>>2665540>And the part of the art that actually makes you a photographer, rather than a camera technician, is how you approach the photo with that intent in mind.I really like this point. Other than looking at loads of pictures, how do you increase intent skills? It's difficult for me to phrase exactly, but I'm asking more about 'this picture about to be taken should look cool or funny or whatever' rather than 'shooting from a low perspective creates tension'.
This bit is harder for me to grasp than the other points you & the other posters have made. I look at a lot of street photography, for instance, & a lot of it seems like nothing at all even if they're shot by renowned photographer.
Just as an example: I genuinely like Vivian Meier as a whole, but a lot of her pictures, even some of her most famous ones, were just blah for me--other than it showed a window into the past which can be very interesting (although in that sort of case, it's really just a waiting game, theoretically).
I'm not saying my photos are better in any way, not in the slightest as I'm still extremely new at this, but I don't understand why something like pic related is supposed to be 'good' (as subjective as that is).
I mean, you may or may not like this particular photo by Eggleston, but for better or for worse, many people have decided that it's good (it's his most notable work) & that kind of bothers me. I don't know if I'm bothered because I'm genuinely too ignorant/philistine to get it (which is why I'm asking about intent in such a long winded way, because it's important to me I understand it eventually) or if it's an emperor's clothes deal & I feel fooled.
