Can every shot be taken artistically?

It's probably time for this thread to move onto thread heaven in peace.

chauncey wrote in post #5367160
I am suggesting that after 14 years of experience, your question should have been self evident and that after 14 years of experience you have adopted a very defensive attitude about your work.

Huh? In response to my thread about whether some shots will just always be snapshots, you told me to learn Photoshop. I replied that I've been using Photoshop for 14 years. I have absolutely NO idea how the rest of your post connects with *any* of this.

Do people who have Photoshop experience automatically know what everyone else thinks about composition and art? I started a discussion topic to ask OTHERS what they thought about snapshots, not to find out what *I* think.

I didn't see an answer to my question at all. :::shrug:::: I went back to read it again and all I saw were assumptions about what I needed to learn and the implication that maybe, just maybe...with a little work, a few of my shots won't suck.

I berated you? I was taken aback by your response as it related to my desperate need to learn, practice, and improve. I didn't berate you. I asked if you were implying something about my work with your comments. I offered a response to your direct points, then I clarified my question. Berate you? No.

Please all get back on topic and leave personal fights to PM or back yard.
Thank you for you attention, and now for something completely different....

It's a snapshot to you despite the thought you put into it because you see it every day. If it was someone else's kid and photo, you'd be thinking more of it.*

*these statements specifically exclude thoughtless snapshots that truly are just that.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #5340035
Do you find that there are certain shots that will just always be snapshots no matter how much you want to capture them with great composition? There are some people who seem to be able to take ordinary things and make them spectacular. I have a friend who can take a picture of some normal household scene and get 50 flickr comments. She just has something special.

Her house, her style, her kids' clothes... every setting she finds seems to scream to have pictures taken of it. Then I look at my house and I realize there is nowhere in this house to take something that isn't a snapshot -- unless it's an extreme closeup against a wall. I feel like I'm stuck in a snapshot rut.

..... I'm wondering if it's just me.

Getting back to the original subject may be rather impossible now...

I also didn't read this as a simple request for discussion about the differences between snapshots and art; but rather as a somewhat personal reflection that the OP's pictures were a) more snapshot-like than she'd like and b) not as "artistic" or well composed as her friends'. I think some of the conflict in the thread arose from the fact that the OP did pose the question in personal terms (which I applaud); but didn't react well when many answers also were personal, especially if they weren't accurate.

I guess my non-personal response to the questions in the thread are

1) Yes, some shots are just snapshots (and so what!)

2) Although some shots may always be snapshots, I'm not sure if there are scenes that can ONLY yield a snapshot(better IMHO to label scenes and shots carefully, the scene being what is there in real life, the shot being the image captured). I suspect personally that there's a spectrum, with some scenes making it very difficult to yield an artistic shot.

3) Is your friend a better photographer or does she have or maintain a nicer home, style or kids clothes? I don't ask this to be mean, some people (not me) want and/or are able to live in houses that are kept like they could be in a magazine shoot and dress their kids like models - easy to take nice pictures in these settings. I personally don't value such things that much and our house looks very "lived in" with lots of clutter - not so photogenic but I don't want to live in a magazine ad.

To think that this thread could have ended like this...

"Can every shot be taken artistically?"

"No. Have a nice day."

:p

lungdoc wrote in post #5367304
Getting back to the original subject may be rather impossible now...

I also didn't read this as a simple request for discussion about the differences between snapshots and art; but rather as a somewhat personal reflection that the OP's pictures were a) more snapshot-like than she'd like and b) not as "artistic" or well composed as her friends'. I think some of the conflict in the thread arose from the fact that the OP did pose the question in personal terms (which I applaud); but didn't react well when many answers also were personal, especially if they weren't accurate.

I guess my non-personal response to the questions in the thread are

1) Yes, some shots are just snapshots (and so what!)

2) Although some shots may always be snapshots, I'm not sure if there are scenes that can ONLY yield a snapshot(better IMHO to label scenes and shots carefully, the scene being what is there in real life, the shot being the image captured). I suspect personally that there's a spectrum, with some scenes making it very difficult to yield an artistic shot.

3) Is your friend a better photographer or does she have or maintain a nicer home, style or kids clothes? I don't ask this to be mean, some people (not me) want and/or are able to live in houses that are kept like they could be in a magazine shoot and dress their kids like models - easy to take nice pictures in these settings. I personally don't value such things that much and our house looks very "lived in" with lots of clutter - not so photogenic but I don't want to live in a magazine ad.

Ahh, yes. Those are good points. The scene is really what I meant, as opposed to the shot. My bad choice of words there. I used my friend as an example, but this thread was not meant to be about us or whether she is really a good photographer. I'm kind of horrified that my praise of her was turned into a debate about her skill and I hope she never sees this thread. She was just who I happened to think of at the time. Her style is similar to mine, but the previous owners of this house painted it really dark colors, which are depressing to look at and photograph.

Yes, she's a better photographer. She inspires me. I don't begrudge her her talent. I didn't know I even should. :::shrug::: I don't feel that 95% of my shots are "snapshotty" -- when I am outdoors, I love my results. My question was mostly about indoor shots and other "scenes" that aren't inherently attractive.

I've posed a similar question about indoor shots in the past and now, a few months later, I have formed the opinion that I was right that it's not my lack of compositional ability, but the lack of what I feel is an attractive scene on which to set my photos. The reason I brought up my friend is because she's one of the few people I know who seem to be able to make any scene attractive -- it's not something I see very often. That's why when you look in the wedding forum, 90% of the shots people choose to show are set OUTSIDE.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #5367538
but the previous owners of this house painted it really dark colors, which are depressing to look at and photograph.

Well the answer seems to be obvious, you need to work on your painting instead of your photography .

That is definitely the great debate. I can have an 85mm f/1.2L and a really nice tripod or I can have the house painted. I love painting and would have done it 2 years ago, but this job is too big for me to do myself. Eventually, though...

I'd vote for cleaning up/painting the house.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #5367538
That's why when you look in the wedding forum, 90% of the shots people choose to show are set OUTSIDE.

I don't find this to be true. Photographers tend to not show prep shots, or at least not very many, but after that part of the day there's quite a mix as far as I've seen. And really has little to do with the inability to make indoors look good...it's more likely that the wedding was outside, or they wanted outdoor shots, or that the only time spent inside was for the ceremony. Ceremony images aren't usually very exciting to viewers with no emotional investment in that particular day.

AndreaBFS wrote in post #5367538
Ahh, yes. Those are good points. The scene is really what I meant, as opposed to the shot. My bad choice of words there. I used my friend as an example, but this thread was not meant to be about us or whether she is really a good photographer. I'm kind of horrified that my praise of her was turned into a debate about her skill and I hope she never sees this thread. She was just who I happened to think of at the time. Her style is similar to mine, but the previous owners of this house painted it really dark colors, which are depressing to look at and photograph.

Yes, she's a better photographer. She inspires me. I don't begrudge her her talent. I didn't know I even should. :::shrug::: I don't feel that 95% of my shots are "snapshotty" -- when I am outdoors, I love my results. My question was mostly about indoor shots and other "scenes" that aren't inherently attractive.

I've posed a similar question about indoor shots in the past and now, a few months later, I have formed the opinion that I was right that it's not my lack of compositional ability, but the lack of what I feel is an attractive scene on which to set my photos. The reason I brought up my friend is because she's one of the few people I know who seem to be able to make any scene attractive -- it's not something I see very often. That's why when you look in the wedding forum, 90% of the shots people choose to show are set OUTSIDE.

Background choice and quality of light are key factors towards having a possibility of getting a great shot.

But there is more. Of course artistic eye matters. But I think what you seem to be pondering about is your lack of "access", which in many times makes 80% of a great photo. Think about that Iwo Jima flag raising photo - in order to take such a photo you have to be there. Photos of beautiful models, photos of cool musicians, photos of distinguished presidents, photos of unbelievable landscapes, even photos of kids in a beautiful home with adorable expression in good light ... they all require that you have access to that subject in a given moment. That makes special photos! You know, many press photographers do no actually take great photos if you take the access from them.

You can of course do wonders in less than favorable surroundings, with plain light and with odd subjects. But that takes a hundred times more thinking and effort compared to having access to environment which lets you just create.

Bottom line: the photographer needs to go out. See the world. Find the light, do not wait for it. You'll get access to most wonderful moments. But not at home on your sofa

I'll take this one step further....

My wife (permagrin) and I are both photographers. She's really, really good. She aspires to be a pro and is well on her way. Her "eye" is spectacular and her post processing skills are amazing.

Compared to her, I suck.

Here's the thing. She really masters the landscape. The whole vista thing. It looks great. I will shoot the same thing, but for some reason, it looks stupid and I wouldn't send it to my ever appreciative mother. I just can't "see" the same thing she "sees".

However, my Ace up the Sleeve is in the details. I'm not all that good at it, but I don't suck, either. My wife is good at those "Detail Shots" (almost like macro), but sometimes she doesn't "see" the shot.

In other words, we all excell in different areas. I would love to be able to get the hang of portrait photography, but I really have to work at it. Doing abstract is simple to me.

You may be looking at your friend's shots of her house and thinking, "Hey, how come...." but then she might be looking at your landscapes and thinking, "Hey, how come...."

I have tons of "snapshots" on my external hard drive. I also have some real keepers. Some of the keepers come naturally, some I've really had to work for. I believe it's the same for anyone. If I want to get better at landscapes, for example, I'm going to have to watch my wife or go to the art museum, or whatever because it doesn't come naturally to me.

Just my 2 cents worth. If that.

Pekka wrote in post #5367644
Bottom line: the photographer needs to go out. See the world. Find the light, do not wait for it. You'll get access to most wonderful moments. But not at home on your sofa

but... but I like my sofa...

My sofa is crap but I do have one helluva office chair. Quite conveniently and not by coincidence, it resides at the computer desk, which, also not by coincidence, allows me to access POTN. My coffee maker isn't far away, which is also not by coincidence. That pretty much means I'm set for life. Or at least until I run out of creamer.