Pointers vs Composers

[Don Schaeffer]

As I read discussions on this photo site and others it has become clrear to me that there are two kinds of photographers, pointers and composers. Pointers regard the camera as a device for recording events or things in reality, as a kind of pointer device that says, "look at this." Their photos tend to be with long lenses, and cropped around a particular feature--isolating it and giving a clear view. The composer more often uses wider lenses. The composer's images are things in themselves--artistic objects whose design, balance, impact have to be evaluated independent of WHAT the photo is about.

The pointer photorapher frequently wants the composers' photos to be cropped to highlight a central feature and often criticizes the composers' photos as having no central focus. On the other hand, the composer often finds the pointers' photos boring and accuses the pointer of removing context.

Both kinds of photography are valid and have their own audiences. I think we should decide what kind of photograph we favor in the process of critiquing our fellows.

[Irakly Shanidze]

i strongly disagree with this classification. it is the subject matter that dictates the way it has to be presented: either isolated from reality, or embedded in it. there are people that tend to misinterpret the subject matter, but this is more of an issue of talent, or its lack thereof.

[Asylum Steve]

Well, well. Irakly makes an apperance! How goes things, comrade?

Check out Viewfinder for evidence of my trip this past weekend to Chicago. What's amazingly cool is that my makeup artist was Lynn Golovich, and at some point your name came up in the conversation. Small world...

When she said she knew and worked with you, we all kind of lit up, because we haven't heard from you in so long.

What you been up to? Uh, the short version...

[photophorous]

There's a fine line between removing context and removing distractions, and it's completely open to interpretation. The photographer must choose whether or not the context is needed to represent his/her feelings or intentions. Hopefully the photographer knows what he/she wants to communicate to the viewer, and if the viewer is looking for something else, then the composition simply wasn't effective...for that viewer.

edit: I don't think this is necessarily dictated by the subject matter. I think it depends on the photograper's interpretation of the subject matter, and we all know we don't interpret things the same way. There are some subjects that are almost always interpreted the same way, but to say there is only one correct way is very limiting and in my opinion, that throws art out of the equation. The effectiveness of any composition is determined by the photographers ability to communicate his/her personal interpretation of the subject, not their ability to duplicate the common interpretaion.

[Loupey]

For the most part, the fundamentals which make up a “good” photograph are common across different photographic subjects, styles, what have you.

As for the “pointers” that you mentioned, the subject is isolated by the very act of the choice of “long lenses” that the photographer uses. As for the “composers”, the subject is different but the intent to convey a feeling, emotion, or thought to the audience is no different. Personally, I think taking an exceptional landscape photograph is much more difficult than taking an exceptional telephoto/macro photograph simply because there is so much more within the frame that can compliment or compete with each other in a wide shot. Still, everyone has the ability to see what they like and dislike and, therefore, their opinions are valuable even though we may not always agree with them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that conversing with someone from a far foreign land is often more enlightening than listening to a next door neighbor

[Irakly Shanidze]

Well, well. Irakly makes an apperance! How goes things, comrade?

Check out Viewfinder for evidence of my trip this past weekend to Chicago. What's amazingly cool is that my makeup artist was Lynn Golovich, and at some point your name came up in the conversation. Small world...

When she said she knew and worked with you, we all kind of lit up, because we haven't heard from you in so long.

What you been up to? Uh, the short version...

it's been way too much for the short version
i'll write you an extended letter.

[darkman]

As I read discussions on this photo site and others it has become clrear to me that there are two kinds of photographers, pointers and composers...

Both kinds of photography are valid and have their own audiences. I think we should decide what kind of photograph we favor in the process of critiquing our fellows.

I hate classifications, but they do seem to be a reality....

I've learned different sites prefer different styles. I believe this site falls more into what you call the "pointers." Grand landscapes, for instance, aren't favored here while candid close shots of people and kids are. I'm generalizing, of course:mad2:

The one problem I see is that photo's on specific sites start to look alike. They follow the trend/fad in processing for instance. On one site I sometimes visit the grand landscapes are sooo smooth and have these pastelic (almost animated) colors. If you post there, the critique-rs will lead you to make your images in this manner.

As such, I believe art shouldn't be judged. I'm for critiquing, as long as it leads the person being critiqued to be his own self. IOW, helping this person to realize their OWN vision. This vision, however, may not be liked by the masses. That doesn't make it wrong, just look through art history.

Also, people do see different. My wife told me to pull an image and the next day it was some one I respects favorite. Also, different mediums present different obstacles when you present them for being critiqued, like a grand landscape or an image with a whole person as part of it vs. an object or a bust being shown at 400x600 pixels compared to a 11x14 print. Neither is wrong! The critiquer just needs to "see."

In these contexts, I do agree with Irakly (posting again!), people misinterpret the subject matter and the intended use.