What to Leave Out, What to accentuate, etc. etc.

There seem to be two extremes: one person leaves in the wires, the tin cans, the branches (Eggleston) another goes to great lengths to exclude everything but the subject as if it were floating in space and untouched by the larger world (most studio photographers). My concern is that all the aforementioned marginalia is a part of life. My other concern is that, if our objective in composition is to exclude all these things, it can’t help but affect our intuitive grasp of composition. What if the better composition is that which includes the beer cans in the gutter, the balls on the bull, the unsightly electrical outlet; and the lifeless one is the one in which the photographer has put himself at orthopedic risk to exclude everything but the subject? I have been taken to task often for this and feel compelled to rebel against it. Excluding marginalia cannot be more important than the subject itself?

What if in our desire for exclusionist perfection we are doing something similar to excluding the genitalia from neoclassic sculpture?

Also, there is the reflex against centering the subject. Most of my subjects are not centered, but some are. There are times when a centered subject is exactly right, as when Stephen Shore adds a formal elegance to a tacky orange chair sitting in bright green grass. And yet, when I present a centered subject I often get a kneejerk reaction that assumes I shoot everything that way and am thus a know-nothing beginner.

Then there is the obsession with pumping up the colors. Sometimes faded colors are exactly right for the subject. I use Photoshop to try to get my pictures to look like what I shot, mostly, unless I’m working for color balance or some kind of unwanted color that has been supplied by the camera’s software.

I am not making a case for bad photographs (those in which a tree seems to grow from the stepdaughter’s head, etc.) but rules are made to be broken. Just sayin.’

Thomas Wolf once wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald in response to something Fitzgerald had said about his work being cluttered. He said -- I paraphrase -- I am a putter-inner and you are a taker outer. Shakespeare was a putter-inner, so there.

And would someone have taken Velasquez to task because down in the corner of one of his paintings about Jesus a dog is pissing?


And in this one, never mind that it would be impossible to remove the lens flare, what if it's better to leave it in?

You seem frustrated and you are probably right.


William Eggleston and Stephen Shore left the wires and tin cans in, because they were part of the subject. The subject was, in a nutshell, how US suburbia looked like and it looked littered with wires, tin cans, etc... Alternatively, someone like Andreas Gursky will go to great length to edit out everything but the image of a river and road out of "Rhine II", because his subject is the Rhine river reduced to a symbolic border and means of transport.

In the end, you are the artist and you are the one who decides what the subject is, what you want to show to the viewer. Then you build the image so that it conveys that message.

As to composition, centred or not is not important. If you just have one element, it is probably best to leave it in the middle. If you have more than one, it is usually more elegant to dispose them around so that they balance and respond to each other.

You need some therapy, Doug.
Get over it!
There. That's the therapy over with. Pay on your way out.

I know you don't want a lecture here, so I'll refrain, but really, your a big boy now. This isn't life threatening. Going through a red light is life threatening. Me dripping around the toilet bowl is life threatening. There are rules for both those occasions that one must heed to survive. There are no such rules for photography.
But there are some who think there are.
Tell them to **** off and be done with it.
I know you're with me on this. I'm just saying.....
It drives me crazy as well but I have a head start. I'm already crazy.
Can I make another suggestion? If you bite enough critics on the leg they eventually get the message and avoid you. Let it be known, as I have here and all other places, that your photos are not up for banal remarks about a beer can in the left corner or a shift to the right.
Be strong, my friend. There are some out there who think it their given right to be anal about your photos.

Tom dinning said:

You need some therapy, Doug.
Get over it!
There. That's the therapy over with. Pay on your way out.

I know you don't want a lecture here, so I'll refrain, but really, your a big boy now. This isn't life threatening. Going through a red light is life threatening. Me dripping around the toilet bowl is life threatening. There are rules for both those occasions that one must heed to survive. There are no such rules for photography.
But there are some who think there are.
Tell them to **** off and be done with it.
I know you're with me on this. I'm just saying.....
It drives me crazy as well but I have a head start. I'm already crazy.
Can I make another suggestion? If you bite enough critics on the leg they eventually get the message and avoid you. Let it be known, as I have here and all other places, that your photos are not up for banal remarks about a beer can in the left corner or a shift to the right.
Be strong, my friend. There are some out there who think it their given right to be anal about your photos.

Click to expand...

Hey, Mon, nothing to get over. I think how people respond to a photo is a useful critical conversation. I would like to be responded to according to what I am trying to do and not some hack's idea of what makes a commercial photo.

Right you are on all points, Jerome. I think it's important for me to defend what I'm doing. I'm not interested in gooey sentimental pretty ****. I want to do something that imaginatively penetrates the quotidian, the everyday, the stuff we live and breath.

Jerome Marot said:

In the end, you are the artist and you are the one who decides what the subject is, what you want to show to the viewer. Then you build the image so that it conveys that message.

Click to expand...

I agree with Jerome. A little soul searching should reveal what it actually is that you are shooting. Is it a subject, is it a mood, is it an arrangement of shapes, is it an event, etc.

Composition is not so much about what to leave out, but when. When it adds to the composition, leave it in. When it distracts from delivering your message, take it out.

As to composition, centred or not is not important. If you just have one element, it is probably best to leave it in the middle.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. One should learn to understand what effect the positioning will have, and if that agrees with the intent of the photographer. Composition is deliberate, important, not accidental (at least it is in my opinion). With a lot of practice, it will become second nature.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I agree with Jerome. A little soul searching should reveal what it actually is that you are shooting. Is it a subject, is it a mood, is it an arrangement of shapes, is it an event, etc.

Composition is not so much about what to leave out, but when. When it adds to the composition, leave it in. When it distracts from delivering your message, take it out.



I don't agree with that. One should learn to understand what effect the positioning will have, and if that agrees with the intent of the photographer. Composition is deliberate, important, not accidental (at least it is in my opinion). With a lot of practice, it will become second nature.

Cheers,
Bart

Click to expand...

I agree, Bart, but few people in these forums talk about mood. I think a conversation about "vision" would be instructive as well.

As an argument, this would be wasted time, but as a discussion it's always worth investigating.
Since I didn't have anyone to tell me how to take photos when I was learning which end of the camera was which it was all a matter of experimenting. When my head runs rule-less it does some pretty strange things. Some explode in my face, others get a nod of approval.
What I have found is there is no formula for success because I don't know what success looks like until I have it in front of me.
When I look at other people's photos I assume they have found their own path to success. I can only show them my results and not the path because its too ill defined. If the other person is not happy with their results they need to experiment more. That may seem a bit scant but who's in a hurry?
Here's an example or two.


What rules? It's an experiment. I'm not asking if you like it or not. I learnt something from this exercise and I use that for other shots where I think it might help. I got some of the ideas from other people's pictures combined with my own thoughts and willingness to try something I haven't tried before.

This is another experiment.


Some might call it a mistake. A bad picture. Bin it, they say. Not me. I could call it fine art and frame it. Better still, I'll just remember how I got it and consider the experiment a success.

Here's another.


You might say this is one of those purposeful photos with the subject in the middle and nothing else. This is an experiment. It's one of many shots I took of this nest. It's not the 'best', it's just another option, another result from experimenting on this and many nests. If I applied the 'rules' all my nest photos would look the same.

And the last.


I have posted this one here before, I think.
It's another experiment. The result of a collection of ideas that had accumulated for some time. Strangely enough, it is exactly how I want it. When I first posted it I had alls sorts of help from well meaning people suggesting a bunch of rules I could follow right down to ironing the backdrop. I don't iron.

I do understand the need for people to seek approval or advise. I just happen to think it narrows the thought process a bit. I have a friend here in Darwin who shoots landscapes. By all intent she is good at her job. She sells quite a few to the locals and tourists alike. If you ask her if she takes anything else she will give you a big NO! She is in a safe place and her photos are monotonously similar and they don't differ much from what you would find in a publication on 'How To....'.
I have no criticism of this. She sells well. One might call her a good photographer because she sticks to the rules.
Each individual will decide what sort of path they take. Personally, I think her landscapes would benefit greatly by some experimenting and getting involved in other genres. There is no growth by staying at home. I have suggested this to her and she has rejected the idea. She's scared of failure. She said so.

No sweat off my back.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

As to composition, centered or not is not important. If you just have one element, it is probably best to leave it in the middle.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with that. One should learn to understand what effect the positioning will have, and if that agrees with the intent of the photographer. Composition is deliberate, important, not accidental (at least it is in my opinion).

Click to expand...

I did not intend to write that composition is not important, but that centered compositions are possible, in particular when there is only one element.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I agree with Jerome. A little soul searching should reveal what it actually is that you are shooting. Is it a subject, is it a mood, is it an arrangement of shapes, is it an event, etc.

Click to expand...

This is a good exercise!

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

Composition is not so much about what to leave out, but when. When it adds to the composition, leave it in. When it distracts from delivering your message, take it out.

Click to expand...

So we have agreed on what elements to include. That was fairly easy, but now is the hardest part:

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

One should learn to understand what effect the positioning will have, and if that agrees with the intent of the photographer. Composition is deliberate, important, not accidental (at least it is in my opinion). With a lot of practice, it will become second nature.

Click to expand...

Bart,

This is the part that challenge me most but when the juices are flowing, I just know where to place the models and how they should interact. With still life, I have to work harder. My model is Edward Weston. I admire him very much and his devotion to his positioning of things. In the end, an extra nudge and things seem to belong in that position, and a harmony occurs as when a tuning fork is transferring its energy to a a string of exactly the right length and tension.

Asher

Jerome Marot said:

I did not intend to write that composition is not important, but that centered compositions are possible, in particular when there is only one element.

Click to expand...

Hi Jerome,

With that, I can fully agree (not that my opinion is all that important ).

Cheers,
Bart

Thank you!

I'm enjoying this excellent discussion. When something works, it makes it's own rules. Bart, I love the experiments, particularly the very sensual "mistake" of the woman in motion.

Maybe things would be clearer with an analogy. Let us suppose that you wanted to become a famous writer. You would need to learn how to write books.

First you would need to learn to write. You would need to learn orthography and grammar. These are the basics. The equivalent in photography would be learning to expose properly, and get decently sharp pictures, control depth of field, etc...

Then, there are devices that writers use. Figures of style. How to write a proper description. Levels of language. How to develop a story, how to choose and introduce characters, surprises and twists, humor, etc... These are the equivalent of color theory, rules of composition, perspective, etc... And, obviously, the rules need to be used properly and often adapted to the particulars of the work. But, generally, keeping the writing close to the classical rules is less risky and less confusing to the reader (but gives less possibilities to the really experienced and gifted writer).

With all this, you still won't write good books. You might write passable newspaper articles, but that is not quite the real thing. You still need to invent a good story, one that can fascinate your readers. One that make them continue to read late at night, forgetting about the time because they want to know what is next. And that is the part that no school can give you. Photography is not different.

Jerome Marot said:

Maybe things would be clearer with an analogy. Let us suppose that you wanted to become a famous writer. You would need to learn how to write books.
There is an assumption here that the person want to become famous. For the majority of photographers I would say that is not the case. What you are about to say might well stand true for such a person but it excludes the majority.
First you would need to learn to write. You would need to learn orthography and grammar. These are the basics. The equivalent in photography would be learning to expose properly, and get decently sharp pictures, control depth of field, etc...
Undoubtedly

Then, there are devices that writers use. Figures of style. How to write a proper description. Levels of language. How to develop a story, how to choose and introduce characters, surprises and twists, humor, etc... These are the equivalent of color theory, rules of composition, perspective, etc... And, obviously, the rules need to be used properly and often adapted to the particulars of the work.
i wouldnt think colour theory and composition would be used in the same context here. Colour theory is specific and unchanging, hardly the case for composition But, generally, keeping the writing close to the classical rules is less risky and less confusing to the reader (but gives less possibilities to the really experienced and gifted writer).

With all this, you still won't write good books. You might write passable newspaper articles, but that is not quite the real thing.
Ouch! I just heard a few journo's grind their teeth. You still need to invent a good story, one that can fascinate your readers. One that make them continue to read late at night, forgetting about the time because they want to know what is next. And that is the part that no school can give you. Photography is not different.
so how does one move from the 'newspaper article' to the famous novel?

Click to expand...

MAking analogies to other genres of expression is risky. It might be better for the discussion to be clear in the concepts - like keeping the photo free of irrelevant material.

Tom Dinning said:

so how does one move from the 'newspaper article' to the famous novel?

Click to expand...

1. Don't sleep with anyone who has more problems than you!

2. If you meet someone weird, exceptional or magnetic, write everything you can about them. They're could meat for your characters.

3. Get an idea for a novel from your life, a newspaper article, a photograph or some remark that made you stop and think.

4. Write a description of that world and the different places within it. You must know your universe as well as the creator knows his own.

5. What do your characters want and how do they go about getting it or failing?

I leave the next 5 for others to complete. The rest is just hard work but within reach!

Asher

Ha ha ha ha ha. I recognize the Nelson Algren. Pretty funny, Asher.

doug anderson said:

Ha ha ha ha ha. I recognize the Nelson Algren. Pretty funny, Asher.

Click to expand...

Doug,

For sure he popularized the rules, but there's a back story:

"Quotation mavens such as Ralph Keyes, author of The Quote Verifier, say that Algren probably didn’t coin the three famous rules himself.

They note that former actor Dave Peltz, a friend of Algren who once worked with him on a musical version of A Walk on the Wild Side, claimed he told Algren the three rules.

They also note that Algren later said he got them from “a nice old Negro lady.” In the foreword to the 1964 book Conversations with Nelson Algren, H. E. F. Donohue wrote:

“He [Algren] shunts aside all rules regulations and dicta except for three laws he says a nice old Negro lady once taught him: Never play cards with any man named ‘Doc’. Never eat at any place called ‘Mom’s’. And never ever, no matter what else you do in your whole life, never sleep with anyone whose troubles are worse than your own.” Wikipedia

Asher

Great! I like the idea that he got them from somebody. He was that kind of guy. What a writer.

Christine has just asked me to sleep in the spare room.

Is that because you've become so excited about this thread? Heh.