Composition and all that Arty stuff - discussion thread.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14291617
But look at the work as a whole. There is a common visual thread running through it all. It all looks like her work.

She committed suicide in her 20s. One thread that runs through most great work is honesty about how the photographer sees life and I would say not only does her work have a consistent thread it was very honest.

I find the body of work very negative in tone and not something I would explore Allen.

I do not want that type of imagery in my head...

mtimber wrote in post #14291747
I find the body of work very negative in tone and not something I would explore Allen.

I do not want that type of imagery in my head...

Then don't go near Witkin

But my point is that she has put together a body of work that relates and also shows us a real piece of the Francesca Woodman. Whether you like the work or not can and maybe should be a separate conversation.

I think it was DeCarava that said something like and I'm paraphrasing again sorry" You should be able to look at me and see my work and you should be able to look at my work and see me.' I wish I were that disciplined

mtimber wrote in post #14291325
This is my method also.

I think what Allen is introducing to me is the idea of a "language" to quantify that.

A set of principles that enable clear assessment of an image.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with learning the "language" as long as you don't get too caught up in it. I think there's just a common misconception about rules. They are guidelines or suggestions. Nothing more. Nothing less. If every photographer followed these rules to the letter, then all photographs will look pretty similar. It's what you do with them and how you make them your own that counts.

That said, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to know these rules. The only rule I know is the rule of thirds, and I never think about it. Now I'd be lying to you if I told you that rule doesn't creep into my photos. I'd be lying to you if I told you I never think about not centering a subject. Of course I do, but it's more instincts at this point and my vision always is the priority. ALWAYS.

It's really the chicken or the egg type of deal in some sense. It's difficult to explain. I mean, with music, you just don't pick it up. You have to go through at least some fundamentals, and that'll influence how you think, how you hear, and how you play. I would assume the same goes for photography.

So yeah, I shoot what I see. But what I see is influenced by so many different things, whether it's another photo I saw, an article I read on composition, or even just the way I feel that day. That's the beauty of it. The journey to make it your own. It's not easy. But it sure is a fun ride.

nicksan wrote in post #14292066
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with learning the "language" as long as you don't get too caught up in it. I think there's just a common misconception about rules. They are guidelines or suggestions. Nothing more. Nothing less. If every photographer followed these rules to the letter, then all photographs will look pretty similar. It's what you do with them and how you make them your own that counts.

That said, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to know these rules. The only rule I know is the rule of thirds, and I never think about it. Now I'd be lying to you if I told you that rule doesn't creep into my photos. I'd be lying to you if I told you I never think about not centering a subject. Of course I do, but it's more instincts at this point and my vision always is the priority. ALWAYS.

It's really the chicken or the egg type of deal in some sense. It's difficult to explain. I mean, with music, you just don't pick it up. You have to go through at least some fundamentals, and that'll influence how you think, how you hear, and how you play. I would assume the same goes for photography.

So yeah, I shoot what I see. But what I see is influenced by so many different things, whether it's another photo I saw, an article I read on composition, or even just the way I feel that day. That's the beauty of it. The journey to make it your own. It's not easy. But it sure is a fun ride.

I think I prefer the idea of "compositional principles" rather than "compositional rules".

A principle is something that can be used or laid aside, which I think is what you are expressing above, correct me if I am wrong.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14291774
Then don't go near Witkin

But my point is that she has put together a body of work that relates and also shows us a real piece of the Francesca Woodman. Whether you like the work or not can and maybe should be a separate conversation.

I think it was DeCarava that said something like and I'm paraphrasing again sorry" You should be able to look at me and see my work and you should be able to look at my work and see me.' I wish I were that disciplined

What if a "body of work", became a straight jacket?

Is it possible that the desire to have a "body of work", could result in quite a limited range of imagery that must fit into that body?

And wouldn't that then become "limited"?

nicksan wrote in post #14292066
And there's absolutely nothing wrong with learning the "language" as long as you don't get too caught up in it. I think there's just a common misconception about rules. They are guidelines or suggestions. Nothing more. Nothing less. If every photographer followed these rules to the letter, then all photographs will look pretty similar. It's what you do with them and how you make them your own that counts.

That said, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to know these rules. The only rule I know is the rule of thirds, and I never think about it. Now I'd be lying to you if I told you that rule doesn't creep into my photos. I'd be lying to you if I told you I never think about not centering a subject. Of course I do, but it's more instincts at this point and my vision always is the priority. ALWAYS.

It's really the chicken or the egg type of deal in some sense. It's difficult to explain. I mean, with music, you just don't pick it up. You have to go through at least some fundamentals, and that'll influence how you think, how you hear, and how you play. I would assume the same goes for photography.

So yeah, I shoot what I see. But what I see is influenced by so many different things, whether it's another photo I saw, an article I read on composition, or even just the way I feel that day. That's the beauty of it. The journey to make it your own. It's not easy. But it sure is a fun ride.

But heres the thing. In some images the center is the right answer and the RoTs in others, and the very edge of the frame in some, is the right answer. The secret comes from understanding when all the elements in the frame make it the right answer. And to see and do that in a fraction of a second. The only way to get there is to put in the work. So keep working and eventually you will find some of the answers and if not its a great ride. For me the rides over if I ever find all the answers.

mtimber wrote in post #14292188
What if a "body of work", became a straight jacket?

Is it possible that the desire to have a "body of work", could result in quite a limited range of imagery that must fit into that body?

And wouldn't that then become "limited"?

Its up to the individual photographer to not make it so. But the more you shoot and the more aware you become the more objective your eye becomes thus the more selective you become when you work and edit your work.

mtimber wrote in post #14292172
I think I prefer the idea of "compositional principles" rather than "compositional rules".

A principle is something that can be used or laid aside, which I think is what you are expressing above, correct me if I am wrong.

Maybe. I'm not sure. It's very difficult to explain myself when it comes to all of this , but let me see if I can.

In music, I became someone of an recluse in some sense, refusing to play with other musicians or play public gigs because I was in "pursuit" of something. I despised any genre of music except Jazz. I thought Jazz was the superior music form and everything else was garbage. My best friend, a Master Jazz Musician (whatever that means to you, or even I...let's just say I have immense respect for this person), always pushed me to learn the "language". He pushed me hard. I would play some tunes with him and he would stop in the middle of it and point out what I did wrong. I would tell him "But that's what I heard. How can it be wrong?". He would go on in a theoretical tangent about why what I played was wrong. He did this thinking it was for my own good, but what ended up happening was, I slowly but surely began to feel pain instead of joy, because I felt what I was after was unattainable. Maybe I just don't have the ears for this. Maybe I need to study that much harder. Maybe it's my personality. Etc, etc. In the end I just lost touch with what was important, at least for me. The joy of playing music. There was no more joy. Just pain. So one day, I decided to quit. That left a void in me. I still needed a creative outlet because I feel I've been creative all my life. This is where photography filled that void very nicely.

My friend always wondered about why I quit. I gave him B.S. excuses but one day we sat down and had a chat. He had no idea I felt that way, but in the end he regrets taking the approach he took, not only with me, but for himself, which shocked me. He told me there were times he also felt the pain because of that never-ending pursuit. A few years ago, he learned how to let go, and his playing just sky-rocketed, which I thought was never possible because he was already a tremendous player. But he said that's something he learned from me. He also told me out of all the players he played with, I'm pretty much the only one he trusted and he actually "borrowed" some of my ideas in the past. Oh, the irony.

Having said that, there are a few things to remember. He did indeed learn the "language" and that inevitably made him the musician that he is today. He can "let go" because he has something to let go of. But he is still benefiting from his IMMENSE knowledge. It's pretty innate at this point. He's made it his own. Absolutely. But his approach is different. It's similar to the approach I take in photography. I am finally able to talk to him artist to artist, not student to teacher. We see eye to eye...after all these years.

So when you feel that kind of pain, you tend to come from a different place and approach it differently. That's not to say pain is any kind of requirement. That's hardly the case. I feel no pain shooting photos. But that was a deliberate choice because I would rather just "wing it" and learn as I go, on my own, with as little outside influence (bares repeating, you can't completely avoid outside influences not do I recommend that you do), than to go through what I went through with music again.

So the most important thing for me is to ENJOY. The way my brain is wired, I can't enjoy anything if I am too consumed by the "language". This is why I take the approach I take. Literally, shoot what I see. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it.

I hope that makes sense!

mtimber wrote in post #14292188
What if a "body of work", became a straight jacket?

Is it possible that the desire to have a "body of work", could result in quite a limited range of imagery that must fit into that body?

And wouldn't that then become "limited"?

I suppose it depends on what type of "body of work" you are talking about. But yes, that can be a dangerous trap. It doesn't have to be though...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #14292208
But heres the thing. In some images the center is the right answer and the RoTs in others, and the very edge of the frame in some, is the right answer. The secret comes from understanding when all the elements in the frame make it the right answer. And to see and do that in a fraction of a second. The only way to get there is to put in the work. So keep working and eventually you will find some of the answers and if not its a great ride. For me the rides over if I ever find all the answers.

I think we are actually agreeing. I don't think that way perhaps because it's become innate. Perhaps this is why I can shoot what I see and produce halfway decent images. I try not to dwell on the why's. I just do it. It's extremely non-academic. If I messed up on the image, I'll try to figure out why on my own. I'll ask myself questions like "why does this image look bland or boring" or "what could I have done better to make the image more interesting". My reaction is never "Damn, I need to do more reading on theory". I'll never make that mistake ever again.

nicksan wrote in post #14292302
Maybe. I'm not sure. It's very difficult to explain myself when it comes to all of this , but let me see if I can.

In music, I became someone of an recluse in some sense, refusing to play with other musicians or play public gigs because I was in "pursuit" of something. I despised any genre of music except Jazz. I thought Jazz was the superior music form and everything else was garbage. My best friend, a Master Jazz Musician (whatever that means to you, or even I...let's just say I have immense respect for this person), always pushed me to learn the "language". He pushed me hard. I would play some tunes with him and he would stop in the middle of it and point out what I did wrong. I would tell him "But that's what I heard. How can it be wrong?". He would go on in a theoretical tangent about why what I played was wrong. He did this thinking it was for my own good, but what ended up happening was, I slowly but surely began to feel pain instead of joy, because I felt what I was after was unattainable. Maybe I just don't have the ears for this. Maybe I need to study that much harder. Maybe it's my personality. Etc, etc. In the end I just lost touch with what was important, at least for me. The joy of playing music. There was no more joy. Just pain. So one day, I decided to quit. That left a void in me. I still needed a creative outlet because I feel I've been creative all my life. This is where photography filled that void very nicely.

My friend always wondered about why I quit. I gave him B.S. excuses but one day we sat down and had a chat. He had no idea I felt that way, but in the end he regrets taking the approach he took, not only with me, but for himself, which shocked me. He told me there were times he also felt the pain because of that never-ending pursuit. A few years ago, he learned how to let go, and his playing just sky-rocketed, which I thought was never possible because he was already a tremendous player. But he said that's something he learned from me. He also told me out of all the players he played with, I'm pretty much the only one he trusted and he actually "borrowed" some of my ideas in the past. Oh, the irony.

Having said that, there are a few things to remember. He did indeed learn the "language" and that inevitably made him the musician that he is today. He can "let go" because he has something to let go of. But he is still benefiting from his IMMENSE knowledge. It's pretty innate at this point. He's made it his own. Absolutely. But his approach is different. It's similar to the approach I take in photography. I am finally able to talk to him artist to artist, not student to teacher. We see eye to eye...after all these years.

So when you feel that kind of pain, you tend to come from a different place and approach it differently. That's not to say pain is any kind of requirement. That's hardly the case. I feel no pain shooting photos. But that was a deliberate choice because I would rather just "wing it" and learn as I go, on my own, with as little outside influence (bares repeating, you can't completely avoid outside influences not do I recommend that you do), than to go through what I went through with music again.

So the most important thing for me is to ENJOY. The way my brain is wired, I can't enjoy anything if I am too consumed by the "language". This is why I take the approach I take. Literally, shoot what I see. Nothing more. Nothing less. That's it.

I hope that makes sense!

I suppose it depends on what type of "body of work" you are talking about. But yes, that can be a dangerous trap. It doesn't have to be though...

I can see why you would resist formularised pursuits of perfection after this post. Thanks for sharing.

Mark

mtimber wrote in post #14292331
I can see why you would resist formularised pursuits of perfection after this post. Thanks for sharing.

Mark

This is such an interesting discussion. I stopped thinking about this stuff, but it's invigorating to revisit this once in a while. Thanks for starting the thread!

nicksan wrote in post #14292380
This is such an interesting discussion. I stopped thinking about this stuff, but it's invigorating to revisit this once in a while. Thanks for starting the thread!

No problem.

It is good to share ideas and knowledge.

And also challenge one another in a friendly manner.

I think some people call it "education"...

This is the way it should be. I really enjoy threads like this. Good topic mtimber.

No problem.

Here is an old one of a friend of mine, captured whilst playing.

Most of the composition on this was done in post, where I often see the composition.

Not perfect due to some hot spots, but one of my favourites as it captured my friends spirit perfectly.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

On that note.

I often take a picture without any strict composition.

Then when I sit down and look at it on the screen, I get a sense there is a good composition in the image.

So a lot of composition for me, takes place after the fact.

Obviously part is in the moment you take it, but it is often the case I will look at a photo and think:

"There is a picture in here somewhere."

Then I will play with the picture until I find it...