• 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!

Elements in Intent & Concept Materialized in Composition to Attract and Engage us.

janet Smith

pro member
Elements in Intent & Concept Materialized in Composition to Attract and Engage us.

IMG_5744B.jpg


IMG_5706cleanB.jpg


IMG_5618A.jpg


IMG_5697clean.jpg

Hope these brighten up your day too....
 

janet Smith

pro member
These do start my day very well, thank you Janet!

Layering: This last one should be singled out because the narrow depth of focus works well in blurring out the successive layers of leaves behind receding into the background. This effect in return pushes the main subject leaves forward to us so that floats lightly in the air

Hi Asher

Glad I helped your day off to a good start and thank you for helping me to look at this one again, I shot it yesterday, sometimes I find I need to live with things for a while before they 'grow on me' now that this shot is separated from the other three it looks much better, perhaps as Nic referred to it just didn't sit well with the others. I reprocessed it to give it a bit more oomph but have decided that I prefer the orignal gentler version!

So in the pursuit of William's Anit-drab-a-Thon here's another one of the same tree

IMG_5702B.jpg
 
So in the pursuit of William's Anit-drab-a-Thon here's another one of the same tree.

Hi Jan,

I see an interesting 'triangle' in the image (base at the top, point down). Maybe it's just me, but I subconsciously always look for geometrical shapes that define the composition. I'd try and emphasize it a bit more than it does by itself.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. A general tip for all autumn shooters;
A polarizing filter will enhance those wonderful saturated colors by reducing the direct reflection of the sky from the leaves. Just don't remove all reflections, it could kill the 3D shapes.
 

janet Smith

pro member
Maybe it's just me, but I subconsciously always look for geometrical shapes that define the composition. I'd try and emphasize it a bit more than it does by itself.


Hi Bart

Could you explain what you mean by "emphasise it a bit more" for me - what technique did you have in mind....
 
Hi Bart

Could you explain what you mean by "emphasise it a bit more" for me - what technique did you have in mind....

Hi Jan,

Here is a quick/crude attempt:
Triangle.jpg

I made a rough selection of the triangular area, and darkened the exterior with a Curves adjustment, and boosted the saturation of the interior a bit.

A much more subtle approach is justified, but I don't want to spend too much time on a small web version. More subtle could be a selection of the individual leaves that 'define' the triangle, boost saturation a bit, and darken the rest a bit.

Feel free to ignore my suggestions, it's your image!

Cheers,
Bart
 

janet Smith

pro member
Hi Bart

Thank you for your time and for your version, I like it.

I did make several versions of this shot, the original version I posted here has had some processing along the lines you've used already, I will take another look at it before coming up with a final version.

Thanks once again for your efforts and ideas, very much appreciated....
 
Geometrical shapes don't define composition. They're aspects of spatial arrangement, which is one part of the many elements which, in sum, define wholistic composition.

Hi Mike,

Given a 'wholistic composition', what percentage would you say, on average, is formed by the geometrical aspects?

I'm wondering, because the human visual system (HVS, which includes the brain) functions by reducing the potential information overflow to simple shapes/brightness distributions that trigger a primary response. You seem to suggest that the geometrical factors are relatively unimportant, unless I'm misinterpreting your reaction.

For me, and others I have talked to, geometry (and color usually as reinforcement) pretty much determines the majority of what's commonly seen as composition.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Mike Spinak

pro member
Hi Mike,

Given a 'wholistic composition', what percentage would you say, on average, is formed by the geometrical aspects?

I'm wondering, because the human visual system (HVS, which includes the brain) functions by reducing the potential information overflow to simple shapes/brightness distributions that trigger a primary response. You seem to suggest that the geometrical factors are relatively unimportant, unless I'm misinterpreting your reaction.

For me, and others I have talked to, geometry (and color usually as reinforcement) pretty much determines the majority of what's commonly seen as composition.

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart.

Given a good tasting dish, what percentage of the goodness of the flavor would you say, on average, comes from butter?

It would be foolish for me to attempt to answer your percentage question. Such questions can't be sensibly answered. Your question is unrelated to the way that synergistic perceptions of diverse things work. Further, each composition will be different enough that any such averaging has no bearing on any particular case.

The workings of the human visual system do have many definable characteristics. For an example which could be pertinent to composing Autumn foliage pictures: our eyes are very sensitive to red contrasted against green. We might choose to bring this characteristic into play as we compose a composition, or we might not.

I'm aware that many believe geometry pretty much determines what's commonly seen as composition. Many people believed the Earth was flat, too. And believed the sun revolved around the Earth. That doesn't make it so.

Bart: Have you ever heard Asher or anyone else on this forum mention "the arc of intent"?

Photography isn't fundamentally about composing pleasing spatial designs in a two dimensional frame. What a hollow exercise photography would be, if it was! It's about communication. One communicates through all of the elements of a composition carefully composed in juxtaposition with each other to express feelings and ideas and perceptions – to make meaning. "I see a triangle" is not very meaningful; it's an arbitrary and pointless thing to impose upon a picture.

If you're really interested in understanding my views on the matter, here's a lengthier explanation, on my blog:

Content, Part 1: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/content-part-1.html

The Language of Art: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/language-of-art.html

Examples of Artistic Communication: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/examples-of-artistic-communication.html

Composition Rules Problems, Part 1: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/composition-rules-problems-1.html

Composition Rules Problems, Part 2: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/compositions-rules-problems-2.html

Answering Some Questions: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/answering-some-questions.html

The Value of Projects: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/value-of-projects.html

Those will, hopefully, better explain where I'm coming from, when I interject that geometrical shapes don't define composition.

Cheers,

Mike
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Mike,
Some of your remarks, here and on your blog, concerning image perception are accurate but some are not or are anchored in a limited cultural or syntactical perspective. Nature photography, your apparent area of specialty, intrinsically presents a relatively self-enclosed and often sentimental common visual vocabulary of beauty and "correctness" which is far from universal across genres.

This is not an appropriate place/thread for debating the subject. But may I suggest excellent further reading for those interested in exploring the nature of image perception? Richard Zakia's Perception and Imaging, now in its 3rd edition, explores the subject from both a clinical as well as an aesthetic point of view, with an emphasis on photography. Zakia was a distinguished professor of photography and design at RIT and writes well.

The stew of elements that make a 2-dimensional image (photographic or otherwise) attractive or interesting to a viewer is a complex recipe that depends as much on the viewer as it does on the picture-maker. "Pretty" is only one possibility among many others.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The stew of elements that make a 2-dimensional image (photographic or otherwise) attractive or interesting to a viewer is a complex recipe that depends as much on the viewer as it does on the picture-maker. "Pretty" is only one possibility among many others.

Ken,

Your remarks range from incisive to decisive in guiding how we place Mike's wisdom in the context of his very intimate approach to artistic photography of plants and animals.

I'd add "beauty" to the restriction less experienced photographers often demand for their subjects. That notion has a long tradition in art as being an approach to truth and the creator. Thank goodness we're now freed to see much more around us. I'll look for that book. The reference is appreciated, as usual.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bart: Have you ever heard Asher or anyone else on this forum mention "the arc of intent"?

Photography isn't fundamentally about composing pleasing spatial designs in a two dimensional frame. What a hollow exercise photography would be, if it was! It's about communication. One communicates through all of the elements of a composition carefully composed in juxtaposition with each other to express feelings and ideas and perceptions – to make meaning. "I see a triangle" is not very meaningful; it's an arbitrary and pointless thing to impose upon a picture.

Mike,

I have spent a lot of though about my ideas on "The Arc of Intent" the work of the artist and the "Arc of Communication" when it goes beyond him/her to the rest of us and my ideas have progressed. From the outset I realized that those who experience the work may need to be open to the presentation and culturally prepared for it's reception. At first, that's what was on my mind. Then I considered how so much art is not encoded with symbols or ideas that can be read by us in a way that is likely to have much of the original ideas of the artist. Here, the creator of the work selects shapes, forms, color, texture and geometrical relationships with or without obvious symbolism and coding, to force us to populate the work with out own ideas to an extent hardly demanded with pictures of beauty or impressive sights. Now, the artist might create works that appear neutral multipurpose works to draw us in and away from our current frames of reference. In doing this, our current ideas, concerns and values are placed in a new world and so can be examined, with no guilt, repercussions or admissions. The artwork becomes a gymnasium for the observers mind.

So in this case, "The Arc of Intent" is more about materializing a concept in a physical form, where geometry, cadence, intervals, size and so forth might be dominant to house the esthetic experience beyond beauty and limited purpose.

Asher



If you're really interested in understanding my views on the matter, here's a lengthier explanation, on my blog:

Content, Part 1: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/content-part-1.html

The Language of Art: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/language-of-art.html

Examples of Artistic Communication: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/examples-of-artistic-communication.html

Composition Rules Problems, Part 1: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/composition-rules-problems-1.html

Composition Rules Problems, Part 2: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/compositions-rules-problems-2.html

Answering Some Questions: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/answering-some-questions.html

The Value of Projects: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/value-of-projects.html

Those will, hopefully, better explain where I'm coming from, when I interject that geometrical shapes don't define composition.

Of course, I'll read everything!

Thanks for sharing,

Asher
 
Given a good tasting dish, what percentage of the goodness of the flavor would you say, on average, comes from butter?

On a good tasting dish, 9%. On a dish with little flavor, 15% ;-)

It would be foolish for me to attempt to answer your percentage question. Such questions can't be sensibly answered. Your question is unrelated to the way that synergistic perceptions of diverse things work.

Unrelated? Are you suggesting that geometry is not related to composition, or is it the percentage that's too confronting? Do note that I never said it always has the same weight in the mix of factors, just that is important to the HVS.

Further, each composition will be different enough that any such averaging has no bearing on any particular case.

One can always average one feature from a number of samples, and the standard deviation will tell how likely that average is to agree with an individual case.

The workings of the human visual system do have many definable characteristics. For an example which could be pertinent to composing Autumn foliage pictures: our eyes are very sensitive to red contrasted against green. We might choose to bring this characteristic into play as we compose a composition, or we might not.

I'm aware that many believe geometry pretty much determines what's commonly seen as composition. Many people believed the Earth was flat, too. And believed the sun revolved around the Earth. That doesn't make it so.

So what you are saying is that you don't think that geometry on average pretty much determines composition. That's fine with me, but I beg to differ until convinced otherwise.

Bart: Have you ever heard Asher or anyone else on this forum mention "the arc of intent"?

Mike, I have. I however do not see how that conflicts with strong composition based on geometrical division of the imaging plane. In fact they can re-enforce each other.

Photography isn't fundamentally about composing pleasing spatial designs in a two dimensional frame.

I think you are misrepresenting my position. The geometrical aspect of composition is not the goal, it is a means to enhance the stimulus transfer. And the geometry isn't necessarily there to please, but rather to guide the eye and to (subconsciously for most) invoke/strengthen a certain emotion (so it can also be e.g. confrontational, not just pleasing).

What a hollow exercise photography would be, if it was! It's about communication. One communicates through all of the elements of a composition carefully composed in juxtaposition with each other to express feelings and ideas and perceptions – to make meaning. "I see a
triangle" is not very meaningful; it's an arbitrary and pointless thing to impose upon a picture.

I was not imposing it upon the image, I was struck by such a geometrical shape in a random setting. Specifically, it was a triangular shape positioned on its point, a labile construct which can invoke a sense of dynamics/tension. I'm sure it wasn't there on purpose, as intent, but maybe it was perceived subconsciously to make a nice composition. There must have been something why the image was composed as it was, and not in a different way.

If you're really interested in understanding my views on the matter,

You seem to assume that I would not be interested, I'm not shure why. I am eager to learn different opinions on the subject.

here's a lengthier explanation, on my blog:

Content, Part 1: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/content-part-1.html

The Language of Art: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/language-of-art.html

Examples of Artistic Communication: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/examples-of-artistic-communication.html

Composition Rules Problems, Part 1: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/composition-rules-problems-1.html

Composition Rules Problems, Part 2: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/compositions-rules-problems-2.html

Answering Some Questions: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/answering-some-questions.html

The Value of Projects: http://naturography.blogspot.com/2009/10/value-of-projects.html

Those will, hopefully, better explain where I'm coming from, when I interject that geometrical shapes don't define composition.

Cheers,

Mike


I'll give them a read, if I haven't already done so earlier somewhere else. Are these new articles or are they just recently added to the blog?

Cheers,
Bart
 
Last edited:
But may I suggest excellent further reading for those interested in exploring the nature of image perception? Richard Zakia's Perception and Imaging, now in its 3rd edition, explores the subject from both a clinical as well as an aesthetic point of view, with an emphasis on photography. Zakia was a distinguished professor of photography and design at RIT and writes well.

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the suggestion. I've ordered a copy.

Do you know http://www.amazon.com/Within-Frame-Journey-Photographic-Vision/dp/0321605020/. I've ordered a copy of that one as well.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Yes, I've seen that book although I do not own it. My brief impression is that it's a completely different work but can be helpful in getting readers to see photographic possibilities beyond split-frame sunsets and bulls-eye-framed kids. A very well-done work that I recommend to amateur photographers looking to transcend amateur photography with the help of visual examples.

My strongest and most enduring recommendation to folks wanting to transcend from camera-user to photographic artist is to study art. The artists' eye becomes immediately apparent in photographs, as does lack of same. Mentioning no names, for example, there is a well-known Internet photo personality who has spent a fortune on his photography and on becoming a self-created celebrity. He so wants to be remembered as an accomplished photographer but he never will. While he's become better over the years his eye and sense of timing and composition is purely amateur. His frames seem powered purely by his checkbook rather than by any intellectual or creative potential.

A lens powered only by batteries is far weaker than one powered by thought.
 
Last edited:

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Beyond the pretty and expected: My Rant on Rationing One's time in Photography!

This discussion excludes, for now, any reference to a paid job or work for sale.

My own modest suggestions here are put forward for anyone wanting to go in the "art-training" direction Ken has so often advocated. This is for us to travel beyond the usual prettiness, iconographs and National Park repeats of much photography we see on the web.

The Rant:

To begin this journey, ene should write down the purpose and scope of one future project in mind, sketch ideas then walk around galleries with that general topic, just to get a flavor of what is possible. One concept even lightly framed is fine. Make notes.

At that point, one realizes how large the world of art might be. If one is not yet humbled, enough galleries have not been visited, or one needs to rent the audiotape to go around the exhibit again. The curators of modern museums do an excellent job in presenting art in a perspective to development of concepts and evolution of styles, subjects and the parameters by which art might be appreciated. I usually buy one small booklet on the part of the collection I spent the most time with and read it several times. It likely represents many generations of creative analysis by curators and art historians and at $10-20 is always a bargain.

The idea is to activate openness to new experience and appreciation of esthetic possibilities in building an image; no need to memorize anything, just to look, hear and read. It will become part of our language. One just need enough to be in awe, inspired, humble and energized.

Then, one should take a drawing class!

Put the camera aside except when one is up to date with the drawing assignments. One project, one class, one book! No photographic workshops or new books or gear until a project is completed in a related series of subjects that exploit the learning of that drawing class. Take pride in not spending money.

Use the simplest camera and one lens. Print the pictures, draw on them and then take them back to the drawing class to get feedback. Make notes on how one is doing a revise one's goals and tactics based on the lessons from the class and feedback.

The important thing is that for progressing in photography only the simplest 2-3 MP camera is needed with one lens as this has to serve just as a sketch pad to further one's art education. Don't bother about sharp focus, MTF or any technical considerations, just the esthetics: what we need to do to get our ideas materialized. If one still feels a need for must-have new gear in the first year, we're probably not doing enough drawing nor likely developing insight and modesty!

At the very least, if one believes that one has enough knowledge of art, reinforce this background by visiting at least 24 art and music exhibits/performances a year.

Ask of oneself, "What an I experiencing and what is it's consequence to me and others?"

Art objects are not silent. Music is not foreign to art. Rhythms and melodies can be represented also in sculpture and canvas. Art is all about physical implementation of concepts and then we're pulled into new worlds in which the original ideas are fully performed in our minds.

Please excuse me giving professorial prescriptions for progress. That's, perhaps, my academic background kicking in! From my own struggles, I am, at least, gathering some idea of the landscape that has to be traversed. Hopefully, more than a few of us might use these ideas to better resist the hype in photographic gear and calls of the gurus! Getting a handle on creative expression is surely the foundation for photography not an added ingredient. So, go the the source, which is the art school. There are numerous drawing classes in schools and colleges as well as National Parks.

Asher
 
Last edited:
Top