How do you take better-than-life pictures?

[Stefan Winkler]

Hello,

I am working on the automatic evaluation of picture and video quality
using models of the human visual system. My system compares the
distorted (compressed, noisy) picture with its "original" and rates
the amount of visible distortion. However, the problem with this
approach is that people often prefer pictures that look beautiful even
though they are not a close reproduction of the original scene,
e.g. because they have more intensive colors or higher contrast.
Professional photographers seem to be aware of this fact and take
advantage of it (I'm thinking of fashion magazines, for example).
I would like to take it into account in my system as well, so my
question is now, when taking pictures, what do pros pay attention to to
make them more appealing to the human observer than the real scene? In
what way are make-up, lighting, background, colors, etc. chosen? Are
there any other factors that influence picture quality in this respect?

Thanks a lot for your help,

Stefan Winkler

[len...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <371DDD...@epfl.ch>,
I think this question pretty well covers the entire scope of photographic
practice, and most of the philosophy of aesthetics. So, where to begin,
philosophy or technique?

Stefan Winkler <Stefan....@epfl.ch> wrote:
> Hello,
>
SNIP SNIP

> so my
> question is now, when taking pictures, what do pros pay attention to to
> make them more appealing to the human observer than the real scene? In
> what way are make-up, lighting, background, colors, etc. chosen? Are
> there any other factors that influence picture quality in this respect?
>
> Thanks a lot for your help,
>
> Stefan Winkler
>

--
************* Len Cook, Photographer ***************
** 20 years of photojournalism -- DANG that was fun! ***
But there's more to life than News, Weather, and Sports, eh?
http://www.glamourline.com

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[Jeffrey Novick]

This is a question that cannot be answered simply. Because photography is
very subjective, the photographer is going to photograph something using a
set of tools to capture an image. This act is an interpretation, not a
standard. Then, a further interpretation takes place in the printing of an
image. For many, this is where the real magic takes place, and, in the
hands of an inspired printer, a work of art can emerge.

Emotion is what great photographers seek to include in their work. How
this is done is with the use of light, either colored or not, settings,
that invoke something in the viewer, and, a subject, which also has meaning
for a viewer. In the world of fashion, posing is at the heart of this
communication. A photographer and a skilled model can produce strong
visual images that result in a viewer's response. This is the secret that
ad agencies discovered a long time ago. It's all about suggestion, and,
ultimately, brainwashing! to all, including the photographer.

Jeff

Stefan Winkler wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I am working on the automatic evaluation of picture and video quality
> using models of the human visual system. My system compares the
> distorted (compressed, noisy) picture with its "original" and rates
> the amount of visible distortion. However, the problem with this
> approach is that people often prefer pictures that look beautiful even
> though they are not a close reproduction of the original scene,
> e.g. because they have more intensive colors or higher contrast.
> Professional photographers seem to be aware of this fact and take
> advantage of it (I'm thinking of fashion magazines, for example).

> I would like to take it into account in my system as well, so my

[n...@this.shit.com]

In article <371DDD...@epfl.ch>, Stefan Winkler <Stefan....@epfl.ch> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am working on the automatic evaluation of picture and video quality
>using models of the human visual system. My system compares the
>distorted (compressed, noisy) picture with its "original" and rates
>the amount of visible distortion. However, the problem with this
>approach is that people often prefer pictures that look beautiful even
>though they are not a close reproduction of the original scene,
>e.g. because they have more intensive colors or higher contrast.
>Professional photographers seem to be aware of this fact and take
>advantage of it (I'm thinking of fashion magazines, for example).
>I would like to take it into account in my system as well, so my
>question is now, when taking pictures, what do pros pay attention to to
>make them more appealing to the human observer than the real scene? In
>what way are make-up, lighting, background, colors, etc. chosen? Are
>there any other factors that influence picture quality in this respect?
>
>Thanks a lot for your help,
>
>Stefan Winkler

We could tell you............but then we'd have to kill you.....

[Aussie Bob]

Like the boy said: He is only new to photography and hasn't the faintest
idea how to produce a professional image. But he did get his name onto the
newsgroup again.

<n...@this.shit.com> wrote in message
news:VMRT2.4258$K46....@news.rdc1.ab.wave.home.com...

[Frank G]

Something with such a simple answer ...

Photographs are not real. People see reality in three dimensions. A
photograph is naturally in two dimensions. The art of photography is to
create something other than reality based on techniques that express to the
viewer of the photograph what the photographer wants them to see.

A great photograph, often created accidentally, expresses something in the
confines of a two dimensional frame that cannot be viewed in the "real"
world. If it were not so, why in this technologically advanced world is the
150+ year old still photograph still so appealing to our senses?

Your study, albeit well thought out, is a difficult one, but I would suggest
that you look into some studies of the vision of animals. Most dogs for
instance (there are exceptions) cannot "see" in two dimensions. To really
get to the bottom of what you're trying to "discover" you would have to
figure out just what makes us human. Call it spirituality or whatever, but
humans have a gift from God to interpret things (or some other force if you
prefer to believe). A photographer tries to manipulate that interpretation
(not always successufully) into some abstraction with meaning.

I'm a rookie photographer re-discovering the "hobby" after a long absence.
Only now when I'm much older would a question like you asked get me to think
so "deeply." What I said is just my opinion but it has puzzled me why I
never was interested in making movies. I think you provided the answer. A
slice of life stands still for us to abstract into something. A movie moves
too quickly for, at leat myself, to realize that so special human quality
that seems to look so closely at a photograph.

I started writing this thinking I had the answer. Now I just have more
questions!

Good Luck,

Frank G.
Spring, Texas

<len...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7fl1q3$e5s$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...

> In article <371DDD...@epfl.ch>,
> I think this question pretty well covers the entire scope of photographic
> practice, and most of the philosophy of aesthetics. So, where to begin,
> philosophy or technique?
>

> Stefan Winkler <Stefan....@epfl.ch> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >

> SNIP SNIP

> > so my
> > question is now, when taking pictures, what do pros pay attention to to
> > make them more appealing to the human observer than the real scene? In
> > what way are make-up, lighting, background, colors, etc. chosen? Are
> > there any other factors that influence picture quality in this respect?
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your help,
> >
> > Stefan Winkler
> >