The Creative Process - what is yours?

[Mike Buckley]

it seems that everyone wants there to be deep meaning in an image or have it evoke an emotional reaction or it is not a worthy image

I plead innocent to the former and guilty though with one clarification to the latter.

When Terri asked what our images are trying to "say," it's never anything deep for me. That's because of two reasons: The first one is that I'm hellbent on being very certain that I never take myself too seriously. It's fine for me if someone sees deep meaning in an image that I make, but only so long as it's fine for them that it wasn't my intention. The second one is that, for me, the only type of photography that really has deep meaning is photojournalism portraying violence, preventable death, effects of war and the like, and I don't do that kind of photography. In summary, I'm thrilled if a photo that I make "says" nothing other than that its scene is beautiful, comical, colorful, plain, textured or whatever.

I do agree that, for me, an image is worthy only if it evokes an emotional response. However, for the same reasons explained above, it doesn't have to be one of deep meaning. If the viewer feels something, anything, that makes it worth viewing the photo or better yet, lingering on it or returning for a repeated viewing, then the photo is worthy for that person. If it's worthy for just one person, even if that person is the photographer, then it's worthy in my mind.

That leads me to my thinking that anything created by mankind that moves people is art. For me, a photograph that is art moves people on a different level than an ordinary photograph. As an example, a photo that I make of a pretty beach scene might be quite enjoyable to someone, but a photograph that someone else makes that makes people seem as if they can feel the texture and heat of the sand or the smell of the ocean might be art. As you can see, even a photo that is at such a lofty level as to merit being called art doesn't have to "say" anything that has deep meaning.

[chauncey]

In the beginning...I picked up camera simply because of a Christmas card by somebody called Thomas Kinkade. Problem was that I couldn't draw a lick, much less paint, but...anyone can take a picture...right? Took the requisite tons of pictures to figure out how things worked...getting closer and shooting different things every day. No attempt made to find my own style.
As age precludes getting out and about I'm finding inspiration in movies...the lighting in film noir, the CGI matte painting in newer movies. Playing in Photoshop based on what I visualize twixt my ears.

[NorthernFocus]

... "what are you trying to say?" So far my answer has been something like "Say? I'm not trying to SAY anything. I'm just trying to take a great picture!"

I've been trying to find time to reply to this thread since you started it. Andre distracted me for a bit with another of his deep subjects...

I've intentionally not read other responses yet because I don't want to get distracted from your OP. And here is my take.

Why does there have to be any other reason? Particularly if you are just taking photos for yourself. But then again, the very fact that we are all here on this forum belies any claim we may make that we are only shooting for ourselves. Clearly any of us who post on here feel some compelling desire to share. No doubt for various reasons. But I can only speak to my own motivations. Which frankly I hadn't thought about much until now

First, I absolutely LOVE nature and specifically Alaska and its wildlife. So I suppose one of my motivations is to share this wonderful place and its creatures with others.

Second, it is a challenge to accomplish the first thing in such a way that doesn't just present the viewer with a picture of a bear, eagle, otter, etc. I'm trying to share the moment with others. To get people to really feel what it's like to see the things I see in person. The foggy day on the water. The majesty of the snow capped mountains in the distance. The eagle gliding through perfectly still morning air.

So I find myself in a similar place that you describe. I find myself at a point that I'm trying to imbed more visual information into images to communicate feelings without the need for words. So back to the original question, IMO that's what make "a great picture". When I look back at wildlife shots that I've made over the years, the good ones are technically solid, but it always comes down to content. There is some aspect of the shot that "speaks". And a truly successful image has multiple aspects that demonstrate details of the subject, what it was doing, and enough background to give a sense of location/habitat.

So regarding "creating" a shot, I'll describe my thought process for trying to capture an image of an eagle fishing. The perfect image I have in my mind (never yet accomplished) is to capture an eagle coming toward the camera, with talons fully extended just about to grab a fish, glassy smooth emerald green water, and, albeit outside the DOF, a recognizable snow capped mountain in the BG. So how to try and make that happen?

First, of course is having a basic understanding of the subject's behavior, knowing where to find them, etc. So I find a bird sitting in a tree by the water and demonstrating fishing behavior. It's only an educated guess as to which direction it will dive for a fish but one must decide and work based on that.

Second, is the creative aspect. Getting into position to set up the scene that I have in my head. Mountain in the BG, camera height to get bird, water, and horizon all in the frame at the same time. All of course still based on my guess as to where the bird will fly.

Finally the technical considerations. Preferably I want it to be front lit and at a certain distance from the bird when it dives on a fish. Ideally it will be a slightly overcast day to simplify the lighting situation. So now that I've got my position nailed down and the bird's theoretical flight path, I decide on camera settings, take a couple of test shots to check histogram, and wait from something to happen.

The way it works out is that nine times out of ten the bird flies away while I'm setting up. Then another ninety percent chance that it doesn't fly where I thought it would, usually behind me instead. And so far, the few times everything has actually happened as hoped, I either blew the shot or had set the camera down for a second just when the bird did its thing. Then there are the times when the wind starts blowing, fog rolls in, rain starts, etc.

Isn't wildlife photography fun???