And, there have probably been twice that many conflicting answers


IMHO, the question has to have two main qualifiers:

1) Shooting for myself

2) Shooting for a client


For #1;
I consider an image successful if it pleases ME...

Yes, it's nice if others also like the image, but that's not my main goal.


Of course, that can/will fall into different categories.

For instance: Probably my favorite is to have an image visualized in my head, and then successfully (to me), produce said image... = success

On the other hand: To shoot an image as opportunity comes your way, and later, during processing, discover that you landed a nice image. = success

For #2;
This one is a bit easier to determine success.

Does your client love the image?

If so = success

If not = failure


So, as you can see, I'm a simple man...

Richard

AlexShark wrote: »

Now, the title is: THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS IN TEL AVIV.

For me, this is a good example of why titles can be counter-productive. I like this image, but (having read the book) it doesn't look like triffids at all to me . Titles can be useful as a means of reference to an image, but photography is a visual art: what matters most is in the frame. Captions are usually required for photojournalism, of course.

As to the OP's question, there's a wide variety of reasons an image can be memorable--subject, light, comp, wit, color, juxtaposition...the list is long. There's no magic formula. Simple things can be striking or they can be banal. Complexity can be rich or simply confusing. You just have to trust your own sensibility, and be comfortable with the fact that others may not agree.

AlexShark

Seefutlung wrote: »

I do not think the fact that I have titled many of my images invalidates my point ... for me, it actually adds punctuation, most/many/all of my images require titles because they are not as successful as I would like. There is always room for improvement. As you noted some images, that I have titled, may not require a title ... that is an individual assessment. (Thank you for noting that.)

As an example:


This image has text describing the location. I do not think that being armed with that knowledge enhances the image. You claim your abstract image is enhanced by the title. (Having not read the Wyndham's classic I will accept your reasoning as gospel.) Even though many images are enhanced by the title, I still believe that every image does not need a title.

For general photography, I think shooting with the intent of explaining the image via text, will lessen your photographic eye. I think we should all shoot to capture images which are exceptional and can communicate sans text ... images which can stand alone on their own merit.

I recognize doing so is a tall order, but that is one reason why I shoot ... for The Challenge.

Gary

PS- Your image has prompted me to review "The Day of the Triffids" for possible reading.
G

Gary, I haven't suggested "explaining the image via text." I do, however, believe that a title is invariably appropriate. Just like for a novel -- even though the novel itself is not written to explain the title. But would you read an untitled novel? Sure, any image should stand on its own two feet. But the title cannot be construed a crutch.

Nor did I claim an abstract is enhanced by a title. An abstract is a unique art form that may not require a title -- quite the opposite, right?

Enjoy "The Day of the Triffids"! It's an awesome piece of work in the best tradition of classic Sci-Fi.

Angelo

This discussion brought to mind something I read yesterday:

http://laist.com/2014/09/20/concrete_porn.php#photo-1

.

AlexShark

rwells wrote: »

I believe this is a question that millions of photographers over many decades have asked.

And, there have probably been twice that many conflicting answers


IMHO, the question has to have two main qualifiers:

1) Shooting for myself

2) Shooting for a client


For #1;
I consider an image successful if it pleases ME...

Yes, it's nice if others also like the image, but that's not my main goal.


Of course, that can/will fall into different categories.

For instance: Probably my favorite is to have an image visualized in my head, and then successfully (to me), produce said image... = success

On the other hand: To shoot an image as opportunity comes your way, and later, during processing, discover that you landed a nice image. = success

For #2;
This one is a bit easier to determine success.

Does your client love the image?

If so = success

If not = failure


So, as you can see, I'm a simple man...

Yes, #2 is simple -- did you get paid?

#1 can also be simplified: would you put this image as your screensaver for a day?

AlexShark

Richard wrote: »

For me, this is a good example of why titles can be counter-productive. I like this image, but (having read the book) it doesn't look like triffids at all to me . Titles can be useful as a means of reference to an image, but photography is a visual art: what matters most is in the frame. Captions are usually required for photojournalism, of course.

Thank you, Richard.

Inadvertently, you confirmed two of my suspicions:

1. It isn't possible to critique this photograph without the external reference to the book; it would make no sense.

2. I failed communicating the theme. The similarity to triffids, BTW, is not important at all since we don't really know what they looked like. It's immaterial. While the photo has substantial technique put into it, it nevertheless does not offer the visualization, and even more important -- it has no emotional impact whatsoever. Maybe it should be renamed: memoir of spilled coffee

Seefutlung

Angelo wrote: »

This discussion brought to mind something I read yesterday:

http://laist.com/2014/09/20/concrete_porn.php#photo-1

.

Concrete Porn is a rather interesting title.

Gary

Juano

ziggy53 wrote: »

I rather like the concept of converging, diverging and parallel lines, created both by the objects and by their reflections. Good job spotting this one! clap

Thanks Ziggy for your comments on the picture itself...

Juano

AlexShark wrote: »

I can only measure success of a photograph once I know what was the intent. And what can express the intent better than the title!

Yep, the title is the most important part of a photograph. All the "untitled" ones are already perfect, for who am I to say that they fall short of the mark? First, I need the mark.


One can only start assessing this one once the title is there, the rest is trivia.

The title: LOT'S WIFE.

I'm sorry but but the title cannot possibly be the most important part of a photograph. An image has to be able to stand on its own, a good title can help enhance an image by providing additional context that the viewer can't obtain from the image itself. However, there is no title, creative, funny or inventive as it may be that will give a bad picture legs to stand on. thanks for contributing to the discussion.

Juano

rwells wrote: »

I believe this is a question that millions of photographers over many decades have asked.

And, there have probably been twice that many conflicting answers


IMHO, the question has to have two main qualifiers:

1) Shooting for myself

2) Shooting for a client


For #1;
I consider an image successful if it pleases ME...

Yes, it's nice if others also like the image, but that's not my main goal.


Of course, that can/will fall into different categories.

For instance: Probably my favorite is to have an image visualized in my head, and then successfully (to me), produce said image... = success

On the other hand: To shoot an image as opportunity comes your way, and later, during processing, discover that you landed a nice image. = success

For #2;
This one is a bit easier to determine success.

Does your client love the image?

If so = success

If not = failure


So, as you can see, I'm a simple man...

simple but effective algorithm...

Juano

Richard wrote: »

For me, this is a good example of why titles can be counter-productive. I like this image, but (having read the book) it doesn't look like triffids at all to me . Titles can be useful as a means of reference to an image, but photography is a visual art: what matters most is in the frame. Captions are usually required for photojournalism, of course.

As to the OP's question, there's a wide variety of reasons an image can be memorable--subject, light, comp, wit, color, juxtaposition...the list is long. There's no magic formula. Simple things can be striking or they can be banal. Complexity can be rich or simply confusing. You just have to trust your own sensibility, and be comfortable with the fact that others may not agree.

Thanks for your always balanced and positive comments Richard. I truly wasn't expecting to generate such a lively discussion! I love the learning process that this forum has provided me, Thank you all.

Juano

Seefutlung wrote: »

Concrete Porn is a rather interesting title.

Gary

Oh!, concrete porn indeed. Nice!

Earache

Juano wrote: »

......I truly wasn't expecting to generate such a lively discussion! I love the learning process that this forum has provided me, Thank you all.

Yup, great (idea for a) thread Cristóbal...

I don't have a lot to add other than I strongly identify with this process described by Randy:
"On the other hand: To shoot an image as opportunity comes your way, and later, during processing, discover that you landed a nice image. = success"

Way more often than not, I find personal success in that manner, rather than pre-visualizing.

Re: Titles... Some time ago, this was thoroughly debated in the Documentary Forum, in a most lively manner, with no strong consensus reached - it seems to be a very subjective and individualized aspect of the imaging process.

Juano

Thanks Eric. I believe that there is a lot of merit in seeing something, creating a concept and capturing it, or creating an image form scratch and by this I mean imagining it, thinking how to capture it and then go get it. For me my best (and only?) example of that process is this:



But I also recognize that I discover potential in what right off camera did not think were interesting shots. Having said that I do have, like a friend of mine said, " a penchant" for blur...

Earache

^^^ Well, that works 'cause that shot rocks man!!!
Love the guy sitting still...

You been holding-back on us??

Seefutlung

Juano wrote: »

Thanks Eric. I believe that there is a lot of merit in seeing something, creating a concept and capturing it, or creating an image form scratch and by this I mean imagining it, thinking how to capture it and then go get it. For me my best (and only?) example of that process is this:



But I also recognize that I discover potential in what right off camera did not think were interesting shots. Having said that I do have, like a friend of mine said, " a penchant" for blur...

I like that image. A "Penchant for blur" sounds so much better than "Unsharp at any speed."

Gary

Seefutlung

Earache wrote: »

Yup, great (idea for a) thread Cristóbal...

I don't have a lot to add other than I strongly identify with this process described by Randy:
"On the other hand: To shoot an image as opportunity comes your way, and later, during processing, discover that you landed a nice image. = success"

Way more often than not, I find personal success in that manner, rather than pre-visualizing.

Re: Titles... Some time ago, this was thoroughly debated in the Documentary Forum, in a most lively manner, with no strong consensus reached - it seems to be a very subjective and individualized aspect of the imaging process.

For me previsualization isn't hobbled by a slow, deliberate, tripod type of shooting methodology. Most of my Street stuff, as an example, is previsualized. Lens selection, wide or long, DOF, angle of capture are all elements of previsuaization that can be incorporated on the fly.

Gary

Richard

AlexShark wrote: »

Thank you, Richard.

Inadvertently, you confirmed two of my suspicions:

1. It isn't possible to critique this photograph without the external reference to the book; it would make no sense.

2. I failed communicating the theme. The similarity to triffids, BTW, is not important at all since we don't really know what they looked like. It's immaterial. While the photo has substantial technique put into it, it nevertheless does not offer the visualization, and even more important -- it has no emotional impact whatsoever. Maybe it should be renamed: memoir of spilled coffee

Well, the image certainly has an apocalyptic vibe to it--I wouldn't want to be walking through it. My point is really that titles create expectations, and this can be a distraction. I remember all too many discussions a few years ago in what was then the Street Forum that focused on the title rather than the image itself. The reference to the triffids suggests a particular kind of catastrophe to the viewer who has read the book and is meaningless to someone who hasn't. For every person who "gets it" there will be many more left scratching their heads, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm not saying that titles are always inappropriate, but when I go to photography exhibits, I look at the images first and only rarely look at the titles. YMMV, of course.

AlexShark

Richard wrote: »

titles create expectations, and this can be a distraction

Brilliant first part!

Yes! Titles create expectations. They disclose upfront what the photographer intended to convey, and the expectation is that he will convey it. This is not a distraction, but a valuable tool (in fact, the only tool) to make a judgement call about the success of the photograph itself. The technique, horizons, thirds, and various gold-plated spirals are there to merely assist (not more!) the photographer to live up to the title, and to fulfill the expectation he created with the title.

Richard, title is not an accompanying text to explain what we see. Title sets the end goal, and only by knowing this goal I can judge photos of others as well as my own.

The subject of the titles probably deserves a thread of its own. I'll start one later today.

Thank you for the input! This kind of thought process behind the artistic endeavor is what feeds creativity.

Seefutlung

Juano wrote: »

Thanks Eric. I believe that there is a lot of merit in seeing something, creating a concept and capturing it, or creating an image form scratch and by this I mean imagining it, thinking how to capture it and then go get it. For me my best (and only?) example of that process is this:



But I also recognize that I discover potential in what right off camera did not think were interesting shots. Having said that I do have, like a friend of mine said, " a penchant" for blur...

I really like this image.

Juano

Richard wrote: »

Well, the image certainly has an apocalyptic vibe to it--I wouldn't want to be walking through it. My point is really that titles create expectations, and this can be a distraction. I remember all too many discussions a few years ago in what was then the Street Forum that focused on the title rather than the image itself. The reference to the triffids suggests a particular kind of catastrophe to the viewer who has read the book and is meaningless to someone who hasn't. For every person who "gets it" there will be many more left scratching their heads, and I'm not sure that's a good thing. I'm not saying that titles are always inappropriate, but when I go to photography exhibits, I look at the images first and only rarely look at the titles. YMMV, of course.

AlexShark wrote: »

Brilliant first part!

Yes! Titles create expectations. They disclose upfront what the photographer intended to convey, and the expectation is that he will convey it. This is not a distraction, but a valuable tool (in fact, the only tool) to make a judgement call about the success of the photograph itself. The technique, horizons, thirds, and various gold-plated spirals are there to merely assist (not more!) the photographer to live up to the title, and to fulfill the expectation he created with the title.

Richard, title is not an accompanying text to explain what we see. Title sets the end goal, and only by knowing this goal I can judge photos of others as well as my own.

The subject of the titles probably deserves a thread of its own. I'll start one later today.

Thank you for the input! This kind of thought process behind the artistic endeavor is what feeds creativity.

Great discussion with useful input. On this issue I tend to agree with Richard though...

Juano

Earache wrote: »

^^^ Well, that works 'cause that shot rocks man!!!
Love the guy sitting still...

You been holding-back on us??

Seefutlung wrote: »

I like that image. A "Penchant for blur" sounds so much better than "Unsharp at any speed."

Gary

Seefutlung wrote: »

I really like this image.

Thanks guys! I shot this in 2010 and was one of my early postings on this forum. This was a very deliberate shot, I was interested in the mass and wanted to contrast the movement of the people with the stillness of the train. There was an element of luck too, on this frame the guy on the right didn't move at all for the entire exposure. In other frames I shot he did, and was more part of the mass than a by-stander.

Eric You know that I don't hold back... I have posted all sorts of stuff, a lot of flops. I know many of you are often left saying "what was he thinking???" and politely ignore the posting!:D:D. To me it is all part of this learning journey.

Any thoughts on the original picture on this thread?