At 21:54 7/1/02, you wrote:
John Lind wrote:
>Everyone who makes a photograph answers these questions,
but most do not realize it.<
It was when I began to consciously ask the questions that my photography
improved. You said so well, John; thanks,
Dave Dougherty
Dave,
Thanks.
I measure the success of a photograph on two levels:
1. The reductionist "science" (or craft); how well the image matches what
was visualized.
2. The holistic "art" (or message/meaning); how well does it convey the
intended message to the intended viewer(s).
It is easily possible to succeed with the first and fail with the
second. It is occasionally possible to fall short with the first, or even
fail at it and still achieve the second, but it typically will not do it as
strongly as it might have (barring serendipity which also happens).
My TOPE 10 achieved the first, but does not achieve the second that well;
not for its intended viewers. Barry Bean, who knows rivers in the regions
and has seen floods was able to easily connect with it. Those who have not
undoubtedly find it harder to see what it is about without explanation
(which a strong photograph should not need).
The population of viewers for it is smaller than was desired at the time I
made it. It does not capture and convey the sense of severe flooding that
well to those who have not seen such events. I realized this when
projecting it on the wall of my study to select which exact image to have
scanned (I made several and "bracketed" exact composition). Therefore, I
classify it as a "stock" or "journeyman" photograph that portrays a type of
truss bridge spanning a river. It passed the first test (the craft), but
did not get high marks for the second (the art).
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|