"There's a big difference between photographs and snapshots."
A square is ALWAYS a rectangle, but a rectangle is NOT always a
square.
A snapshot is by definition a photograph. But sometimes a
photograph will rise above the mundane and becomes something much
greater. A work of art, perhaps.
Occasionally this happens by sheer luck. Most of the time, however,
it's by design.
The more we learn about and apply the secrets of the science / art
of photography, the greater the odds become that we will -- if
we're lucky -- one day produce a photograph that others will view
and say "now THAT's a work of art!"
Even if it was just one of our snapshots.
--
Hi Scaron, Bill, Camilo, Dave, Karen, Lucy, and Beacon:
What some of you are saying in this thread is very true --
photography intended to function as expression is not just a
matter of good luck, but rather, as you say, Beacon, it is the
result of "design." How else can we consistently make images that
stimulate the imaginations, emotions, and intellects of those who
will view them?
Yet sometimes, as Karen believes, a casually made snapshot, created
without any particular intention in mind, other than recording the
scene or moment, may wind up working just as well as a carefully
considered and well executed image, becoming something more than an
accidental, mindless snapshot. Lucky? Perhaps. Yet more often than
not, such "luck" usually turns out to be the residue of "design."
Otherwise, why do so many people who have successfully devoted
their lives to photography seem to have a corner on such "luck?"
After thirty-five years of teaching photographic communication, I
can assure you that it comes down to a matter of applied knowledge.
Some Photographer's (with that capital "P") may pre-visualize their
images, first coming up with an idea for a picture and then working
on it until it succeeds. Others may post-visualize their
photographs, intuitively recognizing meaning in what they see, and
then go on to simultaneously use their choices in light, time, and
space to compose a picture that memorably expresses an idea or
tells a story. Often its a combination of both pre and
post-visualized thinking and seeing that produces an expressive
image.
Excellent photographs rely heavily on three key principles I
discuss in my first three pbase galleries: abstraction,
incongruity, and human values. It is abstraction that prods the
imagination, incongruity that turns the ordinary into the
extraordinary, and resonant human values that bring meaning home to
us as people. Only when these principles are working for us, can
our choices in space, time, light, and composition take over, and
help the photo do its job esthetically.
Lucy's quote offers still another thoughtful answer to Scaron's
question -- Photography is indeed the art of seeing what others do
not. A good picture is, more often not, based on a fresh idea.
This has been a thought provoking thread -- more important in its
implications than long threads that fill these forums with
interminable discussions of resolution, pixel counts, zoom ranges
and which camera is "best." Our cameras, no matter how much we
spend on them, are just tools, a means to an end. It is the
photographer and his or her photographs that speak -- the camera
itself has no mind.
Phil Douglis
Director, The Douglis Visual Workshops
Phoenix, Arizona
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/pnd1
http://www.worldisround.com/home/pnd1/index.html
http://www.funkytraveller.com/Pages/travelogues/travelphotophild.htm
