Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Art Theory: Idea workshop.

Art Theory: Idea workshop. Warning, not the truth here, just a venture. Examining what makes an image worthy of saving and what it does for us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 20th, 2015, 10:11 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Fahim, I did not write that diagonal lines don't give a different feel than straight lines or that lines leads to no point. I wrote:



The operative word here is "fixed".

Now, let me let aside religion and people's sanity aside for a moment, I will not dive into that. You are telling us, if my understanding is correct, that there is some truth in leading lines, the different feelings associated to different orientation of the main lines in a pictures, the different weighting of elements in a picture, etc... This is correct.

This is correct, but it does not make a complete theory. A complete theory is a theory which allows one to build an automated process and the output of that automated process are indeed pleasing. This works for music, so the theory of harmony and counterpoint is complete. This also works for colour, so the theory of colour harmonies is complete.

This does not work for composition. People, smarter than me, have tried to teach a computer to make a Mondriaan. They failed.

So it is true that part of the theory work: the ancient Greeks built well-proportioned temples by using the golden ratio. But we still have some work to find out why we like to look at certain things and not at other.
Thanks, Jerome - balance and succinct argument!

So we CAN indeed use some such structural guides to give our photographs some tendencies towards reproducible emotive effects!

That's what I expected. We don't need any "complete theory" in order to leverage current knowledge in our daily photography!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old September 20th, 2015, 02:04 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
So we CAN indeed use some such structural guides to give our photographs some tendencies towards reproducible emotive effects!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Now you are confusing things. I was only talking about aesthetics, not emotions in general.
Hmm, didn't mean to make a grab for more debating territory.

Well Jerome, I admit that having thought a lot about this, I might not have recruited a band of followers as yet, LOL!

However, likely as not, liking and being affected by shapes and colors in an image will be proven, in MHO, to use, (at least in part), the brains more basic archaic centers for core emotions. It can be considered that what we consider as "reactions", including esthetic considerations, (that are, at least, partly visceral), have contributions to their "build" from multiple simpler and more basic ancient circuitry.

If one can accept this hypothesis, unless one could show that esthetics always excluded basic eruptive emotive characteristics, then it's reasonable to infer that esthetics shares constituent components with many other similarly complex human reactions, that similarly appear to possess emotive components including, but not limited to "fascination", "love", "beauty" and yes, even "good composition"!

So, at least to my way of thinking, these core ancient eruptive emotions will likely to be shown to be integral to both complex "constructed" emotions as well as partly rational processes such as the consideration and experience of esthetics in works of art. However, that's not required to apply any beneficial rules or guidelines to our art, where we find they fit in with out intent!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old September 20th, 2015, 02:10 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Hmm, didn't mean to make a grab for more debating territory.

Well Jerome, I admit that having thought a lot about this, I might not have recruited a band of followers as yet, LOL!

However, likely as not, liking and being affected by shapes and colors in an image will be proven, in MHO, to use, (at least in part), the brains more basic archaic centers for core emotions. It can be considered that what we consider as "reactions", including esthetic considerations, (that are, at least, partly visceral), have contributions to their "build" from multiple simpler and more basic ancient circuitry.

If one can accept this hypothesis, unless one could show that esthetics always excluded basic eruptive emotive characteristics, then it's reasonable to infer that esthetics shares constituent components with many other similarly complex human reactions, that similarly appear to possess emotive components including, but not limited to "fascination", "love", "beauty" and yes, even "good composition"!

So, at least to my way of thinking, these core ancient eruptive emotions will likely to be shown to be integral to both complex "constructed" emotions as well as partly rational processes such as the consideration and experience of esthetics in works of art. However, that's not required to apply any beneficial rules or guidelines to our art, where we find they fit in with out intent!

Asher
I see. Please tell me why people find Piet Mondriaan paintings nice.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old September 20th, 2015, 03:21 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I see. Please tell me why people find Piet Mondriaan paintings nice.
Jerome,

Once again I thank you for giving me a jolt of a perceptual challenge.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old September 20th, 2015, 10:31 PM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,619
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
You missed out mentioning that Bridget is a racist of the worse kind.
Indeed. Who would have predicted at the height of her career that she would turn that way?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old September 21st, 2015, 01:28 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,307
Default

Ok Asher.

Let me state that it is far easier to challenge/criticize/find faults/argue with a poster who starts something to illustrate something than to actually present one's own work to illustrate some thought.

Secondly, painting and photography have one big difference between them.

A painter starts with a blank sheet. She/he does not have to bother with distractions, for example, the painter just does not paint them. No such thing for a photographer. He/she has to contend with is around
him/her and work his/her way around it or include it within the frame in a meaningful way..hopefully.

( Cloning away in PS is one way, of course ).

Let's not call them rules or theories. Let's just call them ' things that seem to work '. Not the only things, but some things..having been practiced by photographers way more talented than any of us here.

Let me illustrate with something simple..drawing the viewer's attention to an object in the image. The simplest way I can illustrate this is with light/dark ( I had commented on this previously ). Added along with the fact that there is no other object that would distract a viewer's attention. ( there are multiple ways to accomplish such a thing..observations, let's call them ).

Remember these are my own photographs, not a theoretical discussion in a classroom or intellectual treatise on the work of other painters or scientists.

__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old September 21st, 2015, 01:34 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,307
Default

Another one. I want the viewer to move around, not fixate them in one place..


How am I doing this? Have I been successful? Only the viewer can decide that.

Apologies, these image have been previously posted.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old September 21st, 2015, 01:42 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,307
Default

People, much smarter than me, have observed that an object, any object, however small but that which breaks up the monotony of a vastly expansive space stands out. They even suggest that the human figure stands out more. The viewer is eventually forced to see in that direction.

I don't know. What do you think?


Now let's see the others that have been discussing in this thread, post images taken by them to illustrate
how their image is supposed to engage their viewers.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old September 21st, 2015, 03:57 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Great start! All work!

Digs included!
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old September 21st, 2015, 04:42 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Nice pictures, Fahim. Even the first.
What am I saying? As if the first should be isolated because of its simple and common approach
Some of what you say is probably taken as common knowledge and somewhat truthful; especially the bit about the number of people smarter than you.
As for the other aspects of vision, it's a matter of what's wagging what: the dog or the tail.
When we first set eyes on a photograph, as with all things, our eyes scan, quickly and comprehensively, gathering detail in a relatively random manner at first, since our brain has no way of foreseeing.
As the information from each part of the photograph is collected and connected we begin to establish a 'composite' where colour, tone and movement are identified, decoded, identified and recognized in association with our memory.
This all takes a short time in most cases, unless the scene is large. It's not perfect either. It's amazing what we miss first time around. Ever lost your keys and find them staring you in the face and you wonder how you missed them? Maybe not. Do tents have locks?
So how can we utilize this phenomenon to ensure people notice what we want them to?
Some of the things are obvious.

Put it in the middle.
Make it big, sharp, bright, easily recognizable, common, human, facial, culturally acceptable, connect easily to common human emotions, put a word on it.

Not all at once, mind you.

Look at your own photos and see how many of these things are used.

These aren't 'rules' so much? More your understanding of human nature, although that might be incomplete, especially in the understanding of Australian culture, or our lack thereof.

More refinement is possible with colour recognition, form and repetition, and a stack of bits and pieces we determine valuable based on experience and liking of our own and from our audience.

Such inclusions don't always work. That's when you post a photo and some dickhead with no taste sees something they don't like in the picture, have a self centered approach to everything and think it's about them, ask WTF, and tell you to delete it before they throw up..

So, how do we compose?

Have a good idea. No. Just have an idea. **** ideas will still need composing.

Find a place to fulfill it. This may come first.

Find a place to stand that enables you to get a good look at what you want.

Have a look through the viewfinder to see how it looks in a box on a flat surface. Spend some time with that so your brain gets a chance to formulate an opinion.

At this stage, someone is bound to pounce on you for taking a photo of their child or ask you what camera you own. Tell them you're a pedo but one with good taste since you can afford a Leica. With stripes.

You might now engage your tech head for things like ISO, aperture, shutter speed, lens choice etc.

Ready? Now shoot. Well, not know. When you think the time is right.

Now for the last stage. Up load it, fiddle for refinement, print and hang on the wall.

From this point on its out of your hands. Chances are your relatives and friends will like it. You may have enough on line friends and acquaintances who will tick the like box. Some minor gallery owner with a hole in the wall to cover might grab a copy, an arty farty from Chicago will buy it, flog it for a profit and call you to be your agent for which he will make a mint and you'll get enough to buy a new lens.

Then again, it may stay on your computer and your relatives will dump it when your dead so the grandkids can have more space for their computer games.

Composition is fickle and denies a formula. There are too many variables. One mans rule is another mans vegemite sandwich.
Go with the variable. Test them out. Play with them. Extra ordinary things happen during play.
Sorry, Fahim. I'm sort of talking to everyone, not just you. I know you don't listen to a madman from down under anyway.

I'll get off my soap box now. I might go piss up a tree or shoot a barking dog. Oh, I know. There's some new people in the street. I'll go and covet the wife, tell the husband I'm a gynecologist, and steal some silver wear on the way it.

Cheers all
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old September 21st, 2015, 01:31 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Fahim,

Your examples are great. I have been busy with the thread on color, server issues and many pictures to deliver as well as no air conditioning at 105 degrees F and no hot water! Now that I have found contractors and got OPF up and running again, I can work on my own examples to this important topic.

To everyone following:

I've removed as many of the OFF-topic "musings" to a new
thread
in Layback Café. This thread is strictly to explore
and share ideas we can
use in composition. Keep on topic.

To discuss, anythng else, perhaps "rules" and

the joy breakingthem, go to the daughter thread.


Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old September 21st, 2015, 01:51 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default Small elements in a large geometrcally simple, essentially diagonal omposition

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
People, much smarter than me, have observed that an object, any object, however small but that which breaks up the monotony of a vastly expansive space stands out. They even suggest that the human figure stands out more. The viewer is eventually forced to see in that direction.

I don't know. What do you think?




Fahim,


Frst the composition contains at least 12 long bold, diagonal and quasi-parallel swatches of color. Some are in the water, some in the sand. (There's to me no "monotony", as this is so intriguing and detailed in itself). But al these bands of texture, movement and energy make for a fascinating immediate movement left to right and then a single small figure catches out attention and we are drawn in! Powerful!

Here, it seems to me that the subject is the woman in the water, not the vast expanse. That gloriously provides a very clear setting for a story we ourselves have to think up.

This is one of the circumstances where a title is not needed, as this picture, does indeed speak for itself.

This is indeed a great example of how a small fixed point can cause us to stop and discover its nature. Must be primordial. It really is helpful in this composition. In this picture, one does not know anything just that we can easily recognize it's woman in a bathing suit enjoying the water. The rest of the story is unwritten. This is the power built in to such an apparently simple composition. One has a broad sweep of the setting and just a tiny representation of the person.

If this was a large wall print, we'd linger and wonder about the rest of the story. The paradox of such incomplete art, is that we are allowed to bring to the picture our own ideas to fill in the gaps.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old September 21st, 2015, 02:06 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
Another one. I want the viewer to move around, not fixate them in one place..








Quote:
Originally Posted by Fahim Mohammad View Post
How am I doing this? Have I been successful? Only the viewer can decide that.

Apologies, these image have been previously posted.


Yes, Fahim, I remember this post well!

You say you want the viewer to mover around. Well the picture makes us do exactle that!

The ball on the left acts as an anchor, a fixed reference from which to explore further. The girl has movement and then we return to the ball and realize it also seems to have movement to as if it's the center of a merry go round or carousel! I don't know if that's your intent was anything like that.

I like the ideas and plan to borrow them myself if I can set it up and test it for myself.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 08:58 AM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,421
Default

There is a difference between following composition rules blindly and having the knowledge necessary to understand what we are saying with our images. Few things in composition are intuitive. In order to share a precise message with our audience we need to acquire the knowledge necessary to know what we are doing.

Intuition can only take us so far. When looking at the work of masterful artists, or accomplished photographers, much of what we consider to be 'intuitive' is actually intentional and based on solid concepts of composition (notice I use the word concepts and not rules).

Cartier Bresson used the Golden Mean extensively in his work. Did he ever talk about it? No, or only in passing during conversations with peers. Certainly not in interviews or in his artist statements. Is his use of the Golden Mean responsible for our fascination with his street scenes and other images? It has to be. Why? Because the Golden Mean is something we respond to intuitively as human beings. It echoes in us because its proportions are aesthetically pleasing to us.

Look at the work of any accomplished artist and, if you study their work carefully, you will find proof of their knowledge of composition.

As an audience we do not necessarily have to know how composition works, or what is the Golden Mean to take but one example. While having this knowledge can certainly increase our understanding of the work, all that is asked of us as audience is to enjoy the work or be critical of it, as the case might be.

However, as artists, we need to know how to construct images because doing so is the key to creating photographs that go beyond the commonplace or the 'happy accident'. Arguing that art is freedom and that therefore there is no need to learn composition is hogwash. Freedom, knowledge and study are not antithetical. In fact, they are complementary. Knowledge is the key to freedom and study is the key to obtaining this knowledge. This is true in all aspects of life. Refusal to spend the necessary time studying is justification for laziness more than for the desire to be free.

Art can mean freedom, or it can just as well mean enslavement to hard-bound rules. Freedom means freeing from rules, not running away from rules. Refusing to learn rules, or concepts as I prefer to say, means running away from them rather than freeing ourselves from them.
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 02:35 PM
James Lemon James Lemon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,737
Default Psycholgical Lines

This image illustrates the use of psychological lines or invisible lines, implied lines, etc, among other names

Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 02:44 PM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

I'd like to see your references on this, Alain.
Proof is hard to come by.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 03:06 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Tom,

Let's do the following. Give examples of a picture where the photographer feels that some feature arrangement is helpful or doesn't make any difference. Then we can discover whether or not this connection is coherent with how others here experience the same image, even with the compositional techniques being explained.

We will then not be dealing with any set of holy grail "rules" of an art institute, (valid or not), but with our own community's responses to different pictures. Let's see what we get.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 04:09 PM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,307
Default

First a thank you to Mr.Alain for his valuable contribution.

James, that is a wonderful photograph and your explanation adds to its strength. I had previously remarked how impressive this photograph was; when you originally posted it.


Asher, here are a few examples ( by masters of their art ) of what I think are concepts of mathematics ( call them what you will..the golden mean, sections etc. ) being used..

The first image is incorrectly attributed to Cartier-Besson. It is actually by Martine Franck, Cartier- Besson's wife and a member of Magnum..


This following one is by Henri Cartier-Besson..


This one, iconic , by Alfred Eisenstaedt...


And the last one, for now, is by my favorite painter, Vermeer..( Officer and Laughing girl )


Re: Vermeer. He was known for his painless attention to the positioning of each element within his canvas. Of course, he was a master par excellence of light, shade and color...compositional elements.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 08:43 PM
James Lemon James Lemon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
First a thank you to Mr.Alain for his valuable contribution.

James, that is a wonderful photograph and your explanation adds to its strength. I had previously remarked how impressive this photograph was; when you originally posted it.


Asher, here are a few examples ( by masters of their art ) of what I think are concepts of mathematics ( call them what you will..the golden mean, sections etc. ) being used..

The first image is incorrectly attributed to Cartier-Besson. It is actually by Martine Franck, Cartier- Besson's wife and a member of Magnum..


This following one is by Henri Cartier-Besson..


This one, iconic , by Alfred Eisenstaedt...


And the last one, for now, is by my favorite painter, Vermeer..( Officer and Laughing girl )


Re: Vermeer. He was known for his painless attention to the positioning of each element within his canvas. Of course, he was a master par excellence of light, shade and color...compositional elements.
Thank you again for your kind words Fahim! Whether one shoots in Black and white or color one can't avoid the fact that a well composed image produces the strongest picture.

James
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old September 22nd, 2015, 09:25 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

Would a brave soul here venture to pick any picture that seems to have a recognizable guiding structural premise and explain how it might work.

For the golden mean, perhaps draw some rectangles on the picture or however you wish to describe the concept or geometric relationship, position or specific color effect being used.

I would love for us to be educated as to what schemes and tools folk believe are being employed that might be making each individual work in some way more effective.

Any brave takers?

Asher

Plain dismissal of these pictures is not an option. Rather try to find find one you think might be depending on some structural device.
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 12:13 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Would a brave soul here venture to pick any picture that seems to have a recognizable guiding structural premise and explain how it might work.

For the golden mean, perhaps draw some rectangles on the picture or however you wish to describe the concept or geometric relationship, position or specific color effect being used.

I would love for us to be educated as to what schemes and tools folk believe are being employed that might be making each individual work in some way more effective.

Any brave takers?

Asher

Plain dismissal of these pictures is not an option. Rather try to find find one you think might be depending on some structural device.
You're not begging, are you, Ash?
Sounds like it.

I'd ask this question.

Do YOU apply any such structures to your own photo composition?

Who of us does?

There must be some out there who have examples of tier own work they consider worthy of setting an example.

Not much point in using someone else's unless you know for sure it was structured perposefully using a specific tool.

So here's my processing.

1. An idea, roughly formulated in my head as a picnic basket might be.
2. Walk around until something begins to fit the bill.
3. Point the camera and have a look what's in the viewfinder.
3. At this point in looking for physical and mental relationships in form, tone, colour, size, focus.
4. Make a few tech adjustments to define some aspects.
5. Wait. Not sure what for. It just seems a nice thing to do.
6. Shoot and check the replay for exposure and framing.
7. Wait a bit more.
8 wait a bit more.
9 take some more shots with slight differences in composition.
10. Have a look at what's on the computer.
11. Try a range of options until I'm content something has reached a point of satisfaction.
12. Come back in a day, week, month, year or longer and have another look.
13. Adjust where necessary.

The bits your probably looking for at the 'waiting' bits.
It's my memory I rely on most of the time.
What was the idea?
What triggered that idea?
What do I remember from past photos that might help get this together?
What can I do when I get home that I can't do with the camera?
Do the bits in the photo make sense?
Do I want them to make sense?
Do I need to show everything (inclusive) or leave a few things to the imagination (exclusive)?
Have I described the contents sufficiently?
Is there enough information to gain an explanation of what is happening?
If an interpretation is to be made, have I provided enough information to gain an interpretation?
If I want to stimulate some thinking or feelings, have I included the appropriate signals that the likely audience will identify?

I'm sure there is more. A lot of it is sort of auto mode, based on what I have found is effective for me, firstly and an audience a long secondly.

I'm still searching for new ideas. The results of some are lost and quickly put aside. Those that I like I use again or add to.
Everything has come from a life of experimentation. Somehow I missed the rule stuff. I probably was reading comics during that lesson.

I'm also a firm believer in the idea that the human brain is capable a of a lot more than we give it credit for., some of which I don't understand and don't need to.

As they say in the circus: never mention the clowns nose because that's all you'll see .

Some examples from the above process.

nightcliff 20090222_0123 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr


_DSF6014 by Tom Dinning, on Flickr


Untitled by Tom Dinning, on Flickr


Untitled by Tom Dinning, on Flickr

Last edited by Asher Kelman; September 24th, 2015 at 09:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 12:42 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

The question might now be:

How do I know where to put things in the frame to achieve the results I want?

I dont have to know.
They are already in position.
My job is to move around until the stars align, as they say.
I can only do that my DOING!
Every situation is so different.
Every idea is a new one.
Every photo is unique.

There may well be a single idea in there.
My Old Man said; To [take better pictures] you need to be a better person.
He applied that to everything he did.
He didn't always succeed but he gave it his best shot.

Thats all we can expect of any of us.
It doesnt mean, by the way, you need to be like everyone else or use the same ethics, ideals or rules.

So, if you want a rule or a structure or a format, create one yourself and tell the world about it.
A few might listen, but most will shrug it off as something that just doesnt fit their needs.

There's nothing wrong with teaching your new found method to others.
Thats where their ideas come from in the beginning. Then again, they may not be listening, like I wasn't way back when.

So where does it get us?

You taking your pictures the way you want and me doing my thing.
That's why we share, Ash; because we use different processes in our head to get to our own place; you up a ladder and me up s-hit creek.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 12:43 AM
Andy brown Andy brown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,094
Default

I'll have a little go Asher.

This one. It's a recognisable form of nature. The set of physical properties that make a nautilus or abalone shell form the way they do.
As an image I don't think much of it at all. Might kinda help if it was in focus.


This following one is by Henri Cartier-Besson..

This is a beauty. I think it's much the same shape (the nautilus) in terms of composition. Your eye follows the stairs down and around and even continues where the stairs are out of sight and then voila, there's the cyclist in exactly the right position as if he just ridden down the stairs and been spat out on the street and with just the right amount of movement. There's a bit of other stuff going but I think that's why it works.

Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 12:59 AM
Andy brown Andy brown is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,094
Default

I know you said not to Asher but to me this one is more like a lucky strike.

It summed up a mood that so many felt empathy with at the time.
And yes it's a great shot but I really don't believe composition has much to do with it, it unfolded, he went click.

If the aliens landed in my front yard and I took a photo of first contact it would be legendary and I would be famous. Not because of my superior skills.


Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 01:05 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy brown View Post
I know you said not to Asher but to me this one is more like a lucky strike.

It summed up a mood that so many felt empathy with at the time.
And yes it's a great shot but I really don't believe composition has much to do with it, it unfolded, he went click.

If the aliens landed in my front yard and I took a photo of first contact it would be legendary and I would be famous. Not because of my superior skills.


I couldn't agree more.
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 02:35 AM
Tom dinning Tom dinning is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Darwin NT Australia
Posts: 2,088
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cem_Usakligil View Post
I couldn't agree more.
Now there's something we can work on.
LUCK
Being in the right place at the right time.
All things come to those who wait.
The odds are against you.
Better luck next time.

Destiny is one thats been tried. I lost my seat on a flight once because of destiny, according to the Emerites desk clerk.

God willing!
They called to day. The God Squad. I was polite.
"I have all the miracles I can handle for the day, but thanks anyway"

I'm surer Allah has his dose of wisdom here as well.


So how do we teach or learn such things as luck?

Not something I've seen in any curriculum I know.

Odds, maybe. Possibilities, permutations and all that maths stuff.

What skills does a good gambler have?
I bet they have their parallel in photography.

I'm not much help here, am I. Just questions.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 07:56 AM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,355
Default

I am unable to decide whether this festival of navel contemplation is wondrous or dreadful.

I am reminded of the famous matter of determining the movement of three bodies under only the influence of their respective mutual gravitational attraction, which resists classical rigorous analytical computation.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 08:03 AM
Cem_Usakligil Cem_Usakligil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,939
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
....
I am reminded of the famous matter of determining the movement of three bodies under only the influence of their respective mutual gravitational attraction, which resists classical rigorous analytical computation.
That's a great analogy. Did you read the book "The Three Body Problem" by Liu Cixin? Certainly recommended.
__________________
Kind Regards, Cem

flickr
website
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 10:17 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,307
Default

Henri Cartier-Besson..






Simple Vermeer...Each placement, each mass, each weighting was mathematically and precisely calculated, I am sure before a drop of paint was applied. Each shade, color, color harmony/contrast was thought of...Simple Vermeer. It can get very precise if need be. BTW, the spiral focal point illustrate here is precisely between the hand and the glass of the lady.


Try Salvador Dali's ' the Last Supper ". Dali was a very great admirer of Vermeer's works.
Alfred Eisenstaedt? He gets very precise. Try his ' Ballerinas ' portfolio as an exercise.

Want more. Seek and you shall find. Is it fake? Maybe. Who knows.

p.s. I am just copying and pasting. I am not as smart as all others here..


Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Would a brave soul here venture to pick any picture that seems to have a recognizable guiding structural premise and explain how it might work.

For the golden mean, perhaps draw some rectangles on the picture or however you wish to describe the concept or geometric relationship, position or specific color effect being used.

I would love for us to be educated as to what schemes and tools folk believe are being employed that might be making each individual work in some way more effective.

Any brave takers?

Asher

Plain dismissal of these pictures is not an option. Rather try to find find one you think might be depending on some structural device.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old September 23rd, 2015, 10:30 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is online now
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 33,681
Default

I'm happy to see this, Fahim. This is most helpful!

I myself consider the ""Rule of thirds" in much of my work if it seems to work better. I can believe that Vermeer could have used these guides with careful premeditated forethought.

With HCB, however, (and his wife with the spiral staircase, above), I wonder whether we are not just looking with our one great tool and finding that some of many great pictures fit. Or is there any evidence of "intended design" using these guides in these particular photographs?

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fun: Hiroshima, Japan Damien Paul Landscape - Travel 40 April 18th, 2010 09:00 AM
Fun: Still life with slide rules and graph paper Doug Kerr Studio, Portrait, Still Life, Lighting Equipment and Technique 11 March 29th, 2009 04:45 AM
Breaking The Rules: Examples Sought Sean DeMerchant Photography as Art 5 October 3rd, 2006 03:51 PM
Full frame, focusing and composition Jan Luursema Canon Eos Mount DSLRs 8 September 4th, 2006 01:47 PM
Posting rules? Stan Jirman OPF Look, Feel, and Vibe 21 June 6th, 2006 01:21 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:06 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!