Your Photos as Communication

[Mad Aussie]

There are no rhetorical questions here. I'm hoping people will take any question I ask in this post and answer if they feel the need or desire.

"A Picture is worth a thousand words" they say.
But do your photos always communicate to others what you really wanted them to understand or feel?
How often do you put up a photo and find that someone just plains 'gets' it the way you intended it to be?

Or do you know what you wanted to say but the viewers seem side tracked to other interpretations within your image?

I guess if I take a photo of a bird feeding in a bush then I'm probably not really trying to communicate anything in particular at all. I'm simply trying to show the bird in a way(s) that allow the viewer to truly see this bird as I saw it.

But the photo below of a one legged bird standing alone in the sand, quietly looking out to sea as the sun rises, was much more than just trying to show what the bird really looked like. I took lots of gull photos that morning so showing what a Silver Gull looked like was not my objective. I targeted this gull among his many able bodied friends and had to approach him several times before he let me get close enough to get the shot I was looking for.
It was more about how this bird feels, what it's thinking, what it's life is like now it has one leg chewed off by some predator that almost took it's life. I wanted the photo to make people 'feel' this birds moment.

I find it difficult to achieve this objective sometimes and I guess this is something that is indeed difficult to achieve very often.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3354/3339800555_eba34de870_o.jpg

So how do we increase our chances of having our photo communicate more clearly the message we hope it carries?

Using techniques that clearly demonstrate the 'mood' needed would be important I would think.

Making sure the subject is clearly defined might be another.

Composition that enunciates any specific nuance important to our message would be another. My photo above could have more negative space in the direction to which the bird is staring to highlight his gaze perhaps?

Does anyone have any other thoughts about all this?

[jjeling]

This is the reason I wanted to go downtown and photograph the structure. Although I have not showed the work to the city, it was about the message behind the buildings. Explicitly the older buildings, along with the abandoned house as well. For me those were exercises in just this. Unfortunately, it's hard to do this 100% of the time. In the end though, communicating is what we all do through photography. Some can do it better than others, in different ways.

Generally, we talk about a 'subject' to criticize an image. That subject is what the message in the picture is. There is always an author and a viewer. When communicating the subject is interpreted twice. Once through author when creating the msg, and once through the viewer. There is always a message in each image. Although some are different, some have a more complex story lines.

[jjeling]

I have recently done this with my town and the abandoned house. As much as I agree with MA, there is one thing I must say...

With a little hesitation...:D Id like to say we all try and do this as much as we can. Sometimes these messages do not crack you in the face and you must look for them to some extent. The way we critique an image, is to define a subject in the image. From that point, we try and find out what makes the image good or bad. We communicate every time we show an image. The message is encoded once through the author of the image, and decoded by the viewer. Each picture taken has a subject, which is explained through the photographer and deconstructed by a viewer. NO TWO PICTURES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE, and that also stands for thoughts between individuals.

Here are a couple I have to try and explain what I was doing. My last msg for tonight I guess. :cool:
In the 2nd picture, you can see a mosquito really well on the blade of grass on the left side.

[Barefoot]

Generally, we talk about a 'subject' to criticize an image. That subject is what the message in the picture is. There is always an author and a viewer. When communicating the subject is interpreted twice. Once through author when creating the msg, and once through the viewer. There is always a message in each image. Although some are different, some have a more complex story lines.

Well said.

[Mad Aussie]

That subject is what the message in the picture is
I'm not certain I agree with that. I think sometimes the message is not the subject or vice versa at all. Rather the subject may simply be there in order illustrate or point the viewer to the real message or meaning within their photo.

Just thinking of Kat's photo of the person sitting at the table ...
http://www.photography.ca/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2093&stc=1&d=1236794133
Hope you don't mind me using this shot as an example Kat :confused:

This photo's subject is man staring down at the table.
Kat's title for this photo in her Flickr album is 'What Now?'
I would think the meaning she is trying to communicate here is not this subject but more about despair, loneliness, uncertainty.
The message isn't the subject. The Subject is there to illustrate the meaning I believe.

If this is the communication Kat was trying to achieve, then with me at least, she achieved that goal.

I chose Kat's photo as an example because I believe her to be one the best at finding the compositions and subjects that do manage to communicate her meanings. I consider myself to not be in the same league at all on this.

[kat]

No problem with using my photo! :) I didn't give the Flickr title in here. The photo I named "Alone" but when I uploaded it to Flickr I really thought "What Now" really suited it.

I love to put a story behind an image. Stirring up some emotions. Most of my people shots are candids so that I can get whatever they are feeling at the percise time shown. I love when a photo can make you feel something other than..that's a great photo. And I've also noticed, those are the ones that get commented on over and over.

I find it hard too. I think what we have to remember is when we shoot, we are physically there. The sights, smells, sounds. They all ring in our ears even after we shoot and I think that can alter how we feel about a shot compare to those that view it afterwards.

With that shot above, I knew what I wanted. We were out camping, hungover the next morning and off to use the bathroom. I saw the picnic table, the sun just shining over it and bang - I knew what I had to do. Hmmm..maybe I should shoot hungover!!! :p

Most times, I arrive at a shot and think what would be best in this shot. What do I want to show? How do I want the photo to make you feel (happy, sad, peaceful, bright)? When I look at this, what appeals the most. And then I shoot and shoot. Now if you consider how much I go out and shoot come summer time, it's not often I get that "OMG" this is awesome shot.

Along with many others, I know it is something I work on every time I go out and shoot. I strive to get it and when I do it feels great! Those are the times when I actually feel like I'm getting somewhere.

BTW, I love that bird shot. I see a story behind that one! And that wave just at its foot..that does it for me!

And that is how I feel about that. LOL..probably doesn't make too much sense but heck..that's how I see it! :)

[Ben H]

The subject is not the message.

The subject *conveys* the message.

The image is a mechanism through which a message can be sent through by the creator, the message received and interpreted by the observer. The image itself is not the message, in the same way a car is not the journey.

[Ben H]

Just thinking of Kat's photo of the person sitting at the table ...
http://www.photography.ca/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2093&stc=1&d=1236794133



Ooh, I haven't sent his one before. Me likee lotsee...

[jjeling]

The subject is not the message.

The subject *conveys* the message.

The image is a mechanism through which a message can be sent through by the creator, the message received and interpreted by the observer. The image itself is not the message, in the same way a car is not the journey.

Thanks for understanding what I said earlier. This is a major part that I did not mention. I agree with this 100% in addition to what I stated earlier. The subject of the image is not always the message, but it does assist us in what type of story we are trying to communicate.

[casil403]

So do you think that this makes photography different in any way to other art mediums such as painting or sculpture?
Just curious as to your thoughts on this.

[jjeling]

Yes and no. I wish I could find the quote about photographers and painters. It was based around the fact that photographers can never make something up when they take a picture, where as painters can paint whatever they want. Without photoshop this is true, and my ideal situation. Photographers and painters, artists alike, are trying to portray a certain message, which reverts back to our other discussion. The one thing that I think photography does to seperate itself, is that we have to deal with something that is already present, or temporarily present in order for us to function. We cannot create images from thin air. Cameras cannot function, unless there is something in front of the lens.
Our methods are different, while painters paint with paint, we paint with light. Sculptors paint with steel, clay, or whatever the medium may be. In the end, the subject matter may be the same or completely opposite. It is likely to be explained and interpreted differently. No two images are the same, and it applies to paintings and sculptures.

[casil403]

Yes and no. I wish I could find the quote about photographers and painters. It was based around the fact that photographers can never make something up when they take a picture, where as painters can paint whatever they want.


JJ was this the quote?

"Not everybody trusts paintings but people believe photographs." Ansel Adams

I don't think Ansel ever used photoshop and I'll bet he sometimes turns in his grave with all the technology available out there today. I wonder what he would have to say about it all......:confused:

Speaking on the subject of technology, I think that's a huge difference b/w painters/scuplturists and photographers. I mean, photography is an ever changing and advancing medium. Painting and similar mediums haven't really changed much and I think they are still far more dependent on being hands-on (for want of a better word).
Sorry if I am getting off topic here, but it was something I've been wondering......

[F8&Bthere]

I think I "got" Kat's Alone/What Now photo right away, which is why I disagreed with those who wished to see more face- it's dark and seeing face wouldn't add anything. The subject looking down and away adds to the emotion IMO.

Mad Aussie- as much as I love the little birdie amputee storyline, are you sure his 2nd leg isn't tucked in up under his wing or something? I think I can see something going back up from his little knee. Birds can do some crazy joint movements that would put us humans in the circus. Wicked shot at any rate- love it!

[Mad Aussie]

I think I "got" Kat's Alone/What Now photo right away, which is why I disagreed with those who wished to see more face- it's dark and seeing face wouldn't add anything. The subject looking down and away adds to the emotion IMO.

Mad Aussie- as much as I love the little birdie amputee storyline, are you sure his 2nd leg isn't tucked in up under his wing or something? I think I can see something going back up from his little knee. Birds can do some crazy joint movements that would put us humans in the circus. Wicked shot at any rate- love it!
I watched this bird for about 30 mins ... it's either chewed off or deformed in a weird way. I know what you are looking at and I stared at that for ages also and finally gave up trying to decide. Either way this bird has no use for that leg.

And ditto from me for your comment on Kat's photo.

[kiley9806]

[QUOTE=Mad Aussie;15290] it's either chewed off or deformed in a weird way. Either way this bird has no use for that leg. [QUOTE]

it looks to me like the leg got broken very badly, bend backwards, and healed that way. looks like the 'knee-joint' is frozen snapped back, with what we would call his 'shin' pointing back & up. any way you look at it, it makes me think owwie...

[Mad Aussie]

it's either chewed off or deformed in a weird way. Either way this bird has no use for that leg.

it looks to me like the leg got broken very badly, bend backwards, and healed that way. looks like the 'knee-joint' is frozen snapped back, with what we would call his 'shin' pointing back & up. any way you look at it, it makes me think owwie...
Yeh, I think this quite likely.

[BlueX]

JJ was this the quote?

I don't think Ansel ever used photoshop and I'll bet he sometimes turns in his grave with all the technology available out there today. I wonder what he would have to say about it all......:confused:

Speaking on the subject of technology, I think that's a huge difference b/w painters/scuplturists and photographers. I mean, photography is an ever changing and advancing medium. Painting and similar mediums haven't really changed much and I think they are still far more dependent on being hands-on (for want of a better word).
Sorry if I am getting off topic here, but it was something I've been wondering......

I think Ansel Adams would have jumped right into digital photography. He spent considerable amounts of time in the dark room getting the prints the way he wanted them. He'd even gone back into the darkroom with earlier prints when new darkroom technology developed.

And other mediums have also improved over the years too, not just photography. 3-D animation is just painting and sculpting in a computer. The paint brush and chisel is kind of like film to us nowadays.

Here's another analogy of how a photographer creates and communicates their message:

Consider the writer. He or she does not create any new words. They must communicate something by rearranging preexisting words around until it says what they are try to illustrate. If you sit 2 people in front of the same window and have them write a paragraph of what they see out the window, you will get 2 different paragraphs. The writer with better understanding of their craft and skill set will communicate their vision more eloquently.

A photographer has total control of what he or she captures. The messages are there, it is the photographer's job to make the pieces fall into place.