Upload & Sell: Off
Peter Figen wrote:
Just a picture of a sign is fine if all you want to do is document it.
Sometimes the sign is the artwork and nothing else is needed. It's like taking straight-on headshot portrait at f/2.8 and focusing on the eyes. Totally mundane. You can find a million examples of that exact shot online. But if the subject is truly unique, interesting, or beautiful then you don't need anything else. You don't need to pose the person in some creative way. You don't need especially dramatic lighting, just good lighting. You just need to take a technically sound photo of a beautiful thing and it has value for just being beautiful.
It's more than a snapshot because it does take skill to handle a camera in order to take such a picture. More importantly, though, it takes the photographer's eye to have seen and selected that subject to be shared with the world. That's as much of the art of photography as finding something creative to do with a subject.
All that being said, could more creative photographers have selected the same subjects and done something unique with them in order to transcend a mere documentary style photo? Sure! But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is more like a street photography thread. In street photography you most often use your skills and eye to select an interesting scene that by itself tells a story without you having to ask people to pose in certain ways, or by adding props or lights, or doing anything else particularly creative. You just see and capture, and many people appreciate the stories told by these kinds of photographs. Documentary pictures of signs tell a story! They don't need anything else.
Wait... I don't really understand where you're coming from, because I just now realized that one of the people who has posted the largest number of "just plain documentary photos of signs" in this thread is you, before you made that comment that I originally quoted. *scratches head.
I like your photos. I'm not putting them down. They are well composed. I guess maybe I don't understand what exactly you were rallying against. Maybe you should point out some examples that failed to be what you think we should strive for. If you give a genuine critique of a photo I'm sure you won't offend anyone.
I'll beat you to it. I know what you mean. All the photos on page 3 above your comment are poor. They are simple close-ups of signs that could have been much more interesting with just a little more effort. I originally thought you were complaining about this whole thread. I guess I was arguing against a misconception. I failed to understand exactly what you meant by "this is a picture of a sign", and thought that included what I now know are even your own photos.