Is quirkiness in the eye of the beholder?

[greypoint]

What makes a photo original, individual, amusing and quirky as opposed to being just a snapshot? Harking back to a thread on Another Place on the relative merits of Martin Parr who probably epitomises what I mean. Who decides which is the award winner and which is just a picture of auntie with her head cut in half? This often seems to become a matter of debate when the winner of a portrait type competition is announced and the audience is split between those who announce it to be a wonderful evocation of modern life and those who scratch their heads in disbelief that someone's holiday snap has gained them several thousand pounds. Do you have any examples of your own that you'd put to the vote here [without telling us if it's meant to be an original and quirky take or just a snap you have'nt got round to deleting yet]. I suppose once you've been accepted as a slightly off the wall photographer you can get away with any old rubbish - rather like Damien Hirst selling a daub by his child as a stunning work of art!

[magicrhodes]

I hate the term "quirky" it is generally a BS term to mean annoying! The worst thing is when a film or film character is described as Quirky... it just means annoying for the sake of it!

[greypoint]

insert your own appropriate word instead - I can't quite think of a better one at present but I'm sure there is

[minky_monkey]

I like a shot that invokes a reaction in me, it may be that I look at it and go "eek, look at that.." or it stops me in its tracks.  But everyone`s different and has different reactions, likes and dislikes.

Many times I`ve walked around the tate modern and thought "bloody hell, look at that"  it might not be to my taste and the person next to thinks it`s the best thing going. 

What, for me, I would say elevates a quality shot above that of just another snapshot, is that it shows abit of thought has gone into the process. The composition, the lighting or the subject matter.  Sometimes it`s hard to put your finger on it, you just look at something and go "wow".

[greypoint]

I just wonder how often the result was intentionally taken and how often it was only spotted afterwards.

[ABERS]

I just wonder how often the result was intentionally taken and how often it was only spotted afterwards.

I suppose if you spend a couple of hours and shoot perhaps 100 or so images the law of serendipity, if there is such a thing, comes into play. One of the benefits of digital photography?

[greypoint]

Yep - that's my method

[minky_monkey]

I suppose it depends on the subject. With wildlife you don`t get the opportunity to ask the big cats/birds/whatever to sit and pose in certain places, so you grab what shots are available. Some work out better than others!

If it`s a landscape, I find I tend to get a better result using a tripod.  It makes me slow down and look at the scene.