What isn't a "record" shot?

I would like to hear some opinions on what makes an image, whether it is of still life, wild life (avian and non-avian) or landscape qualify as artistic, competition worthy or of exceptional quality. There are some general principals accepted (often criticized) dictating composition, lighting etc but what is of more interest are there qualifications for excellence beyond these basics. Special effects (HDR, fractals and OOB images etc probably should not qualify for inclusion in this discussion and handled at another time). Many images are posted with very obvious extensive PP and we see some examples of coats, feathers and fur which may not exist in reality. Some of these seem to be record shots that have been rescued by modern electronic technology. When one sees a lion's mane look as though it has been shampoo'd, blow dried and combed one begins to wonder where the animal actors' trailer is. In reality the natural conditions suck and there are tangled manes, ticks, flies and other imperfections such as stones, branches and weeds to contend with. Presumably this is why we need processing instruments such as PS et al. OTOH there are many absolutely brilliant images displayed that are powerful, strikingly simple and clearly had a lot of time and imagination put into the capture, processing and output.

Thanks

Andre

This sidesteps your excellent question, but, I would not be interested very much in photography today if were it not for PP (of digital camera images). I shot 35mm chrome for several years (mid 1970s) and was very frustrated by having to settle for exactly what came out the camera/film. Guess it was to big of a challenge for me :S3:.
Tom

I treat all bird photos taken "as they are" and in their natural environment, as a record shots TBH. I divide them to two categories: Great shots(nice bokeh, good colour, composition and detail) and ordinary shots (these are lacking one or more ingredients of a great shot:D
I think that we shouldn't apply excessive PP (HDR, B&W etc.) to bird/wildlife shots as it removes the nature of the subject away and, if done nicely, turn the photo into work of art which is no longer a record shot:)

Andre,

First, by your term "record," and your first sentence, I assume you mean outstanding photos with high impact, as opposed to recording what was there as in photojournalism (though the two can be the same).

I would say the most important factor in an exceptionally high impact photo is the lighting, second the subject, third the composition which includes the foreground and background), and last the technical specs. When they all come together, it makes for those "knock you socks off images."

A great subject in poor light will generally not make a great photo (there are exceptions). A lousy subject in great light can still make for a great photo.

It's all about the light, and there are always exceptions. Processing can not fix bad light.

Roger

I think you are asking what is art and what is not, I don't think anyone can answer.

competitions have rules and guidelines, as long as you stick to those rules your images will be considered for competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Clark

Andre,

First, by your term "record," and your first sentence, I assume you mean outstanding photos with high impact, as opposed to recording what was there as in photojournalism (though the two can be the same).

I would say the most important factor in an exceptionally high impact photo is the lighting, second the subject, third the composition which includes the foreground and background), and last the technical specs. When they all come together, it makes for those "knock you socks off images."

A great subject in poor light will generally not make a great photo (there are exceptions). A lousy subject in great light can still make for a great photo.

It's all about the light, and there are always exceptions. Processing can not fix bad light.

Roger

---

Hi Roger
Thanks for the summary and it is what we all strive to achieve but do not frequently succeed. My "keep rate" in film days was about 2 per 36 exposures and I find that with digital it is not higher because I shoot so many pictures because of the free recording medium.
The term "record shot" is what we would refer to amongst ourselves "in the old days" as a shot that you took and kept because it had a personal or emotional value but very limited artistic merit -for e.g many of the pictures I took of my kids and vacations. Sorry about the confusion in semantics. I assumed all photographers used similar terminology. While judging in our club competitions in Johannesburg (RSA) in the 70's we would sometimes let this term slip. Also at that time we would frequently start a comment on a slide submitted in a competition - ""What a pity - the light was too harsh - the bird was looking away - you cut the feet off - etc"". I suppose we were too harsh in our judgements in those days but if you could take the criticism and learn you did not repeat (or show) the mistakes again.

Regards

Andre