analyzing a photograph

gns said:
"So how do you know if it's good or not? Illogical rules?"

You look. With yours eyes and mind hopefully open. Identify the various components. Consider how they work together to create coherence, order, meaning. That doesn't mean how they conform to some preordained formula or rule.

"Would you consider it possible that there are rules which you haven’t yet learned?"

I'm sure there are, somebody should list them all. You'd think by post #100, someone would have filled us in by now. Please, no rule of thirds type nonsense.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...


  1. The Rule of Proximity.
    The Rule of Similarity.
    The Rule of Closure.
    The Rule of Simplicity.
    The Rule of Repetition.
    The Rule of Repetition.
    The Rule of Figure/Ground.


sorry couldn't resist the repletion thing 🙂
 
Last edited:
Sparrow said:
The Rule of Proximity.
The Rule of Similarity.
The Rule of Closure.
The Rule of Simplicity.
The Rule of Repetition.
The Rule of Repetition.
The Rule of Figure/Ground.
🙂
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't think I can find a picture that demonstrates all those. I'm not saying that none exist, it's just that I don't know where to look.

However, in many in critique threads, I've seen many people justify their poor photograph by explaining the various rules that are followed.

Maybe a counterexample would be to find a good photo that follows none of those rules.

Then the big problem would be everyone agreeing on what a good photo is. 🙂
 
Sparrow,

So if I have some simple, similar looking figures repeated close together on a ground I will have a good picture? Sorry, Can't imagine what "Closure" might be.

Cheers,
Gary
 
So, we've got a good discussion going - that's good! It would be boring if we all just agreed about everything.

I've got a challenge to anyone who wishes to take it on:

Find an unpleasing/unsuccessful photograph (defined by 7 out of 10 photographers/viewers that say it is) that displays the following aspects/guidelines:

-it has compelling content (a strong narrative is generated by the image)
-it has pleasing composition (choose the simplest guide to composition, the "rule of thirds" if you want)
-lighting is interesting and/or appropriate to the subject
-there is a minimum of distracting visual elements that do not add to the image
-technical considerations are covered (here's the well exposed, sharply focused,... statement)

5 simple aspects/guidelines. Find an unsuccessful picture (that that more than just YOU don't like) that exhibit these aspects.

If there really are no rules and it's just unexplanable "gut reaction", and "I'll know it when I see it", then this should be possible.

I'm proposing that if an image has these aspects in sufficient quantity, it will be considered a "good" photo, as judged by a clear majority of photographers/viewers.
 
Last edited:
Gut reaction is 'No' for

showphoto.php
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
-it has compelling content (a strong narrative is generated by the image)
-it has pleasing composition (choose the simplest guide to composition, the "rule of thirds" if you want)
-lighting is interesting and/or appropriate to the subject
Click to expand...

First you have to define the meanings of compelling, pleasing, and interesting in the rules above. 🙂
 
-it has compelling content (a strong narrative is generated by the image)
-it has pleasing composition (choose the simplest guide to composition, the "rule of thirds" if you want)
-lighting is interesting and/or appropriate to the subject
-there is a minimum of distracting visual elements that do not add to the image
-technical considerations are covered (here's the well exposed, sharply focused,... statement)
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no no.

for_sale_Large_.jpg
 
Last edited:
antiquark said:
Actually, I don't think I can find a picture that demonstrates all those. I'm not saying that none exist, it's just that I don't know where to look.

However, in many in critique threads, I've seen many people justify their poor photograph by explaining the various rules that are followed.

Maybe a counterexample would be to find a good photo that follows none of those rules.

Then the big problem would be everyone agreeing on what a good photo is. 🙂
Click to expand...

i don't think this conforms, but it works for me



Then the big problem would be everyone agreeing on what a good photo is.
Click to expand...

it's not a problem it's educational 🙂
 
Last edited:
FrankS said:
-technical considerations (exposure, focus, brightness, contrast, camera movement, etc. - mostly subjective)

.
Click to expand...


I now would never comment on color, contrast, sharpness etc of pictures viewed
on the 'net, after looking at my own stuff on computers other than my own, and seeing the huge variations in these qualities, dependant on how their monitors are set up.
 
gns said:
Sparrow,

So if I have some simple, similar looking figures repeated close together on a ground I will have a good picture? Sorry, Can't imagine what "Closure" might be.

Cheers,
Gary
Click to expand...

repatition




closure




unless you cant make out the letters from the white dashes that is, then you have ongoing conflict 😀
 
Jon, you posted one of my pictures from a for sale thread. It was not presented as 'art', only used to illustrate a lens for sale. Why post this/my picture in this thread?
 
FrankS:

Your photo showed up in the gallery, not the classified.

I sort of feel like the art showroom guy who took out the trash; and then was told it was the exhibit.
 
ClaremontPhoto said:
FrankS:

Your photo showed up in the gallery, not the classified.

I sort of feel like the art showroom guy who took out the trash; and then was told it was the exhibit.
Click to expand...


My son and I sometimes stand in a gallery to admire and discus one of the fire-extinguishers, at the Tate in Liverpool few weeks ago we managed to pull a crowd of five including us.
 
If you spend any time at all in a gallery you soon become aware of how much twaddle the poor pictures have to endure

On a side note the 20th century retrospective at the Tate Liverpool is spectacular, god-knows what the insurance cost on it all must be, well worth a visit for anyone within range
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom