gns
Well-known
Right. Well, images do affect us on different levels, I guess.
aizan
Mentor
so...time to analyze the viewer? 
Sparrow
Mentor
When I watch a movie the director must be using all sorts of techniques that I’m completely ignorant of, and I probably enjoy it more that way.
Now if I had to make a movie would I really be better not to know the tricks of the trade?
Now if I had to make a movie would I really be better not to know the tricks of the trade?
dimitris
Established
A photo either works or no. Its a simple matter of yes or no. If its a no then don't worry just move to the next one.
gns
Well-known
Dimitis,
You don't find it at all interesting to think or talk about WHY it works or doesn't?
As Sparrow said. If you are not involved in making your own, then maybe you are fine with just letting it take you in or whatever. But when you want to create your own, doesn't your interest change?
Cheers,
Gary
You don't find it at all interesting to think or talk about WHY it works or doesn't?
As Sparrow said. If you are not involved in making your own, then maybe you are fine with just letting it take you in or whatever. But when you want to create your own, doesn't your interest change?
Cheers,
Gary
dimitris
Established
I do find it interesting but its very tough to put laws and rules about what works and what doesn't. Heck I wish it was that easy because my photos would be much better than what they are now.
When I look at photos of great photographers like Kertesz (my favorite) I enjoy them for what they are. Looking at them I see images from Kertesz's world. Even if i tried to explain why they work, decompose the why and then use it for my photos it would be fake since my world is different than Kertesz's. Not to mention that I would be really bad at copying in the first place.
gns
Well-known
Dimitis,
Observing and discussing what is going on in a picture certainly does not mean that one must force it into some preconceived set of rules. Does it?
Cheers,
Gary
Observing and discussing what is going on in a picture certainly does not mean that one must force it into some preconceived set of rules. Does it?
Cheers,
Gary
gns
Well-known
"It was MISLEADING of Winogrand to say that there weren't any rules to composition when his work showed otherwise..."
Jay,
What are the rules of composition that you see being applied to his pictures?
Cheers,
Gary
Jay,
What are the rules of composition that you see being applied to his pictures?
Cheers,
Gary
Sparrow
Mentor
I do find it interesting but its very tough to put laws and rules about what works and what doesn't. Heck I wish it was that easy because my photos would be much better than what they are now.
When I look at photos of great photographers like Kertesz (my favorite) I enjoy them for what they are. Looking at them I see images from Kertesz's world. Even if i tried to explain why they work, decompose the why and then use it for my photos it would be fake since my world is different than Kertesz's. Not to mention that I would be really bad at copying in the first place.
so I can't trick you into seeing a rectangle among these dots then?
:angel:
luketrash
Trying to find my range
When I first started making photos, people used to ride me for holding the camera crooked (what it was was a heavy shutter finger causing a tilted issue.)
One thing that has happened over time is my predisposition for symetry and repeating patterns enters my mindset more than the composition sometimes. Say I'm supposed to make a photo of a person, I get hung up on the telephone poles trailing off into the distance behind them and try to include them.
I thought rule of thirds, leading lines, and elements of good composition was just stuff art people talked about to make themselves feel good. However, the longer I sit around looking at photos, the more I 'get it.' I still don't consciously THINK about these things, but they are sort of falling into place slowly over time.
A tool I never used to use was purposely not including an item fully in the composition. Sparrow's example of the circle shows that sometimes a partial item where the brain can fill in the missing parts is more stimulating than a centered photo of a circle that is entirely encased in the frame.
Total noobs have a bad habit of cutting off peoples' feet or hands in photos. Amateurs (like me) have a tendency to back up and perfectly center a person in the frame. Amateurs make better photos, technically, but sometimes they are overly boring. Pros know how to crop with the camera and align points of interest favorably.
I didn't buy into it, but as time goes on and I'm completely comfortable with a camera technically, I am starting to study my compositional work.
I have a tendency to fall back to my 'center everyting' frame of mind when using my 6x6cm format camera though. It's a bad habit.
I do think my more modern photos are coming along (slowly) and are better compositionally than my older stuff though.
One thing that has happened over time is my predisposition for symetry and repeating patterns enters my mindset more than the composition sometimes. Say I'm supposed to make a photo of a person, I get hung up on the telephone poles trailing off into the distance behind them and try to include them.
I thought rule of thirds, leading lines, and elements of good composition was just stuff art people talked about to make themselves feel good. However, the longer I sit around looking at photos, the more I 'get it.' I still don't consciously THINK about these things, but they are sort of falling into place slowly over time.
A tool I never used to use was purposely not including an item fully in the composition. Sparrow's example of the circle shows that sometimes a partial item where the brain can fill in the missing parts is more stimulating than a centered photo of a circle that is entirely encased in the frame.
Total noobs have a bad habit of cutting off peoples' feet or hands in photos. Amateurs (like me) have a tendency to back up and perfectly center a person in the frame. Amateurs make better photos, technically, but sometimes they are overly boring. Pros know how to crop with the camera and align points of interest favorably.
I didn't buy into it, but as time goes on and I'm completely comfortable with a camera technically, I am starting to study my compositional work.
I have a tendency to fall back to my 'center everyting' frame of mind when using my 6x6cm format camera though. It's a bad habit.
I do think my more modern photos are coming along (slowly) and are better compositionally than my older stuff though.
gns
Well-known
Sparrow,
So you have shown us that our brains will fill in the gaps or connect the dots sometimes to "See" a familiar shape or whatever that isn't really there. But I'm lost on what that means as far as evaluating a photograph. Could you elaborate?
Cheers,
Gary
So you have shown us that our brains will fill in the gaps or connect the dots sometimes to "See" a familiar shape or whatever that isn't really there. But I'm lost on what that means as far as evaluating a photograph. Could you elaborate?
Cheers,
Gary
Sparrow
Mentor
I posted this on page one
do you see any line or pattern in this version?
do you see any line or pattern in this version?
Sparrow
Mentor
thumb chin and nose
nose finger and small of the back
back/shoulder forearm and chin finger nose
nose finger and small of the back
back/shoulder forearm and chin finger nose
dimitris
Established
so I can't trick you into seeing a rectangle among these dots then?
You mean the big white rectangle that includes all the dots?
gns
Well-known
Of course I can see all of those shapes and lines. Don't need the B&W version. But, I don't get what they mean or how they make this an interesting photo. I'm certainly not drawn to them. What I am drawn to is the blackness where her eyes should be, and how that just doesn't work for me with the pose. I'm sorry, but this picture doesn't do a lot for me. How do those lines that you point out make the picture interesting or work with everything else to create any kind of coherent whole?
Sorry to sound kind of harsh, but you did post your own picture as an example.
(I assume it is yours).
On the contrasty B&W version: The photo should work as it is. If you have to change the photo to explain it or make it clear, then it probably isn't working.
Cheers,
Gary
Sorry to sound kind of harsh, but you did post your own picture as an example.
(I assume it is yours).
On the contrasty B&W version: The photo should work as it is. If you have to change the photo to explain it or make it clear, then it probably isn't working.
Cheers,
Gary
Morris
-
You asked Sparrow to elaborate. He did, quite well.
He had to "change the photo to explain it or make it clear" because you still don't "get it".
When one likes a photo but can't explain why, it's because the sub-conscious is "recognising" certain compositional forms that are not readily apparent to the conscious mind.
benlees
Well-known
I think Sparrow's very nice photo of his daughter is a very good example of subject/content trumping pattern in terms of creating a successful image. Youthful energy always attracts the eye. The plain background, for me, is what focuses the eye. The V pattern is merely academic. Not sure if we need to dive into the subconscious for this one.
gns
Well-known
Morris, You might be right that I just don't get it. And I have been ignoring my subconscious lately. But it was an honest opinion, and I still don't think that simply pointing to a few vague compositional elements goes that far in supporting the photo over-all or towards explaining the relevance of those little visual tricks that have been uploaded.
Benlees claims that the subject is the dominant element here, and Sparrow is trying to make the case that composition is the overiding factor (in the same photo), so I'm not sure where this is going. I guess, not toward consensus.
I put the Moriyama picture up hoping that people might take it up as an example to evaluate and discuss, but not really any takers on that. As I said, it is a picture that Really seems to present THE essential stray dog as well as a lesson in how a picture can be made. Is the subject itself that interesting? Probably not. Stray dogs are everywhere and if you came across this one you would probably give it a wide berth and rather it not be there. But look at him. The photo forces you to. He certainly becomes interesting in the photo. His body language betrays his vulnerability while at the same time, he musters all the defiance he can with his gaze, as if to threaten, "Don't even think of messing with me". But it isn't merely the dog (subject) itself at play here.
Look at how the camera has described him. The position of the camera sneaking in from behind, exaggerates his vulnerable position. The tight, claustrophobic framing serves as a trap of sorts-Likely his greatest fear. That gritty high contrast is perfectly suited to his apparent manginess. Even the unrecognizable background detail at least helps to provide some context, suggesting an urban environment without getting in the way. Is there anything about this picture that doesn't seem just right? I don't think so. It reminds of us of how the subject (the thing being described) and the form (how it is described) are connected. How the description changes what it describes. And how, when done well, an order and balance are created that surprises and amazes us with it's perfection.
Cheers,
Gary
Benlees claims that the subject is the dominant element here, and Sparrow is trying to make the case that composition is the overiding factor (in the same photo), so I'm not sure where this is going. I guess, not toward consensus.
I put the Moriyama picture up hoping that people might take it up as an example to evaluate and discuss, but not really any takers on that. As I said, it is a picture that Really seems to present THE essential stray dog as well as a lesson in how a picture can be made. Is the subject itself that interesting? Probably not. Stray dogs are everywhere and if you came across this one you would probably give it a wide berth and rather it not be there. But look at him. The photo forces you to. He certainly becomes interesting in the photo. His body language betrays his vulnerability while at the same time, he musters all the defiance he can with his gaze, as if to threaten, "Don't even think of messing with me". But it isn't merely the dog (subject) itself at play here.
Look at how the camera has described him. The position of the camera sneaking in from behind, exaggerates his vulnerable position. The tight, claustrophobic framing serves as a trap of sorts-Likely his greatest fear. That gritty high contrast is perfectly suited to his apparent manginess. Even the unrecognizable background detail at least helps to provide some context, suggesting an urban environment without getting in the way. Is there anything about this picture that doesn't seem just right? I don't think so. It reminds of us of how the subject (the thing being described) and the form (how it is described) are connected. How the description changes what it describes. And how, when done well, an order and balance are created that surprises and amazes us with it's perfection.
Cheers,
Gary
Last edited:
Morris
-
It works best that way, you shouldn't be aware of it.
That last long paragraph about the dog pic is just not real, in the image, it's only in your head.
In reality it's terribly exposed
badly printed
blown highlights
blocked shadows
out of focus
out of context
and without any compositional merit whatsoever.
Sparrow
Mentor
It works best that way, you shouldn't be aware of it.
That last long paragraph about the dog pic is just not real, in the image, it's only in your head.
In reality it's terribly exposed
badly printed
blown highlights
blocked shadows
out of focus
out of context
and without any compositional merit whatsoever.
Yep its just a snapshot selected or cropped from the contact-sheet like the pic of my daughter, the genius was seeing it and knowing it would have that effect