Are you literal, emotional or graphical?

[ancient_mariner]

There was another thread where in passing the nature of how we create photographs was discussed, and someone (I think it was @nandbytes) posted this link:

What kind of photographer are you – literal, emotional or graphic? - Life after Photoshop

Photography isn’t just about taking pictures of things. Very often you’re trying to capture something deeper, like a metaphor or an emotion or simply a graphically satisfying image. The trouble is that what you see isn’t necessarily what other people see.

www.lifeafterphotoshop.com

Which got me considering. When I re-started taking pictures seriously again I was definitely literal with some graphic stirred in - I think you need some graphical to give a shot compositional sense, else without that you have nothing more than a record shot. I also remember at the time seeing the work of another photographer who had chosen what was high end Fx kit to produce some very 'soft' images, and asken myself why he would take a sharp picture and then sod it up with all that softness.

And so to this evening.

On the Sony thread we were discussing various lenses, with some being sharp and neutral - 'very capable but boring' was one description by someone else, 'sharp but uninteresting. Great for detailed landscape, social gatherings, record shots.' was my view.

This brought me back to the link above. I have realised that when it comes to my own work I now 'sod up' a perfectly good picture by making it a bit soft, blocking up shadows, changing tonal response and particularly changing to monochrome because colour is so often too complicated and too busy. It's in pursuit of emotion in the picture, trying to escape the literalness that I find so uninteresting now, but preserving graphical qualities. My photography has changed.

I could post some examples, but would prefer not to because I'm trying to talk about how we feel about photography, rather than how you feel abut my photography.

 

[woof woof]

Before I started taking pictures and for years after actually I would have described myself as an artist. I drew, crayoned, inked and painted but I also made a living fixing computers, writing quality systems and doing product approvals. So, I think I'm a mix of artist and engineer and hopefully I can see things from differing perpsectives.

Some of my lenses can just about ruin an image if used to reveal their weaknesses and that could get in the way of both the accurate capture and recording of reality and any emotional attachment to a more artistic capture and I think that's quite important to understand.

The kit we use can't always be selected for a range of uses and end products. If we imagine a scale going from extreme "character" at one end to extreme accurate capture at the other not every piece of kit will straddle a perfect compromise along that scale, some will be further towards one end and some further towards the other. It's important therefore that we know what we are trying to achieve and how we are going to achieve it.

As I've said many times, we should start at the end picture and that will decide both the kit and the settings.

I think often these days I'm aiming for a photograph of a memory but having said that I don't want the picture ruined by massive CA or distortion or some other lens attribute so a degree of accuracy of capture and transparency has to be in there too. Sometimes though sharp and accurate is what I want, for example I don't particularly want a dreamy picture of a squirrel.

 

[nandbytes]

I don't think I posted the link but it's an interested read.

Regardless I don't believe any particular lens is responsible for creating good or bad or emotional or unemotional or interesting or uninteresting photographs.
It's just a tool and anyone blaming the lens is just case is bad workman blaming his tools.

I think pursuit has always been to take pictures that raises emotions in the viewers. And any picture that raises an emotional response is good picture IMO.

 

[gramps]

I find this very reassuring

There’s not much you can do here beyond accepting that not everyone will understand your work.

 

[delb0y]

I haven't followed the original link (I will do, sometime, but there are so many great videos to watch yet...) so I might be missing the point here. For me, gear is almost irrelevant, be that lenses or cameras. It's not totally irrelevant, as I want a camera that will work when I need it, and a lens that is reasonable. What is important is what's in the picture. I don't mind if a picture is soft, sharp, blurred, colour, mono, just so long as it says something, generates some thought, consideration, and hopefully emotional response. The online world is swamped with perfectly sharp images, perfectly exposed images, nicely composed images, that (for me) do none of the above. I have an old book from last century that is titled the 100 greatest photographs of the century, or something similar, and I doubt any of the images in that book would pass muster with the pixel-peepers and exposure-fiends and composition-adjudicators. I doubt any of the pictures would win a club competition or pass a RPS panel. But there's not a photo in that book that I can't sit and ponder on, think about, consider. The places some of the photographers had to go to get those photographs... I sit and think about that, too, and how they were often taking great risks to record these moments, or these events, these people, these places. For me, this is what photography should be about, and I doubt I'll take a single such photograph in my life (which is a cause of much depression - with a lower-case d).

I have other books where there's mystery in the images, too - less obvious reasons to stop and consider a photo - but nonetheless I still stop and look and think. My favourite photo is Rene Burri's Sau Paulo, although Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother is another (hell, I have hundreds of such favourites). I generally prefer black and white - but I love Saul Leiter's blurred and mysterious colour work. The list could go on and on, but I don't think sharpness of lens ever comes into it.

So I guess, literal (a good story in the image) and emotional (it has an effect on me). But of course it still has to be a good photo that conveys that emotion and that story so there;s always a need to understand the graphic side of things, too...

Derek

 

[viewfromthenorth]

,

I haven't followed the original link (I will do, sometime, but there are so many great videos to watch yet...) so I might be missing the point here. For me, gear is almost irrelevant, be that lenses or cameras. It's not totally irrelevant, as I want a camera that will work when I need it, and a lens that is reasonable. What is important is what's in the picture. I don't mind if a picture is soft, sharp, blurred, colour, mono, just so long as it says something, generates some thought, consideration, and hopefully emotional response. The online world is swamped with perfectly sharp images, perfectly exposed images, nicely composed images, that (for me) do none of the above. I have an old book from last century that is titled the 100 greatest photographs of the century, or something similar, and I doubt any of the images in that book would pass muster with the pixel-peepers and exposure-fiends and composition-adjudicators. I doubt any of the pictures would win a club competition or pass a RPS panel. But there's not a photo in that book that I can't sit and ponder on, think about, consider. The places some of the photographers had to go to get those photographs... I sit and think about that, too, and how they were often taking great risks to record these moments, or these events, these people, these places. For me, this is what photography should be about, and I doubt I'll take a single such photograph in my life (which is a cause of much depression - with a lower-case d).

I have other books where there's mystery in the images, too - less obvious reasons to stop and consider a photo - but nonetheless I still stop and look and think. My favourite photo is Rene Burri's Sau Paulo, although Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother is another (hell, I have hundreds of such favourites). I generally prefer black and white - but I love Saul Leiter's blurred and mysterious colour work. The list could go on and on, but I don't think sharpness of lens ever comes into it.

So I guess, literal (a good story in the image) and emotional (it has an effect on me). But of course it still has to be a good photo that conveys that emotion and that story so there;s always a need to understand the graphic side of things, too...

Derek

This is the answer that I was trying to write but couldn’t quite articulate. Spot on.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I think all the best documentary photographs are literal, emotional and graphic. They show clearly what happened. They convey what it felt like to be there (as best as a single still image can). They make a picture that works as a composition of shapes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I think all the best documentary photographs are literal, emotional and graphic. They show clearly what happened. They convey what it felt like to be there (as best as a single still image can). They make a picture that works as a composition of shapes.

I would agree
I would change "what happened" to "what is happening" in most instances. As in the active past, rather than the aftermath.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I would agree
I would change "what happened" to "what is happening" in most instances. As in the active past, rather than the aftermath.

Or "what was happening"? All photographs are of the past.

 

[FruitFlakes]

I think the article proposes a false trilemma to be honest, you can hit all three given the right circumstances.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Regardless I don't believe any particular lens is responsible for creating good or bad or emotional or unemotional or interesting or uninteresting photographs.
It's just a tool and anyone blaming the lens is just case is bad workman blaming his tools.

That's probably a slightly harsh way of viewing things. For example some tools can be inspirational while others detract from inspiration and creativity. I also notice that you frequently change your gear (looking for inspiration?) while my outfit is relatively static, perhaps because I found what I'm looking for.

So yes, it's just a tool, but I shoot different styles of pictures with different lenses, even when they're the same focal length. You may be quite different from me, which is something that helps the world remain interesting.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I think the article proposes a false trilemma to be honest, you can hit all three given the right circumstances.

Yes you can, but it was more about what you *want* to take and what appeals, rather than what is possible.

 

[sirch]

It's an interesting take on photographic categorization, perhaps a little too reductive but does give food for thought. As has been said above surely more than one of the categories can be met in a single image, consider sports photography, a good sports photo surely captures the action, conveys the emotion of the moment and uses graphic elements to get attention. I guess bearing all three in mind would help to create more impactful photos.

I do like these thoughts though

Some very ‘literal’ people just can’t be reached and as photographers we probably just have to accept that. They wouldn’t know a metaphor from a stampeding mammoth

and if a simple caption or description can help them on their way, then what’s the harm? There is a belief amongst some that a picture must be completely self-explanatory and self-contained or it has failed. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a picture that hasn’t benefitted from some context or explanation

 

[realspeed]

Sorry everyone but what a load of crap , I have never ever read so much rubbish about photography. If you have got to messed about with a photo to the extremes mentioned in the above threads then it is time to throw away the cameras and take up knitting.
Taking photos should be a pleasure not a mind twisting decision making thought provoking exercise. Thank goodness I still enjoy photographing what I see

 

[Ed Sutton]

Sorry everyone but what a load of crap , I have never ever read so much rubbish about photography. If you have got to messed about with a photo to the extremes mentioned in the above threads then it is time to throw away the cameras and take up knitting.

Wooden, plastic or metal needles?

 

[nandbytes]

That's probably a slightly harsh way of viewing things. For example some tools can be inspirational while others detract from inspiration and creativity. I also notice that you frequently change your gear (looking for inspiration?) while my outfit is relatively static, perhaps because I found what I'm looking for.

So yes, it's just a tool, but I shoot different styles of pictures with different lenses, even when they're the same focal length. You may be quite different from me, which is something that helps the world remain interesting.

I accept that certain lens don't necessarily inspire everyone or doesn't fit with a photographers style.
But that is still down to the person as supposed to the lens. A lens that doesn't inspire you may be someone else's favourite lens to shoot with.

I change often mostly because of GAS than in search for inspiration tbh. Though the frequency of my changes are reduced a fair bit. Also I change based on requirements i.e. what I'm going to be shooting near term. It's seldom in search for inspiration.

 

[chphoto]

Wooden, plastic or metal needles?

Could extend the original question to knitting too, do you make clothes (for example) to be functional? Fashionable? Other?

Back on topic, I'm very much accepting that not everyone will like what I do. I don't think I particularly lean towards any of the three proposed categories; literal, emotional or graphical. I guess I lean towards graphical, I love the technical details, composition, colour grading, whatever the subject.

Sometimes though a photo will trigger a response in someone, even if you never planned for it to happen, be that positive or negative. Just the other day mum asked me about getting one of my old milky way photos printed for when she moves house soon. I took it on holiday in Devon 8 years ago, not for any particular reason other than giving it a try. While I like the photo, technically it's certainly not brilliant, but for mum it brings back memories of a holiday with the family together.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Could extend the original question to knitting too, do you make clothes (for example) to be functional? Fashionable? Other?

That could also apply to photographs.

 

[Deleted member 95430]

It isn't a very good article but it has people talking so thats good.

The literal picture is literal sure but its also a terrible picture of a literal photography - a car everyone has seen 1000 times in boring grey light - there is no methaphor here to even try and explain

Go to the Alpes or the Dolomites at sunset however and you can take a literal photography and it could be the most incredible shot you will get all year

Again the second one theyve added some presets etc to make a flat boring picture interesting

And last but not least the graphic car aka every car shot in the last 5 years on instagram with a preset

The ideas are interesting but executed poorly

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

now I have left professional photography behind. I take photographs purely for myself and not for any other purpose or to please anyone else.
I have no need to analyse my reasons or categorise my photographic interests or photographs in anyway. it is just a selfish pleasure.

 

[BethAtTheHug]

Literal. I'm definitely literal. I'd love to take more emotional photos but literally(!) don't see them. I'd get run down by the mammoth, for sure. Well occasionally I do but the result is naff, or looks forced.
OTOH I do enjoy taking photos so I don't worry about it too much.

 

[Chipper]

Sorry everyone but what a load of crap , I have never ever read so much rubbish about photography. If you have got to messed about with a photo to the extremes mentioned in the above threads then it is time to throw away the cameras and take up knitting.
Taking photos should be a pleasure not a mind twisting decision making thought provoking exercise. Thank goodness I still enjoy photographing what I see

Well, interesting that this discussion results in such a dismissive condemnation: " rubbish" and "crap". It is grand that you enjoy photographing what you see; others see something differently, different possibilities, an opportunity to express something other than a record. It may be that the engagement in the "mind twisting" is just what they enjoy and maybe need for a personal reason.

Of course, any image that has been captured and processed has had a myriad of decisions made which changes what was actually there: the world is not 3:2, 1:1, 16:9, 5:4; 4:3. The colour technology in the camera or the black and white conversion in camera or in Lightroom , or whatever is the processor chosen has been engineered by someone else... fortunately we can all do what we want [within the law and where our personal boundaries lie]. Perhaps a simple " I don't agree" would have sufficed.

 

[LeeRatters]

I'd like to think I'm more Emotional > Graphic > Literal in my photography, I think..... I'm not always too good at this labelling malarkey..... Feel free to disagree with me

I base my images around 'what looks good to me' & quite often that is very influenced by the light, followed by colour/composition. There are many occasions where I've been out for sunrise (twice last weekend) & I didn't even unzip the bag on one morning the other I took one image which is still on the camera because I know it's... meh!!

I think kit is important but I like it to be simple - A7, 35GM, Tamron 70-180/2.8 few effect filters & a Mini 2 drone plus my night sky 'kit' - This morning was a clear plain sky, good subject, bit of light, but nothing special at all. From the sky though with the light hitting buildings & rooftops & picking up a nice bit of haze from the cold/wet ground, the photos are much much ''better'' than from the 'ground' camera Because to me, they have some warmth, some nice softness, some feeling, some emotion......

 

[gramps]

The literal picture is literal sure but its also a terrible picture of a literal photography - a car everyone has seen 1000 times in boring grey light - there is no methaphor here to even try and explain

Go to the Alpes or the Dolomites at sunset however and you can take a literal photography and it could be the most incredible shot you will get all year

Again the second one theyve added some presets etc to make a flat boring picture interesting

And last but not least the graphic car aka every car shot in the last 5 years on instagram with a preset

You don't think that you are taking it too literally and missing the point?

 

[ancient_mariner]

We should never put down what people like, although it's also entirely fine like it or not like it and to analyse why that is (if the reason isn't screamingly obvious).

This is NOT about mind games to make photography harder or direct our picture taking. Much more, it's about trying to understand why I/we take the pictures that we do, and to see how we can work with that to take more and better pictures that we like.

So my process in 'seeing' and making a picture is to walk along and stop when a composition looks good to me - there's no concern about whether the scene is graphical, literal etc - it just simply has to appeal to my eye. I'll then frame it up, usually fairly quickly because I'll be out with the wife or walking in my lunchbreak, and if it looks like it might be 0K through the viewfinder I'll take the shot. When I get the picture home, depending on the subject and how I feel it will get various treatments, particularly if it's to become part of a series or collection. There's no careful calculation about the category it fits into and there may well be more than these 3, but for me, it's useful to try to understand WHY I want to phtograph a scene.

It's also helpful for me to understand why some people like some of the pictures I take. A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by an ex-colleague who had seen some of my canvas prints (that's another thread someone else can start) and really wanted one, though she didn't know which one but something from Italy because she's Italian. So I reprocessed a bunch of pictures from our last trip to Italy and popped them up on Flickr. She chose a very literal, slightly graphical picture from Devon instead. Printed at 30"x20" it looks great, but is not the image I'd have expected.

So I'm trying to understand things a bit more. This is a journey, rather than a destination.

 

[toohuge]

This is something I have explored recently as part of getting to know myself and why I photograph and why I photograph in the way I do.

I am highly emotional and use my camera(s) - GAS haha - to communicate with the world. Prior to any shoot, I think to myself what emotions in the image do I want to convey to my audience and, what emotions of my own can I communicate through my camera.

I started my photographic journey when I was severely depressed and really struggling to see the point in life. I began photographing urban decay, I was obsessed with the once former greatness, reduced through neglect, a by gone era if you well. I realise, upon reflection, this was an illustration of how I was feeling inside and to this day, I do not review my images as they evoke such strong feelings inside me.

Moving on, and as my confidence grew, I began photographing sport. Largely because I was at university and with a load of sport going on around me, but the feedback I receive from my sport work is consistent - my work is far more emotional than other photographers here. When I photograph sport, for me, all I'm really doing is photographing people, doing what they love and that makes for great images.
Now, ahead of any assignment / event, I think to myself what emotions do I want to capture here? Is it determination, team work, joy, happiness, struggle, human connection etc. and then go about trying to capture that.

 

[woof woof]

It's also helpful for me to understand why some people like some of the pictures I take. A couple of weeks ago I was contacted by an ex-colleague who had seen some of my canvas prints (that's another thread someone else can start) and really wanted one, though she didn't know which one but something from Italy because she's Italian. So I reprocessed a bunch of pictures from our last trip to Italy and popped them up on Flickr. She chose a very literal, slightly graphical picture from Devon instead. Printed at 30"x20" it looks great, but is not the image I'd have expected.

So I'm trying to understand things a bit more. This is a journey, rather than a destination.

It happens on here to us all.

I might post a picture I really like and it's ignored whilst another I think is ordinary gets attention. I'm sure we all get that.

Such is life. People like different things.

It is however possible to guess what some individuals like based on passed experience with them.

 

[sirch]

I think it is another useful way of thinking about photography, perhaps more helpful for people looking to grow and develop a style.

 

[d00d]

To me, the joy of camera play is to grab something the eye can't see, or the brain can't process:

Insects eyelashes, OOF backgrounds, motion blur, frozen action etc.

Lenses can add exaggerated feel of enlarged foreground subject with background looking small & distant. Or, to the contrary, FG and BG compressed and of equal size.

Beyond that, the camera capture can isolate a subject from its surroundings, taking it out of context: food to the inquiring mind.

And all this before getting creative with black/white, soft/hard, hot/cold ...

 

[Plain Nev]

I suppose I must be emotional, because I don't set out to effect a style particularly. But when I see something all I can say is that it resonates with something inside of me. From my perspective each photo I take is like a tiny little piece of a jigsaw that forms an image of myself. A bit like writing a book, I suppose. There are bits of me. If I really thought about it what I like to photograph are things that transcend the modern day in some way. Not quite sure what that makes me.

 

[RedRobin]

I don't think I posted the link but it's an interested read.

.... It was me who posted the specifically linked article after Graham @myotis had posted a link to the whole website.

I would describe myself as primarily an 'Emotive' photographer, not an 'Emotional' photographer as I don't get in a strop about any aspect of it.

To me, 'Emotive' means capturing an evocative image, always in RAW and post-processed to represent what I saw (or think I saw!) in the moment. This includes behaviour in wildlife subjects, action and emotion in surf photography, and action or atmosphere and presence in my railway photography.

I am also a 'Graphic' photographer in that I am a 'retired-but-hardwired' graphics professional and so am always 100% aware of composition and how I might adjust that later in post-processing.

I am never a 'Literal' photographer except perhaps when I have no choice but to take a snap with my iPhone. For example, yesterday when an Indian Scout motorbike was at traffic lights in town < I asked the rider first.

The camera is just a tool and the first step in the process of arriving at a final picture. I prefer describing them as 'pictures' rather than 'photographs'.

I used to shoot Canon but since autumn 2019 I have been shooting on Olympus / OM System Pro because I find it more enabling and it's extremely weatherproof!!

If anyone is interested, check out my Flickr pages linked in my forum signature below.

 

[RedRobin]

I think it is another useful way of thinking about photography, perhaps more helpful for people looking to grow and develop a style.

.... But also just as valid for every photographer being able to crit their own work and hence constantly strive to improve, which is what most experienced and inexperienced both hope to do - Unless perhaps if they are only a 'Literal' snapper.

 

[RedRobin]

now I have left professional photography behind. I take photographs purely for myself and not for any other purpose or to please anyone else.
I have no need to analyse my reasons or categorise my photographic interests or photographs in anyway. it is just a selfish pleasure.

.... I agree with you but would add that we never stop learning and so a wee bit of analysis and healthy (pluses as well as minuses) criticism of our own work helps us strive to do even better and in fact increases our selfish pleasure.

 

[RedRobin]

I think the article proposes a false trilemma to be honest, you can hit all three given the right circumstances.

.... True except that I found the article helpful in how I view my own work and also that of others even if only a generalisation.

For example, I can be inspired by an 'Emotive' photographer and bored by a 'Literal' one. Emotive + Graphic = The Aim when firing my camera.

 

[woof woof]

Lenses can add exaggerated feel of enlarged foreground subject with background looking small & distant. Or, to the contrary, FG and BG compressed and of equal size.

That's just camera to subject distance coupled to the FoV either excluding or including more of the surroundings. Remember that you can get "compression" by shooting with a wide lens at longer lens distance and cropping to get the same FoV the longer lens would give. You can see the exact same effect without any camera and lens at all, for example by looking at a scene and walking towards it, do that and you'll see foreground aspects become larger in your scene. With smaller subjects you can at least begin to visualise the effect once you've realised what's going on so really no perspective effects should be all that surprising.

 

[garryknight]

I'm glad that people aren't taking this too seriously. The author of the piece is trying to shoehorn us into a very narrow viewpoint. It's like he's taking you into a bar that offers every type of drink in the world and asking if you want beer, wine, or scotch.

What about simply making stories? A story can be literal, it can certainly be graphical, and it can evoke emotions. And needn't necessarily do any of those things.

My latest upload shows a bearded guy wearing a beret looking past a phone box with the letter B, U, and T on it. My story is questioning whether he's a philosopher. There's something about his arms-crossed pose that adds to that.

Literal? No, not if you buy my story. Graphical? Only in that I chose black and white. Emotional (yes, that should be emotive)? Not for me. This one's more about mystery. Who is this guy? What is he thinking about? Epistemology or burgers?

 

[d00d]

That's just camera to subject distance coupled to the FoV either excluding or including more of the surroundings. Remember that you can get "compression" by shooting with a wide lens at longer lens distance and cropping to get the same FoV the longer lens would give. You can see the exact same effect without any camera and lens at all, for example by looking at a scene and walking towards it, do that and you'll see foreground aspects become larger in your scene. With smaller subjects you can at least begin to visualise the effect once you've realised what's going on so really no perspective effects should be all that surprising.

Yeah but ...

It's just one example of the sort of fun you can have with a camera when thinking outside the "literal" box ... making reality look more interesting.

 

[woof woof]

Yeah but ...

It's just one example of the sort of fun you can have with a camera when thinking outside the "literal" box ... making reality look more interesting.

Yes it's all fun but unless I read that wrong you seemed to be saying that lenses create these effects, they don't, they just allow you to create the image by capturing the perspective and FoV.

Soz if you knew that already

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

.... I agree with you but would add that we never stop learning and so a wee bit of analysis and healthy (pluses as well as minuses) criticism of our own work helps us strive to do even better and in fact increases our selfish pleasure.

All the time at college and my career I have expected and made good use of criticism of my work. Now in my dotage I do not miss it.
However your point of never stopping learning is an inbuilt part of photography and what keep it interesting.
I am my own harshest critic, and am not that interested in matching my work with anyone else's. Most standardised work becomes sterile.

 

[woof woof]

All the time at college and my career I have expected and made good use of criticism of my work. Now in my dotage I do not miss it.
However your point of never stopping learning is an inbuilt part of photography and what keep it interesting.
I am my own harshest critic, and am not that interested in matching my work with anyone else's. Most standardised work becomes sterile.

Your posts and views are never "dotage" Terry. You're still relevant as ever today