Sorry, no pictures today, just some thoughts I had.
I've been reading in some photography internet platforms, looking through some threads where people presented their pictures and other users reviewed and criticized them. I've done this a few times too and it actually helped me. Critique always helps you to get better in something (that's why I want you to criticize me!).
But I recognized that there seems to be a certain way photographs have to be so they get a good review.
Like animal photos for example. Does every picture have to look the same/ similar?
Does it always have to be the dog without leash, running happily looking towards the camera? Perfect light (of course the golden hour), maximum aperture and the expensive 200mm lense?
Does it always have to be the horse with its long streaming mane galloping in the open countryside(of course the picture was taken in a paddock, but all the fences were retouched)?
I have to admit that I've taken photos like those too. It's nothing wrong with those pictures, the owner of the pet will be really happy about them.
But I think it's kinda sad that pictures which don't match with all the other dog, cat and horse photos are often only "snap shots". Somebody used a different composition, somebody decided to use a different editing technique, somebody photographed a pet not in his studio or in the open countryside but in an unusual place, somebody didn't get his dog perfectly frozen in motion and what happens? Reactions like "Why didn't you edit the fences and the leash and gosh, where did you take the picture? And when you zoom in it's not sharp enough and the image noise is pretty bad." are the result. Just because the photos are different from the ones everybody is used to see.
Isn't photography about being creative? About trying out new things? Everybody has a different opinion of what's good looking and I don't think anybody should call something bad, just because it doesn't conform to the known and usual stuff.
Another thing:
Especially beginners have difficulties with sharp action shots (me included). If you scroll down a bit and look at my horse and dog pictures you'll see they're in focus, but they're not high-definition photographs. My camera is not the fastest and my lenses are not perfect for action shots, in addition I still have to practice focusing the animals in the right moment (yes, don't always put the blame on your camera...). Well, the point is that photos which are not high-definition are often called "snap shots" as well which can go in the recycle bin.
Once a picture has some image noise they tell you to put it in the recycle bin.
Once a pic is just a little blurry they tell you the same.
I've seen many photos which aren't technical perfect and I still love them and I'm sure many other people do too. Like the one of the cat, it has so much image noise and some people might think the black corner is distracting, but I really like it. I like her huge eyes, they almost look surreal and the image noise perfectly goes with the atmosphere.
Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/philkneen69/3550791311/in/faves-hawahawa/
I believe many pictures would be not as good if they were technically perfect, because technical perfection makes something often look contrived and much of the liveliness doesn't show.
Some of us only like a photo when it's in focus and technical perfect. I ended up with the conclusion that the story behind the photograph, the emotions are more important, but that's just me.
I still want my pictures to have a certain contrast and color and I'll still use certain compositions and editing techniques, but only because it emphasizes the atmosphere. Whatever.
What about you? What's a good photograph for you? When is a picture "good"?
