analyzing a photograph

benlees said:
I think Sparrow's very nice photo of his daughter is a very good example of subject/content trumping pattern in terms of creating a successful image. Youthful energy always attracts the eye. The plain background, for me, is what focuses the eye. The V pattern is merely academic. Not sure if we need to dive into the subconscious for this one.
Click to expand...

She was actually miming the answer to the question “would you like ice-cream?” it wasn’t what I was expecting, I’m not making any artistic claim for the photo, I only used it because I had posted it earlier.

In a sense analysing like that is of little practical value other than as an exercise, but understanding what is “interesting” to people in general at least gives you a starting point.

In theory despite being a boring and nondescript subject this photo should hold ones attention simply because of some of the visual elements, does it work?

 
I try not to overanalyze photographs, but I can't help noticing, that what "makes" the photo for me, is a combination of form and content. A "form only" photo has to be REALLY outstanding to make my heart beat faster, while a badly composed photo of an interesting content distracts me from appreciating it visually, I sort of only perceive it at the "news" level.

To illustrate the point, I'd like to submit a couple of my recent shots from a London trip, and I will borrow a magnificent photograph of a fellow flickr member.

This is my "form only" shot - does it make you tick?
2963954268_563ef3c220.jpg


This one, is attempting to bridge the form with content, but the scene depicted is hardly very "hot" emotionally, although I quite like it, it shows quite well a certain sense of alienantion present among the Londoners lost in their megalopolis:
2953241571_2cd6563483.jpg


The last photo has been taken by Emmanuel Smague, one of the best photographers present on flickr in my opinion, btw he has recently opened his own site: http://www.smague.fr
I believe this is a perfect example of a shot where the content meets the form - it has been made in Mongoòia I believe:

1756215828_5b29e10045.jpg

I have made a note to him that I was linking this shot - I hope he will not object to that...

In fact, even looking at numerous shots by HCB which are really iconic for the perfection of form, these which impress me most are linked to some kind of human condition reference and/or depict strong human emotion.
 
Last edited:
luketrash said:
Total noobs have a bad habit of cutting off peoples' feet or hands in photos.
Click to expand...

I recently gave a disposable camera to a young kid.

He wanted to photograph me and I could see he was pointing it at my feet - so I gently suggested to point it up a bit.

His memorable reply was 'But you're too big'.


But seriously, what's wrong with cutting off the feet or the hands? David Hockney is useless at painting feet and hands that's why he puts a pot plant there to obscure these features.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn’t agree that the first shot had “form” if by that you mean traditional composition, the centre line and the slight angle are pretty unconventional, what it has got is lots of patterns the repeating stripes and the striped reflections and the repetition of the groups of three do work for me but the unconventional composition is a distraction.

Now with the second shot I would have liked to see the next frame, the one without the figure on the right, I can see all the gestalt stuff going on and there is a story going on but I don’t want to offer opinions when the photographer isn’t involved, not his strongest picture for me

PS the third shot is all content, its reportage in the best sense that is
 
Last edited:
"...the genius was seeing it and knowing it would have that effect."

Stewart, on that I strongly agree.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Sparrow said:
Would you consider it possible that there are rules which you haven’t yet learned?
PS maybe guidelines is a better word than rules
Click to expand...

The problem with any rules or guideline is, someone can make a picture that conforms to all the rules, but still isn't any good.

The idea of postmodernism is that there should be no rules about what makes good art.
 
antiquark said:
The problem with any rules or guideline is, someone can make a picture that conforms to all the rules, but still isn't any good.

The idea of postmodernism is that there should be no rules about what makes good art.
Click to expand...

Could you post an example of such a photo?

No that’s not what postmodernism is about, it started as a reaction to the minimal concepts of modernism but has become a catch all term for almost anything from 1920 onwards, unhelpful in this context
 
Sparrow said:
Could you post an example of such a photo?
Click to expand...

Here's a bad picture that demonstrates rule or thirds, negative space, linear elements, and a light source:
http://www.antiquark.com/photos/index.php?showimage=17

Sparrow said:
No that’s not what postmodernism is about, it started as a reaction to the minimal concepts of modernism but has become a catch all term for almost anything from 1920 onwards, unhelpful in this context
Click to expand...

It's hard to find a concise definition:
http://www.answers.com/postmodernism

I've gathered that modernism was a new guiding philosophy of art, and then postmodernism was a statement that art should have no guiding philosophy.
 
"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
 
antiquark said:
Here's a bad picture that demonstrates rule or thirds, negative space, linear elements, and a light source:
http://www.antiquark.com/photos/index.php?showimage=17



It's hard to find a concise definition:
http://www.answers.com/postmodernism

I've gathered that modernism was a new guiding philosophy of art, and then postmodernism was a statement that art should have no guiding philosophy.
Click to expand...


I'm sory in no way can that claim to be

a picture that conforms to all the rules, but still isn't any good.
Click to expand...

which is you assertion it isn't either


Postmodernism is in part a return to classical proportions and decoration from the austerity of modernism, you can in fact trace a line from historic ornament through the arts and craft movement, art deco to icons like the Chrysler building. Whereas modernism retired to Sweden in 1966
 
gns said:
1:Identify the various components. Consider how they work together to create coherence, order, meaning.

2:That doesn't mean how they conform to some preordained formula or rule.
Click to expand...

The "rules" of composition were not just "invented" by somebody, or "preordained".

First para above. People did identify the various components and considered how they worked together to create coherence, order and meaning, and studying this came up with some simple "ground rules".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom