• 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!

Random thoughts on Grandchildren with Cameras and do Psychologists know a damn thing?

The original site of these musings is here ADK




Watch commercials, ads etc. You will see the best psychological brains in action.

Psychology in action?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqQ2vpy8uAQ

No comments from me.

Hi Fahim,

Thanks for the funny add (poking fun at stereotypes, one sincerely hopes), but I doubt they achieved anything apart for some brand name awareness, courtesy of YouTube. Would anyone change their choice of airline, given alternatives?

It's mostly wasted money if any other goal was intended than brandname (and I've already forgotten it as I write this ...).

Cheers,
Bart
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rachel Foster

New member
Don't squeeze the Charmin?

Art.......different story, though.

By the way, my 14-year-old son watched the youtube with me. His response? "What the heck?" Then he said, "That's disturbing...and scary." Mom here feels reassured, at least for a few more weeks!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
My oh my. The dreaded rule game and aesthetics.
Good luck on this one. Separating the facts from fiction will be hard enough, let alone sorting through the opinions.

I'm not confident about leaving the decisions in the hands of a psychologist either. The ones I know wouldn't know a Rembrandt from a rattle snake.

I really didn't need more!

This is pretty, "wouldn't know a Rembrandt from a rattle snake'! Both terms have vocal artistry. They sound poetic together! Just love it and this is done without wine!

The ability to put words together to create an acoustic rumble in one's head like that, and have one sound counterbalancing another, even though they are a different acoustic shape, is itself, phenomenal! Now one could go back wards from a list of 100 such seemingly pairings, and try to work out what the rules are.

If this is occurring just with words, then it can be done with images but again, it's fraught with immense problems in finding what the "rules" are.

Sill, there are some commonalities of impressive images and these can be used as references instead of rules.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
M
......The thing that puzzles me is the way 'art' uses mathematics to justify ideas. The math is precise; the art is full of conjecture. Applying precision to art seems contradictory. .......

Well, Tom,

There is enough math that deals with conjecture and approximation and representation of stochastic possibilities. So mathematics can wrap itself around imprecise coordinates and improbably occurrences very well.

So in these cases, the reach of art and such math at the margins of our certainty is quite analogous!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Some of the best art, be it drama, sculpture, paintings or photography, traverse, what previously had been considered, "boundaries one just didn't cross, thus liberating our creativity from shackles of convention.



Rules in art that are indeed valid, must predictably deliver unique esthetic experiences
from recognizable patterns which, in turn, merit our recognition, respect and consideration!



However, some of these "guides" in use, are actually just representative of some common usage and fashion or style in vogue in a place, culture or epoch and mistakenly assumed to be fundamental, when they are merely cultural conveniences or conceits!


For example, the aphorism in photography to "Frame close and crop closer", is a school of
thought and custom or style, but not really a true guide or rule for creative composition!


Gradually we might be able to distinguish what elements in composition are fundamental and what are merely intrusions of current cultural fashions and bias.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I am not sure what this thread is talking about, given that more than half the links cited for discussion are dead. The only links which are still live are the two scientific papers discussing people's preference for rectangles (I am not making this up!). Surprise, surprise, they found that even so many people like rectangles, some don't.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I am not sure what this thread is talking about, given that more than half the links cited for discussion are dead. The only links which are still live are the two scientific papers discussing people's preference for rectangles (I am not making this up!). Surprise, surprise, they found that even so many people like rectangles, some don't.

My great grand daughter likes her sandwiches cut into squares as opposed to rectangles, triangles or regular figure. We discussed circles as an option but even she realized there would be less to eat.
Is hunger a factor in choice of shapes?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Don't you love that bit.
"Somewhere there must be something structural, formal, compositional ...."
I bet he believes in a god as well............

Well Tom,

Let's start with the belief in gods! This reverence for some "alpha figure" with super powers might indeed be built in and related to how we rank each other in society.

I do think beauty is likely to be a construct made of different primary components, each of which has evolved to somehow give us a selective advantage in survival. For example, symmetry in a face and red in the cheeks might indicate good health and a more desirable mate with whome to invest one's attempt to reproduce offspring.

However, as you point out, sex is enjoyable on its own without any professor giving a running explanation of what hormone or metabic process or cascade of firing neurons is being switched on at this moment.

I have no doubt that there are fixed elements that are primordial that contribute to our sense of "beauty" but I would expect that a lot of elements recruited to this reaction vary according to one's cultural background, hence the variety in reaction to what an artis or gallery might be certain is beautiful.

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Well Tom,

Let's start with the belief in gods! This reverence for some "alpha figure" with super powers might indeed be built in and related to how we rank each other in society.

I do think beauty is likely to be a construct made of different primary components, each of which has evolved to somehow give us a selective advantage in survival. For example, symmetry in a face and red in the cheeks might indicate good health and a more desirable mate with home to invest one's attempt to reproduce offspring.

However, as you point out, sex is enjoyable on its own without any professor giving a running explanation of what hormone or metabic process or cascade of firing neurons is being switched on at this moment.

I have no doubt that there are fixed elements that are primordial that contribute to our sense of "beauty" but I would expect that a lot of elements recruited to this reaction vary according to one's cultural background, hence the variety in reaction to what an artis or gallery might be certain is beautiful.

Asher

Well, if you have no doubt, Ash, there's little point in any further discussion. That being sai, is your lack of doubt on the matter innate as well.? Or are you just a pig headed old fart who doesn't want to listen to reason irrespective of its source?
Christine has another conversation closer: "shut the **** up. I'm not listening any more"
Try it. It's more direct and honest.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, if you have no doubt, Ash, there's little point in any further discussion. That being sai, is your lack of doubt on the matter innate as well.? Or are you just a pig headed old fart who doesn't want to listen to reason irrespective of its source?
Christine has another conversation closer: "shut the **** up. I'm not listening any more"
Try it. It's more direct and honest.

Let me try to help folks grasp my concept.

@ Tom: as you said "shut the **** up", I don't rely on you reading this. However, I do understand why you find my sweeping statement highly questionable as that would, for many folk, indeed be a first reaction!

In reference to emotions, there's a school of thought that holds that some "emotive reactions" such as disgust:revulsion or pity are innate and some others constructs of these. From the standpoint of evolutionary biology this seems reasonable and correct to me and I have almost zero doubt that is in practice, "no doubt" in common parlance.

Similarly, I'd hold that beauty is made up of fixed components in various proportions like, for example, complex, culture-specific "emotions" are made up in some societies. Examples would be

Berserk: Here in a few societies, someone exposed to have committed some crime such as theft which can't be repaid will have a "spell" of behavior, running around breaking things and seemingly out of control, like a child. The community respects this as the person giving up entirely and the man is given help and not punishment.

Taboos: for example, the female nipple - Embarrassment and anger on seeing an exposed female nipple in public. This can be so extreme that the person involved can be looked down on and demeaned, while other societies have no reaction of such severe anti-social character.

So for Beauty, I hold that there must be some fixed and some (culture-specific) constructed combinations of such "fixed elements" which evoke a reaction of "beauty"

This reaction to different mixtures of "fixed"* elements can be demonstrated in the human perception of colors. "Blue", for example is an experience or perception but the mixture of photons of various energies evoking such a certain impression can be different on each occasion we perceive that identical color,"blue". So any natural color, (apart from the very rare circumstance we see pure single energy photon light, is merely a construct in our brains. Still, there must be, in our neural circuitry a set of discriminatory rules by which different sets of wavelengths of light are experienced as "red", "green", "blue" or any other color.

I see no reason why we should consider, unless we are conducting some scientific research project), that some entirely different method of recognizing "beauty" or "good composition" is achieved in any other manner. In short, I have no doubt that beauty is made up of some collection of fixed elements to which we respond with that singular experience of "beauty".'

Asher

Fixed* By the term "fixed" I mean some unique characteristic that the brain recognizes and reacts to such as size, symmetry, disorder, color scheme and the like, each of which can be described and qualified by a further set of characteristics, such as, (but not limited to), "extent" or "orientation" or "relative location".
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Tom,

I can't say the same about maths. Help me out here Doug.

I'm not sure I completely understand the question, but I'll try.

There is to me a small frisson of appreciation as I come to grasp an elegant mathematical principle, just as when I see a wondrous work of visual art.

The same is true when, for example, I crack the secret of what a certain little lever does on some mechanism shown in a picture to which someone has directed my attention. Or how it is possible for a certain historically-important cryptographic system, following a well-known "mathematical" principle, is able to deliver an encrypted output consisting of only the letters of the alphabet.

As to comparing such attainments with sexual intercourse (which is I guess what you mean by "sex"), I think these matters are on "different planes".

I am only grateful that, at the age of 79, I am still able to divine the purpose of such a little lever.

Or explain the difference between "permutation" and "partial permutation".

Or be glad that to be "stirred" by one of your insightful photographs.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
In every aspect of our society, we face the "tension" between having a rule for something and not. If we had no rules, we would have (to pick up on a theme in the play that Carla and I were in) chaos. If we had rigid, comprehensive rules for everything, we would have oppression, and nothing worthwhile would happen.

I spent the first twelve years working for the late Bell Telephone System. But in fact for many years before, the telephone network was an obsession with me, the way some others might have been about railroading, or aviation, or automobiles, or some sport. And I was fascinated by the way that everything technical, and operational, was precisely defined, and specified, and characterized, and measured.

But when I actually became an employee, I soon found a mighty tension between two things. On one hand, as an aficionado, I was delighted to learn more about the degree to which technical things were so precisely prescribed. And I was gratified to be taking a role in doing just that.

On the other side, I found some of their rigid administrative rules to be quite silly, and as a young fellow, never easily "managed", I chafed under them.

(I could relate many fascinating facts and anecdotes to illustrate this, but I will spare you those for now.)

These tensions (among other factors) led to my leaving the Bell System ("before I killed somebody") And I correctly predicted that it would "soon" self-destruct (although in fact that took 16 years).

But this adventure led me to an understanding of the paradoxes of "rules", with which we struggle here.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Tom,

Sundays contribution.

If you want beautiful photos, take photos of beautiful things.

Good advice.

When in doubt, obfuscate.

Not my practice.

When self assured, obfuscate even more.

Not my practice.

If you are ugly, fat, old and/ or self-conscious, stand behind the camera.

And if a little infirm, sit behind the camera whenever you can.

If you like it, enjoy it it. If you don't like it, leave it be.

Good advice.

You have closed the circle.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
This is another aphorism that while on first glance seems self-evident, it's actually too simplistic, as it excludes a lot of potentially beautiful pictures!


Look again at post # 26 above by Jerome and these.

Asher

You don't think I meant any of it, Ash.

Scenario
First day. Eager students awaiting words of wisdom.
"Students, turn on your cameras.
Point it at the person sitting next to you.
Take a picture.
Show the picture to the person you have photographed.
Ask them what they think.
If they like the picture they are probably conceited.
If they don't like it. They are probably conceited.
If you like it you have a good subject.
If you don't like it find someone else to photograph.
Lesson finished.

Next week we photograph cute things.
Bring something cute to photograph."
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Tom,

I do believe that you could share insights into what makes for beauty and good composition, if you so wished.

However, as usual, your contribution changes the subject, but is enjoyable as a brief diversion.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am not claiming to know the "rules" making beautiful pictures or building an outstanding composition. However, I appreciate any contributions and insights to what makes for these perceptions.

The best help so far comes from Jerome's pointers to use of color charts. No one is apparently identifying, so far, that any one particular parameter is a sine qua non of composition on signifying beauty.

For now, I'd love to know of further pointers to understanding these common and wonderful perceptions in a work of art, especially a painting or photograph.

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
On the contrary, Tom, I know you meant it, LOL!

It was an impressive, succinct and most practical way of dismissing all the "artsy farsty" psychological babble of our discussion, above. A debate and set of insights, not needed for any person with talent or else in your class!

But not being in your class, I have unmet needs and so value studies of human perception to provide a tad more insight on composition and the nature of beauty!

Asher

Good luck with that then.
Beauty might just be about feeling good.
Adams talks about truth and beauty. Since I don't have much liking for truth my concept of beauty might be a tad skewed. Nevertheless I am moved by most things. Curiosity is up there. Then come acceptance. Finally, the urge to photograph just to see what it looks like framed on a flat surface. Last come the urge to play God and make of it what I will.
Beauty doesn't come to mind all that often. I don't hear it much from others either. I don't sell so I don't have an audience to please.
My classes run on ideas, not rules. In spite of what some might think of teachers that's part of the process; developing ideas.
My peers are teachers, not photographers. I am judged by them, not someone with a Leica. I am not able to teach unless I can meet their standards. Their standards do not require of me to be a parrot for rules but to construct a scaffold for learning. The scaffold is constructed of processes that can support new ideas and develop an inquiring mind. No where in the curriculum does it tell me to teach the 'rule' of photographic composition or to define beauty.
Photography has its beauty in its diversity, not in its narrowness. New beauty is exposed every day by those who re-inventbways of seeing that which otherwise would be passed by because of its 'ordernariness'. Another bloody sunset is photographed with the same curiosity as a fox hole in Afganistan or a child washed onto the beach in Turkey.
"This is what I see."
That in itself is a beautiful thing.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
As I remarked, you do your job of teaching well, getting folk to think.

But what's wrong with a Leica? They don't work for composition?

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Asher, I think that Tom is trying to tell you two things. First, that there are no workable rules for composition. I agree with that: while there are workable rules for colour harmony, I am not aware of an equivalent for composition. Ideas that amount to dividing the rectangular frame into fixed ratios are downright silly. Still: if you are interested in such things, try to attend a course on painting. There you will be taught colour harmony and composition.

The second thing that Tom is probably trying to tell you is that making "beautiful" pictures is not that important. Beauty is only the wrapping, but without a message inside, the wrapping is empty.

In the cases where we do have workable rules to make pretty things, for example the rules of harmony and counterpoint in music, people have actually built automated processes to run these rules. Since I remember that you have an Apple computer, you actually own one of these automates. Garage Band, the built-in music application, comes with automatic instrument players. You can try them, the results are always harmonious. That should not come as a surprise: they have been designed to do exactly that.

They always sound nice, but they do not produce real music. To the best of their ability, they can be used to produce elevator soundtracks. And there lies the crux of the matter: "beauty" is simply not sufficient.

Coming back to photography, if you had a process to produce "beautiful" pictures, it would be the same. At best, it would produce wall decor: something harmonious, but devoid of content. Now, an interesting twist in this story is that there is a huge market for wall decor (I don't know if there is a huge market for elevator music). But is this what you want to do?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jerome,

I am not looking for "workable rules". I don't need them as I have enough instinct to compose images well and will continue to make improvements. Many treasured hours with the late, Per Volquartz and then with both Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, reinforced my own sensibilities.

I do not simply go after just beauty, although I'm constantly distracted and have to stop for beautiful skies, trees, flowers, children and yes, women! Tom suggested "to make beautiful pictures, photograph beautiful things". I don't like that seemingly self-evident aphorism, as it excludes far too much of ordinary people, things and life.

What do we mean by the term, "beautiful pictures"? I take "beautiful" as the descriptor here in photography in that aphorism, to be synonymous with "excellent" , "impressive" and "remarkable" and only after this, perhaps esthetic beauty of the kind we see in a pastoral scene or nursing mother or recumbant nude.

If I photograph a woman who'd warn me she was not beautiful, I would tell her that I would photograph the beauty I see and she will treasure the result or I destroy the work. I do not need beauty to make beautiful pictures!

Also, I am not dismissive of natural beauty as if it is some unrealistic but natural form of excess, such as Tom's use of the word "Leica"!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I do think that some parameters of an image can be understood and accessed without making a set of cookie cutter rules resulting "sameness" and the equivalent of elevator music.

Probably, although I am not sure that the parameters for "composition" are understood yet.

But this was not quite the question you asked first. Maybe you should start with stating the exact question you want answered, and that may not be so easy.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
As I remarked, you do your job of teaching well, getting folk to think.

But what's wrong with a Leica? They don't work for composition?

Asher

It depends on who is holding it, Ash. I can think of one or two who couldn't compose a shout in a bar room brawl. As the saying goes, owning a [Leica] simply makes you a [Leica] owner.
Because I own a guitar doesn't extent to me composing music. I also own a car and am a **** driver. Christine bought me a Waterman pen. ****ed if I can write a letter without swearing.
As a matter of course I'm supposed to monitor progress and assess student development. There's a worry; leaving that in my hands. Nevertheless, it is important for the student and those that rely on my judgement for consistency, honestly and reliability; three words I don't get my head around every day.
Teaching the structural and physical rules of photography is easy. If a student wants to be a hospital forensic photographer for example, I can tell them exactly how to take the pictures. Same with a botanist shooting for a scientific catalogue (and they can't afford the illustrator, which is the better option).
But when it comes to initiative, artistic expression, creativity, composition takes on a whole new meaning. I would prefer to have the student tell me what they want and help them discover their own path than for me to tell them what they need to do.
It might take longer but neither of us is in any great hurry.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Asher, I think that Tom is trying to tell you two things. First, that there are no workable rules for composition. I agree with that: while there are workable rules for colour harmony, I am not aware of an equivalent for composition. Ideas that amount to dividing the rectangular frame into fixed ratios are downright silly. Still: if you are interested in such things, try to attend a course on painting. There you will be taught colour harmony and composition.

The second thing that Tom is probably trying to tell you is that making "beautiful" pictures is not that important. Beauty is only the wrapping, but without a message inside, the wrapping is empty.

In the cases where we do have workable rules to make pretty things, for example the rules of harmony and counterpoint in music, people have actually built automated processes to run these rules. Since I remember that you have an Apple computer, you actually own one of these automates. Garage Band, the built-in music application, comes with automatic instrument players. You can try them, the results are always harmonious. That should not come as a surprise: they have been designed to do exactly that.

They always sound nice, but they do not produce real music. To the best of their ability, they can be used to produce elevator soundtracks. And there lies the crux of the matter: "beauty" is simply not sufficient.

Coming back to photography, if you had a process to produce "beautiful" pictures, it would be the same. At best, it would produce wall decor: something harmonious, but devoid of content. Now, an interesting twist in this story is that there is a huge market for wall decor (I don't know if there is a huge market for elevator music). But is this what you want to do?

You're right on one account, Jerome, maybe two.
In regard to composition tick 'correct'.
In regard to the message thing, I used to think this important but have changed my thinking.
Beauty is important for many, even most, but is subjective. Whether there is a message is only important to those who seek to communicate one.
Over the last decade or so I've taken many photos but for no other reason than to see what it looks like in a photo. I can say it's probably my main motivation at the moment. The beauty in this case comes from something I am learning from my great grand daughter. Yes, a 4 year old.
She is learning to read and write. She is eager to fin the message. For me, the beauty comes from the fact that she recognizes the quality of the written word. Fir me, not her, I see the ability to read and write as the essence. She sees that as well as the underlying meanings. Sure she needs rules. She's 4. But the words are the tools for which she will be able to present her ideas. She has many fascination ideas.
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I am not well versed in design theory. I can merely ( that too not clearly ) describe what and how I might experience an image. Forget the message for the time being.

Forget color( colour ) too.

It appears to me to be ' silly ' to say that rules of composition are hogwash, don't matter, or that
Thousands of years of analysis of visual and cerebral perceptional dynamics have been in vain.

I will just give a simple example or two and shut up.

Diagonal lines give me a different ' feel' than just straight lines. Some lines lead me to another point.
I am visually and mentally attracted in different ways as to the composition of light, dark and shadows.

It is ' silly ' of me but the ' weighting ', the mass, the center ( centre ) of gravity in an image does have an impact on me. And for some ' sillier' than me.

But that is to be expected. These ' silly ' people are in august company here.

A couple thousand years of religious endeavor seems a bit silly to me, Fahim, but that doesn't stop some from continuing to pursue it.
The pursuit of rules to govern such esoteric concepts has been around for years. The idea of the golden ratio and rule of thirds not so long. A couple of hundred no more.
Us humans seem bent on trying to apply what is called a 'gap filler'. If we don't have an answer, let's make one up and then make it fit. Then , if anything else more legitimate comes along we can throw a blanket over it and pretend it never happened.
Asher is hell bent on coming up with some answers . He's determined there must be one, so let's make one up that seems to fit the bill. Anything outside that is a rule breaker and that's the creative bit.
How silly is that?
We're not doing rocket science here. It's not even Leggo. It's taking pictures. Why would we need rules?
It's a cop out, that's what.
If you think the picture does that to your vision you don't know how the visual cortex works. But that OK. You probably don't know how the universe was formed either so make up a story.
Oh, sorry, you already have.

Cheers.
Your good friend.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Tom, are you still in the early stages of evolution or the later stages of devolution?

p.s.

Tom I would not be too surprised if you did not know the medical difference between psychosis and neurosis.

I am also sure, reading from your posts, you must have been under constant medical supervision.

The doctors have been at it a long time...how old did you say you are? With, apparently, no successful results.
Time to seek out better medical help.

I would recommend that the time is now for you to visit the States ( short for USA ). No better place for the most advanced medicine that can be found.

From the East Coast, to the West. There is no shortage of super medical help available. Even Cleveland OH would provide the best care available, if you wish to sightsee in OH.

Sincerely Tom, you need serious medical help. Maybe Asher could set you up at Stanford, CA. That is California, knowledge of which might have escaped you.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I am not well versed in design theory. I can merely ( that too not clearly ) describe what and how I might experience an image. Forget the message for the time being.

Forget color( colour ) too.

It appears to me to be ' silly ' to say that rules of composition are hogwash, don't matter, or that
Thousands of years of analysis of visual and cerebral perceptional dynamics have been in vain.

I will just give a simple example or two and shut up.

Diagonal lines give me a different ' feel' than just straight lines. Some lines lead me to another point.
I am visually and mentally attracted in different ways as to the composition of light, dark and shadows.

It is ' silly ' of me but the ' weighting ', the mass, the center ( centre ) of gravity in an image does have an impact on me. And for some ' sillier' than me.

But that is to be expected. These ' silly ' people are in august company here.

Fahim, I did not write that diagonal lines don't give a different feel than straight lines or that lines leads to no point. I wrote:

Ideas that amount to dividing the rectangular frame into fixed ratios are downright silly.

The operative word here is "fixed".

Now, let me let aside religion and people's sanity aside for a moment, I will not dive into that. You are telling us, if my understanding is correct, that there is some truth in leading lines, the different feelings associated to different orientation of the main lines in a pictures, the different weighting of elements in a picture, etc... This is correct.

This is correct, but it does not make a complete theory. A complete theory is a theory which allows one to build an automated process and the output of that automated process are indeed pleasing. This works for music, so the theory of harmony and counterpoint is complete. This also works for colour, so the theory of colour harmonies is complete.

This does not work for composition. People, smarter than me, have tried to teach a computer to make a Mondriaan. They failed.

So it is true that part of the theory work: the ancient Greeks built well-proportioned temples by using the golden ratio. But we still have some work to find out why we like to look at certain things and not at other.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
There is no such thing as a ' Complete ' theory of design, composition or framing. There will never be.

There is no such thing, yet, of a ' Unified ' theory for which Einstein was searching. But the search goes on.

Old theories don't suddenly become invalid, unless they are empirically proven so. They are refined, added to, subtracted from or totally discarded.

The joker that says that light and dark areas in composition don't work is just that..a joker without a joke.

As to religion, I did not introduce it in this thread. Please address any remarks of such to the concerned.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
You're right on one account, Jerome, maybe two.
In regard to composition tick 'correct'.
In regard to the message thing, I used to think this important but have changed my thinking.
Beauty is important for many, even most, but is subjective. Whether there is a message is only important to those who seek to communicate one.
Over the last decade or so I've taken many photos but for no other reason than to see what it looks like in a photo. I can say it's probably my main motivation at the moment. The beauty in this case comes from something I am learning from my great grand daughter. Yes, a 4 year old.
She is learning to read and write. She is eager to fin the message. For me, the beauty comes from the fact that she recognizes the quality of the written word. Fir me, not her, I see the ability to read and write as the essence. She sees that as well as the underlying meanings. Sure she needs rules. She's 4. But the words are the tools for which she will be able to present her ideas. She has many fascination ideas.

4 year old children are fascinating. When my children were around that age, I realised that 4-5 years is a precious moment: the child can communicate well, but the seeing process is not complete yet. If you can, try to lend one of your cameras to that child and ask her to take pictures of what she sees. Don't fear for the camera, just use the neck strap in case it falls out of her hands.

As to the "message" thing, I was expecting better from you. After all, you have written an essay on "Learning to see", so I expect you to build upon that.

I already said so before it: in a really good picture, the "message" cannot be expressed with words. If we could express the message with words, what would be the use for an image? Words are simple, efficient and can be duplicated easily. But there are messages which cannot be put into words. I am looking for that.

Your grand daughter can probably produce these easily, because at 4 she is not limited by words yet. Please try to lend her a camera.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
There is no such thing as a ' Complete ' theory of design, composition or framing. There will never be.

The difficulty with predictions is that they concern the future. Who knows what will happen in 20, 50 or 100 years? We are only beginning to scratch the surface of how the human brain works.
 
Top