I am in no way a good photographer, but I found this story very interesting.
8 thoughts on “Taking the perfect photo”
(With the exception of the Great Depression photo in linked article) “Rules for taking perfect photos: be there when history takes place.” No shit!
Here’s the #1 rule for winning at poker: just be lucky.
Great advice.
The story-telling part is the most essential, but right on its heels is composition: including what is necessary, and leaving out what isn’t. The better that’s done, the better the photo. Quite a challenge.
not his point. he used historic images as they are relevant to nearly everyone, but his point is to take photos that are relevant to you and tell a story. you don’t need to buy more gear or classes to do this. that’s his point.
nope, you missed it. the advice is: stop worrying about your gear and technique, and just take pictures that matter (to you, not history).
I think that’s a lovely idea in principal, but to suggest that people (and the photos they take) couldn’t benefit from improving their technique is utter rubbish and irresponsible of someone to assert.
How many would-be great photos (to the person taking it, not to history) have been spoiled because they cut the tops of everyone’s heads off or framed the heads at the very bottom of the frame? Sure, a document now exists of a moment that was special to them, but how much more enjoyable would it be to look back at that moment and see it represented as beautifully as it felt to be there?
It’s not that difficult to learn the basics of photography, and this author’s notion that there’s some sort of conspiracy amongst pro photographer’s afoot to try and make you pay them to learn this stuff is hogwash – a made-up fact used to support his flawed argument.
Like a birthday cake is still technically going to taste the same whether you decorate it or not, but somehow a decorated cake always just tastes better. Is this a conspiracy by the professional cake decorators of the world? It must be…
Of course it’s not his point. I was pointing out how ridiculous his argument is. It goes–these photos have compelling subjects and are the most important ever. So take photos with subjects you find compelling and yours will be great too.
Isn’t that the very point of photography, to document something you find compelling?
It’s like saying “to take a great photograph, take a photograph.”
Sure. If you just write compelling lyrics about socially relevant topics, your skills on the guitar don’t matter at all. In fact, instrumental music is pointless, so dispense with it. Just write great stories, duh.
Those are all documentary photos, and have nothing to do with aesthetic or artistic photos. Different subject. They are “great photos” in the sense that any given pop song at the top of the charts is “great music”. It may be, but that’s not why it’s a top 40 hit.
(With the exception of the Great Depression photo in linked article) “Rules for taking perfect photos: be there when history takes place.” No shit!
Here’s the #1 rule for winning at poker: just be lucky.
Great advice.
The story-telling part is the most essential, but right on its heels is composition: including what is necessary, and leaving out what isn’t. The better that’s done, the better the photo. Quite a challenge.
not his point. he used historic images as they are relevant to nearly everyone, but his point is to take photos that are relevant to you and tell a story. you don’t need to buy more gear or classes to do this. that’s his point.
nope, you missed it. the advice is: stop worrying about your gear and technique, and just take pictures that matter (to you, not history).
I think that’s a lovely idea in principal, but to suggest that people (and the photos they take) couldn’t benefit from improving their technique is utter rubbish and irresponsible of someone to assert.
How many would-be great photos (to the person taking it, not to history) have been spoiled because they cut the tops of everyone’s heads off or framed the heads at the very bottom of the frame? Sure, a document now exists of a moment that was special to them, but how much more enjoyable would it be to look back at that moment and see it represented as beautifully as it felt to be there?
It’s not that difficult to learn the basics of photography, and this author’s notion that there’s some sort of conspiracy amongst pro photographer’s afoot to try and make you pay them to learn this stuff is hogwash – a made-up fact used to support his flawed argument.
Like a birthday cake is still technically going to taste the same whether you decorate it or not, but somehow a decorated cake always just tastes better. Is this a conspiracy by the professional cake decorators of the world? It must be…
Of course it’s not his point. I was pointing out how ridiculous his argument is. It goes–these photos have compelling subjects and are the most important ever. So take photos with subjects you find compelling and yours will be great too.
Isn’t that the very point of photography, to document something you find compelling?
It’s like saying “to take a great photograph, take a photograph.”
Sure. If you just write compelling lyrics about socially relevant topics, your skills on the guitar don’t matter at all. In fact, instrumental music is pointless, so dispense with it. Just write great stories, duh.
Those are all documentary photos, and have nothing to do with aesthetic or artistic photos. Different subject. They are “great photos” in the sense that any given pop song at the top of the charts is “great music”. It may be, but that’s not why it’s a top 40 hit.