• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Can one have a picture that works brilliantly when the composition doesn't?

Tom dinning

Registrant*
You don't have to quote me, Jerome. I know what I said. There is a lot I didn't say as well. Don't read between the lines and don't add you own perspective to what I say and what I didn' say. Just take it as it is meant; a part of what one person has done quite successfully and satisfactorily for 45 years having supported that with continuous learning and adjustment of those skills in the eyes of his peers, students and mentors. I'm not talking about photography here but teaching, which requires as much dedication, skill and knowledge relating to human behavior as any life changing profession requires when the outcomes are those of the future of the next generation.the starting point for teaching is to know the student and take an interest in how they perceive the world so that can be built on. It's not about throwing facts and rules at a person and hoping some will stick.
If I were to suggest that being an oncologist is simply a matter of having cancer at one point in my life or an electrician because I know how to change a light globe or a photography teacher because i know how to use a camera then I have probably wasted my time and done some considerable injustice to my students.
Please forgive me for my passion but I have worked bloody hard at this profession all my life. It didn't come easy and it still isn't taken lightly. There is a perception out there that anyone can teach. In fact I often hear that those who can 'do' and those that can't 'teach'. Yeah, right.
Mmmm. Seems like I got off the track and onto my hobby horse again.
In answer to your question, Jerome, no that's not what being a teacher is all about. If that's what you think, if you think it's possible to sum up what a teacher does in a single sentence then you are either having me on or have no idea. If you have no idea, I forgive you for your ignorance. If you are having me on I forgive you for your bad timing. If its neither of those I can only suggest you stick to your day job. I'm sure you are very good at it.
Cheers
Tom.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Just to make things clear: I am not criticizing your abilities as a teacher. I am actually quite convinced that you are probably a very good teacher. I have read your pdf.

I was just pointing out that you criticized the device Michael and Paula use in their work as teachers, but avoided to give any alternative beyond some vague talk which amounts to little more than "just do it" or "either you have it or you don't". The purpose of this forum is, per Asher signature, is "getting to an impressive photograph". I don't think you do it consciously, but on this forum you are being disingenuous in that you imply that there is a way to get to impressive photographs but at the same time deny us the use of any means we can think of for analyzing the process of making an impressive photograph.

I suppose that the important word here is "analyzing".

Now, if you excuse me, I will leave the discussion at this point. I don't think pursuing it further will help us getting to an impressive photograph.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The purpose of this forum is, per Asher signature, is "getting to an impressive photograph". I don't think you do it consciously, but on this forum you are being disingenuous in that you imply that there is a way to get to impressive photographs but at the same time deny us the use of any means we can think of for analyzing the process of making an impressive photograph.

I suppose that the important word here is "analyzing".

Thanks so much Jerome,

Yes you have hit the nail on the head! We're all having fun but on our separate paths. We're not trying to make versions of each other's art. Still, we feel pleasure and even might learn from sharing. The imponderable concepts such as "art", "beauty", "morality" or "reasonableness" can only be defined by geniuses or fools. I can take the latter cloak and risk ridicule.

"Pornography? I know it when I see it",

avoids the responsibility and great risk of being argued to be foolish. However, as a University Professor, I had to convey not only

  • a certain quality of certainty about a quantity of facts but also
  • the skill, means and empowerment to suspect everything

After all, of the knowledge transmitted to me, (and then to them), half was likely inaccurate. Teaching art and photography is something akin to teaching medicine. We don't want to stifle the very inquisitiveness, creativity and rebellion that might find new paths for all of us. So a good teacher provides facts, skills, ideas materials and tools, but also encourages alertness of new ideas and a sense of worth in each others didactic reasoning, imagination and creative skills.

Michael and Paula really stick their necks out to criticism by "Defining how good pictures work, starting with structure!" But if we think there are alternatives, (and we seem to be pretty sure of that), it's also good for us to take similar risks and try to express, in writing, ideas on making art, both for ourselves to improve upon and also for others to consider.

So I'd ask for openness and generosity in sharing ideas on making photographs, even at the risk of putting out concepts that you are still struggling with!

I, for one, strongly suspect that "structure" can be the entire picture, even devoid of meaningful content. OTOH, content with recognizable or evocative symbols might perhaps make the need for coherent structure unimportant. So there, I stick my neck out, but I can do that and now will have to somehow deliver on examples to make my point. I'd hoped others would simply pour out so many picture titles that we'd have a better insight as to what makes a pictures so impressive that they gets valued as "art" by so many galleries and museums.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Let me mix it up and challenge you even further.


Michael has repeatedly told me that, There's no such thing as bad light", just bad photographs.


Let me paraphrase his subsequent explanations.

All light can be exploited by a good photographer who is patient and persistent to have everything that needs to be in the frame, arrive and whatever must not be there, leave. If that does not happen, then walk away!

So add that to the concept of structure is key and content agnostic in making pictures work well. Lighting can be at high noon! Just use that light creatively to construct a compelling composition.

It's not more complicated than that!

Asher
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Thoughts and Tips number 1 : Fine art landscape photography is about natural light

In Fine Art Landscape Photography, we photograph the light first and the subject second.

This is because the best subject in poor light will not look good. Think about how many photographs of the Grand Canyon taken at noon you have seen. None of them look very good even though we all know that the Grand Canyon is an awesome sight.

On the other hand, a subject with minor interest in great light can look great. This is because light is the most important aspect of photography and good light has the potential of making just about anything look great. Think about photographs of subjects you have never thought of photographing before. All of a sudden you find yourself wanting to photograph this subject. The beauty of the subject is revealed by the quality light used by the photographer.

Of course, the goal is to get great light on a fantastic subject! If you have both, then you have the makings of a superb photograph.

Alain Briot
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thoughts and Tips number 1 : Fine art landscape photography is about natural light

In Fine Art Landscape Photography, we photograph the light first and the subject second.


Thanks Alain for you timely post from your collection of photography tips!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Now, this is an explanation I had been looking for lately, but did not realize what I was looking for. Let me cite it again: "their way of relating to the subjects they choose and their social interactions".

Did you see the thread I posted about Laetitia Eskens?
Jerome,

I'm catching up now that my opera shoot is done and delivered! :)

Laettia's work is very rich and has the mark of an individual and a real person with some mettle, not a follower. however, I need to spend more time to try to understand her better. Certainly, as 20 years old, she packs a lot of talent already. She is definitely relating to her universe in a way she choses. Does she copy anyone else, I do not know, but doubtless someone who is more learned than I am could trace multiplier references to other works that likely influenced her decisions.

Thanks for expanding my world a little with this introduction.

Asher
 
My response is only to the original thread title of "Can one have a picture that works brilliantly when the composition doesn't?"

A few questions:

Who is judging the brilliance?

Who is judging the composition?

If it's me, then hell yes!

If it is someone else, then you'll have to ask them....
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
My response is only to the original thread title of "Can one have a picture that works brilliantly when the composition doesn't?"

A few questions: Who is judging the brilliance? Who is judging the composition? If it's me, then hell yes!
If it is someone else, then you'll have to ask them....


Well put, Jake! Such individual ideas spread virally and the consensus feeds and also is supported by galleries and museums so pictures get to be considered valid and worth saving for the future! Not saying that any one idea is actually "right", just describing what happens. In all this, I strongly suspect that composition, in most pictures with discernible content or emotion, really does not play such a dominant and exclusive role as art schools obsessions with structure would predict. Building a picture is up to each of us, making our own private mix, (of marks, patterns, symbols, gestures and messages), so that it gels as one believable, (but make-belief), "new living and breathing entity". No one factor can be claimed to be the key to all successful pictures. Each picture will have a different need for composition to hold it together. But that's just my own vote on the matter. Anyone can have their own view, of course, but I do feel that art is what I have described; made up of different people's mixes of the same elements that in the best cases, somehow we recognize need to be displayed and even perhaps secured for our future generations. Not to upset the art teaching profession, but here's my stake on it:


Composition, (like beauty, morality, normality and holiness), is likely
a construct we praise and claim to recognize and believe in, but which
is more likely imagined and approached than ever completely realized.

Anyway, we should not ignore nor over-invest in a photographs structure. It's best left imperfect, as disorder makes things believable and alive!

:)

Asher
 

josemiller

New member
When it comes to event photography, many clients are forgiving when it comes to composition, but expect the key people or objects to be captured in the snaps. Although these images may lack in composition, they hold special significance for clients, as they may signify the achievement of an important milestone or carry sentimental value.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
When it comes to event photography, many clients are forgiving when it comes to composition, but expect the key people or objects to be captured in the snaps. Although these images may lack in composition, they hold special significance for clients, as they may signify the achievement of an important milestone or carry sentimental value.


Jose,

So true. No one is checking the exact proportions or rules of thirds or whether a beam in the ceiling coincides with a loved-one's head! Of course, one tries to frame all the moving people as pleasingly as possible, but without bothering them or blocking the progress of the event.

People are just happy to be noticed and included.

Asher
 

Chris Calohan

Well-known member
When I read this type of philosophical discourse, I wonder where John Steinbeck or William Falukner would have been if made to follow all the rules of grammar as professed by the "English" experts of their day.

I've seen portraits which break every compositional rule in the book, yet are highly acclaimed in the art world.

http://www.artnet.com/artists/annie-leibovitz/michael-jordan-new-york-8XqXZO9-iaUnvoLr-Bl8ww2

http://5.kicksonfire.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Make-Yourself-Team-Li-Na-Portrait-Annie-Leibovitz-x-Nike-Make-Yourself.jpeg

Her Portrait of Willie Nelson is another great example of leaning very heavily on the rules and allowing the senses to complete whatever gaps exist in that "playing perfectly by the rules" look we tend to get.
 

Robert Watcher

Well-known member
Jose,

So true. No one is checking the exact proportions or rules of thirds or whether a beam in the ceiling coincides with a loved-one's head! Of course, one tries to frame all the moving people as pleasingly as possible, but without bothering them or blocking the progress of the event.

People are just happy to be noticed and included.

Asher

I feel that even with event photography, the skill that separates the photographer who can demand larger amounts of money - from the "Uncle Tom" or someone who just snaps what is going on with a Canon 5D or any other quality setup - - - is that even without disrupting the events that happen, the creative "pro" (I know - the term pro doesn't mean much anymore) will always be focused on surroundings and backgrounds and looking for angles, as well as carefully framing so that there is strong composition, visual focus and impact - in all images provided to the client. There is no excuse for beams growing out of people's heads. That is the difference between the "Creative Photographer" and everyone else with a camera.

Any event I cover, requires images with strong composition - even when I am being paid to just cover the characters and happenings of the event. Clients and viewers DO SEE THE DIFFERENCE and appreciate it and hire based on that.




rsw061.jpg

Fundraiser with many politicians, dignitaries, and "establishment" business people in attendance


aaue2006.jpg

Small awards ceremony for Canada's largest energy company


play4.jpg

Dress Rehearsal for "Gypsy Rose" play - I noticed this unique angle that included the orchestra, that gained much praise from the client


nm1.jpg

Album release party that took place at an intimate night club




-----


-----
 
I've asked about the absolute necessity for great composition without serious flaws, but what about other attributes we consider sacrosanct such as harmony or giving pleasure?



So, putting aside pictures valued for

  • Just their unique special documentary value, something unique and rare , or news such as an assassination, great act of cruelty or a disaster and the like, what features of photographs are absolutely essential to make their way to the museums and collections people value so much.

  • Simply being made by some public figure such as Madonna, Elvis or Putin


What rules can be broken and still have a picture that's destined to live beyond us? Do you have examples of such pictures that still rise above the rest?


Asher

I don't think photography is governed by any such rule that is must give harmony or pleasure. I think there are countless other reasons a photograph can have a purpose. Maybe that nails it for me, a photograph has to have "purpose".

I created this image to break rules, and that to me matched the subjects character. This to me is anti-composition. I shot across the subject's eye, left in distracting elements for discord.



14548005997_e7a74b2af8.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I don't think photography is governed by any such rule that is must give harmony or pleasure. I think there are countless other reasons a photograph can have a purpose. Maybe that nails it for me, a photograph has to have "purpose".

I created this image to break rules, and that to me matched the subjects character. This to me is anti-composition. I shot across the subject's eye, left in distracting elements for discord.



14548005997_e7a74b2af8.jpg

The right eye is impudent, staring at us like that, LOL! Still the mouth is pleasantly sited at the lower right junction, according to the "rule of thirds". Yes, that does get our attention!

I like what you've done, Jenny, and am impressed how it works in this one portrait. Breaking rules, is also part of the rules! Yes I like your picture and use any trick or trompe l'oeil that works! Consider all the devices that Antonio Correia used here to make a simple weight scale image have life! Doubtless, he did it by practice now engrained as "instinct", that doubtless, he's unaware of.

Back to your photograph here. No way I could mistake it for my work as it is so uniformly sharp, LOL! Your way of imaging, if this is your signature, might allow your pictures to be recognized at a glance!

Asher
 
The right eye is impudent, staring at us like that, LOL! Still the mouth is pleasantly sited at the lower right junction, according to the "rule of thirds". Yes, that does get our attention!

I like what you've done, Jenny, and am impressed how it works in this one portrait. Breaking rules, is also part of the rules! Yes I like your picture and use any trick or trompe l'oeil that works! Consider all the devices that Antonio Correia used here to make a simple weight scale image have life! Doubtless, he did it by practice now engrained as "instinct", that doubtless, he's unaware of.

Back to your photograph here. No way I could mistake it for my work as it is so uniformly sharp, LOL! Your way of imaging, if this is your signature, might allow your pictures to be recognized at a glance!

Asher

Thank you, Asher, that's great feedback, I'm so glad you like the photo and even more so that my intent came across.

Unfortunately, the link you gave didn't work for me. But I found Antonio Correia's web site and his work is interesting. He has created his own very distinctive style, but has that helped his work or limited his avenues of expression? I found his Work series quite inspiring.
 
Link is fixed now!

To clear a point about my photo, the sharpness throughout was a choice for this photo, rather than a style :)

Thank you, I read the thread.

Incredible image quality. Sorry, I'm not seeing where it compares to my image and rule breaking.

The scales image to me is very much conforming to the rules of composition through out. The cups of the scales practically become the eyes in a portrait and are bang on where one would expect them to be for rule of thirds. In which case, which elements are breaking the rules?

I want to understand, but I can't get there yet.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
To clear a point about my photo, the sharpness throughout was a choice for this photo, rather than a style :)

Thank you, I read the thread.

Incredible image quality. Sorry, I'm not seeing where it compares to my image and rule breaking.

The scales image to me is very much conforming to the rules of composition through out. The cups of the scales practically become the eyes in a portrait and are bang on where one would expect them to be for rule of thirds. In which case, which elements are breaking the rules?

I want to understand, but I can't get there yet.

His devices were given merely as examples of just that, not for breaking rules. To me, "breaking rules" is just yet another device for getting the sort of attention one wants in the picture, not much different than say using bright yellow or red.

Any device that works well in achieving your purpose in the picture is fine by me, even if it's simply going against expected norms or rules!

Asher
 
Top