[brian.austin]

I just did my Sunday morning ritual of coffee and magazine browsing at one of our local Borders bookstores here in Phoenix. As I was flipping through the last B&W Special Issue (the awards issue), I found myself looking at photos that I didn't think were that great...but were of great people or things.

That's when the question occured to me:

Does the subject of a photo influence the opinion of the viewer on the merits of the photo?

On a technical level, it shouldn't. The subject, however special, should remain separate from the photo's technical impact, like exposure, lighting, composition, etc.. Taking an adequate picture of a 600 year old cathedral does not automatically make it a great shot, especially since dozens if not hundreds of OTHER photographers have taken similar shots in the past....and not won any kudos for it.

I'm having particular problems with this after wandering into my latest interest: nude figure studies in the studio. Of the half dozen or so that have made it into various forums, a good percentage of the responses have been "Nice stuff" or "Great model" while the photos themselves have been technically "not great". The only decent criticism has come from other photographers in the nude genre who aren't so turned on by naked women, I guess.

Same with sunsets....or famous buildings...or famous people...or cute, fuzzy animals. Simply getting one of these subjects into a frame almost guarantees kudos on photo sharing sites...yet the photo itself usually is average or actually sucks.

Your thoughts?