Let me preface this post with this:
This is my blog.
These are my opinions.
My opinion isn't fact.
If you don't like my opinions, you don't have to read any further.
I don't mean to be terse here, but I recently got into a discussion online with a gentleman that kept trying to tell me my opinion was factually wrong. I won't get into details, but it boiled down to him telling me that it has been scientifically proven that a style of photos I find beautiful, are ugly. Does it sound as absurd to you as it does to me?
Anyway, through the course of this discussion, a little rabbit trail formed. This rabbit trail was about what matters in a photograph. This same gentleman whom I've mentioned above stated that the difficulty of the shot needs to be taken into consideration when determining how good a shot is. My argument was that the shot should simply be taken at face value.
Now, I think there is some merit in his argument. Look at competitive gymnastics, for example. If the gymnast decides to do a difficult stunt, and she’s successful, she gets a higher score. Teachers typically give students leeway if they choose a difficult subject to write about and will give them a higher score accordingly.
Here’s the problem with both of these scenarios, however. There is a level of objectivity in the grading. Granted, there is always a subjective side of each of these, however, there is also a set of standards (objectivity) that the judge or teacher must follow. When it comes to photography, there is no standard. Photography isn’t competitive. Photographers (unless you’re in school for photography) aren’t being graded on their photos. A photo is considered good, if someone thinks it’s good. A photo is considered bad, if someone thinks it is bad.
There are some photographic genres that are considered very difficult. Sports photography, landscape photography, and wildlife photography come to mind. But should the fact that a particular shot is difficult, especially if you can’t tell from the context of the image that it is difficult, be weighed into the final evaluation of the image? I don’t think so. Here’s the example I gave, that was never responded to. If you take a blurry image of a gorilla, but tell me that you were hanging in a tree, upside down, blindfolded with one hand behind your back when you took it, how should I rate it? I might say that for the circumstances, the image is ok, but in the end, it’s still a shot of a blurry gorilla. I’ll tell you to try again, without the handicaps. I’ll tell you to go back in the jungle, set up your camera on a tripod or monopod, and try again.
When I look at a photo, I don’t care how difficult the image was to take. All I care about is what the image looks like, and how I respond emotionally to it. I will look at the technical and compositional aspects of the shot, and make a judgment. Just because you tell me you shoot 100% manual, will not change my perception of your shot.
