Has this ever happened to you: You're always looking around for interesting subjects and stuff to photograph, going on the road, sometimes to far away places... and then suddenly, you find the most beautiful stuff there right under your nose, sitting at home... This happened to me: I was just sitting in my living room, and saw the evening light through the window cast these beautiful elegant shadows on my hand painted wall that kinda divides my room in two spaces. The light made the structure and texture of the wall stand out beautifully... and there was this old yucca that added a colorful natural counterpoint to the geometric shapes of the wall. I must have seen this scene countless times in the past few years, and only yesterday I thought of making a picture of it. And guess what... I think it's one of the most beautiful captures I have ever made... So, has anyone had similar experiences? Feel free to reply, and why not illustrated with some images?

Hi Geert, you are so right about not noticing the beauty just under our "nose", we tend to seek the "unusual" mostly in glorious places, often time not so easy accessible ( financially or physically ). Same as you, I often notice good objects for the photography right in my home and some times I do take shots of them but never had the courage to present them to the public, having in the back of my mind "maybe this is not good enough" Here are a few examples

Thanks Dana, you sure have a colorful home! You know, an interesting or unusual subject can raise the wow-factor of your image, but does it automatically make good photography? We all like tigers, beautiful landscapes, glorious sunsets, amazing insect macros, or super tele bird shots, but is that per definition good photography? I have some pretty good shots of ordinary cows in an ordinary rural setting, but who's interested in that kind of stuff, when we all want to be wow-ed? I know there are some photographers here that don't care for the spectacular and keep on posting there bold and no-nonsense stuff, and I admire them for that, even if they don't get much response. Even when I browse through photography contest entries, I see many spectacular and fantastic shots, but most of them are not touching me at all... as they stand too far away from me. Actually, that was the topic I wanted to set up here... Anyone can capture an interesting subject, a gorgeous landscape or a beautiful sunset (as I did with my last series) and make a good picture from it, but is 'making a good picture' the same as good photography? Well, I know I didn't explain this all that well, but maybe some questions were raised to think and exchange opinions about...

YES i totally relate ... !! it definatly DOES CHANGE the way you see the World!! when i first started last year i felt new and live waking up to light and shawdow.. the world for me changed.. and i saw it all new as if i were reborn . here is a perfect example of something that jumped out at me last year, It was only nellie making a bead necklace.. and the shawdow of my home made curtains poured down upon her arm .. something i might  not noticed or have walked past before...!!

Right on, Kimmie! Have you posted this before, or always thought it was 'not interesting enough'? This is pretty damn good photography! There are lots of magazines that would pay a fair amount for pictures like this!

Hi Geert, I think that there are a few different points you are touching on. The first one being, object that is BEING photographed, and secondly, the quality of the picture itself. I am not a professional photographer, so perhaps my viewpoint might be shallow...although I'd like to say that there is no such thing as a perfect object that one can photograph for the image. The criteria of a perfect photograph really depends on the viewer.... you know what they say, the typical cliche term of "beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder"... I beleive it works the same way when it comes to capturing an image, and what one makes out of it. Also, it relies on whether I am viewing the photograph from a scholarly point of view (professional) or from the eyes of the heart. It also depends what one is looking for. The criteria changes for every person over time, just the same as one's values and outlook. So, for example, Picasso never got recognition while he was alive....right? It was only after his death that he became so worldy renoun. Also, when one looks at a photo, he/she might be looking for something in particular, and this will all impact the impression the person receives. A lot of "ooh's" and "aahh's" might come from a lack of knowledge or language limitations. After all, a good photograph for me, is one that evokes in me some sort of personal and intimate connection with the photograph itself. Brightest Blessings to you my friend, Tofi PS: Kimmie: You are a darling sweetheart..... I love all the picturers in your gallery!!!! Ditto to all that Geert said about your little girl!

Very good and clear points you made, Tofi. Makes sense... more than my confusing ramble LOL. I'm still asking myself though: if there were four lions in my picture above, instead of four cows, would it evoke more response, and therefore be judged as a better and more successful photograph? If I take a picture of an unbelievably beautiful landscape in Cappadocia, and everyone goes: oh, what an unbelievably beautiful place, I'm thinking: OK, I know it's a beautiful place, but what about the picture; is it a good picture, or is it just a picture of a beautiful place? Oh well, maybe I'm digging too deep, and I should just find the way that works best for me... Or I might just do the test and post some totally uninteresting, but good images, to see how the response will be... ;o)))

Mr. Gir.....this fits neatly into the thread I just started, "The best I can do".  It might not become a thread. LOL

You have brought out in the posters very neat and lovely photos.  A lot has to do with what we allow ourselves to see.         Great thoughts and thread.          Tom.

Good photography you say !

Well firstly a photograph is a record of a moment in time - this can be documentary in style or something much less tangible. So in the most basic form it is a good photograph if it has recorded that moment in a way that can be seen later. However most people aspire to something much higher than this in reality, so the question of quality becomes dependant upon if it is portraying that which the photographer intended to portray.

In this thread 'quality' and 'interesting' seems to be intertwined whereas that is not necessarily so.

I'll pick on Geert and hope you don't mind :) you initiated the thread so it seems the fairest way to illustrate my opinion on these images, not on you, or anyone else as a photographer, or a person.

The quality of both images posted is good.

The first one is interesting to me because the light is showing me different textures and contrasts, I find this visually exciting, look and linger on the image for a while to see what it is all about. The composition is captivating, in a very classic style where the main features are placed on thirds with the golden mean principle at its heart. On the right hand side there are diagonal shadows which lead into the rest of the image, they also imply going the other way a window with a fine curtain where the main light is coming from so leave much to think about there. The harsh vertical line could be a big no no but I think this image has got away with it because just beyond it is the highest contrast area of the image so it manages to drag the eye around the corner. (My personal choice would have been to move this line over a bit in the composition so it wasn't quite so near the centre line.) The image as whole seems to be showing me life sheltering away from a harsh sun in a cool shady place till the heat is not so fierce. I could go on & on but you get the idea.

The second image of the cows is of the same quality but for me doesn't have the same interest value. The scene is essentially of low contrast mid tones which do not grab my attention, it is not very visually captivating, the composition of 4 cows is taken in with one glance and has little to keep me with the image to explore it further. As something to say it remains silent compared to your first posting. If I take it on a documentary level it doesn't have much to say either. It shows me vary angles of this breed of cattle ( they are heifers not cows ). I can see they are a meat breed, but there is nothing to indicate which breed they are, and nothing to show a particular point of their conformation. There is a little bit of rim lighting which could be interesting, but the photograph is not emphasising that or using it in anyway leading me to believe the photographer has just taken a snap of some cattle in a field and doesn't have much to say about them, the moment, or their surroundings.

Just my 1/2p worth.

 

Thanks Tom, for the brief intervention! I like your words in your other thread too! And Richard, hey man, you sure can analize! And I think you're spot on... I put the images up there to illustrate the words, how an image of everyday dull subjects can become meaningful (or interesting, or good, depends on what you want to call it), and another image with the same technical qualities can remain meaningless (or dull, or bad). Next time I want an image analized, I'll come straight to you! ;o)))

Interesting reading and wonderful Thread. :)

I can totally relate Geert. I see things that others see me photographing and start whispering and scratching their heads. Then I show them the pick and they go, "Oh wow, I never would have thought of that." This condeseation on a beer bottle is a good example, though by no means fine art. Just looking at the world a little differently... Great thread!

thanks geert for the remark about the picture

 no that one of nell and the curtain shawdow above  i never posted cause her head was cut off and i am somewhat of a perfectionist about stuff like that lol... infact thats why i do so much out of the frame work id somethings cut off like my fishermans hat i did yesterday i paint or clone it out ..lol i should not worrry about that so much.. 

awesome thread btw~ i loved this entire thread it was wonderful to think about and read!!

Gotta disagree with yer Kimmers that shot is brilliant just as it is   

Hey Everyone! I'd have to disagree with you Richard, on this particualr "cow" issue... :) I think that you're right in what your saying about there being a visually appealing component to what makes a photograph "successful"... in terms of contrast, texture, lighting, etc.... however, the other issue at stake which you have voiced your opinion about-- the intimate connection... remains ambiguous and variable. For me, for instance, the photograph of the four cows brings back pleasant memories of my childhood running to get a cup of still warm milk fresh and "straight up"... ;) At that time in my childhood years, there was no pasteurization as yet.... (geez, i'm old!!! ) and so looking at that pictures evokes a lot of emotions and feelings for me. So, all in all, the picture of an "ordinary" group of cows, is perhaps (and is) much more successful as a photograph than say, a photograph of lions from a local zoo. Am I making sense here? I think what I'm trying to say is that the term "successful photograph" or even "authenticity" is one of great ambiguity. One that considers such things, should have an operational definition to go with it, otherwise its as good as .... ??? well, who knows.... As you have probably gathered, a large factor is personal connection. If I can visually look at a photograph and be inspired, or be in awe BECAUSE of, and due to the fact that it evokes memories, or it evokes some kind of internal feeling within, then its automatically scored brownie points with me.... and simultaneously, I'll notice and comment on some of the strengths and weaknesses of the visual appeal, the more technical stuff. Since everyone likes to add their two cents, I guess I'll have to add a third cent, Hugs to all, Tofi

Hello Again, I figured a new thread might be helpful, since the visual appeal of a novel, is rather tedious ;) TwoPynts, I think your photograph is terriffic! I would have never known what that was until you told us..... which makes it all the more "scratching the head" kinda thing... and for many, including myself, it allows for imagination. I think it would be unnerving perhaps NOT to ultimately know what that is.... but it allows for something so simple in life (like with all things) to be admired and given the time of day. To me, I can't say that like the cows, I have a personal connection..... was never allowed to drink in my childhood years ...... hehe But, the visual appeal, and the sharpness of the photo is extraordinary! The amber colour is so warm, and soft. That perfect amber is hard to find...... the droplets of water are stunning, since they are so sharp and look like little gems. I can almost taste the honey in my mouth! Mmm.... a nice refreshing honey lager! :) Great photo! and what I think is even more compelling is the meaning behind it...... that sometimes the finer things in life are meaningless and hidden to us, simply because they aren't explored and brought to our attention as you have shown us with this beer condensation. Cheers, (no pun intended :) ) Tofi

I may be alone in this, but photography doesn't make me see differently at all -- I use how I see things to help with my photography, and it doesn't seem to work the other way around.  I've only just started taking quality photos and it hasn't effected me one bit, except for making life less boring.

As for finding interest in the seemingly mundane, I'm all for it.  It's hard to put my finger on exactly what I think makes a great shot, but one thing I like is if you can get symmetry and balance without everything having to be situated towards the exact center.  Off-center symmetry, I suppose you could call it.  I'm a big fan of leaving alot of space around the focus of the shot because it accents the subject and doesn't leave the photo feeling cramped.

I agree that just because a photo showcases an exotic place/fashion/object doesn't necassarily mean it's quality stuff, but the subject itself is still important.  The way I see it, the subject doesn't have to be fascinating, it just has to look fascinating, whether by itself or due to the talent and skill of the photographer.  I'm at the point where I can make an interesting subject into an interesting photo, but ain't quite talented enough to make the ordinary extraordinary like girsempa, tofi or TwoPynts.  Fortunately I live only a short walk away from a pond with alot of frogs and bugs living in it, so I have lots of opportunities to photograph interesting subjects there.  As for finding inspiration in the home, my family also has six cats who make for some great photo ops if I can just get them to sit still.  Here's some cat shots:

http://www.metrocast.net/~stefburk/stuff/cats/

Very cute cat shots! That Kelly reminds me of my cat Timmy. I find your photos to be of a very high quality and interest level, so there is no need to compare skill levels and all that. We all do it for the love of it. Perhaps it doesn't make us see differently, but I think it makes us more aware of our environment and how to compose something that would make a interesting photograph. Your point about off-center composition illustrates that point well I think. I know that after I started photography classes in high school and learned about compostion and saw the inspiring work of photographers and artists, I saw the world through new eyes. I would go around and see something mundane (like the play of light and shadown upon the textures of a garbage dumpster) and think to myself, "Man, that would make a cool photo." So in that respect, I think it has helped me to be more aware and in the moment, rather than to see the world without REALLY seeing it.

In some way it can work in the other direction too: Some weeks back, I walked through a bit of forest with my camera, with the intention to make some nice shots. I was always automatically framing the shots in my mind, and there was always something that prevented me from actually taking a shot... The light wasn't good, it was too dark, a beautiful colored flower was surrounded by ordinary nettles, the perspective wasn't good, the reflections in the pond were too highlighted... and so on. I left the forest without even taking one shot. But that wasn't the reason for my feeling bad... I felt bad because I forgot to look at the forest for what it is... a glorious piece of nature, full of peace and calm and energy... and I hadn't noticed it.

Yep, the other end of the spectrum is there too. One must be wary of the dark side. When that happens, I force myself to take photo until the blockage gives way.