Is this a good photo? The reason I ask is that I was driving through a rural area today, sans camera, and I saw shot after shot that I wished I could take. Correction, of course, if I didn't have a camera it's not a shot. It is more a mental image of shot.
That got me to thinking. Does the photographer create the "shot" before the camera? Well of course, in most instances --though, I have had a few great shots that I thought were junk until I pulled them up on my computer.
But, this picture, for instance, what makes it a good shot, mediocre shot, poor shot, or even worth shooting? Why did I shoot this shot? There were lots of other ducks on the lagoon in Audubon Park in New Orleans when I shot this. Does a duck shaking the water off his wings have more of a photographic value than one gliding on pollen-populated water?
Well, of course it does.... to me. That is why I shot it. Why did it have more value to me? Because I got my start as a newspaper reporter. This is the proverbial "boy bites dog" -- the story that sticks out as unusual. You see thousands of duck photos. Few of them are shaking their wings off. That makes it at least mildly unusual. So it is worth shooting to see how it comes out? That's where my value system ranks it. I saw the photo in my "photographer's" mind, then shot it.
So, the photographer makes the photo, then shoots it.
Do you agree?
That got me to thinking. Does the photographer create the "shot" before the camera? Well of course, in most instances --though, I have had a few great shots that I thought were junk until I pulled them up on my computer.
But, this picture, for instance, what makes it a good shot, mediocre shot, poor shot, or even worth shooting? Why did I shoot this shot? There were lots of other ducks on the lagoon in Audubon Park in New Orleans when I shot this. Does a duck shaking the water off his wings have more of a photographic value than one gliding on pollen-populated water?
Well, of course it does.... to me. That is why I shot it. Why did it have more value to me? Because I got my start as a newspaper reporter. This is the proverbial "boy bites dog" -- the story that sticks out as unusual. You see thousands of duck photos. Few of them are shaking their wings off. That makes it at least mildly unusual. So it is worth shooting to see how it comes out? That's where my value system ranks it. I saw the photo in my "photographer's" mind, then shot it.
So, the photographer makes the photo, then shoots it.
Do you agree?
Powered by ScribeFire.
4 comments:
In my opinion, it is a good shot because the unusual capture of the moment. The caption makes it a novelty shot.
It is not a good shot if you are looking to see what a duck looks like. So, like humor, it is only a good shot (joke) if you know what a duck "normally" looks like, and you add an unlikely explanation.
In my opinion
I like A Year on the Grill's opinion!! It's a good one, and I agree.
I think that when a person has practiced photography, you notice things around you in a different way; seeing scenes "through the lens". There are great shots that are purposefully composed; and other great shots that are spontaneously captured. A good eye makes a difference. Are you familiar with Robert Doisneau's work?
Your caption is perfect!
Post a Comment