[Leica] What are the most important aspects of a photographic image?

[gcr910 at gmail.com (Greg Rubenstein)]

Been reading much of this thread and admit I may have missed
something. Black and white versus color doesn't matter from my point
of view. A photo has impact or it doesn't. Okay.

-- One: I agree with Ted on impact . . . I came up a photojournalist
and want to grab eyes. Immediately. Sometimes I judge photo
competitions; I love it when viewers in the room make me "hear" a
photograph, regardless of what I think of the photo. The audience
reaction tells me something about impact -- good or bad. Something's
going on as a result of that image and I want to know what.

-- Two: Rules change when you're shooting for a publication, client,
stock or any other kind of paid fee/commission. We all want to shoot
well. We're paid for our eyes, our vision, our style; but our
considerations and aesthetics are, when we're paid, essentially
secondary. Yes, we guide and shoot what we think is best, but we
better deliver what clients want 'cuz it's their decision about what
meets or does not meet their needs. Same with curators. Have worked
many sides of the photo equation so, like many of you, I'm aware of
what it's like to be the hired hand wanting to meet expectations and
get more work and the hirer with specific expectations of the hired
hand who's paid to deliver.

Now some caveats. A large percentage of this list, unless I am wrong,
is amateurs and hobbyists. That's a statement, not a judgement. Fact
is, many amateurs have more skill and talent than many pros paid for
their photos. My guess is that most LUG-ers shoot for themselves,
hence pleasing themselves comes first, then their immediate families,
friends, etc . . . whoever they intend the images for. Formal
aesthetics and other such things that apply to the professionals, the
curators and so-called professional crowd do not apply in this
category, though they are darned handy to know.

I have seen many photos I consider horribly composed, a waste of film
and paper, or worse, printed with skill, detail and tone I've never
been able to achieve in a wet darkroom or on screen. They pleased the
shooters. Good for them. Drawing on my judging of competitions and
exposure to some schools, galleries and museums where I live, more
emphasis seems to be placed on technical -- printing, primarily, and
the rule of thirds -- skills rather than eyes and impact. I've been
exposed to many lousy shooters -- and I'm being kind -- who I'd love
to hire to handle my printing. Have actually hired a few for that over
the years. Have always been a camera photographer, not a darkroom guy
-- despite my generally excruciating efforts over the years.

Guess my bottom line is that there is no right or wrong. There are the
basics most schools teach, the skills self-taught photographers
acquire and the basic skill sets pros learn as they're hired and
re-hired, fired, or hired then forgotten about after one shoot. Yes,
the A, B, Cs are good to know. Useful, too. If you're shooting for
yourself and the results please you, good work and good for you. If
you're shooting for others and not pleasing them, not so good for you.

Most of what I shoot these days is for me. Always want to make it
better, which is why I occasionally post photos and hope people say
more than nice shot, good effort or why'd you waste the pixels. I want
to know why, through others' eyes, something could be better 'cuz I
know how I see. If it's nice, why is it nice to you? If it's a waste
of pixels, tell me why. (And feel free to line your bird cage.) How
can I, as a photographer, learn from y'all's eyes and comments to
further hone whatever style or skill I have to improve what I do?

Have fun and, to mangle Kyle's sign-off advice, keep on clicking that
shutter. It'll come.

Thank you.

Greg Rubenstein