The Art of Photography
I posit there are, very broadly speaking, two classes of photos: photos of interesting things, and interesting photos of things. The definitions are rather self-evident, and I think this characterization is important when judging photos. The former style of photography, whilst not easy, is certainly simpler as the subject matter itself provides the “content” of the photo. Action shots, studio photography, candid moments with family all fall into this category. The difficulty in capturing one of these photos is more technical than artistic–characteristics such as framing & lighting are important, of course, but they are firmly tertiary concerns–what matters more is equipment, positioning of the photographer, timing, and so on. The moment itself is the beauty of the shot, and the technical aspects define the shot.
The latter I posit is more about those concerns–about lighting and colours and framing and so on. Interesting photos of things rely less on the subject matter and more on the photograph. Composition is one of the hardest parts of photography to hone, and is the key to taking interesting photos of things. Here, you can’t rely on the subject of the photo to pique interest from the viewer–everyday materials are not, on their own, particularly enticing. Careful use of colour, framing, etc. though, reveal deeper, intriguing frames which can capture interest. This is the art of photography, where the prior defined aspect is more so the science.
The very best photos are, of course, interesting photos of interesting things, and these are the shots you see in magazines or printed unto large walls. The amount of technical and artistic expertise to create these kinds of photos is incredible, and though I certainly daren’t position myself as one who can, I think I can recognize these photos and vaguely understand the massive undertaking they represent.