08 October 2006

Too emotional?

But isn't the problem to separate your own emotions from the subject? Is this a good photo, I haven't got a clue. It means a lot to me personally, but is this just in my own perspective?

How to know whether 'you succeed in creating a photo that transcends the circumstances of its origin' is difficult when the photo touches your self. On the other hand, if the photo doesn't mean anything to you, how can it be a good photo then?



Anonymous said...

I like it, but I may not be representative. I simply like simple photography showing moments of simple people life. this is most precious documentary, when the click is made because of hearth need not by higher imperative of creating unusual, sophisticated piece of art. My response to your question is: yes.

Exposed Material said...

Hi C,
Family shots are underestimated, I believe. I think they are getting more valuable when you know more about the people being photographed(of course!). A good example is all the biographies and history books containing lots of photographs. Quite crappy quality (artwise) but highly interesting when you're getting familiar with the history behind them.
If this is a good photo? If it means a lot to you, then that's what it is. But even to me, I'm strucked by the decisive moment in this photograph and my answer is also "yes!". Like Marcin, I'm very fond of a straight forward approach as long as there's a heart involved.
- Abeku

Exposed Material said...

"How to know whether 'you succeed in creating a photo that transcends the circumstances of its origin' is difficult when the photo touches your self."

I suppose I could only know that by asking others to say something about the picture in question. Only with hindsight, only with consultation - that could be my answer.

J. S-g.

Exposed Material said...

I like this a lot and I don´nt think that a picture can be to emotional. A picture without emotions can never be a good picture according to me, because emotions is what it´s all about. I don´nt like however photographers who use repugnant objects in their pictures only as an effect to get attention. This, to me, is a negative way to make use of emotoions.


Exposed Material said...

Hm, i´m not thinking so much about emotions when shooting....IF you search love you never find it - but if you are open it will find you. Then, a good photo can be a "straight forward one" or a result of an artificial scene. Try to make photo with a high sharpness, no grain, no long shadows, no blur, no vignettes, no dubble-exposures - just clean with hard shapes etc etc and capture emotions. Thats a challange. .... hm, i wonder if you see what i mean.


chrisw1r said...

sure I do absolutely see what you mean. The "effects" shouldn't overtake the motive of the photo. Following your "seek love"-analogy, surprisingly many look cool in disco-light at 1 pm after a few drinks. *lol*

You can indeed capture emotions under the circumstances you suggest (or your no good photographer). A good photo should capture that fundamental feeling in the subject.

BUT you can also overdo that, by finding subjects/motives that are highly emotional or agitated. Instruct your subject to put on a funny face, find someone who is exposed in a difficult situation, find someone controversial etc... You get my point? Are those photos "more true"?

I think a good photo should strike a balance between the specific and the generic. The generic is there to allow different viewers to project their thoughts and emotions onto the picture. The specific to add dissonances to the viewer... Or something like that...