Content or Form

A very simple question.
What do you find more important in a photograph, content or form?

I want to ask this question because I see a lot of photos here without any content. Maybe people are scared to put them up simply because the form of the photo isn't good, most comments here are afterall based on form and therefore form looks very important here.
It can also be that most photography we do is form based...

Before I vote, can you define what you mean by content and form?

Same goes for me, Stefan, I haven't got a clue what you mean. I'm sure that's due to my ignorance as far as photography goes, but still - I'd appreciate some clarification.

Sorry Stefan but you've lost me as well

I'm thinking he means 'subject' or 'composition'.

Dan

If you take your photography seriously you can't seperate form and content. A good picture has to score on both counts.
david

Come on guys? The division between content and form is 1st year pensum in art history classes, rhetorics and so on. A watertight division might be hard to give (and the distinction is theoretical of course). A related distinction is between the what a picture shows and how it does.

Anvh. I understand your comment! There's a lot photos on these photography forums and even PPG that gets praise for a sharpness, composition and bokeh qualities. But try ask: what is the photographer trying to communicate with this picture (emotional content, a critique of commercialism). Nothing ...?

Edit: David made his post while I was writing. Mostly, I agree but think it makes sense to discuss form and content seperately. There is a long tradition for doing that.

I dropped art at age 14 when I took my options.
Wasn't any good at it, I preferred physics.

So, I join the ranks of those who need an explanation

Well Joe at least know what I mean and David also.
To David, it's very true what you said but I asked what you find more important and I think everyone can make a choice about that.

Okay for the rest of you, what is content and form.
To keep it very black and white.
Content is what the image shows and that ask for emotion.
Form is more the technical aspects, so sharpness, composition, lighting, etc.
But to make it complicated form can be content aswell... if you don't understand, think about it but you can always ask (hint=abstract).

A good example of a type of photography were content is very important is journalisme.
Here is a photo of Patrick Chauvel.


It isn't sharp, the DOF is placed uncorrectly, composition is nowhere to be found so it doesn't score points on form.
Still when you look at this photo you begin to wander what is happening in the shot, why is the man in the midle looking so painfully and why are the rest pulling on his cloths, is he afraid, are they mad... thats what we call content.

I hope things are a bit clear now if not think about writing.
Content is the meaning of the words, sentence, story and form is the style of that and so also in photography we always have content and form as well.

Although I think we all agree that it's hard to find a content in a drop that falls in water or Amin's smoke photos for example.
Amin I'm not saying that they are bad since the form is very good although you don't have meaning behind, no content really.
That brings me to the point I want to make, most of us (myself included) are only showing photos that are pretty and not because they are meaningful or show emotion.

There are some exceptions of course, one I can think of are the photos of the homeless people and the photos from the demostration some months ago and there are some more where I can think of now.
I know that most of us do photography where it is hard to bring meaning in the photo, it just isn't the style for it and I understand that so don't start there.
What I'm trying to say is that we should try to look more at the content of photos and less hard on how well it is shot (form), I'm afraid that the focus on form is keeping maybe some beauties of photographs full of content away from our eyes because they aren't very well shot.

*sighs* that's it, hopefully it's understandable for everyone.
I didn't use a spellcheck on this so there might be some mistakes, so please look over that.

I'm glad to explain form and content better if anyone ask, so really please do that since the matter is deeper then I portray here.

Good explanation Stefan..even I understand that

Sort of what I was getting at with Art or Photography, although not quite the same point ).

As for which...erm...I'll get back to you

Here is a few more words on art and form: link

Now, I don't agree with your analysis of the formal qualities of that picture, Anvh! But if nobody else wants to discuss I will leave it at that.

Please, let's discuss.

From a novice point of view; it's great to let the experts discuss the finer points, whilst I sit on the sideline and learn

Thank you Father Ted lets hope the rest can follow me too and yes indeed it's the around the same topic as yours.

Joe everyone is differnt and that is what makes this world so exciting so go ahead it would be good to have a meaningfull discusion.
One thing though keep the terms simple I'm not familiar and confident with the English ones that well but please still use them anyway, it's a good way to learn them.
I will also give a full analyse as best as I can, haven't done that for 6 years now

OK, now we have defined the terms, so the answer for me is "it depends" so, for example, if you happen to photograph the first Martian landing on Earth then content will be the major requirement. There still has to enough form though to make the image intelligible.

For most images I don't think you can say one is more important than the other, not if you are aiming at a quality image. Amin's smoke images can be quality images both in content and in form, because of the reaction they invoke in our imaginations. I would not trivialise their content in any way, even though without good attention to form they would not be any good.

You need to have the technical ability to be able to reliably create images that convey the message.

My conclusion is that the question is paradoxical and has no real answer.

Stefan, I think you cannot get a sharp divide there. Now I'd ask another question: message or beauty? The picture you presented brings a message, but would you like it on your room's wall? Then take Amin's smoke pictures - they don't need any meaning, they are to enjoy viewer's eyes. Or at least I like watching them. Then there are family photos, another category. That's my opinion.