emotional pictures

[Stocky]

I will be honest; I have had movies, songs and even books get me choked up, but never a picture. Is it me, where I just don't respond to pictures, or do other people find the same thing?


What is the most emotional or moving picture you have seen?

[DStanic]

For me it depends. If I took the picture, or was around when the picture was taken, I will remember how that person felt. If it is some random photo or a person I don't know, then it does not have as much impact on me.

[cdifoto]

Pictures don't really get to me either. Unless it's of an atrocity like...well pretty much anything bad happening to a hot chick.

[airfrogusmc]

You need to see some ORIGINAL prints of Weston or Adams not in books but the actual prints. I remember the first time seeing Cypress at Point Lobos by Weston and it was so incredible and very moving experience. I had the same type experience seeing a portfolio of Adams work at the Weston Gallery in Carmel. Viewing an original portfolio of Adams work on a table in front of me out of the archival sleeve is just an incredible experience.

A few other photographers I have had similar experiences viewing their work

Bruce Davidson
Roy DeCarava (very powerful)
Arnold Newman (amazing portraits)
Stieglitz
Danny Lyon
Diane Arbus

Man this could go on for some time but all of these amazing photographers can bring emotion from me with their powerful images.

[cdifoto]

If I saw a Weston or Adams gallery, I think I'd be more like "wow that's big and sharp...I want a large format camera now." Otherwise, I can't get emotional about trees and mountains.

[condyk]

Pictures don't really get to me either. Unless it's of an atrocity like...well pretty much anything bad happening to a hot chick.

Like dating you mate :p

[cdifoto]

Pretty much. We'd bang, then I'd cry tears of sympathy. :lol:

[airfrogusmc]

If I saw a Weston or Adams gallery, I think I'd be more like "wow that's big and sharp...I want a large format camera now." Otherwise, I can't get emotional about trees and mountains.

Well its like describing the taste of an apple to someone thats has never tasted one. Can't really do it and they really would get it even if you could.

Part of the experience for me was looking at an image that you know took a remarkable amount of skill to produce. Also what moved me more than anything is both photographers work is their extreme sensitivity to light, having the eye to see it and then being able to capture that and produce that in a print. Both Adams and Westons photographs are what all great photographs are about really LIGHT. It still just amazes me how many photographers don't understand it and it really does take years to see and to capture it and its what photography and any visual art form is really all about. LIGHT. It all start there.

[cdifoto]

What amazes me is how many self-proclaimed art experts will insinuate that a person is uneducated, unappreciative, or unable to "see" just because some of the so-called greats' work does not appeal to that person.

[airfrogusmc]

What amazes me is how many so-called experts will insinuate that a person is uneducated, unappreciative, or unable to "see" just because some of the so-called great's work does not appeal to that person.

Thats not whats being said at all. Just saying that its something you need to experience to fully understand. I didn't get it either until I experienced it. Man some nerves right up there at surface I'd say.:rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

I either like an image/subject or I don't and it doesn't matter who the hell photographed it or what it took to create the image. No one's going to imply that I'm unable to "understand" and not get a response.

[airfrogusmc]

I either like a subject or I don't and it doesn't matter who the hell photographed it or what it took to create the image. No one's going to imply that I'm unable to "understand" and not get a response.

Back off no ones saying or said that. The OP asked I answered I certainly have right to my opinion and I'm I feel bad that you have to take this stand. Its an open forum someone that has a different opinion needs that was never meant as a personal attack has to turn it personal. I think if you saw the original prints you might have a change of heart I did. Maybe not but at least you'd see whats being discussed.

[cdifoto]

Back off no ones saying or said that. The OP asked I answered I certainly have right to my opinion and I'm I feel bad that you have to take this stand. Its an open forum someone that has a different opinion needs that was never meant as a personal attack has to turn it personal. I think if you saw the original prints you might have a change of heart I did. Maybe not but at least you'd see whats being discussed.
When you quote someone, you are addressing them, and that inherently makes it personal. If you want to make a general statement, you do not quote someone and make a statement that specifically targets that person's opinion.

No, again, I do not need to see original prints. Once again, the subjects of trees, mountains, and landscapes do not appeal to me and seeing the original prints would only bring out the technician in me appreciating a large, sharp image.

[airfrogusmc]

Ok put this way you have a friend that has a record he's nuts about you don't get it, go see the artist perform and now it kinda makes sense. We should be able to talk about photography and photographers without making it personal. Because seeing the actual prints the way they were meant to be seen is a much different experience than seeing them on the net or in a book. You took it personal I didn't make that way.

[alexclc]

You need to see some ORIGINAL prints of Weston or Adams not in books but the actual prints. I remember the first time seeing Cypress at Point Lobos by Weston and it was so incredible and very moving experience. I had the same type experience seeing a portfolio of Adams work at the Weston Gallery in Carmel. Viewing an original portfolio of Adams work on a table in front of me out of the archival sleeve is just an incredible experience.

A few other photographers I have had similar experiences viewing their work

Bruce Davidson
Roy DeCarava (very powerful)
Arnold Newman (amazing portraits)
Stieglitz
Danny Lyon
Diane Arbus

Man this could go on for some time but all of these amazing photographers can bring emotion from me with their powerful images.


I felt that way after seeing a gallery of A. Aubrey Bodine prints.

Alex

[condyk]

What amazes me is how many self-proclaimed art experts will insinuate that a person is uneducated, unappreciative, or unable to "see" just because some of the so-called greats' work does not appeal to that person.

I agree and I had the same discussion with Air' ... I think our friend just has a way of saying things and maybe a more book eduKated perspective. Mine is more raw and I know exactly what I like whether I have educated myself on stuff or not. Sitting in front of an Ansel ain't gonna change my view on them. I like 'em but zero response and that isn't because I ain't eduKaTed about him or don't understand his process and know about his life. I am and I do.

So Air' please don't assume that there is something missing in people that don't like what you like. My mate Skinnyhead loves the band UB40 and I think they are a poor replacement for genuine roots reggae. I seen them live too and was bored to death. If I read all their biographies and listened to their musaK 'til my ears bled and I became comotose I still wouldn't like 'em. All sorts like all sorts. End of story. We ain't right or wrong.

[Mike R]

Some family photos and anything that has a seriously injured kid in it, such as the shot from several years ago of a firefighter carrying a child from the bombing at a federal building.

[airfrogusmc]

I agree and I had the same discussion with Air' ... I think our friend just has a way of saying things and maybe a more book eduKated perspective. Mine is more raw and I know exactly what I like whether I have educated myself on stuff or not. Sitting in front of an Ansel ain't gonna change my view on them. I like 'em but zero response and that isn't because I ain't eduKaTed about him or don't understand his process and know about his life. I am and I do.

So Air' please don't assume that there is something missing in people that don't like what you like. My mate Skinnyhead loves the band UB40 and I think they are a poor replacement for genuine roots reggae. I seen them live too and was bored to death. If I read all their biographies and listened to their musaK 'til my ears bled and I became comotose I still wouldn't like 'em. All sorts like all sorts. End of story. We ain't right or wrong.

you get no argument from me but its kinda hard to understand something if its shut off before its given a chance and kinda hard to comment on something you haven't seen. But see you took the time to see UB 40. I'm not a landscape photographer and don't like all of Adams or Westons work. But I can appreciate what they create and thats not book thats actually experiencing.

[cdifoto]

its kinda hard to understand something if its shut off before its given a chance and kinda hard to comment on something you haven't seen.
But I have seen it. Just not in the way you insist is the only right way. I'm sorry but some things just don't "speak" to me and I don't need to go to a gallery just to confirm it. A tree isn't going to get any kind of response out of me.

Maybe it's you who needs to try to understand something...and that is that not everyone enjoys the same things in life, is going to enjoy the same things in life, or even wants to enjoy the same things in life.

[airfrogusmc]

It won't cost you a dime in most galleries. A museum maybe and you certainly have a right to see it or not. I'm just saying and have been saying that seeing the actual prints is a much different experience.

[cdifoto]

I get more pleasure out of creating my own images than looking at what other big names have done and analyzing it to death.

[cdifoto]

I'm just saying and have been saying that seeing the actual prints is a much different experience.
This is quite a step back from what you've really been saying. No one's going to argue that looking in a book is the same as looking in a gallery, but you can certainly understand and appreciate without seeing it in a gallery.

If a book isn't good enough for appreciation, learning, and understanding, there would be no books.

[Stocky]

Case in point: I love seeing the work of some of the artists mentioned, but I get much more excited about a good forum fight any day.

[airfrogusmc]

Ok lets see if I can articulate this without offending. To fully understand what a great B&W print is you really need to see one. I mentioned these two because they have produced some incredible full range B&W images. Also to get a real good grip on what a good really good B&W is you need to spend some time doing it. I spent 30 years in the wet darkroom. Thats not book and I understand what a good B&W print is from both looking allot at original B&Ws and printing allot of B&W images. The reason all of this is so important is to know how to make a good digital B&W you need to know where the bar has been set. Adams and Weston are but two that have set the bar. You see it all the time digital photographer that don't understand why their prints that have no highlight detail or shadow detail are not good. Its usually because they haven't seen a really great B&W print either a great digital B&W or a really good silver gelatin print. This isn't directed at anyone its a general observation. You need to know what a good B&W looks like something to draw on when your making one. Now whether thats going to see really good original ones from the masters or any really good photographer/printer thats up to you. But life is a whole lot easier when you know what a good print is suppose to look like. Now back to emotion impact there are several images by many photographers that the light for me can make the image emotional.

[condyk]

I'm just saying and have been saying that seeing the actual prints is a much different experience.

i do agree with that of course and in London we are pretty blessed with galleries and such. Some things you just see and you get but others don't care and all is good. I might see the prints and still not have much response.

The 'getting' lies within us, a personal response based upon our own prior temperament, experiences and meanings, rather than something that can be educated in; which isn't what you're saying but can sound that way.

I love Joyce and Beckett and Berkhoff and I knew as soon as I saw them or read them. later I enjoyed them even more by reading and finding out. Same with Klee but not Picasso, same with Mandela but not Hitler, same with Buddhism but not Christianity, same with Africa but not America. Was always the initial and raw 'something', a first perception of 'I get and don't need to know why' that made me like them, not reading about them and then kinda deciding maybe I should like 'em ... because I should.

EDIT: I agree with what you say about the prints and the process. I would get that. i just wouldn't necessarily get how attractive a tree or mountain is within an image as not my bag ;-)

[breal101]

Case in point: I love seeing the work of some of the artists mentioned, but I get much more excited about a good forum fight any day.

Not enough excitement in your neck of the woods Stocky?:):):eek: You wanted emotion, you got it. The way I see it art is viewed on so many levels that they are all right.:confused:

[cdifoto]

Ok lets see if I can articulate this without offending. To fully understand what a great B&W print is you really need to see one. I mentioned these two because they have produced some incredible full range B&W images. Also to get a real good grip on what a good really good B&W is you need to spend some time doing it. I spent 30 years in the wet darkroom. Thats not book and I understand what a good B&W print is from both looking allot at original B&Ws and printing allot of B&W images. The reason all of this is so important is to know how to make a good digital B&W you need to know where the bar has been set. Adams and Weston are but two that have set the bar. You see it all the time digital photographer that don't understand why their prints that have no highlight detail or shadow detail are not good. Its usually because they haven't seen a really great B&W print either a great digital B&W or a really good silver gelatin print. This isn't directed at anyone its a general observation. You need to know what a good B&W looks like something to draw on when your making one. Now whether thats going to see really good original ones from the masters or any really good photographer/printer thats up to you. But life is a whole lot easier when you know what a good print is suppose to look like. Now back to emotion impact there are several images by many photographers that the light for me can make the image emotional.
Now this I can get behind. But that's because it goes into the technical skill of making a B&W print, and that would be impressive regardless of the subject. It still wouldn't evoke an emotion from me because a well-made B&W print of a toenail could impress me from a technical standpoint. That doesn't mean the toenail "speaks to me" in a pretentious art-critic kind of way and the same goes for the landscapes and trees.

[Zansho]

Personally, I can appreciate the technical aspect of a print. I'm in the same boat as cdi though, a photo of a tree won't evoke me to tears or strike some kind of powerful emotion in me. It's a picture of a tree. Sure, it might have some awesome detail, neato features and incredible shape from years of aging, but to me, it's still a tree.

I DO appreciate the effort gone into it. But all you'll get out of me is "damn, that's a really nice print."

I've seen some photos that HAVE evoked emotions from me, and it's mostly people related. A young boy looking at me after having his legs amputated because he stepped into a land mine and just happened to be at the wrong place... to me, that's emotion. Heck, I've seen some images HERE, taken by some of the folks in the people section that have gotten reactions out of me. Soldier's caskets being carried to their final destinations with the American flag draped over it.. it's really quite powerful.

[ashleynaugust]

I've often been moved by photography-usually showing something very touching, such as a relationship of some kind, or something traumatic, such as photographs of a tragedy.

As far as for a landscape 'moving' me, it would be much less likely.

[sjones]

Last year, I saw Adam's works at a museum exhibition for the first time, and despite having seen quality reproductions of his photos in books and such, I was hit by the richness of the tones and the illumination. No, trees and mountains do not "choke me up," but the pure aesthetics of the experience was, for me, pretty poignant.

As for the subject matter itself, there's one that stands out, mothers holding up pictures of their missing sons during wartime…two come to mind, a German mother amongst a crowd of soldiers returning from the Eastern Front at the end of WWII and a Chechen mother.

[Perry Ge]

Surely this is an entirely subjective thing. The OP's post was about things that get you choked up, and I agree that photos don't always do it for a lot of people. It HAS however happened to me before though - but only in shots of people. Atrocities, sadness, beautiful moments in peoples' lives, all can and have made me choke up.

So I sympathise with cdi, insofar as seeing a photo of a hot chick feeling sad because she boned some douche can be pretty heartwrenching :P.

Nonetheless I also appreciate what airfrog says. I love landscape photography more than anything else, be it shooting my own or looking at others. It fills me with a kind of feeling that no other type of photography does, a feeling of wonder and awe I'd say.

HOWEVER, no landscape has ever made me cry! And like cdi said, I don't think it ever will, unless it's really out of this world or if there's a great story behind it.

[S.Horton]

I will be honest; I have had movies, songs and even books get me choked up, but never a picture. Is it me, where I just don't respond to pictures, or do other people find the same thing?


What is the most emotional or moving picture you have seen?



http://midnightblue.smugmug.com/photos/253492923_RXkZz-L.jpg

[daduls]

I will be honest; I have had movies, songs and even books get me choked up, but never a picture. Is it me, where I just don't respond to pictures, or do other people find the same thing?


What is the most emotional or moving picture you have seen?

I take credit in no way, shape, or form for this image. It is posted as a reply to the OP's question.

[HuskiesD1]

I take credit in no way, shape, or form for this image. It is posted as a reply to the OP's question.

Fantastic, moving photo there.

The Rocky Mountain News did a photo story a while ago on the wife of a fallen marine and the officer in charge of telling families their loved ones had died.

I almost had to stop looking - the photos were very well done, but so moving/depressing.

[airfrogusmc]

Surely this is an entirely subjective thing. The OP's post was about things that get you choked up, and I agree that photos don't always do it for a lot of people. It HAS however happened to me before though - but only in shots of people. Atrocities, sadness, beautiful moments in peoples' lives, all can and have made me choke up.

So I sympathise with cdi, insofar as seeing a photo of a hot chick feeling sad because she boned some douche can be pretty heartwrenching :P.

Nonetheless I also appreciate what airfrog says. I love landscape photography more than anything else, be it shooting my own or looking at others. It fills me with a kind of feeling that no other type of photography does, a feeling of wonder and awe I'd say.

HOWEVER, no landscape has ever made me cry! And like cdi said, I don't think it ever will, unless it's really out of this world or if there's a great story behind it.

No landscape has ever made me cry either but I have more than one emotion and its kinda hard not to be moved in some way when standing in front of the Adams photograph thats 4ft X 6ft of the horse in the field being lit by a shaft of light the must have poked through the clouds and this almost abstract patterns on the mountains in the back ground. Theres a feeling that you get (an emotion) that you just can't get from seeing it in a book and whether you love or hate the subject matter anyone that has mastered or tried to master B&W darkroom techniques will be in awe of the technical ability of Adams to hold both shadow and highlight detail.
I have had photographs make me mad, sad, happy and I've had photographs make think.

[condyk]

Theres a feeling that you get (an emotion) that you just can't get from seeing it in a book and whether you love or hate the subject matter anyone that has mastered or tried to master B&W darkroom techniques will be in awe of the technical ability of Adams to hold both shadow and highlight detail.

I'm wondering was it time of the month Air' :p

Just jokin' man ;-)

[airfrogusmc]

Yeah:lol::lol: I guess us old jarheads always figure to be the emotional type:lol::lol:

[tonylong]

I'd say it's perfectly normal to respond differently to photos compared to a story, whether in book or movie form.

It makes sense -- with a story we are given a context and typically are led to care for a character or characters in some way, so that we would respond to, say, a death scene with not just, "wow, a death scene" but "oh no, Joe/Mary died!"

It's like comparing the work of the cinematographer to that of the director and the actors and the scriptwriter -- the cinematographer might do breathtaking work, which is what we as photographers would like to do -- but it's the story as a whole and the portrayal of that story that gives the whole emotional impact.

Think of watching a movie where at the beginning you see someone die. It may have a touching quality if it's well done, but aside from that, what emotion would you realistically expect? You know nothing about the person who died or what led to the death, so you don't have a context for a specific emotional response.

On the other hand, if you saw that scene at the end of the movie, and the character was someone you had come to care about, then a whole complex of emotions could be expected -- some kind of a tear jerk response!

That being said, there are some basic responses that good photography can elicit -- maybe a "WOW" response from a big print from a gorgeous landscape or a beautiful bird in flight, or a heart-rending response to someone suffering in some way, or a smile and a little twinge of the heart to seeing a young child in gleeful play or a mother caressing an infant, or two lovers in an embrace. As a photographer, those are the emotional responses I could aspire to.

Also, some photos have an understood context -- I can barely look at a scene of the Viet Nam War memorial in Washington DC without gettting teary-eyed, or a scene of the Kennedy assasination, or of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Without the context, though, what would my "emotional" response be? The emotion comes from the (his)tory, not from the image alone.

[saravrose]

hmm... well i'm a sap. pretty much a bleeding heart liberal but i've seen tons of photographs that have evoked emotion in me. whether i'll openly cry, rarely but what would be the point of taking the photo if not for someone, or yourself to have a reaction to it. Photos of people will always hold more than landscapes or still life. But, that doesn't mean that a photo of natural devastation isn't emotional your wrong think of all the images of 9/11, the Oklahoma city bombing, New Orleans sometimes the absence of humanity can be as profound as humanity itself. But, it's incredibly subjective as all art is. I remember being floored by a Monet painting of his wife on her death bed that changed my perception of art permenantly, There are still songs that remind me of memories that will bring me to tears and there are absolutely tons of photographs that have brought an emotional reaction..

Sari

[SuzyView]

I'm sorry, I'm awful when it comes to sad pictures. Today, I watched "P.S. I Love You" by myself and cried the whole time. It's ridiculous how much I am affected by good acting and good photography.

[nicksan]

I like Picasso's b/c everybody and their mamas told me he was great.
I also like Picasso's b/c rich people buy them, and rich people understand art the best.

;-) ;-)

I agree. My brain is not wired that way. I evaluate a piece with total disregard to who created it. I'll go to a museum (usually forced by my wife or friend:lol:) and go look at these "great" pieces and go "uh huh...next"...my wife would cringe and say "what the heck do you know?".

My reaction is "listen, I don't care that it's a Picasso. I don't like it and that's the only thing that matters to me. I would never hang something that ugly on my wall. If you like it that's great. If you don't want to hear me dismiss an art piece then don't ask how I like it." She's usually quiet after that.

I do the same with music. My wife will always ask "how do you like it" and usually unless the music really pulls me in, which is rare, my reaction would be "nothing too interesting, but they do what they do well".



But I have seen it. Jut not in the way you insist is the only right way. I'm sorry but some things just don't "speak" to me and I don't need to go to a gallery just to confirm it. A tree isn't going to get any kind of response out of me.

Maybe it's you who needs to try to understand something...and that is that not everyone enjoys the same things in life, is going to enjoy the same things in life, or even wants to enjoy the same things in life.

[derky82]

I think there are definitely photographs out there that are able to touch people on a deep emotional level.

The most "emotionally moving" photographs I've seen recently, are probably from the 2006 Pulitzer prize winning Todd Heisler. They are from a compilation documenting the return of Marines, killed in the line of duty in Iraq.

Not sure If I'm allowed to... but I've included a few of my favorite examples of his work.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/feature-photography/works/heisler-04.jpg

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/feature-photography/works/heisler-15.jpg

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/feature-photography/works/heisler-17.jpg

- Derek

[LeeSC]

About six months or so ago a lady/photojournalist from CA (she won a pulitzer for this work) did a photo storyline on a young boy dying from a rare type of cancer. I believe it was in American Photo, but don't quote me on that as I am at work and the magazine is at home. The photos started when he was first diagnosed and went through to his funeral. As a father, seeing the images of this young boy and his family was very emotional.

When I get home I will post the magazine name and issue along with the photojournalist's name.

EDIT: After a little googling I found the photojornalist's name was Renee C. Byer. Here is a link to the images hosted on the Pulitzer website:http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2007/feature-photography/works/

[KirkHMB]

Most recently, some work by photojourno (Mario) of a National Guard Unit returning home to their families.

http://gravina-productions.smugmug.com/gallery/4955325_KoVJx

[airfrogusmc]

Heres a good friend of mine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLevnL0msko

http://www.toddhochberg.com/see.cfm?imageNumber=2

http://www.momentsheld.org/

Powerful stuff...

[slimninj4]

Many war pictures or disaster pictures are emotional. There is always loss connected to them.

[ppusa]

Anyone who has visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bomb museums knows that photos can create very strong emotions in humans. No matter if you are American, Japanese or of any other nationality.

Some of the visitors would have been very emotional photo subjects but in a place like that you don't want to make them feel any more distressed than they already are.

I agree that creating an emotional photo is very difficult unless you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[nicksan]

I visited Hiroshima a while ago (my Granny is from that area...she actually lived away from where the bomb dropped, but close enough where she saw the mushroom cloud in the horizon!) and indeed it is a place that evokes emotion.

It would also be indeed pretty tasteless to be snapping away pictures in a place like this.

So I am on the same boat with you...mixed feelings about it.

Anyone who has visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bomb museums knows that photos can create very strong emotions in humans. No matter if you are American, Japanese or of any other nationality.

Some of the visitors would have been very emotional photo subjects but in a place like that you don't want to make them feel any more distressed than they already are.

I agree that creating an emotional photo is very difficult unless you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[poloman]

Do a google search on Dachau images. If these don't get to you, you are pretty calloused.....

[tweatherred]

I felt that way after seeing a gallery of A. Aubrey Bodine prints.

Alex

There just so happens to be an exhibit of his work in my city; I plan to go.

A number of the recent pulitzer prize winners have won for work dealing with death that I found moving; the 2007 winner (http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2007/feature-photography/works/)in particular got to me as I work with patients like the one portrayed. These (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/gallery/2008/mar/31/lifebeforedeath?picture=333325401)are moving to me as well, as is the work done by this group (http://www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org/)(from the volunteering thread in the Talk About Photography section). There are many other examples, both positive and negative, some of which have already been mentioned. I probably have an interest in photography because I find so much of it moving in one way or another.

[DizzyV6P]

I always found this picture by Michael Yon to be especially powerful
http://yhst-80051593642880.stores.yahoo.net/

[rdenney]

Okay, since everybody is in the mood to talk past each other, let's mix it up.

Those wonderfully executed photos of marines presenting flags to children, etc., are moving. But is the photo that is moving or the subject that is moving?

That's why some folks don't see the emotion in landscapes. The statement "I have more than one emotion" is right on. I am not saddened or moved to cry by a great landscape. But I am often filled with awe and wonder, even to the point of being choked up on occasion. Again, though, is that awe the result of the subject, or the photo? Is it the half dome that evokes the awe, or Adams's rendering of it?

This was at the heart of the conflict between Steichen and Newhall in the early photography department at the MoMA.

What is the photo's job? To create emotion or to reveal it?

Rick "thinking that ought to be good for another couple of pages of shouting" Denney

[airfrogusmc]

One thing that allot of folks miss is Adam's photographs were about light as much as subject matter. Awe is the way I describe a great photograph that shows that the photographer had a great sensitivity to see light and the technical skills to capture the light he saw the way he saw it. Understanding light is the most import thing a photographer can learn. When I see a photograph that shows me light in ways I haven't seen before or in ways that were special that the photographer saw it and that he had the ability to capture it and then reproduce it in a print can be a great experience. You can learn so much by that experience.

[airfrogusmc]

Okay, since everybody is in the mood to talk past each other, let's mix it up.

Those wonderfully executed photos of marines presenting flags to children, etc., are moving. But is the photo that is moving or the subject that is moving?

That's why some folks don't see the emotion in landscapes. The statement "I have more than one emotion" is right on. I am not saddened or moved to cry by a great landscape. But I am often filled with awe and wonder, even to the point of being choked up on occasion. Again, though, is that awe the result of the subject, or the photo? Is it the half dome that evokes the awe, or Adams's rendering of it?

This was at the heart of the conflict between Steichen and Newhall in the early photography department at the MoMA.

What is the photo's job? To create emotion or to reveal it?

Rick "thinking that ought to be good for another couple of pages of shouting" Denney

I think its both for both questions. Half dome is awe inspiring and Adams saw and captured it and reproduced it in a way that only Adams could. A strong photograph can do either or both and both are valid.

[ehab]

LOTR screenies.

they too actually. :P


Pictures of 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war (http://genocidebangladesh.org). Dammit.

[TeeTee]

World Press Photo Gallery

http://www.worldpressphoto.org/index.php?option=com_photogallery&task=blogsection&id=15&Itemid=115&bandwidth=high

Inspirational.

[TooManyShots]

Is about the content of the picture. Yes, I have become very emotional over certain pictures with certain, specific themes. They remind me of myself, the history, and the forgotten ages.

I will be honest; I have had movies, songs and even books get me choked up, but never a picture. Is it me, where I just don't respond to pictures, or do other people find the same thing?


What is the most emotional or moving picture you have seen?

[AlexMN]

Hi, have a look at Paul Fuscos photo essay "Chernobyl Legacy" one of the most moving photo essays I have ever seen, I defy anyone to not get a lump in their throat whilst looking though this spectacular body of work. For me it is a really great example of the power that still images can still have in a media saturated world, an outstanding piece of journalism.

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/


Alex

[airfrogusmc]

Have you ever seen the W Eugene Smith images of Minamata ?

[ampersand]

when i was 15, i found a copy of avedon's in the american west that had been mismarked for $2.98 at half price books. at the time, i had no idea who he was but the price was right....over the years, i spent countless hours staring at the people he photographed and wondered what they were feeling when the picture was taken. the simplicity of the photographs showcased their emotions in ways i had not realized was even possible. this book is what made me fall in love with photography.


a few years ago, the in the american west exhibit was showing in ft. worth. seeing six foot plus images of those i had spent so much time with for so many years was an incredibly moving experience for me. yes, the sharpness was phenomenal - beyond words amazing. but the simple emotions captured is what has always moved me. naturally, it is not the same type of emotion i would feel when viewing an image of a disaster or fallen hero, but it has always hit me in a way i'm not able to explain.