Subject and composition
Scott W
someone will often point out that it is the image that really matters
and we tend to lose sight of this.
To this end I thought I would start a thread on peoples views on what
makes a good photograph in their eyes. Not good in the sense of
technically good but good in the sense of being a photograph that they
either compelling or interesting.
There is no right or wrong in all of this just what different people
like and dislike.
For my own part if the subject is not interesting then no amount of
creativity in how it is shot will make it an interesting photograph.
But an interesting subject can be photographed in such a way that its
full impact is not realized. I like to take photos of ocean paddling,
this is a sport that I am involved with and so I find it interesting.
What I have found with paddling photograph is that a telephoto lens
makes it easier to get the photographs but when you get closer and
shoot with a wider angle lens you get much more the feeling of being
there.
This is a much harder way to photograph paddlers, for one thing you
have to get out on the water and close to them. For another they are
only in position to be photographed for an instant in time. They also
have a bad habit of looking at me and smiling. This is very much a
learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.
Whereas this photo is far from perfect it shows somewhat what I am
trying to achieve.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/57533611
This shot would not look anything at all the same using a long lens
from shore.
BTW 9 times out of 10 they will turn and look at me ruining the photo.
I would be interested to here what others are finding in their own
endeavors.
Scott
William Graham
"Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142902774.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
pictures are supposed to have artistic merit. I used to take stereo slides
of the wired panels in IBM office machines. With these, I could rewire a
stripped down panel back to its original configuration. These pictures were
miserably dull to the average viewer, but to me, they were invaluable. I
once completely disassembled an Akai tape deck down to a basket of
individual parts, being careful to take stereo photos along the way, and
then reassembled the whole thing about a month later, (when the spare part I
ordered came in). My friend, (who's son belonged to the recorder), was
completely blown away by this........
Scott W
This is very true and many if not most of the photographs I take are
more to document something. But this does not mean that we can't also
strive to take photographs that we like for themselves. I don't go
after an artistic look as much as trying to capture the feeling of
being there. I want to take photographs today that 10 and 20 years
from now will give me a strong feeling for the time and place that the
photograph was taken. I find that often a using a long lens works
against capturing this feeling.
Scott
Paul Furman
> ...many if not most of the photographs I take are
> more to document something. But this does not mean that we can't also
> strive to take photographs that we like for themselves. I don't go
> after an artistic look as much as trying to capture the feeling of
> being there. I want to take photographs today that 10 and 20 years
> from now will give me a strong feeling for the time and place that the
> photograph was taken. I find that often a using a long lens works
> against capturing this feeling.
A wide view throws you into the scene, maybe the long view feels too
detatched, distant (because it is). But also long views can be very
intimate as in portraits or macro work. But I can imagine wide is best
suited to those sea kayaks. It would be a challenge to do that in an
interesting way.
D-Mac
>> While in the heat of discussing the technical merits different gear
>> someone will often point out that it is the image that really matters
>> and we tend to lose sight of this.
>>
>> To this end I thought I would start a thread on peoples views on what
>> makes a good photograph in their eyes. Not good in the sense of
>> technically good but good in the sense of being a photograph that
>> they either compelling or interesting.
>>
Often there is a lot lost in colour and the often obsessive use of
artificially saturated colours for the sake of colour, not the picture. It's
true that photographs are not "real" as in a faithful reproduction of a
scene. They are a creation of what you - the photographer imagines the scene
to look like in 2D and as such, should have your interpretation of the scene
as the key point of the image. Plenty of people can shoot 200 pics and get 2
or 3 that look OK, even pretty good. This is not necessarily a bad thing for
those with no artistic imagination.
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/Public/sunset
Is one of mine which exemplifies my statements in this area. It conforms to
the rule of thirds although I did not compose it to that rule. It is not
cropped, shot with 10D not long after moving to digital.
Others I take, following the "advice" or suggestions of people who seem to
think that highly saturated colours are in themselves the essence of a
photograph... Are less than pleasing although sometimes I go out of my way
to saturate colour, and get pleasing results like this one:
http://www.weprint2canvas.com/gallery/album01/pano_sunset
This produced an image of what I wanted in the scene. I very rarely crop
pictures, preferring to make the composition in the camera but I cropped
this one to a panorama because in creating the image, I "saw" with my mind's
eye, the picture I created this way, is a long way off the scene as it was
at the time I took the picture. Photoshop was used to do this.
I suppose then, in the context of the thread, a "good" photograph is one the
photographer feels they have achieved what they wanted to, in taking it. I
often paint pictures rather than try to Photograph them because in doing
this, I achieve the end picture I wanted but could not produce with a
camera.
I took my first serious photo with a Box Brownie in 1957. I say serious
because it won a local photo competition. The judge ( a prominent Portrait
photographer of the time) commented that it was rare to see a picture from
someone so young which enhanced the rule of thirds so precisely.
I didn't have a clue what he was on about until 2 years later when he chose
me over 20 or so other applicants for the position of apprentice
photographer - in those days it was a trade, not a profession. I like to
think his teachings have not been entirely in vain.
There exists some rules of correct composition which were formulated many
decades ago by those who understood light and shade, colour and tone and
used to mix natural elements into colours so correct, so close to true life,
that we newcomers can only look in amazement at the paintings they created.
Anyone seeking to produce pictures with wide appeal, should seek them out
and study them. It is not a prerequisite to use them but when you do, more
people will like your pictures than if you are not aware of them.
--
www.photosbydouglas.com
www.weprint2canvas.com
If you really must write,use my
name at an above domain.
Scott W
> I'd also like to say that your photo is great! The water looks smooth
> as silk and the paddler is really working hard.
> Good work!!
Thanks
It was a very calm night on the ocean and the sun was getting ready to
set. The ocean has many moods and I would love to capture as many of
them as I can.
Scott
mark.t...@gmail.com
lists, here's mine. In order of importance (which is of course a
personal thing), and for most images:
1. Subject Matter (the emotional response thing - what are you trying
to say?)
2. Quality of Light ('unusual' light (dawn, dusk, mist, etc) = more
interesting photo)
3. Composition (get in close, reduce image to 'all it needs'.. *then*
consider the rules - you know, the ones that are meant to be broken)
Whenever I'm stuck for a good image, I try to remind myself of those 3.
Gianni Rondinini
[...]
>learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
>the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.
well, i like the photo you've linked, but i don't know if i can say
it's an interesting subject. i find it to be a nice image, that gives
a sense of quite, but what's the definition of interesting subject?
for me, a duck washing in the public park here in faenza was so
interesting that i've shot a couple of rolls of velvia 100f to him (i
say him because that was a male of Anas platyrhynchos, perhaps the
most common duck in europe) until i thought i got a good blurred image
of him. well, being sincere you're never sure you got a good shot when
doing blurred images, but chances are that with some experience you
get at least 3 or 4 goot images out of a roll or two.
another very interesting subject for me is panning sports images: i
love pannings with "fast" sports, such as cycling, motorcycling and
cars in general.
on the contrary, i don't find interesting the many images i see of
african and/or indian children or old people. i'm so tired of seeing
those images that i can't feel anything when i see them; but i still
love images taken in southwestern nat'l parks in az, ut and nv even if
i've seen thousands of them --and i've taken around 1.500 during 2
different holidays there--.
all the above is to say that i agree with you that a photo shouldn't
be only technically perfect but needs to "say something"; however the
interest in an image is at least a matter of likes/dislikes as
"blondes or dark haired?".
i want to add also that i'm really disappointed by the fact that
nowadays techniques have so improved that often, at contests and
shows, you see images which are *awful* from a technical point of view
and that have been chosen only because of their "strong" emotive
impact or their being "different" and "uncommon". the net result is
that more and more often you see unpleasant photos taken in... well,
that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
mean.
regards,
--
Gianni Rondinini (30, tanti, RA)
Nikon user - Bmw driver
http://bugbarbeq.deviantart.com
Scott W
might note.
I paddle and so canoes interest me.
> i want to add also that i'm really disappointed by the fact that
> nowadays techniques have so improved that often, at contests and
> shows, you see images which are *awful* from a technical point of view
> and that have been chosen only because of their "strong" emotive
> impact or their being "different" and "uncommon". the net result is
> that more and more often you see unpleasant photos taken in... well,
> that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
> mean.
Yup, I know what you are saying.
It seems to some that if a photo is technically bad then it must be
art, but of course it
can also just be junk.
Scott
Gianni Rondinini
>> be only technically perfect but needs to "say something"; however the
>> interest in an image is at least a matter of likes/dislikes as
>> "blondes or dark haired?".
>And this is largely the point, what one preson finds interesting others
>might note.
>I paddle and so canoes interest me.
i don't, then i didn't find your subject interesting per se pecause of
the paddle, but the photo had nice colours, nice composition, nice
overall mood, then i liked it.
>> that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
>> mean.
>Yup, I know what you are saying.
>It seems to some that if a photo is technically bad then it must be
>art, but of course it can also just be junk.
sure!
that's my point.
i mean, if the subject is important --and i don't think that anybody
thinks the contrary--, technique is important, too. a "wrong" or an
"ubly" image is wrong or ugly. full stop.
a good idea developed in the wrong way is a wasted good idea: i think
it's absolutely wrong to give a prize to an ugly photo because of the
subject or the idea, but it's happening more and more often and this
is why i'm giving up with contests. it's not because my photos are
rejected (i *really* can loose without getting angry or sad), but it's
because i'd like to see the winning images and say "god, i'd have
really loved if that photo was mine".
Kernix
That's looks great?" How can a blaster of a sunset not blow you away?
It does - to everyone - since humans have been able to enjoy such
things. Same as a field filled with flowers.
But the opposite is true - subtleties of colors, or in B+W's, or in
shadows, etc.
People shots seem to be the most moving and make the most money. I
guess that makes sense - most other art forms deal with people. But a
sunset is stirring as is a snowy landscape. I personally have 2-3
killer shots of the Halbop comet - no people. I have some interesting
stream shots in the middle of the woods. Some abstract shots where
people don't know what the subject is at first.
A good photo to the eyes? Makes you feel something; makes you stop and
think; reminds you of something - grabs your attention for one reason
or another.
I write/play music as well. Some kind a 3-chord song with simple chords
can sound great. But so many musicians only know simple chords. After a
while there is only so much you can do with 3 chords. If you want to
stand out, if you want to sound unique, you need to know more than 3
chords - a helluva lot more! Your goal is still a great sounding song,
but you have greater options to get to that goal.
No different for photography - you still want to produce a great image,
but you need to know advanced stuff along with the basics - you need to
visualize how multiple exposures can create something unique, or how
under/over exposure can add to the image, or camera shake, low light
shooting techniques, .......
Knowledge won't hurt you if you use it as just another tool. It will
impede you if you focus too hard on it - "...can't see the forest for
the trees..." thang.
Jim
Scott W
intonation but poor flat phrasing will no produce really good music.
But a violinist who has great phrasing but poor intonation will just
sound bad.
The intonation is like the technical aspects of a photograph, focus
exposure good use of DOF, the phrasing is the more artistic things, the
composition and lighting.
This gets to be somewhat of a personal thing and if someone enjoys out
of focus poorly exposed photos and feels that this makes it art then
more power too them. It really all comes down to a matter of tastes
and as such there is no real right or wrong. As long as a photograph
connects with someone in someway it is a success.
Scott
sobolik
CONNECTION - makes a good photograph.
At one time in my life I "connected" with the beautiful scenic photos
in magazines. I tried to produce the same kind of results. Then I
traveled the world and saw that stuff for myself and the connection to
those kinds of photos faded.
At another time I “connected” with photos of "firsts". Marriage, baby,
kid off to school etc. Still some firsts remain to be recorded.
Now I connect with story telling documentary photos that follow good
photo principals. That I intend for and hope that my family will
“connect” with later - documenting their lives - memories.
I have often been amazed at how people focus on poor photos,
technically, compositionally or artistically simply because they
connect with a person, place or thing in that photo. While calendar
type photos are ignored by them.
Also I read that the best selling stock photos are not the calendar
type shots but a person sitting on a bus stop bench or other similar
ordinary stuff. -Something that many are likely to “connect” with.
CONNECTION - makes a good photograph. And each person connects to
differently.
--
sobolik
Kernix
thru - oh well.
Paul Furman
> A good photo ... - grabs your attention for one reason
And it's got to be capable of holding your attention.
It's funny as I'm starting to print photos after a few years of mostly
just doing web galleries, there are many many shots which are pleasing
in the context of the shoot but you think about would it be worth
printing large and hanging on a wall and the field narrows tremendously.
Rusty Shakleford
news:1143042485.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> I write/play music as well. Some kind a 3-chord song with simple
chords
> can sound great. But so many musicians only know simple chords.
After a
> while there is only so much you can do with 3 chords. If you
want to
> stand out, if you want to sound unique, you need to know more
than 3
> chords - a helluva lot more! Your goal is still a great sounding
song,
> but you have greater options to get to that goal.
>
I concur, but one must remember that some of the old Blues Men
wrote songs with only one chord and still sounded great. It isn't
so much what you play, but more how you play it. (Of course I
suppose someone with more of a classical background might not
agree.)
Kernix
the next CD, and the next.... Do you think that would work? That would
get old fast. My point remains - you learn technical so that you have
more options. I mean it boils down to this - how much of your art form
do you really know? It's sad when someone who calls themself an artist
really doesn't know much about their art form.
Kernix
Rusty Shakleford
news:1143123321.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> But 1 chord for every song on a CD, and on
> the next CD, and the next.... Do you think that would work?
LOL, I know what you mean, but because of the way they tuned, that
was pretty much the way some of them did it. Lots of those guys
practically starved to death though. Even E.C. who did some of the
cleanist blues ever, just used 3 or 4 chords, twelve bars and
maybe a turnaround, and sounded great. Most Delta Blues fans think
his stuff is to polished, not raw enough.
I doubt taking the same photo of the same subject over and over
for a whole career would work though. Although there were the damn
soup cans, and while it wasn't Warhol's whole career, I'd say that
is what most people know him by. I don't like that damn poster,
but I have to admit, people must connect with it on some level,
otherwise no one would remember it.
I think Picasso's scribles on canvas blow ass too, but some of his
early (less cubist) works were quite good in my eye.
I guess it is all about personal perspective.
William Graham
"Kernix" <jimke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143123321.2...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, one chord is doable. But 1 chord for every song on a CD, ....
If you put it on a CD, it may become, "The Lost Chord".....:^)
Kernix
movement that is so sommonly recognized as the blues.
Gordon Moat
Gianni Rondinini wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2006 16:59:34 -0800, "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the photographs
>>the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all the time.
>
>
> well, i like the photo you've linked, but i don't know if i can say
> it's an interesting subject. i find it to be a nice image, that gives
> a sense of quite, but what's the definition of interesting subject?
>
As many others have written, it usually involves some connection to the
viewer of the image. I think there can sometimes be images that cross a
boundary of interest; an example maybe that some people might not like
automobiles, but find a way they might be photographed creates an
interesting image.
> for me, a duck washing in the public park here in faenza was so
> interesting that i've shot a couple of rolls of velvia 100f to him (i
> say him because that was a male of Anas platyrhynchos, perhaps the
> most common duck in europe) until i thought i got a good blurred image
> of him. well, being sincere you're never sure you got a good shot when
> doing blurred images, but chances are that with some experience you
> get at least 3 or 4 goot images out of a roll or two.
>
In smaller formats, sometimes that is a fun approach. I did a series of
images that worked well in that way:
<http://www.allgstudio.com/PG_essay_two.html> You can click on each to
open a larger size image.
> another very interesting subject for me is panning sports images: i
> love pannings with "fast" sports, such as cycling, motorcycling and
> cars in general.
>
A sense of motion can often be interesting. The tough part can be making
sure something stays somewhat in focus. I still think some connection to
the viewer is important.
. . . . . . . . .
> all the above is to say that i agree with you that a photo shouldn't
> be only technically perfect but needs to "say something"; however the
> interest in an image is at least a matter of likes/dislikes as
> "blondes or dark haired?".
>
Tells a story, conveys a feeling, evokes an emotion . . . all things
that create a connection to the viewer.
> i want to add also that i'm really disappointed by the fact that
> nowadays techniques have so improved that often, at contests and
> shows, you see images which are *awful* from a technical point of view
> and that have been chosen only because of their "strong" emotive
> impact or their being "different" and "uncommon". the net result is
> that more and more often you see unpleasant photos taken in... well,
> that's hard to write in english, but i hope you understood what i
> mean.
>
I think some of that is technology backlash, more of a protest against
some technology. It is often difficult and confusing to figure out what
judges of images find interesting. Often the all inclusive gallery
mentality is put to judging a show, so that truly interesting images
might get passed because they are not like other images.
There are composition aspects, like the Golden Section, or creating eye
motion, that can generate interest in an image. Subject matter is
probably too easy a crutch, but just because a group of viewers might
have an interest in a particular subject does not mean the images of
that subject will be interesting. There are some psychological aspects
as well, sometimes contrast, sometimes colour, other times conflict
created through colour or contrast. While these things could be
technical, they become more subjective and often elusive. If we ever
took what we considered the perfect photo, then we should stop taking
photos and move on to other challenges.
What makes images interesting is empathy. If the images connect with the
viewer, then they can become memorable. This often can have little to do
with taste, popularity, or beauty. Images that command your attention
will be the ones that stand out.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Frank ess
> Gianni Rondinini wrote:
>> On 20 Mar 2006 16:59:34 -0800, "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the
>>> photographs the way I really want them, but I am getting closer
>>> all
>>> the time.
>>
>>
>> well, i like the photo you've linked, but i don't know if i can say
>> it's an interesting subject. i find it to be a nice image, that
>> gives
>> a sense of quite, but what's the definition of interesting subject?
>>
>
> As many others have written, it usually involves some connection to
> the viewer of the image. I think there can sometimes be images that
> cross a boundary of interest; an example maybe that some people
> might
> not like automobiles, but find a way they might be photographed
> creates an interesting image.
>
<interesting and cogent material snipped>
There may be some connections common to all viewers, rooted a bit
closer to biology: the smiling baby (even panda-face) strikes a chord
as a survival characteristic. It 'charms' (connects) universally and
strongly to increase the chances of infant survival.
Some other physical sensations are universal, or near enough as be
damned: sweet, for example. Even sweet with no nutrition value has
been shown to reinforce rat behaviors.
What I'm conjecting is that there may be patterns of intensity or
color or contrast that could be extracted from subject and
composition, and shown to reliably increase the probability and or
intensity of connection between viewed object and viewer.
Maybe someone has already done some of that kind of stuff. I lost
track of my research capability and skills after grad school. Of
course I wouldn't turn down a MacArthur Foundation grant. Or would I?
It's sure a lot less work to just sit in front of a computer screen
and rattle on...
--
Frank ess
"I can't sing,
but I know how to,
which is quite different."
-- Noel Coward
Gordon Moat
Frank ess wrote:
> Gordon Moat wrote:
>
>> Gianni Rondinini wrote:
>>
>>> On 20 Mar 2006 16:59:34 -0800, "Scott W" <bip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> learning experience for me and I have not yet captured the
>>>> photographs the way I really want them, but I am getting closer all
>>>> the time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> well, i like the photo you've linked, but i don't know if i can say
>>> it's an interesting subject. i find it to be a nice image, that gives
>>> a sense of quite, but what's the definition of interesting subject?
>>>
>>
>> As many others have written, it usually involves some connection to
>> the viewer of the image. I think there can sometimes be images that
>> cross a boundary of interest; an example maybe that some people might
>> not like automobiles, but find a way they might be photographed
>> creates an interesting image.
>>
>
> <interesting and cogent material snipped>
>
> There may be some connections common to all viewers, rooted a bit closer
> to biology: the smiling baby (even panda-face) strikes a chord as a
> survival characteristic. It 'charms' (connects) universally and strongly
> to increase the chances of infant survival.
>
I guess I don't have that instinct to like smiling baby pictures . . .
not that I hate kids or anything like that, but my first thoughts are
usually "it's taking a dump, and that explains the look on it's face"
sort of thing. To me, babies always give the impression of things that
smell and leak often . . . sort of like British sports cars, but not as
fun. ;-)
> Some other physical sensations are universal, or near enough as be
> damned: sweet, for example. Even sweet with no nutrition value has been
> shown to reinforce rat behaviors.
>
> What I'm conjecting is that there may be patterns of intensity or color
> or contrast that could be extracted from subject and composition, and
> shown to reliably increase the probability and or intensity of
> connection between viewed object and viewer.
>
Exactly correct assumption. These aspects were a large part of my Fine
Art degree. There is a psychology to shapes, colours, and distributions
in pleasing proportions. There are also very basic patterns that occur
in all human brains, though off the top of my head I forgot the exact
name for those nine patterns.
Repetition in certain patterns is also something we often find
intriguing. Fibonocci (spelling?) numbers are one aspect, though more
related to music; similar studies and tests showed similar occurrences
in art. Much of this dates from Greek and Roman times, though some more
modern discoveries of this come from the 1700s and 1800s.
> Maybe someone has already done some of that kind of stuff. I lost track
> of my research capability and skills after grad school. Of course I
> wouldn't turn down a MacArthur Foundation grant. Or would I? It's sure a
> lot less work to just sit in front of a computer screen and rattle on...
>
I think there could be even more work to do on this, perhaps re-visiting
the ancient knowledge, and applying it to a more modern world. All these
existing works can be discovered and learned, and they might improve the
interest levels of your photographic images.
I think there is a little bit of intuition needed for consistent
results. While in college we often were required to do numerous daily
sketchbook drawings. One exercise we had later in one semester was to
draw the Golden Section on tracing paper, then go back and review our
sketchbooks. The idea was that many of the interesting images would make
use of those proportions and alignments. It was a little bit surprising
to me when I discovered that most of my images used some aspect of the
Golden Section . . . I was doing it intuitively without realizing that
there was a formal terminology aspect to it.
Colour is much tougher to place within proportions. While I have a great
deal of information along the lines of "research", it would be far too
difficult to type out simple explanations here. I get an annual revue
and annual predictions for my graphic design work, and apply that to my
commercial photography work each year. There are even proportions for
contrast, and formulas to work out percentages of colours for pleasing
result. While I suppose I could inject more of this "science" into my
imaging, the reality is that I need to have it become instinctual . . .
otherwise some technical aspect will become a distraction to creating
compelling images. You cannot ignore such aspects, but I do not believe
they should dominate the way you express a creative vision.
Paul Furman
> What I'm conjecting is that there may be patterns of intensity or color
> or contrast that could be extracted from subject and composition, and
> shown to reliably increase the probability and or intensity of
> connection between viewed object and viewer.
I read a nice article on photo composition with a somewhat related idea
and that is to think about making the subject of the photo *relate* to
background in the photo. Just generally use any composition technique to
tie them together or contrast them in a meaningful way - so that's
something the viewer can relate to because the picture makes sense even
if it's not your favorite subject, it is appealing because there is a
story being told, more than just interesting patterns & colors.