Re: [Leica] What makes a good photo (was: Lee's week four)

[Martin Howard <howard.390@osu.edu>]

julianthomas.terra.es jotted down the following:

> This has just been mentioned on the SP list. Considering my current project,
> I'm thinking about whether I can exclude the actual human presence. If you
> think about Atget, Evans, Friedlander, Brassai, Kertesz, Hass, they all, at
> times, portrayed cities without the people being there. The sign 'is' the
> human presence. It all depends what you are trying to accomplish. I've got
> loads of negs of graffitti, streetsigns, door numbers, which together could
> be used to tell a story about the places the signs are from.

I do agree and don't agree with this.  I think photography should primarily
be visual and not intellectual.  In other words, if a picture *only* makes
sense after giving it considerable thought about the possible implications,
then in my mind, it's failed.  However, that is *not* the same as a picture
that works on different levels -- one where you discover subtle references,
implications, or whatever, on more abstract, intellectual levels, in
*addition* to being visually interesting.

Second, I think two very, very good criteria for a "good" picture are from
two very good photographers: HCB and Costa Manos.  HCB's "one second test" I
think is great.  Do you look at a picture for more than a second?  Does
something capture your interest and make you stop at it?  If not, it's not a
good picture.

Manos's test is what I call the "surprise test".  When going through
pictures, flipping the page, uncovering the print, or whatever, a good
picture is a surprise.  Something unexpected.  Something new.

In many ways, the two are connected.  Surprise leads to exploration.  If you
immediately know what it is and don't have to look at it any more, then you
pass on to the next picture/photograph.

I have my own test too: A good picture raises more questions than it
answers.  Again, these are all connected.  The visuals are a suprise, which
lead you to look at it for more than a second, and once you start exploring
you realize there are more abstract issues worth contemplating.  What are
the people doing?  Why is that sign in that place?  Who are these people?

Lee's picture, like almost all of mine, answered more questions than it
raised and it didn't provide much of a surprise.  I did look at it more than
a second, because I liked to composition.  But I thought it needed more.

The trick, of course, is getting all this *before* you take the picture.
Not afterwards, with a cup of coffee in your hand, sitting by your computer,
typing into the email program.  And I'm not there yet.

M.

- -- 
Martin Howard               | "Why do I think that MacOS is better than
Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | Windows? Well, you can put sideburns and
email: howard.390@osu.edu   | shades on a 50-year old guy...but that still
www: http://mvhoward.i.am/  | don't make him Elvis"  -- Unknown
                            +--------------------------------------------