Judgement Day:Visual Impact, Artistic Merit...

[Ed K.]

Surely we all know what "visual impact" is when it hits us, or some aspects of "artistic merit", no? With so much energy spent on the pursuit of technical quality as measured against statistical norms and benchmarks, it seems that a few good benchmarks for the photograph would be helpful. Times change, so I wonder if anyone has some definitions and benchmarks for:


Visual Impact
Artistic Merit
Growth / Progress
Quality of Expression
Innovation in Craft/Execution
Expression of Ideas/Concept
Originality


As they relate to photography? It would be inspiring to hear how, or if, you evaluate your own work, before and after you make it; and if any of the above have some clear guidelines in your mind. How have these areas changed recently, with the flood of visual information we get each day?

Just curious, please put some light on it for me.

[Gordon Moat]

1. You have 2.5 seconds to get someone's attention . . .
2. Formal aspects of the composition . . .
3. Attracting a wider audience, or the desired target audience . . .
4. Creative Vision; in a commercial environment that production look . . .
5. Presentation . . .
6. Controlling a scene . . .
7. Incomparible

It really is a continual editing process for me. They are all relevant, though not equally, and I don't really consider these in the manner you expressed them. Perhaps that is a little vague, though I don't think it is so simple to dissect images.

Recently I am working more on getting that production look to my images. This is more recent, and comes from a few seminars. I was achieving this in the past, but I failed to recognize that is what it was in my images; and only some really fit into that concept. Unfortunately, this is another not easy to define aspect.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Martin Miller]

Gordon, please make a stab at explaining what you mean by "production look".

[Brian C. Miller]

For God was angered, and He took up lightning in His hand to smite the wicked ....

And then the MOMA director said, "Hey, that's been done before. But I like this piece of rope nailed to a wall."

[Martin Miller]

Brian, I don't think you are going to make it as a museum curator, but it looks like you know one when you see one.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Martin,

I wish I could write a simple description/definition of Production Look. Unfortunately, in a few meetings with some other pros I know locally, we have discovered it is difficult to convey the concept. All of us could spot that production look, but none of us really described it well in words. The danger here is that if I give examples, some people will think it means manipulated, others will think it means post processing, and some will consider it as staged scenes . . . none of those are really wrong, but they miss the point. I suppose if it was simple, everyone would be doing it . . . or maybe I would have figured this out before now. Much like Brian knows a curator when he sees one, I am now getting to know the production look when I see it.

I know . . . not too helpful. I see you are a fine art photographer, so understanding this concept is probably not going to change your work, nor your approach. If you know anything about storyboarding, or advertising briefs, you might get a good start on the path to getting a production look. However, I don't think it really applies to fine art photography, though maybe it could? Would examples help at all? I am curious why you are curious.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Brian C. Miller]

Gordon, could "production look" also mean "dramatic gloss?"

[Bruce Watson]

I wish I could write a simple description/definition of Production Look. Unfortunately, in a few meetings with some other pros I know locally, we have discovered it is difficult to convey the concept. All of us could spot that production look, but none of us really described it well in words. The danger here is that if I give examples, some people will think it means manipulated, others will think it means post processing, and some will consider it as staged scenes . . . none of those are really wrong, but they miss the point. I suppose if it was simple, everyone would be doing it . . . or maybe I would have figured this out before now. Much like Brian knows a curator when he sees one, I am now getting to know the production look when I see it.

Let me try. Could it mean "clean, bright, and glossy?" Even artificially so?

[Marko]

What I understand Gordon meant is that any creative piece, not just a photograph, will exude certain competence level when done by a professional, who does that for a living and does it every day. I hate to say "produces", but that's what it ultimately comes down to - a professional creative actually produces the final look to the piece he has just created.

If you have a trained eye, you can easily spot professionally done photograph, painting, sculpture, book or magazine layout, even a web site. There is always that unmistakable confidence and pride of a true pro at a job well done.

Gordon, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Gordon Moat]

Nope, nothing to do with gloss. This is something I need to be able to put into words, because it can be helpful when speaking to advertising executives. Part of how I am trying to approach writing is the the concept of a photographer controlling all aspects of a scene. If one looks through the latest Lürzer's Archive 200 Best Ad Photographers (http://www.luerzersarchive.us/product_specials.asp), you will not see much gloss, you will see some manipulation and post processing, there will be a few clean images, there will be several straight shots that seem quite simple in execution, and some shots that miss the production look entirely . . . none of these things really speak of (nor define) production look, though that is how these images would be considered/viewed. There is something beyond the first look appearance of the images, that aspect of the hand and planning of a photographer and crew, not obvious alteration of a scene, and not manipulation. This is what is kicking my ass currently, putting this concept into words; if I define it too simply, then the basis and concept are completely missed and not understood.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Martin Miller]

Hello Martin,
... Would examples help at all? I am curious why you are curious.


Gordon, admittedly, I don't get out much, but I had just never heard the term, "production look". Do you mean a polished look (including framing) that is close to a flawless presentation? Or, are the aesthetics of the image involved as well? Yes, examples might help but, without seeing a work in person, what I just described might be lost in a verbal description.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Marko,

What you are describing is certainly a big aspect of it, the idea an image is produced. I keep coming back to the idea of controlling the image, but I think that might be too simple. There is a vocabulary when doing certain types of work, and the lingo of advertising is production. So your usage of the term produces is appropriate. I think it goes beyond confidence (or pride) because being a creative professional causes one to have a thick skin and take tons of criticism. The balance is appearing truly confident without appearing egotistical, and your work has to convey that whether or not you are present; that goes even further into producing a successful portfolio.

How well can you tell a story? If someone else told the story, how well could you relate that to others, perhaps with your own twist on things to make the original story more memorable? How much can you control the storytelling and enhance the memorable aspects? Do the key aspects and focal points remain, or can they be easily deduced by the viewer? At what point have you gone too far, loosing the original story; or have you launched the original story into a new epic, thereby creating sustainable interest? These are examples of how to approach the production look, yet they don't define it.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Martin,

Okay, this is the guy I first learned about this from:

http://www.dananeibert.com

If you look at his Appetizers/Production Stills area, you will see some images that might convey quite a bit. However, don't simply view that without considering the resulting images too. Just for general interest, he primarily uses a Crown Graphic and old Schneider Xenar 135mm lens.

Two photographers who I think accomplish the production look better, and happen to be in several Lürzer's Best compilations:

http://www.OlafVeltman.com

http://www.Andric.biz

Olaf Veltman works mostly in 8x10, though sometimes 4x5. Andric works mostly in 4x5 usually only with a 135mm lens, and rarely in smaller formats. Both do post processing of their film, though if you only focus on that aspect you will miss how they accomplish a production look.

This might be the best way to understand this. I am in the process of dissecting similar images, reviewing my own work, and producing new work . . . all of it with the concept of achieving a production look. I wish I could show you guys some of my latest work, though most of it not commercially embargoed is still only viewable on a lightbox (I have a ton of scanning still required after editing). Other than a few fine art images, I have not updated the images on my website since 2004.

I hope that helps. Feel free to ask more questions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Ed K.]

Gordon - your comments make sense in the commercial sense as you say. Oddly enough, I have been pondering such things. Commercial images are most often "made", so in a way, the are often productions. I think I needed to hear your comments, even though I asked a question aimed more at the artist track; you answered to something that is on my mind a lot lately - including the transformation from documentary and pure representation to statement / story /scene.

I asked in the art review context as so many here are artists. I wondered how many just do without much of a plan or critique vs. how many have more method and some objective criteria to meet. There are many who go for "found art", where controlling the scene is off limits in some ways.

It sounds like the non-response to the post makes it's own kind of statement - perhaps that one can't talk photography and that people just do photography. Equipment and technical discussions abound here though. One's favorite lens is a hot topic. What a one does with that lens, who knows?

I believe that we've got less than 2.5 seconds to grab someone's attention. It may only be a fraction of a second. If we're lucky, somebody might contemplate, retain or examine for more than 2.5 seconds. But the criteria / goal of "incomparable" is quite lofty I'd say, because one's work is always comparable in some way to at least the work that preceded it. I like it though - it's a standard that would require printing in pure "unobtainium", so it's a great high mark.

We see examples of very fine advertising photography quite often, or at least I do. Great talent, concepts, execution, quality; plus fun or immersive. Tons of it, really great work. Yet, I hear people tell me how commercial work is boring, uninspired, mundane and whatever else. It almost seems like some people react to a lack of "grit" when they look at the art side of it.

There is also the side of how much photography is photography. Are Wegman's dogs special for the staging/casting and what not more than the photography? At some point such as a film production, the photographer becomes a "camera operator", or in videos, a director even becomes a "show runner". So then part of the vertical-market machine photographer starts at "writer/concept creator", works through "production department" and then to "distribution/post promotion". When I was doing still life work a lot, I found the majority of my time spent wrangling props and creating miniature sets - it seemed to beg for more scene craft than much camera skill, because when the scene is well thought out and made, the camera work becomes pretty simple stuff.

Thanks for your great comments. I hope that we here some more, and possibly varied points of view.

Ciao back to ya