Eye Candy and the Purpose of Photography

[joe mama]

Recently, a professional photographer derided my photography as mere "eye candy", which, per the dictionary, means "something superficially attractive to look at".

So it got me to thinking about the purpose of photography. Few of us have had the opportunity and means to take "meaningful" photos such as the student standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square, a soldier executing a spy, a naked little girl running away from a naped village, a monk setting himself on fire, or an upskirt of Jessica Alba. : )

So what types of pics do the vast majority of us take? And, because they are not like the pics described above, does that mean they are merely "eye candy" or "snapshots"? In fact, when I think of what kinds of photos constitute "eye candy", the first types of photos that come to mind are bikini pics and landscapes. When I think of "snapshots", the first type of pics that come to mind are deep DOF people candids.

So what makes a pic "meaningful", and who decides what is "meaningful"? Is it entirely subjective? IThat's a cop-out. While subjectivity plays a role, I think there is an objective reality to it. And, just as a shadow does not have a sharp edge, I don't think that there is a sharp and defined border between "eye candy" and "meaningful" photographs. So while there is an area between light and shadow, I think that region is much smaller than the area in light and the area in shadow.

Interestingly, I just watched a show on intelligence which addressed this exact point, but not very deeply. One of the intelligence tests was creating a painting. The problem, of course, is how to evaluate it. The answer was enlightening: display the subjects' paintings on the street and ask random people walking by to rate them. The amazing thing was that a very consistent pattern emerged. Clearly, this should be applicable to photography as well, no?

Thus, I was wondering if there might not be a few things that we can say about the matter of "eye candy and the purpose of photography" without resorting to putting our pics out on the street and getting a rating. And, just as the "Rule of Thirds" is actually a guideline, rather than a rule, I was wondering if there were similar guidelines that might help us distinguish between "eye candy" and "more meaningful" photographs.

To aid with that pursuit, I thought it might be useful to consider the images I had put in a gallery that I had created some time ago which were devoted entirely to what I thought were "artisitic" photos. However, looking through that gallery now, I'm now wondering if they are anything more than mere "eye candy". Perhaps it may even be that "artisitic" is often synonomous with "eye candy", and photographs that have "deeper meaning" are a different class all together. Anyway, perhaps you'd care to take a look and offer your thoughts as it relates to this discussion:

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/different

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[morninglight]

Recently, a professional photographer derided my photography as mere
"eye candy", which, per the dictionary, means "something
superficially attractive to look at".

A photo can be made for many reasons, and a photos can have different purposes. Some photos are merely to "record', such as a picture of one's child, or dog. It may just be a record. If it is technically very well done, it may be a good craftsperson/amateur's work. It may be like one you'd see in an ad, say, then someone might call it "eye candy". Whether it is superficial or not may depend upon its intent, and its use.

sometimes if some image or technique becomes common, afterwhile you may react to it as eye candy, others may not. that depends on the viewers experience also.

Maybe/maybe not eye candy, depending on viewer, context,use:

Examples:

Vertical landscape. wide angle, rocks/water or whatever foreground, sharp bottom to top. Neutral density filter dealing with sky, or layers/bracketing used?

Head shot/head and shoulders with bokeh backround?

An Ansel (or 'West Coast School") style landscape done using HDR?

That is all before you get to the "art or not" question.
--
Film & Digital
http://www.jaymoynihan.com

 

[Dennis]

I think it's all about the intended audience. Whether you're a soccer mom snapping your kid for grandma & grandpa to see; a photojournalist shooting for the local paper (or the NY Times), a National Geographic photographer, a stock photographer, a wedding photographer, one of those guys who takes "Olde Time Photos" on the boardwalk, a commercial photographer trying to produce an ad for a client, an artist with a vision, a "fine artist" looking to sell big, expensive prints, or just an enthusiast shooting for yourself, "good" and "bad" is always how successfully you realized your intent.

"Eye Candy" could be an insult or a compliment. What was your intent ?

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[OM4ever]

But what may be shallow (and I'm not talking DOF here ) or
banal to one, can be profound to another.
Jan

 

[joe mama]

I think it's all about the intended audience. Whether you're a soccer
mom snapping your kid for grandma & grandpa to see; a photojournalist
shooting for the local paper (or the NY Times), a National Geographic
photographer, a stock photographer, a wedding photographer, one of
those guys who takes "Olde Time Photos" on the boardwalk, a
commercial photographer trying to produce an ad for a client, an
artist with a vision, a "fine artist" looking to sell big, expensive
prints, or just an enthusiast shooting for yourself, "good" and "bad"
is always how successfully you realized your intent.

As I said in the OP, in regards to the paintings being used in an IQ test, regardless of any intent on the part of the painter, or "qualifications" of the viewer, a generalization can be made. So, while individual opinions may vary, the group concensus will not merely be a random scattering of opinions of which we take a menaingless average, but more a bell curve with a very defined answer.

In other words, short of actually performing such an experiment as they did on the show on intelligence, I am wondering if we might not be able to put some use of our own intelligence and perhaps come up with some sort of idea as to what makes an image "meaningful" as opposed to "eye candy" or a "snapshot".

"Eye Candy" could be an insult or a compliment. What was your intent ?

My intent was to describe why I want a better camera. The intent of the person who called my work "eye candy", was to say that I didn't. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

But what may be shallow (and I'm not talking DOF here ) or
banal to one, can be profound to another.

See my reply here, which also addresses that point:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26477329

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[Dennis]

Whether you're a ....
or just an enthusiast shooting for yourself, "good" and "bad"
is always how successfully you realized your intent.

As I said in the OP, in regards to the paintings being used in an IQ
test, regardless of any intent on the part of the painter, or
"qualifications" of the viewer, a generalization can be made.

Well, then I wonder if that can be a matter of the audience divining the intent of the photographer and determining that there is something more than "to make a pretty picture".

I think you might be right that there may be a "line" where terms like "meaningful" or "interesting" apply to all sort of photographs that fall on one side of the line but don't apply to all sorts of photographs (good and bad) that fall on the other.

In other words, short of actually performing such an experiment as
they did on the show on intelligence, I am wondering if we might not
be able to put some use of our own intelligence and perhaps come up
with some sort of idea as to what makes an image "meaningful" as
opposed to "eye candy" or a "snapshot".

I pulled a few quotes out of David Vestal's "The Craft Of Photography" which I recently found. He doesn't need a discussion; he's very concise (but really just sort of paraphrases the issue, figuring the answer is innate):

"What Makes a Picture "Good" ? If a picture is lively or pertinent, and worth seeing, that is what matters. Only weak pictures need perfection. Strong ones can survive considerable faults. "

Lively, pertinent and worth seeing ... all pictures are supposed to show us what the photographer wants us to see ... so does the photographer want us to see something interesting or meaningful ? Postcards, calendars, stock photograph, posters all pretty much falls on the side of being not meaningful. Contrived photographs tend to do so, as well, in my opinion anyway, because there's usually nothing of substance behind them; they may be a visual expression of a concept or an idea, but they don't say anything about the concept or idea ... they serve as a reminder at best.

OTOH, it's hard to say what makes a photograph meaningful ... photographs that show me a moment in time that tells a story (or leads me to invent a story); that explain an aspect of something that I didn't know (i.e. that show how people live somewhere or what life used to be like 50 years ago in a certain place) while at the same time being visually "good" enough (snapshots often won't cut it) to keep my interest while I look at the picture.

In browsing your gallery, I would not say that I personally consider those photos meaningful. Interesting, possibly, but only in a graphic sort of way. They don't tell me anything about something or somewhere or some place, they just present shapes and colors for my eye to see. Eye candy ? I dunno ... maybe. Whether that's good or bad depends on whether you intended for them to be meaningful There's a lot more emphasis on the graphic content than I think there is pictures that try to tell something (which are more about subject and less about graphical elements).

"Eye Candy" could be an insult or a compliment. What was your intent ?

My intent was to describe why I want a better camera. The intent of
the person who called my work "eye candy", was to say that I didn't.
: )

I like your sense of humor

This is all very interesting to me; I don't pretend to be an expert, rather, I'm just feeling my way around all of this trying to figure out how I can continue to primarily shoot friends & family and vacations, while at the same time, be consciously aware of times that I'm shooting a picture that's more "meaningful" if you will to a broader audience in hopes of putting together a portfolio to show. I'm not sure right now if I'm aware of that when I shoot or if it's purely a byproduct of editing (meaning selecting pictures that may be interesting from a bunch that aren't).

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[joe mama]

I pulled a few quotes out of David Vestal's "The Craft Of
Photography" which I recently found. He doesn't need a discussion;
he's very concise (but really just sort of paraphrases the issue,
figuring the answer is innate):

"What Makes a Picture "Good" ? If a picture is lively or pertinent,
and worth seeing, that is what matters. Only weak pictures need
perfection. Strong ones can survive considerable faults. "

There it is. Perfect. An absolutely great way to describe "meaningful" vs "eye candy" and "snapshot".

In browsing your gallery, I would not say that I personally consider
those photos meaningful. Interesting, possibly, but only in a
graphic sort of way. They don't tell me anything about something or
somewhere or some place, they just present shapes and colors for my
eye to see. Eye candy ? I dunno ... maybe.

Bingo. That's it. They are "eye candy". That description of "good" you gave above -- it's good. : )

I like your sense of humor

You're very unusual in that regard. : )

This is all very interesting to me; I don't pretend to be an expert,
rather, I'm just feeling my way around all of this trying to figure
out how I can continue to primarily shoot friends & family and
vacations, while at the same time, be consciously aware of times that
I'm shooting a picture that's more "meaningful" if you will to a
broader audience in hopes of putting together a portfolio to show.
I'm not sure right now if I'm aware of that when I shoot or if it's
purely a byproduct of editing (meaning selecting pictures that may be
interesting from a bunch that aren't).

Pretty much the way I see it as well. But, man, that definition you gave above -- maybe I should read more (apparently, internet porn doesn't count as "reading").

Thanks for the insight! I came with a question, and no matter where else this thread may or may not go, I will leave with an answer, presuming no one messes with my mind. What's so cool about this, is I didn't even have to wait long to get it!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[Marty Scher B]

How about pompous @ss?

One would think a true professional would have something a little more constructive to say.

Maybe he/she was a little envious

 

[knox]

Man this is a hard one . . . because there are many uses for a camera.

I find (for myself) that a camera can be a great weapon for change and awareness. Like James Nachtwey, Gordon Parks or Walker Evans etc showing important images of horrific acts or the reality of others or the suffering in war based images / famine. To show people who would never have the chance to see these things the shear horror, to me is important. The famous and telling photos of the marches where Bull Connor was unleashing dogs on black kids and the elderly African Americans . . . or fire hoses knocking them over . . . on and on and on. These injustices needed documenting.

The camera is a wonderful 'weapon' as Gordon Parks would say. It's why I look at our craft as an honor. And if you think of these shots . . . very little has to do with the so called perfect image, perfect sharpness etc etc that so many people get wrapped up in these days since digital and computers.

To me, these photo-journals of injustices are not "eye candy", where as the 1,000,000th so called perfect water drop photo I see on the net is "eye candy". I feel it's important for a photo to say something . . . What does a water drop photo say and how many more ways does it need to be said? (I have a long way to go btw in making all my photos mean something) Many times "eye candy" can be more about the photographer then the photo itself. I find that totally uninteresting.

Doesn't mean eye candy is a bad thing btw. Sometimes eye candy can be enjoyable to look at, but it hardly ever stands the test of time.

Nor does a photo have to be of a downtrodden scene to say something and have meaning or bring attention to something. Yet it does seem the percentage of photos with no particular meaning has gone up greatly since digital. I get real tired of seeing so called perfect photos of nothing particularly interesting that have been edited in PS that are everywhere these days.

One thing is . . shoot for yourself. I shoot for me . . .if someone likes it that's cool, if they don't that's cool too. Be true to yourself and the image you see in your heart not your head.

The "newest" camera and lens (gear) is the least important thing in getting what's in your heart in the photo, yet so many people put the newest 'thing' as paramount to the image. To me THAT creates a lot of "eye candy".

I find a lot of love in a photo is the best aspect. A lot of love in capturing passion and emotion. Technical has little or no passion, to me. Eye candy can be like hearing a Bee Gees song to me. smile It has it's purpose, yet I prefer Coltrane and Hendrix for truth. Of course we are all different.

--
Knox
--
Avatar Photography
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
Alley Cats . . . Urban Tails (the book)
http://www.urbantailsbook.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

 

[Arglebargle]

Maybe some people are just too cynical to appreciate beauty, so they'll denigrate something rather than enjoy it for what it is. It's like music, even the worst music you can imagine has its share of fans, who derive pleasure from it. It doesn't matter if some people think my photos are just eye candy. I like eye candy. I'm not going to let the world wear me down so I can no longer appreciate it. Eye candy has its purpose. While I'm not going to hang a Thomas Kincaide picture in my home, I did buy a Christmas card with his eye candy glittering on it and sent it to my Mother, and she probably enjoyed it, and then threw it out later when the Holiday was over. Not every photo has to be good enough to hang on your wall for eternity. Maybe eye candy gets overly sweet at some point, and there are different levels of eye candy, and at some point it becomes so glaringly obvious it starts to be a little disgusting. Maybe some eye candy is like fine dark chocolate and other eye candy is like cheap r milk chocolate easter eggs.

 

[romphotog]

take "meaningful" photos such

as the student standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square, a
soldier executing a spy, a naked little girl running away from a
naped village, a monk setting himself on fire, or an upskirt of
Jessica Alba. : )

you forgot the sailor kissing the nurse on Broadway at end of WWII(2 photogs took this shot, the one at an angle is least popular); the shooting of Oswald(again 2 photogs got the shot), the 2nd plane feet away from the WTC; the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima(the soldiers were facing away from the photog); and the construction workers sitting on a beam in 1932.

 

[joe mama]

How about pompous @ss?

One would think a true professional would have something a little
more constructive to say.

Maybe he/she was a little envious

He wasn't envious, as he makes a pretty penny at his job, had a very nice gallery to boot, and I never even saw the professional work.

But, I do agree that if you are using a word or phrase that can at least be interpreted in a derogatory manner, that you should give more specifics as to what you mean.

While I comment mainly on the technical here at DPR, I used to discuss the artistic on FM, but got banned. On occasion, I would tell someone that I thought that a particular pic sucked, and would explain why I thought so and what I thought might make it better. If it was just a total wreck and I had nothing constructive to say, I simply passed that thread on by.

On occasion, people would return the favor to me. Usually, I disagreed with their criticisms, and that got a lot of people bent out of shape, and was labeled by them as a "praise whore". However, while I do enjoy praise, it doesn't mean that I reject criticism. But it's terribly arrogant, methinks, for a critic to expect me to agree with their criticisms. Nonetheless, on occasion, I got some really great criticism and learned something.

I feel the same way here. My pics were dismissed as "eye candy"; a "slur" I initially wanted to reject. But it got me to thinking about what gave value to an image. Fortunately, there are people here more educated than I, and Dennis, above, hit the nail on the head:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26477485

So, sure, the professional who critiqued my photography has an ego, and so do I. It's not how much of an ego you have, it's how you deal with it. He deals with it by taking great pics and making bank, and I deal with it by asking around. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

Man this is a hard one . . . because there are many uses for a camera.

Of course. But as checking the corner sharpness of brick walls is a favorite of so many, sometimes we lose sight of the other uses. : )

I find (for myself) that a camera can be a great weapon for change
and awareness. Like James Nachtwey, Gordon Parks or Walker Evans etc
showing important images of horrific acts or the reality of others or
the suffering in war based images / famine. To show people who would
never have the chance to see these things the shear horror, to me is
important. The famous and telling photos of the marches where Bull
Connor was unleashing dogs on black kids and the elderly African
Americans . . . or fire hoses knocking them over . . . on and on
and on. These injustices needed documenting.

But that's just it. Not many have the opportunity to capture such images. If it were as common as water drop pics, would they still be considered great pics? Are the photographs great, or are the scenes great? The photographer does not set the scene, so the scene cannot be what makes a great photo. A great photo must be how the photographer captures that scene. But that begs the question as to whether a great photographer can capture a great image of every scene. Of course, the answer is, no doubt, a resounding "No."

The camera is a wonderful 'weapon' as Gordon Parks would say. It's
why I look at our craft as an honor. And if you think of these shots
. . . very little has to do with the so called perfect image,
perfect sharpness etc etc that so many people get wrapped up in these
days since digital and computers.
To me, these photo-journals of injustices are not "eye candy", where
as the 1,000,000th so called perfect water drop photo I see on the
net is "eye candy". I feel it's important for a photo to say
something . . . What does a water drop photo say and how many more
ways does it need to be said? (I have a long way to go btw in making
all my photos mean something) Many times "eye candy" can be more
about the photographer then the photo itself. I find that totally
uninteresting.

This is where Dennis nailed it above quoting David Vestal:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=26477485

"What Makes a Picture "Good" ? If a picture is lively or pertinent, and worth seeing, that is what matters. Only weak pictures need perfection. Strong ones can survive considerable faults. "

Doesn't mean eye candy is a bad thing btw. Sometimes eye candy can
be enjoyable to look at, but it hardly ever stands the test of time.

For sure, for sure.

Nor does a photo have to be of a downtrodden scene to say something
and have meaning or bring attention to something. Yet it does seem
the percentage of photos with no particular meaning has gone up
greatly since digital. I get real tired of seeing so called perfect
photos of nothing particularly interesting that have been edited in
PS that are everywhere these days.

I think that's simply because with the advent of digital, we are drawing "photographers" of a much greater diversity of skill and talent, much as the SAT scores fell when more and more people began taking the test.

One thing is . . shoot for yourself. I shoot for me . . .if someone
likes it that's cool, if they don't that's cool too. Be true to
yourself and the image you see in your heart not your head.

Absolutely. But if a talented photographer casts aspersions on your work, then it seems you'd want to figure out exactly why they feel that way and what you might be able to learn from it.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

The "newest" camera and lens (gear) is the least important thing in
getting what's in your heart in the photo, yet so many people put the
newest 'thing' as paramount to the image. To me THAT creates a lot
of "eye candy".

My photography is wicked narrow in scope. It is my position, which some find amazingly arrogant, that only better gear will allow me to capture a better photo. I still stand by that. Perhaps the reason is because I create "eye candy", and great gear is how you do that.

I find a lot of love in a photo is the best aspect. A lot of love in
capturing passion and emotion. Technical has little or no passion,
to me. Eye candy can be like hearing a Bee Gees song to me. smile
It has it's purpose, yet I prefer Coltrane and Hendrix for truth. Of
course we are all different.

My all-time favorite photo that I've taken, is this one:

Canon G3 @ 7.2mm, f / 2 (35mm, f / 10), ISO 50

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/31160922



and yet it was from a "lowly compact" compared to my 5D and L primes. Going further with Vestal's idea of a "good" picture above, "If a picture is lively or pertinent, and worth seeing, that is what matters. Only weak pictures need perfection. Strong ones can survive considerable faults", then it goes a long way to explaining why I so much like the following pics that have considerable technical faults, despite being taken with top-notch equipment:

Canon 20D + 135mm / 2L @ f / 2, 1/50, ISO 100

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/41969944



Canon 20D + 85mm / 1.8 @ f / 1.8, 1/30, ISO 6400

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/48462467



Canon 5D + 50mm / 1.4 @ f / 1.4, 1/25, ISO 6400

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/64700748



Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/200, ISO 1600

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/80385029



Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/1600, ISO 125

http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/82856263



Not that any of these are "great" pics, but the very fact that they made it to my galleries despite their technical failings must say something about the image itself, right? If the other pics in my galleries were similarly "maligned", I wonder how many would have made it.

So, I'm thinking that it is this element of a photo, the part that has me still add it to my galleries despite all the imperfections, and the extremely rare occurance of this event, that leads to believe that the vast majority of my photography may well be "eye candy". Of course, it's not like "eye candy" is necessarily bad -- I'm sitting in my office looking at all of it on my walls and I have to say that if those pics are "eye candy", then "eye candy" is most certainly worthwhile. I guess it would be like building an addition on your house -- no one really cares but you and/or your neighbors, but it's certainly worth the effort. : )

Still, it's not so simple as that. Of the pics I showed above, I've only printed the first two, whereas I've printed many more of my technically perfect pics. So it's not like technical perfection is at odds with the "worthiness" of an image, but if an image depends upon technical perfection, then it's most likely "eye candy".

At least, that's what I'm thinking. It would be cool, though, for being known for more than having built a nice house, don't you think?

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[joe mama]

take "meaningful" photos such
as the student standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square, a
soldier executing a spy, a naked little girl running away from a
naped village, a monk setting himself on fire, or an upskirt of
Jessica Alba. : )

you forgot the sailor kissing the nurse on Broadway at end of WWII(2
photogs took this shot, the one at an angle is least popular); the
shooting of Oswald(again 2 photogs got the shot), the 2nd plane feet
away from the WTC; the raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima(the
soldiers were facing away from the photog); and the construction
workers sitting on a beam in 1932.

...you read where I said "an upskirt of Jessical Alba"? I believe that completely trumps all the other examples. : )

Seriously, though, there are so many others: the photo from Lunar orbit of the Earth, the blue-eyed Afghan girl that was the cover of NG, pretty much any photo of the **** concentration camps, well, shoot, here you go:

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0309/lm_index.html

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

 

[Robert Lynch]

My photography is wicked narrow in scope. It is my position, which
some find amazingly arrogant, that only better gear will allow me to
capture a better photo. I still stand by that.

How do you consider your existing work to be less than what you think that you are capable of creating? Please define "better" in this context. Is it images with greater sharpness or more vivid colors? Perfectly controlled depth-of-field? Perhaps is it images with a greater visual impact due to subject selection, catching the defining moment or compelling composition? Is it some combination of factors?

Perhaps the reason
is because I create "eye candy", and great gear is how you do that.

Really? It might be in some cases, but that is not a universal truth. Can you define specific shortcomings in your existing equipment that is getting in your way? What technical problems are interfering with achieving your vision? Here is another quote from David Vestal's "The Craft Of Photography":

"Don't Get Equipment-happy. Equipment sometimes makes pictures possible or impossible, but it seldom makes them better or worse in any important way. Pick the equipment that lets you do what you need to do, and stop there. Change equipment when you change needs."

 

[Dennis]

My photography is wicked narrow in scope. It is my position, which
some find amazingly arrogant, that only better gear will allow me to
capture a better photo. I still stand by that. Perhaps the reason
is because I create "eye candy", and great gear is how you do that.

In another discussion on another site, someone was asking about the "best lenses" which brought up the inevitable warnings that gear won't improve your photography like going out and practicing, etc. can. Someone replied that the single biggest improvement in his photography came from buying some pro-grade lenses; that modern cameras have automated the craft enough and he's practiced composition enough ... good lenses were what did it for him. I was looking at it from the other point of view, not technical, but more in light of that David Vestal definition of "good" I'd just read, and argued in favor of practice/work versus gear & technical quality. In the end, we sort of realized where we were all coming from - that person wasn't interested in creating "art", he wanted to capture great images of beautiful things. "Eye candy" if you will.

The photos you showed here are in a whole separate class (IMO) from the "eye candy" in your gallery, and I agree that they "survive their faults" ... the first one is great, all are good, but my favorite is the children running down the street at night.

Still, it's not so simple as that. Of the pics I showed above, I've
only printed the first two, whereas I've printed many more of my
technically perfect pics. So it's not like technical perfection is
at odds with the "worthiness" of an image, but if an image depends
upon technical perfection, then it's most likely "eye candy".

Don't you love those moments of insight ! At first, I was very disappointed that this 1973 book was mostly filled with detailed info on b&w darkroom work, and these esoteric sections on "what to shoot" were so brief. But he drives the point home amazingly well. I don't know if it's effective communication or if I'm just at a point where I was ready for the message.

I grabbed 4 or 5 quotes from the book and put them into a file to refresh my memory now & again. One you may not want to read:

"Don't Get Equipment-happy.

Equipment sometimes makes pictures possible or impossible, but it seldom makes them better or worse in any important way. Pick the equipment that lets you do what you need to do , and stop there. Change equipment when you change needs. "

And a couple that I think go a long way toward explaining why so much stuff I see on photo.net and elsewhere turns me off:

""Originality" is a much overrated concept. A truly original picture can fail as resoundingly as an imitative one; and either can succeed equally well. Good photography does tend to be original, but seldom because the photographer is trying for originality. "

"Selves are Dull Compared to Everything Else. Self-expression doesn't interest me. The rest of the universe is so much bigger, more varied and more interesting than any self and, in any case, the self is never left out. (cut) Keeping the self-expression down to an appropriate proportion in pictures helps them stay interesting, so I'd rather subdue it than expand it. "

I used to think good photography was all about light ... and composition. And maybe if the goal is producing eye candy, it still is. I loved getting out with my tripod and backpack doing Outdoor Photographer style nature photography. Any slide that wasn't technically perfect was immediately trashed. The results were "pretty" and pleasant to look at. But not especially interesting to look at, I don't think. If they held your attention, it was due to "S curves" and the like.

Then I read the sample pages from "On Being A Photographer" (I still need to buy & read that book over at lenswork.com and the authors (Bill Jay and David Hurn) are adamant that your primary consideration should be choice of subject. At the time, I found it controversial (to me) and interesting/memorable, and I think it's only recently started to sink in.

Anyway, thanks for starting this thread; it's rare to be able to discuss things like this with other interested people and talking helps me think it through.

My gallery, in case anyone looks, is all eye candy type stuff in this context ... I haven't posted the stuff I'd pull out of my catalog that I think I would make an interesting portfolio from. I've been shooting a lot of pictures of children - my daughter & her friends, and also our friends & family, but more & more often, strangers, too. Stuff that falls under the "eye candy" category (though maybe even worse - only of real interest to family, not to the general public) makes up most of my shots:



and



whereas photos that I think come closer to "good" (pertinent and interesting to look at) are shots like these:









These are the ones pulled from a hidden gallery called "for forum posts" ... I'm not sure any of them would make it into a "most interesting photos" portfolio I'd put together, but you get the idea.

And FWIW I think it's entirely reasonable to simultaneously pursue shooting "good" (according to the Vestal definition) photos and eye candy photos; both are fun & satisfying. (I know I'm not about to throw away all my "nice" pics of family & friends just because they're not interesting to anyone else !)

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

 

[Robert Lynch]

To me, these photo-journals of injustices are not "eye candy", where
as the 1,000,000th so called perfect water drop photo I see on the
net is "eye candy". I feel it's important for a photo to say
something . . . What does a water drop photo say and how many more
ways does it need to be said?

While we are quoting David Vestal today, let's add one more:

" 'Originality' is a much overrated concept. A truly original picture can fail as resoundingly as an imitative one; and either can succeed equally well. Good photography does tend to be original, but seldom because the photographer is trying for originality. "

 

[Dennis]

"Don't Get Equipment-happy. Equipment sometimes makes pictures
possible or impossible, but it seldom makes them better or worse in
any important way. Pick the equipment that lets you do what you need
to do, and stop there. Change equipment when you change needs."

True. Vestal mentioned in that book his 35mm kit and the (3 primes ?) he used, stating that he would not replace them unless they broke. He also mentioned using a medium format kit for different needs. Eye candy as presented here in 600x800 pixels doesn't warrant great gear, but presumably Joe is looking to do more than that ? And just because a good photo can survive some faults doesn't mean you don't strive to reduce your faults. So the lesson here is a good one ... but I'll be interested to see if Joe has a good response !

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com