When I was first getting to grips with photography I tried all the usual shots of photographing smoke, drips, light paint etc. At the time I thought it was creative but now, when I see it done 100,000 times over it doesn't seem so creative. Perhaps I'm blurring the line between creative and original?
For me I think an image can be creative based on a number of factors - a good portrait which is well lit and offers interest could be considered creative. Take smoke art, is this creative? There are lots of example of this on the web, many of which are tagged as creative, so perhaps not original but is it still creative? To answer my own question I would say it is creative if there has been thought applied to the location, composition etc to make it interesting.
So for me creative is about giving a shot some thought to 'create' an image which people will want to look at; it's about seeing the hint of light that others might miss, not just shooting a car side on but looking for a different angle or some detail that would instantly be associated with it. Sometimes it's about breaking the rules, letting a highlight blow out if it doesn't add to the image or having your subject in the centre of the frame because its adds impact to what you are trying to show....
I'm not trying to suggest any right or wrong, or take away from some of the great shots people take. But for me creative means more than drips, spinning wool and light painting.
I thought this subject could make for an interesting debate. I don't believe there is any right or wrong to this but it would be interesting to hear people's opinions as to what makes a photo tick the Creative box for them. It's not about pulling other people's opinions apart as they are just that, opinions. It's about explaining what creative means to you.....
Welcome to my Blog
I’m hoping to document my photographic journey, to share it with friends and family, perhaps even encourage new friends along for the ride.