Interesting Isn't Enough

One of the frustrations that all photographers come across is that when we find something interesting to photograph, it often doesn't translate to a good photograph. Ignoring technical issues of being able to record what you see, and even the ability to compose, position and so on, what is it about a subject that does or doesn't make it into a potential photograph?

1) ESP - extrasensory perception - that is, is it interesting for reasons other than visual - because of your own memories, or the sound, smell or feel of it, because of an emotion it generates in you which isn't directly related to it's appearance to other people. If you recently were whacked on the head after stepping on a rake, a rake will look different to you than it might otherwise - looming, threatening, risky, scary, yet none of those emotions is inherent in it's appearance - it's just a rake.

2) Location - it may be interesting but if it's unreachable or surrounded by trees or traffic or has no clear line of sight, if the background is trees with bright sky peaking through, then getting a shot is going to be problematic.

3) Time - it may well be great but for now the light is too flat, too harsh, not high enough or low enough, warm enough or whatever. Perhaps the subject needs some mist or rain to photograph well.

4) Spread - the subject may well be wonderful, but if it's spread out such that when framed, the elements are too spread out you may be in trouble. It's for this reason that some resort or choose to shoot panoramic, but not everything that spreads out horizontally is going to make a good image.

5) Edges - sometimes the subject is interesting but it never seems to come to a clear end meaning that choosing where the image borders are is problematic. I find this particularly true if the subject is receding off to the right without forming a definite shape. Top and bottom are just as important though. Sometimes you can fix a lack of defined edges by burning in the sides of the print so that a definitive end isn't essential.

6) Complexity - some subjects don't really make sense in a 2 dimensional image - you had to be there.

7) Organization - are the parts of the subject arrayed in a way which works photographically - composition may seem like a bit of a frill, surplus to requirements, but truth is composition determines how the print is read and is essential to understanding an image - sometimes there is simply no position from which you can put the elments of the image together in a workable pattern.

8) Tonalities - some things just don't photograph well because of their interaction with light. Sometimes this can be corrected through exposure - add enough exposure and even the black cat in the coal bin will light up, but if there are also bright areas in the image it may be challenging to both record and edit images with such a large range of brightness. Sometimes a surface is simply dull, even though the shape is wonderful. Have you noticed how often when photographing black skin, some oil is applied to give it a sheen - makes photographing it a whole lot easier - not that I'm suggesting you coat Half Dome in cooking oil just for your needs.

Recgonizing when something isn't likely to photograph well is just as important as seeing when it is. Perhaps this list will be of some use to you.