I started lurking here about a year or so ago after getting the bug to start shooting again. I used to shoot quite a bit 25 or more years ago. Once in awhile I even got published. I put it away after trying to make a living on photography alone. I found that my passion diminished with the need to make a buck. One night at about 3:00 in the morning, after finally lighting an espresso cart well enough to use the shot in a brochure I realized that I was much happier taking portraits of people I found interesting and that taking pictures of “things” was making me unhappy.

That was the last picture I took for years. I sold all of my gear and bought a point and shoot to document my daughters growing up and was content.

About a year and a half ago I got the bug again, invested moderately in some gear and am happily shooting away when I get the opportunity and find people I find interesting and willing to be my subject.

I’m having a great time.

I’m having a great time here too. I’ve had to re-learn how to shoot, how to see light, how to try and remember the myriad of little details that end up in a picture. I’ve had to learn the ways of digital, (well sort of, I’m still struggling) and I’ve had to try and learn how to properly expose and develop a digital negative. This forum has been an invaluable resource. There are, on any given day, a veritable smorgasbord of excellent images to see, read about, and learn from.

More than anything else, I am enjoying the “Impressions” threads that Steadyhand has started. I feel they are important because they include an essential element for the viewing experience. Context.

I believe portraiture is dependent on context in order to grasp the goal of the photographer and to know if that goal was achieved. In other words, as Steady has asked so many times, “What is the intent of the image?” Knowing the intent lets the viewer participate more fully when viewing the image. Was the intent achieved? I think that sometimes the “intent” is achieved magnificently even with images that are technically, marginal at best.

Here is an example:

I took this picture a few months ago of a couple here at the restaurant. It’s out of focus. It’s so noisy that you can see only enough detail to figure out what it is. The color balance is crappy. From a technical point of view it’s a disaster. I quickly printed a 4x6 copy and gave it to their daughter. She has it framed and hanging in her home.

Howdy Bob.

First...you are a good writer.

I enjoyed reading your POV and the honesty of your words touches on the impact photography can have for the subject (person photographed), the client (the person buying the photo), the viewer, and even the photographer.

Good points about the advertising images too.

I also enjoyed seeing the image of the old couple's hands.

My Impression: Together in Life and Love

That picture is warm, touching, and simple in an elegant way. It tells a story. It shows a connection that is so priceless. It shows care and love. But, I also enjoyed reading the back-story too. Together with the image, it becomes a more complete "picture."

Keep up the good work.

And...I read every word.

Respectfully,
Steady Hands
A Committed "Impressionista."

While I appreciate the different angle Steady Hand has brought to this forum with the "impressions" threads, I am getting kinda sick of seeing that word everywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that impressions and the way images make you feel are as important, if not more important than the technical merits of the images. As discussed in another thread, in theory the impressions and the technical critiques should be able to live harmoniously side by side.

That said, I wonder if there is some element of using 'impressions' to cover for lack of, or poor execution of technique... Certainly not the case with Steady because I struggle to fault his work technically (even though a lot of it is not my style/taste), but the above shot to me only has meaning because of the back story. Without the story the shot is pretty average (and that's probably being nice)... But the question that keeps coming back to me is "Why wasn't the shot sharp, well lit, less noisy etc etc?". Most photogs on here post images with at least some context or purpose from the shoot and still want C&C (which could/should include first impressions and feelings). Surely a forum loaded with many high-end and pro photogs should strive to educate and improve photography skills. Is requesting impressions from viewers a way of avoiding the technical aspects of photography? Are some photogs too scared to post images on here for technical review for fear of getting burned, and using impressions as a way to have technically weak images recognised? I don't have the answers...just spit-balling some thoughts...

I don't know, I guess this is just a bit of a ramble but to sum up, my impression of "impressions" is that I'm sick of seeing the word in every second thread title.

"love is always last forever" - this is all you get near the end - i would love to see this image in B/W

no comment on the photo however I do agree with Inga that the whole purpose of the impressions thread is to help the OP feel good about something that isn't that technically sound and to not hurt his/her feelings. Negative comments have a place on this forum because, even if the OP doesn't like receiving them, all that view the photos and the comments on them learn from them

I feel like a bit of a tool now...well sort of anyway...

I just went back to the forum and had a look at another post titled "Deva", not looking at the OP's name and read a wonderful short story about the context of a nicely executed image.

There was something about the image that bugged me from a technical / PP viewpoint but after reading the story and the other comments on the thread, a technical review and question seemed very out of place and probably disrespectful.

Then I realised that the OP of this thread was the same as the OP of the other thread and that this current thread was a result of the "Deva" thread...sorry if that was confusing....

I enjoy the technical reviews and advice and critiques given on this thread, but then I don't get my nose put out of joint that easily. I see the image in the other thread and want to ask a technical question and possibly improve the image, but feel that it is disrespectful to the OP and the direction of that thread.

Where does that leave me? Well it leaves me moving off to another thread to comment.

Which raises another point... A lot of times I look at an image in a thread and it really doesn't do anything for me. So I guess there is a first impression. Do I post that as a comment? Usually not. So you see threads of several hundred views with one or two comments. Does that tell you something about the images? Perhaps they are technically flawed...usually that will attract some comments. Perhaps they are just not interesting enough to people to motivate them to comment. Then someone posts comments to the effect of "I'll give you my thoughts (sounds like sympathy)" or "It's rude that no one comments on photos around here". Images that evoke emotion (good or bad) evoke comments, usually. Leave it at that, don't pester others to comment just because you feel like you need to. (That comment is NOT directed at anyone in particular. If you want to comment then do so, but don't hack on others that don't want to leave a comment)

Anyhow, I think my main point still stands, and that is impressions should go hand in hand with technical review. Almost everyone on this forum wants to see others improve skills, so let them help you and don't just rely on the feeling of an image. There will come times were technical flaws ruin very emotional images and as photographers aren't we charged with a responsibility to capture moments in the best way possible?

Inga,

I agree with you completely. I would think that if two similar images were taken in the same context for the same purposes the one that was technically stronger would be the best every time. You said, "Surely a forum loaded with many high-end and pro photogs should strive to educate and improve photography skills." I agree. Without those sorts of discussions I would probably not frequent this forum nearly as much as I do.

You also commented on the example picture, "Without the story the shot is pretty average (and that's probably being nice)... " Again I agree. It's a terrible picture technically. The purpose of posting that one was try and show that in context, a crappy picture can still tell a story.

Sometimes photography is sort of like high end stereo systems. I've known lots of people who constantly discuss nuances heard in $4000 interconnects, or $80,000 8 watt tube amplifiers. Some times you just have to stop and listen to the music.

Me? I want both. I want to be technically strong while achieving my intent.

You said it nicely, "As discussed in another thread, in theory the impressions and the technical critiques should be able to live harmoniously side by side."

Ciao,

Bob

I think discussions of both types are valid.

Good touching story, Bob. I'm glad you posted. Of course a shot like 'the hands' is a priceless treasure, a memory, so it is to be enjoyed. There would be no point in picking apart the photo, documenting every detail (like I do so often ). The technical discussion have their place, but this isn't it.

Thank you for hearing me out.

NB: I just read your reply to my last comment on the Deva thread and it made me laugh and blush... Hence why I came back on here and posted that I sorta felt like a tool. I must admit, IF the Deva thread had the word "impression" in the title it is very unlikely that I would have clicked on it. The fact that your story / context outline was nice and short in that thread helped a lot too...and you didn't use the word impression...and didn't really ask for comments (technical or impression). The photo was very pleasing to the eye (with the one nit pick I had being the darkened background above her head especially on the right...it looks burnt in PP and bit over the top, causing a halo around her head). Bottom line I guess was that I felt motivated to comment on the image, and that was BEFORE I knew you were the OP.

Looking forward to seeing more of your posts in the future! Honest!

Bob,
I "lurk" more in this part of the site and typically post / comment more in other sections. My experience in photography has always leaned more towards scenery & wildlife more than portraits and people. That said, for the last year I have been fascinated reading threads and looking at others' photos in this part of the site. The photo of your daughter was outstanding in my opinion, as was the written background that was given with it. And while the shot above is not technically good, its ability to provoke feeling far outweighs its merits on a purely photographic scale. If this were mine, or my family members, I'd probably frame it too. Bob, I'd like to welcome you to the site. You have already proven to be a valuable addition to a mostly ourstanding group of talent. I look forward to seeing more of your work. Ok, now I'm going back to lurking!

Impressions -- that's what I thought we were always doing here anyway. The technical aspects of a photograph should support the feeling it's trying to transmit. I don't think anyone has ever bought a photograph because it's a great example of bokeh.

I often see technically decent photos here that start to get comments like, "I'd crop the side" or "she should have been smiling" and so on, and I think, "Well, yeah, if he'd wanted to make a different picture." People start making technical comments that may be perfectly valid, but start missing the point of the picture. I know photographers here, and in general, enjoy the technical aspects of photography to a greater degree than I do. Not that I'm not technically adept, that's just not where the fascination is for me.

So I see the Impressions threads as a way to talk about the feelings and communication that happens with a picture, without getting into the technical stuff that sometimes pulls the discussion away from the particular picture completely. It puzzles the technical photographers who can't understand talking about a photo without talking about sharpness or noise or whatever, but gets more to the heart of why we do this, I think.

I don't think many people look at the 'Mona Lisa' and worry what type of brush Leonardo got out of the kit bag for that one nor do people read Shakespeare and wonder what type of desk he sat at whist writing.

However, I do think the technical 'shortcomings' of the 'Hands' picture is entirely appropriate for the impression that Bob is trying to convey.

So for me, the shot has both technical and artistic merit.

Bob, You asked this question: "Does knowing the context make the picture different? Better? Worse?" I think the answer is yes it does make the picture better. Ron

fizzy wrote:
Impressions -- that's what I thought we were always doing here anyway. The technical aspects of a photograph should support the feeling it's trying to transmit. I don't think anyone has ever bought a photograph because it's a great example of bokeh.

I often see technically decent photos here that start to get comments like, "I'd crop the side" or "she should have been smiling" and so on, and I think, "Well, yeah, if he'd wanted to make a different picture." People start making technical comments that may be perfectly valid, but start missing the point of the picture. I know photographers here, and in general, enjoy the technical aspects of photography to a greater degree than I do. Not that I'm not technically adept, that's just not where the fascination is for me.

So I see the Impressions threads as a way to talk about the feelings and communication that happens with a picture, without getting into the technical stuff that sometimes pulls the discussion away from the particular picture completely. It puzzles the technical photographers who can't understand talking about a photo without talking about sharpness or noise or whatever, but gets more to the heart of why we do this, I think.

Very well said...

I completely agree too.

Thanks for adding your POV to this discussion of the Impressions style of threads. I hope your words will help other people understand the different POV and goals and method of the Impressions oriented image discussion. .

turn it into black and white, your golden.

This discussion is very interesting.

I think we need to make the distinction between...
- Technical aspects of the photograph
- Impressions of the photograph
- Impressions of the photograph with lots of commentary around it

We seem to be discussing the two ends of the spectrum...technical aspects and impressions of photograph/commentary...when, typically, we have to develop our impressions of photography without the benefit of a couple paragraphs of explanation. With the right words, we can bring great meaning/significance to a technically poor photograph just like we can use words to remove all meaning/significance from a technically great photograph. We all have experienced clients purchasing prints of technically inferior pictures because "my son's smile in that one is totally him" or the like.

My goal is to take pictures that a person can walk up to and say "wow...that is a fantastic picture...I wonder what the story is behind that picture..." and then, once they hear the story behind it, they feel a deep connection.

In the end, we, as photographers, need to perfect our ability to have the picture tell the story. Because most of the time, that is all we have.

I guess a lot is to do with for whom the image is taken. If it is for the photographer - then the context is known. If an image is posted without explanation here, then for me to comment the image has to make an impression (good or bad )

It seems to me that there are two main purposes of posting here.

For technical help or comment - in which case it is best to ask for this.

To showcase your work - in which case one needs to think before posting to imagine the "impression" it will make on the viewer - not knowing the context. Too many I feel do not - which is why you get perfectly adequate images with hundreds of views and no comment. In effect there is a comment implied by viewing and passing on - "so what?".

It would be more hurtful however to post this - so we don't.

I think that the picture of the hands work very well and I think it will stay on the daughters wall for many years....

I guess, from the graininess and un-focus, that it is a result of a major crop (200%), I´ll say that it is very well spotted and "bold" of you to send her the (im-perfect) picture....
(Not to mention, to put it here....)

A picture of these old people in full figure would probably not have made it to the daughters wall....

By the way, do buy a 85 f1.8 if you haven´t got one....

(and I would neither have read the "Deva" thread if it had anything "impressions" in it´s title....(Sorry Steady, but it is simply too many words, I like it short and clear...)).


BS

God´s People is not the Jew´s, it is not the Christian´s nor the Muslim´s, God´s People is the Quiet, Kind and Sweet of all kind, You know it´s true....
-Pass it on whenever You can....

Nice photo Bob, I REALLY like it.

As soon as I saw the image, it reminded me of my Grand Parents when my Grandfather was still alive. It just took me back.

Its almost like seeing the hands through the failing eyesight of the old man.

I looked at the photo first for a while, and then read the editiorial. After reading the context, the feeling evoked is still the same. SO, you got what you intended with the shot. I think all the "technical issues" with it give the photo its character. The image made a strong "impression" on me and triggeres many warm memories. And, to me, thats what photography is all about.

I'm looking forward to seeing more photos from you.

Bob, Inga, and Matt,
There are others, too, but these are outstanding writers. God, I love to see lucid, logical, and insightful writing. Kudos to all three.

fizzy wrote:
Impressions -- that's what I thought we were always doing here anyway. The technical aspects of a photograph should support the feeling it's trying to transmit. I don't think anyone has ever bought a photograph because it's a great example of bokeh.

I often see technically decent photos here that start to get comments like, "I'd crop the side" or "she should have been smiling" and so on, and I think, "Well, yeah, if he'd wanted to make a different picture." People start making technical comments that may be perfectly valid, but start missing the point of the picture. I know photographers here, and in general, enjoy the technical aspects of photography to a greater degree than I do. Not that I'm not technically adept, that's just not where the fascination is for me.

So I see the Impressions threads as a way to talk about the feelings and communication that happens with a picture, without getting into the technical stuff that sometimes pulls the discussion away from the particular picture completely. It puzzles the technical photographers who can't understand talking about a photo without talking about sharpness or noise or whatever, but gets more to the heart of why we do this, I think.
Well fizzy, that just about sums it up, Your point about "missing the point" is uhh.. right on point. Great thread contribution here....