Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

[Ricardo222]

Originally Posted by jetcode

One of the last Adams images I saw was an image of half dome. It was clearly out of focus and the print quality was marginal however it was an original print. I am far less interested in comparing images to a preconceived notion of acceptance than I am in evaluating the immediate response to an image. Too many rules and illusions that must be followed in order to produce something that maps to the vision of another. If an image sings you will know it ... or not. It's a moving target.

Ah yes...that is the whole point! There is, in the end, no "preconceived notion of acceptance". If we want to discuss what works or doesn't work for us in pictures that we see, (and anyone who doesn't would be sensible not to join this thread,) then we need a "language" to use. Not a prescriptive but a descriptive language, preferably.

Rules have no part in this...they tend to be the tired old training wheels that we had as kids when we learned the basics.

I would suggest that anyone interested in getting beyond those basics read David duChemin's book "Photographically Speaking". He deals with this in a firm and intelligent way IMO.

[jetcode]

At this point I don't even want to cloud my perceptions with a language. I want to let my eyes drive the composition entirely. Not that there isn't a lot to consider and the subtle details make or break a shot.

[mtimber]

Originally Posted by Ricardo222

Do I dare??

(Which one would that be, M?)

The second from last you posted in the 5d3 thread.

[Ricardo222]

Originally Posted by mtimber

The second from last you posted in the 5d3 thread.

You mean this one? I can think of a few things to do to it as well, so you go first!

[pbelarge]

I also love the idea of a poem or few words to go along with an image.

You know what they say about arguing with the lady of the house...

[jetcode]

Originally Posted by Ricardo222

You mean this one? I can think of a few things to do to it as well, so you go first!

Sweet image Ricardo. I really like the contrast in color and horizontal delineation. Not sure I would do anything to this image except appreciate it.

[Ricardo222]

Originally Posted by pbelarge

I also love the idea of a poem or few words to go along with an image.

You know what they say about arguing with the lady of the house...

Even if it's done nothing else, age has taught me that little bit of wisdom.

Originally Posted by jetcode

Sweet image Ricardo. I really like the contrast in color and horizontal delineation. Not sure I would do anything to this image except appreciate it.

Thank you for that. It's pretty much SOOC, with just a touch of curves to bring the contrast back to where I remembered it.

I was going to crop it to lose a bit of foreground but I'm having second thoughts.

Getting back to the previous discussion where I reiterated how the sense of aloneness worked on my subconcious at times to lead me to create some images in a certain way. Well, this one was taken from the same place and has some similar elements, but it evokes an entirely different feeling for me.

This one is about "place and time" rather than a particular mindset, so all the ingredients that "place" it become more important.

In a previous post you talked about clouding our perceptions with a language, which is what I'm probably doing now. But I'm doing it in the spirit of this thread, which demands that those who chose to participate do so in the knowledge that they will have to use words! Because words become the metaphor that helps us communicate our thoughts or feelings about a picture...but those same words are not to be taken as the last word...they are just our sometimes inadequate means of expressing our thoughts.

And sure, a successful picture does not need words to describe it, but if we wish to discuss it at all....we need words. Otherwise there wouldn't be a thread like this.

[lookingforaname]

love love love that image - love the colors, the lines, the sense of both movement and stillness. beautiful!

also - love it paired with the previous, debated photo (I'm on the take out the land side, btw). they are aesthetic complements to each other, and if I saw them in a gallery together, I would definitely spend a long while contemplating them.

[Ricardo222]

Originally Posted by lookingforaname

love love love that image - love the colors, the lines, the sense of both movement and stillness. beautiful!

also - love it paired with the previous, debated photo (I'm on the take out the land side, btw). they are aesthetic complements to each other, and if I saw them in a gallery together, I would definitely spend a long while contemplating them.

Thank you very much!

I'm interested in your comment about the two pictures being complementary....and in essence I believe they are. Another similarity not commented on so far is that they are both telephoto pictures. Some scenes just have so much in them that you either have to go really wide to reduce the scale of things so that only the larger masses really count, or delve into the landscape with a long lens and take out the essence of it...as you see it at the time.

And sometimes there are a number of workable pictures within the one wide frame...the sorting out of which is often a conundrum which is, I suspect, one of the reasons the OP started this thread!

[mtimber]

Originally Posted by Ricardo222

You mean this one? I can think of a few things to do to it as well, so you go first!

For me, this would be a straight 3x1 composition, losing all the foreground and having the horizon dead centre in the frame, so only the sky and the immediate body of water around the ship are showing...

[mtimber]

Here is a video about video composition.

But it covers some good very basic rules of framing.

Thought it might be useful for some who are just learning composition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhbZRc2tntg

[Ricardo222]

Originally Posted by mtimber

For me, this would be a straight 3x1 composition, losing all the foreground and having the horizon dead centre in the frame, so only the sky and the immediate body of water around the ship are showing...

Interesting thought, and it may well make a satisfying picture. But to me it would lose the sense of "place" that gives it extra meaning.

So much depends on those things that make a picture work...first the basic composition...breaking that down to subject, subject matter, placement within the frame, lighting, exposure etc and how all these things balance to create an image that actually means something.

Many will look at that picture and think okay, nice (or not) as the case may be, while it will resonate in some way for others. Without the foreground to me it is just a nice picture of a moored ship in the evening light....but as it is it represents a particular place, time of the year, and mood....all of which give it more depth...for me.

[mtimber]

Originally Posted by Ricardo222

Interesting thought, and it may well make a satisfying picture. But to me it would lose the sense of "place" that gives it extra meaning.

So much depends on those things that make a picture work...first the basic composition...breaking that down to subject, subject matter, placement within the frame, lighting, exposure etc and how all these things balance to create an image that actually means something.

Many will look at that picture and think okay, nice (or not) as the case may be, while it will resonate in some way for others. Without the foreground to me it is just a nice picture of a moored ship in the evening light....but as it is it represents a particular place, time of the year, and mood....all of which give it more depth...for me.

And that is key, it is what the original photographer is trying to communicate that always takes precedence.

[airfrogusmc]

Originally Posted by jetcode

One of the last Adams images I saw was an image of half dome. It was clearly out of focus and the print quality was marginal however it was an original print. I am far less interested in comparing images to a preconceived notion of acceptance than I am in evaluating the immediate response to an image. Too many rules and illusions that must be followed in order to produce something that maps to the vision of another. If an image sings you will know it ... or not. It's a moving target.

Just got back from some much needed R&R.

Joe,

I just said it reminded of that image of Adams and if you've read anything I've written here or in any thread you would see I am in total agreement with the notion of not having any pre conceived ideas or rules of any kind. I have still not read any objective explanation of why the strip of land is not distracting. I to really like both images but the one without the strip of land is stronger. These kinds of discussions are what a critique is all about.

[mtimber]

I would enjoy it if more people submitted images explaining their thoughts and opening them up to critique on this thread.