In a lot of what I've read, either in books or online, a lot of photographers favor not giving any kind of background on their photos and letting their work speak for itself, and letting the viewer try and figure out for themselves what is going on in the scene. While I enjoy this method from other photographers, I myself go the opposite route. Sometimes you need an explanation. Not a ten page essay on the situation, but just a few lines about what you observed.
Union Square, NYC For this picture you couldn't not see this guy. I'm not sure what his deal was. He was just going up to people and talking to them and then moving on. No story of any kind is needed for this picture (in my opinion, of course). His unusual outfit speaks for itself.
This picture, in my opinion, needs an explanation and it can be found here. This picture makes me laugh every time I see it, mostly because I remember my brother's reaction when I showed this to him.
I like both ways of presenting photos. Sometimes, a photo truly can stand alone. Other times, an explanation just adds to the photo. Every picture has a story, and sometimes sharing that story makes the viewer connect more to the photo. It just really irritates me when I read about how things should be. Photos either should be in black and white or in color, but not both. You either should shoot street photography or landscapes. You shouldn't have a story with your photos. You should let the viewer make their own stories. Personally, I feel that the only "should" is that you should shoot first and foremost for yourself. If one day you feel like shooting landscapes and the next you're drawn more towards street shots, do that. If you take photos based on what other people feel that you should do, isn't that like living your life for someone else? Be creative. Take risks. If people like it, great. If they don't, well that shouldn't be your problem. As long as you are being true to yourself and your art, then photograph whatever moves you.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment