• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Composition

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Jerome you do yourself and others injustice. ' Boring ' pictures ? by whose standards.

Imagine a world where one lone surviving ' artist ' uses all the attributes of composition, has all the time in the world and creates a masterpiece.

He has created all these Works of ' Art '

One day, while cleaning, he comes across a ' snapshot ' of his now long lost family.
His wife, children, father, mother.

Professor Mante is good. Very very good.

But Landscapes, static designs, rules of composition don't move me.

People do. However boring they might be.

Quick, very quick now...name a photo from the Vietnam conflict. Just one.

More currently, The Japanese tragedy . Which pictures have moved you the most!
The destroyed buildings, chairs, cars, landscape or even the shrines? I know my answer.
What's yours?

p.s Our lone survivor also finds a book by Professor Mante. He can keep one.
The snapshot or the collected works of Mr. Mante. He chooses. Which one do you think?

I know which one I would keep. In my memory, in my heart and on my self.

You, me, all of us are human beings. That which moves the human soul..the common denominator.

Those are my rules for composition. If only I could get a handle on them.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I see what you mean. But then, wouldn't it be right to simply describe all pictures devoid of a human element as "boring"?
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
I see what you mean. But then, wouldn't it be right to simply describe all pictures devoid of a human element as "boring"?

For me, Yes.
There should be at least something in the picture to relate to how ' humans ' feel. Not the perception of color or balance..but love, hate, devotion, anger, sadness, fear, joy etc.

The remaining photos, once again for me, are just documentary ' snapshots' made by people to ' show ' when there was nothing to see. Using myriad technologies, composites, overlays etc.

To give ' blind ' me some of their ' vision ' and ' visionary ' gifts.

Little ' gods ' searching desperately for ' worshippers ' in their ' temples of artistic principles '.

But I am too old to learn, and de-evolving..that is if you consider I ever evolved in the first instance.
Maybe that is the reason I cannot differentiate between garbage and trash; just as some cannot between snapshots and mementos.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For me, Yes.
There should be at least something in the picture to relate to how ' humans ' feel. Not the perception of color or balance..but love, hate, devotion, anger, sadness, fear, joy etc.

Fahim,

That's very close to my heart. But you've also photographed the awe and majesty of nature. Is it that a giant mountain make you feel?

Little ' gods ' searching desperately for ' worshippers ' in their ' temples of artistic principles '.

Perhaps, but also trying to find out what makes us experience feelings, emotions and ideas in images.

Asher
 
Little ' gods ' searching desperately for ' worshippers ' in their ' temples of artistic principles '.

Standing Ovation! I like that a helluva lot! :)

But I am too old to learn...

.... in that situation, I would not consider my life worth living anymore! It is difficult enough as is, but if someone would take learning away from me.... I'd pass on that!

But my gut tells me this was rather the wicked humor of a desert bandit than speaking the truth. LOL ;)

In our age, we just learn at a slower pace, and it is of advantage to be like a turtle at times.
 
I see what you mean. But then, wouldn't it be right to simply describe all pictures devoid of a human element as "boring"?

I guess, this is down to individual perception.

20090717-_DSC2573-Edit.jpg


ovs_opf_XI-41.jpg


Form and Light alone can be very attractive, then again.... in my eyes of course, ymmv.

ovs_opf_XI-40.jpg
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
For me, Yes.
There should be at least something in the picture to relate to how ' humans ' feel. Not the perception of color or balance..but love, hate, devotion, anger, sadness, fear, joy etc.

The remaining photos, once again for me, are just documentary ' snapshots' made by people to ' show ' when there was nothing to see. Using myriad technologies, composites, overlays etc.

I don't necessarily disagree.

But photographs of human beings cause a particular challenge to me. I feel that they still belong to the model. They are not my pictures. I can't do as I please with them. The particular artistic value in the picture does not come from the photographer alone, but from both the photographer and the model.

Of course, it does not help that I live in a part of the world where publishing other peoples image without their written, legally binding agreement can in theory cause the photographer all sorts of trouble (even if the risk is small). Neither does it help that when I tell someone that I intend to publish a picture of them on my web site, they usually are against it.

Last year I went to a portrait course. The first thing hey made the photographers do was to sign a full page of legalese stating, in substance, that you should not publish them, especially on the net. After the course, I sent the best of my pictures to the models, and deleted the whole lot. What use are they for me if I can't do anything with them?

Anyway, this is a rather extreme case, and I actually published some portraits on my flickr account (but I exclude those from the CC license I usually use). The legal risk is rather low.

But I still feel that they are not "my" pictures. So, as a photographer, I have an uneasy relation with this kind of pictures. Even if, as a spectator, I understand perfectly your opinion.
 
Just one more thing.... for your all consideration....

But... does the absence of human beings or any signs of them in pictures not evoke feelings as well?

Of course it can, trigger the longing for solitude and space, freedom, contentedness, to be connected with the things that really matter, to name but a few. - In my world that is. -

ovs_opf_XI-47.jpg
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Fahim,

... But you've also photographed the awe and majesty of nature. Is it that a giant mountain make you feel?



Perhaps, but also trying to find out what makes us experience feelings, emotions and ideas in images.

Asher

Asher, the awe and majesty of nature has been there for ages ( and evolving ). I have always marveled at it. I do not need anyone to tell me how majestic it is. It is written in books thousands of years old.

One has to differentiate between aesthetically pleasing, visually vibrant and raw emotions of the human species.

How majestic is the mountain? Not what an image might tell me.
But what is ingrained in the very existence of the people that have lived for untold generations
under its shadow.
The reverence these people show. The names that they give it. The language and nuances of the eyes when they speak of it.

Want to show me emotions of love in images? Want ideas in that image? I don't. I know immediately.
I just look at the face of the mother and child. Loved ones holding each other in their arms.
A cat feeding its kittens. I do not need pundits to create abstract images for me to decipher, the emotion of love ( in this instance ).

My photography is of fleeting moments. Not done over a two year time frame. I do not have that luxury.
Neither do I have the artificial, forced inclination to do it.

Above all, I do not subscribe to the view that the so called ' principles ' are essential for me to feel, capture, and above all respect human emotions and human beings.

I am a simple traveller. I photograph while I travel. I photograph what I see and feel. If I cannot convey that feeling, I have failed.

The ' principles ' are not going to help me. I know what might. But this gang of self appointed and self praising mount olympus Zeuses have no idea of what mortals feel. That is why they fail with me.

I live amongst mortals. Tell me how to feel with the mortals. You have my attention.

Tell me how to arrange cars in front of cabins and the colors I should use. You are wasting your time on me. Find yourself another disciple.

p.s we are discussing ' art '. Not scientific research. That is a different ( and OT ) issue.
 
My observations of 'the scene' is similar, and to me the explanation is simple.

Art=Commerce, the latter is driven by a small group of manufacturers and crucially, opinion makers, some very clever marketing gurus added to the mix, a little academia and there you are, ...endless talk about .... about what?

Photography!

It is the most artificially overvalued expressive discipline of all, a mega bubble with plenty of people bursting of self importance and their in various forms published intellectual diarrhea. I guess there is only one breed worse, economists, as they need to write papers every single day, and they also have the habit to decorate themselves with self reference and quotations from literature. ;)

Composition is what you fill into the borders of your print, and that is entirely up to you, if someone tells you, crop here, do this, do that to achieve a certain.... yeah... a certain what? The momentary consent of what is considered to be best practice for example, but there are many ways to fry a fish.

But....It's gotta be super super straight ya know. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCpNBMK3IM
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Just one more thing.... for your all consideration....

But... does the absence of human beings or any signs of them in pictures not evoke feelings as well?

Of course it can, trigger the longing for solitude and space, freedom, contentedness, to be connected with the things that really matter, to name but a few. - In my world that is. -

ovs_opf_XI-47.jpg

George, yes they evoke feelings in me. For a short time. Maybe a month at the most. Then it is another
scene to look at!! Sometimes that month is unbearably long!!

Yes, I like to be connected with things that matter to me the most..mortals. Like me.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Art=Commerce, the latter is driven by a small group of manufacturers and crucially, opinion makers, some very clever marketing gurus added to the mix, a little academia and there you are, ...

It is the most artificially overvalued expressive discipline of all, a mega bubble with plenty of people bursting of self importance and their in various forms published intellectual diarrhea...

George, I don't necessarily agree with you on most things. But this I agree with.

I have an acronym for this cult. MMOA...Metropolitan Malaise Of Artificialities.

p.s The Museum bearing this acrnonym has as its banner..' 5000 years of Art '.

MOMA, New York. 5000 years of Art. Say What?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Galli

Member
Just one more thing.... for your all consideration....

But... does the absence of human beings or any signs of them in pictures not evoke feelings as well?

Of course it can, trigger the longing for solitude and space, freedom, contentedness, to be connected with the things that really matter, to name but a few. - In my world that is. -

Or......, boredom?
 
George, I don't necessarily agree with you on most things. But this I agree with.

That might be because of the medium internet, and it's lack of depth, potential for misunderstanding etc., I would not be astonished, seriously, if we could find agreement on more things than you might imagine right now.

I have an acronym for this cult. MMOA...Metropolitan Malaise Of Artificialities.

p.s The Museum bearing this acrnonym has as its banner..' 5000 years of Art '.

MOMA, New York. 5000 years of Art. Say What?

I am pretty certain, he would be the first to admit it. He does not take this all that serious, certainly not like most of the people who talk about his stuff do.

When I look at this world we talk about here, to me this is all a giant clusterf***.

Take the '99cent 2 diptych' just as one example. It sold for 3.4 Million USD. 200x300, something like 118 x 82 inch each, a C-print mounted to acrylic Glas. Excuse me if you should know this photograph, but just in case, it depicts super market shelfs Fahim, I kid you not!

http://www.artnet.com/artists/lotdetailpage.aspx?lot_id=0275C0FAFAC63235FA492B86E31AD105

But what do I tell you, I am somewhat certain you see it in a similar way.

When I saw the da Vinci Codex Leicester exhibition, there was another exhibition on the side lines. Arts and medical writings from the arabian and persian world. Books that were so rich in graphical details of anatomy and other aspects, it was simply jaw dropping.

I intend to think, on a global scale, there is this dominance idea of western culture to lead the pack, and I think this is totally wrong. Sure, the germans had their time, and who would not love Beethoven's hairdresser. - Grins - But this was stereeoype, the Codex Hammer under special light that illuminates the work for a few seconds and then darkens again, the other stuff was just on the sidelines. In fact, I spent more time with the books and artifacts from Persia etc. than trying to get a glimpse of the da Vinci exhibits, being pushed by people left right and center, and listening to the permanent ohhhh....aaaaah.... uuuuhh.....as soon as the light went up a few candela. I just bought the book and looked at it without getting eyeball cancer, and guess what, the other exhibits, I had them nearly to myself. :)

Oh... lets not forget another aspect... war trophies .... but thats something to far off I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
On the subject of Professor Mante and his referenced works and the more general subject of composition;
if it works for you. Great!

I am sure many people can benefit and improve their photographic skills ( and design and composition skills ) by incorporating the doktor's theories and suggestions in their work.

Unless I am referenced, this is the last I shall add to this thread. Let's get back to learning from each other. And respecting the value system each of us holds.

However I shall give two examples of photographs, and their genre , that resonate with me.
Just emotions captured. Raw emotions that I can relate to.

- the first is the ' migrant mother ' by Dorothea Lange

- the second is by Elliot Erwitt taken in Wilmington, NC in the early 50s.

Simple, straight forward, emotional. They stand on their own.

The day I tire of seeing these images, is the day I have bid my last farewell.

But that in no way detracts from the fact that art is a subjective, complex, and varied field.
And that we all are learners. Some within us are teachers. We should respect and thank them for sharing with us their knowledge.

Thank you.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let's get back to learning from each other. And respecting the value system each of us holds.

However I shall give two examples of photographs, and their genre , that resonate with me.
Just emotions captured. Raw emotions that I can relate to.

- the first is the ' migrant mother ' by Dorothea Lange

- the second is by Elliot Erwitt taken in Wilmington, NC in the early 50s.

Simple, straight forward, emotional. They stand on their own.

The day I tire of seeing these images, is the day I have bid my last farewell.

But that in no way detracts from the fact that art is a subjective, complex, and varied field.
And that we all are learners. Some within us are teachers. We should respect and thank them for sharing with us their knowledge.

Thank you.

Fahim,

I appreciate your thoughts.

Thanks, :)

Asher
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
You people are far too intellectual for me! ;-)

For me art is the expression of an individual. Whether it resonates on not with me personally is dependant on me and not the artist.

My own work I shoot for myself, it's my expression of how I feel my surroundings. There are others to whom this expression resonates and I enjoy having them along for the ride. It's very simplistic, perhaps too much so, but it works for me.

What I got out of Alain's article was this: Art is subjective and personal and the fact that some think there are strict rules shows only their own need to handcuff their expression within strict parameters.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
You people are far too intellectual for me! ;-)

For me art is the expression of an individual. Whether it resonates on not with me personally is dependant on me and not the artist.

That's not hard to agree with! :) Still, what anyone else thinks might give the work value to put bread on your table! That's ART.

What I got out of Alain's article was this: Art is subjective and personal and the fact that some think there are strict rules shows only their own need to handcuff their expression within strict parameters.

Ben,

Just take a few examples:

  • Beauty: A mother nursing an infant
  • Horror: Villagers on fire
  • Sadness: The death bed of a child
  • Awe: The snow covered mountains of Nepal
In each case, the viewer has eruptive emotions, feelings and thoughts which know no cultural barriers. These reactions come from simpler emotions, each one elemental and built into our humanity. What culture, experience and education does is build on these fundamental common reactions. So when we make art, even for ourselves, these are the fundamental reactions which constitute the hidden fabric which supports our views of both our own art and the work of others.

Of course, education and culture can overlay basic reactions with a community-dependant motifs and conceits and so, if one is an "outsider", then the art might not work for us.

Still, those basic common forces are there! The so-called rules are merely attempts to codify the tendencies we are wired for.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
  • Beauty: A mother nursing an infant
  • Horror: Villagers on fire
  • Sadness: The death bed of a child
  • Awe: The snow covered mountains of Nepal
In each case, the viewer has eruptive emotions, feelings and thoughts which know no cultural barriers. These reactions come from simpler emotions, each one elemental and built into our humanity. What culture, experience and education does is build on these fundamental common reactions. So when we make art, even for ourselves, these are the fundamental reactions which constitute the hidden fabric which supports our views of both our own art and the work of others.

Yes, but.

Would you say that the music of J.S. Bach is not art? Yet it is abstract, not dealing in any way with elemental human emotions. It does provoke emotions in the listener, but apparently on a different plane.

I guess that anyone can make a parallel with pictures at that point.
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
I was referring to more fundamental and basic rules, the kind that Alain's article was trying to dismiss, the 'purist' crowd in photography, the kind who feel that unless you 'xerox' a scene with a camera then it cannot be a photograph. Those who aspire only to the rules of composition, etc. You could probably carry on for me!

I'm a believer that the emotion conveyed by a photograph should have been that which the photographer felt when taking it. I do not like to be manipulated in my emotions (or at least the attempt) by those who know how to tap into our instincts for ulterior motives including that of selling art, selling an idea or concept, etc. I find that very mercenary.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I'm a believer that the emotion conveyed by a photograph should have been that which the photographer felt when taking it. I do not like to be manipulated in my emotions (or at least the attempt) by those who know how to tap into our instincts for ulterior motives including that of selling art, selling an idea or concept, etc. I find that very mercenary.

Ben,

If you can hunt out your scene, compose in the right light from the best POV and then snap the shutter and get what you want, kudos to you! :) Vertical market photographers might do that, day in day out. That's wedding photographers, product, Runway for fashion and more. Art, however, is often more experimental as we like to cover new ground and break through conventions that seem to limit us. So more work after the photograph is exposed becomes necessary to fully express our nascent ideas. In fact, only at the computer screen or in the darkroom might one ever realize the full needs and potential of one's project.

Even when you know what you want and then take exactly that image, it's not so simple to get that to a successful print. The problem is that you might need some dodging or burning or else high contrast silver gelatin paper. So there you are, "manipulation", but on the highest technical level. We do that to make the picture more effective. In doing so it becomes more marketable and that's not crass or to be ridiculed. Of course, pandering is awful but that's another matter!

Alain is correct in altering the image to express what he feels by the time he gets to prepare the file. Art has to be iterative. One needs to work on it until what it gives to you is what you dreamed of and maybe even more. Few folk can do this in one click. I don't care what camera, what pixels or what colors are used. work until it has your ideas in it and then share it. If we like it, great.

Still, what you do Ben, is honest, represents exactly what art should be, an externalization of what you imagine could exist. Since you are indeed in touch with that inner energy, and you are careful, your work is coherent. You do not need to do a lot of fiddling. but wait. Now you have gotten into HDR, you will have new needs and not be able to return to your simpler life!

Asher
 

Ben Rubinstein

pro member
Hi,

Bit confused, I agree with Alain that the processing is an essential part of the artmaking, I'm about as far from a purist as would be possible. I've used HDR for years, before it was called HDR in the modern way using layers and masks, etc. Far more simplistic of course than what a program like that SNS-HDR achieves. Heck if I could sketch then I doubt I'd ever pick up a camera again, so much easier to take the picture in my mind and transfer to paper rather than hunting, sometimes years, for the photograph which matches the imagery I've imagined.

I'm a wedding photographer by profession but in a certain way I do the same, I shoot the wedding with the romantic concept I have pictured in my mind, even if the wedding is as boring and static as unfortunately many are, I'll still 'draw' them the same way. Not 'honest' in the slightest but I'm not a PJ thank goodness!
 
Top