Sparrow
Veteran
----------------
... out of interest one quick'n easy way to abstract any image file is to play with the Contrast and Brightness controls ... wind the contrast up until the photo looks like a photocopy/xerox or a silver lith print and then play with the brightness, or use Photoshops Threshold control and slide Threshold Level too and fro ... and you'll get this sort of effect ...
---
---
... much easier to sort out the light and dark areas ... chiaroscuro effects (strong contrasts between light and dark) almost always help to understand form and depth
... back in the olden-days we would put stuff through the copier or a fax-machine a few times and play with the light/dark controls ... which got us into trouble a few times, on cost grounds, with the thermal paper and toner
---------------
... out of interest one quick'n easy way to abstract any image file is to play with the Contrast and Brightness controls ... wind the contrast up until the photo looks like a photocopy/xerox or a silver lith print and then play with the brightness, or use Photoshops Threshold control and slide Threshold Level too and fro ... and you'll get this sort of effect ...
... much easier to sort out the light and dark areas ... chiaroscuro effects (strong contrasts between light and dark) almost always help to understand form and depth
... back in the olden-days we would put stuff through the copier or a fax-machine a few times and play with the light/dark controls ... which got us into trouble a few times, on cost grounds, with the thermal paper and toner
---------------
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Besides the repeating shapes the bright area just to the top of the last step is the tip of a triangle. Not only does the light area bring your eye up the trail so does the repeating shapes getting smaller the arrow or triangle leads the eye up the path to.
paulfish4570
Veteran
my father was a self-taught technical illustrator and architect. i got into his art library by the time i was 5 or so, and kept at it. so, it turns out, i was learning the "rules" - far earlier than most - through illustrations and pictures and paintings before i could understand them by reading the technical explanations. this has informed the way i see things ever since. hunting, though, taught me to truly see, rather than look; opening one's eyes to motion as first alert alters everything thereafter; one learns how ro relax one's eyes, as stewart pointed out, to notice the tiniest motion.
but everyone who lives in civilized society learns the basic rules by living in civilization, whether one wants to learn them or not, through osmosis.
perhaps if one grew up as an amoeba in a world of amoebas, one would avoid the rules completely.
good job, stewart. i much appreciate this thread.
but everyone who lives in civilized society learns the basic rules by living in civilization, whether one wants to learn them or not, through osmosis.
perhaps if one grew up as an amoeba in a world of amoebas, one would avoid the rules completely.
good job, stewart. i much appreciate this thread.
bobbyrab
Well-known
Despite what he says about HCB being a strong influence over him, his portfolio shows very little that looks in any way influenced by HCB, it looks to be influenced by far more contemporary photographers, they look to have a deliberately snap shot aesthetic to them with far simpler compositions than I would associate with HCB.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Maybe learning the language Paul? I think that learning how to effectively communicate visually is freeing from rules and what Adams, Winogrand, Newman, Michals, Weston are all talking about.
I also agree with you about this being a good thread and thanks to Stewart for sharing his knowledge and views.
I also agree with you about this being a good thread and thanks to Stewart for sharing his knowledge and views.
Sparrow
Veteran
... yes, my eye goes up and down the path the tree-canopy stoping stoping my eye at the top and the diagonal line of fallen leaves at the bottom right ... I think its very well done in that it keeps ones' attention within the frame despite that strong linear feature
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I'm not a huge fan of Kim's work. I think he makes some interesting points and some tie in with what is being discussed here. Just because I'm not a huge fan of his work doesn't mean I disagree with all of his views. I am influenced by Weston but it might be very difficult to see it in my work. I think maybe you would find Friedlander and Winogrand to be more in his work that Bresson though I'm sure he is in the mix. Did you see Mano's crit of Kim's portfolio?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I agree and the more time I spend with the image, the better it gets. Staying power. Would love to see a good print.
Sparrow
Veteran
---------------
... Similarity, is finding and seeing similar items as groups, there's a long running thread on the board which is full of things in threes contains lots ... we pick out similar shapes, colours or types and treat them as a group.
So similar shapes ...
Boutique Regina - Bank Street par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... tend to draw the eye between them, so the rule thinks all the rectangles on this should be attractive to a viewer and have their eyes flicking all over the place when they look at it. Personally I find Similarity of shape never seems as reliable as Proximity ...
... in colour terms, similar colours form the group, in this shot, the yellow works well enough to catch my attention. It clashes with all that blue and sort of holds my attention in that part of the photo, at the time I was just thinking of the colour contrast, I had plenty of time to wait for the moment as that cart trundled down the beach ...
The Beach at Acharavi, Kerikira (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... I pick out those magenta items as a group too but to no good effect, they act as a distraction to me.
... and type in this instance boats
Sam’s Boats, Roda, Kerkyra (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... so Similarity and Proximity are handy in one respect when we're out trying to take photographs, you just need to keep in mind that patterns and like objects are worth exploring or avoiding depending on ones' need at the time. People will have already noticed this I expect, the cover of Abby Road shows the application of it ... the Beetles on that traffic crossing, and it crops up in lots of photos taken by the 'great' photographers ...
Sometimes it works against the photo though, in this shot, it's the repeating lines and road markings that end up dominating, I look briefly at the subject then get distracted by the strong patterns and end up looking all around the frame, even that flare is similar to the road markings ...
tumblrni6w19KxYl1qamvqvo1 1280 par
... nightfly, on ipernity
... so it's an attractive photo but it distracts from the photographers intended subject, the girl.
next ... Closure
----------------
... Similarity, is finding and seeing similar items as groups, there's a long running thread on the board which is full of things in threes contains lots ... we pick out similar shapes, colours or types and treat them as a group.
So similar shapes ...
Boutique Regina - Bank Street par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... tend to draw the eye between them, so the rule thinks all the rectangles on this should be attractive to a viewer and have their eyes flicking all over the place when they look at it. Personally I find Similarity of shape never seems as reliable as Proximity ...
... in colour terms, similar colours form the group, in this shot, the yellow works well enough to catch my attention. It clashes with all that blue and sort of holds my attention in that part of the photo, at the time I was just thinking of the colour contrast, I had plenty of time to wait for the moment as that cart trundled down the beach ...
The Beach at Acharavi, Kerikira (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... I pick out those magenta items as a group too but to no good effect, they act as a distraction to me.
... and type in this instance boats
Sam’s Boats, Roda, Kerkyra (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... so Similarity and Proximity are handy in one respect when we're out trying to take photographs, you just need to keep in mind that patterns and like objects are worth exploring or avoiding depending on ones' need at the time. People will have already noticed this I expect, the cover of Abby Road shows the application of it ... the Beetles on that traffic crossing, and it crops up in lots of photos taken by the 'great' photographers ...
Sometimes it works against the photo though, in this shot, it's the repeating lines and road markings that end up dominating, I look briefly at the subject then get distracted by the strong patterns and end up looking all around the frame, even that flare is similar to the road markings ...
tumblrni6w19KxYl1qamvqvo1 1280 par
... nightfly, on ipernity
... so it's an attractive photo but it distracts from the photographers intended subject, the girl.
next ... Closure
----------------
RichC
Well-known
You're doing yourself an injustice! Yes, the magenta does stand out, but in a good way! There's a dynamic tension on the cusp of failure that grabs your attention - between the magenta items and the red lettering on the cart (personally, I'd like something in the picture that just nudges the balance slightly more to the lower right). The lettering is crucial: without it I'd develop a lean to the left when looking at this photo, and eventually fall over!
The Beach at Acharavi, Kerikira (Corfu) par Sparrow ... Stewart Mcbride, on ipernity
... in colour terms, similar colours form the group, in this shot, the yellow works well enough to catch my attention. It clashes with all that blue and sort of holds my attention in that part of the photo [...]
...... I pick out those magenta items as a group too but to no good effect, they act as a distraction to me.
As Stewart knows, the yellow and blue subjects dominate this picture including the magenta/red (allowing the image to work as he describes) because these two colours are , crucially, a complementary colour pair - and we are physiologically attracted to the stimulus of this kind of colour pairing because they are opposites (if you stare at a yellow object then at a white wall, you'll see a blue after-effect, and vice versa).
The photo would be more static and less interesting without the magenta and red (and the picture would be somewhat out of balance - Stewart would have to recompose).
Someone in an earlier post said no one - especially the quick-witted street photographer - could consciously apply (or break) these visual rules when taking a photograph. Entirely true. The "rules" (I really don't like that word in this context!) need to become subconscious - just like when driving a car you don't think (much) about what gear you need to be in, how hard or when to brake, or where to place yourself on the road.
The same person also thought learning these rules was pointless, saying that if they were the basis of a good picture, then those who used them would be surely be taking "museum quality and award-winning" pictures, but that patently doesn't happen.
I return to my analogy likening these visual rules to grammar in language. Learning the rules of grammar allows you to communicate clearly and effectively with words - but it won't turn you into a John Steinbeck unless you have his kind of creativity already within you!
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I would say Stewart is fluent in the language not rules. Nice balance between warm and cool colors. Lines leading into the frame bottom left. But if you are talking rules those colors according to the rules create tension. Turquoise and magenta create a color vibration yet because he has used language well and not rules by using strong horizontal lines and placing the subject on almost a center line that all gives a feel for the expanse of the horizon, doesn't create a visual tension and that light touch to the density he has created a lazy hot summer day at the beach feel. And a kind of triadic color scheme as a bonus....
I would argue it's the language that becomes subconscious as Bresson calls it a developed instinct. See post #25
I'm going to repost what some of the really greats had to say about rules. I deleted this before but I totally agree and think it fits here. And I think Weston's take about composition should become a personal way of seeing is so right on the money.
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt "
There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston
"Anything that excites me, for any reason, I will photograph: not searching for unusual subject matter but making the commonplace unusual, nor indulging in extraordinary technique to attract attention. Work only when desire to the point of necessity impels – then do it honestly. Then so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams
"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals
"What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." - Garry Winogrand
These photographers were all fluent in the language.
I would argue it's the language that becomes subconscious as Bresson calls it a developed instinct. See post #25
I'm going to repost what some of the really greats had to say about rules. I deleted this before but I totally agree and think it fits here. And I think Weston's take about composition should become a personal way of seeing is so right on the money.
"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt "
There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston
"Anything that excites me, for any reason, I will photograph: not searching for unusual subject matter but making the commonplace unusual, nor indulging in extraordinary technique to attract attention. Work only when desire to the point of necessity impels – then do it honestly. Then so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams
"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals
"What I write here is a description of what I have come to understand about photography, from photographing and from looking at photographs. A work of art is that thing whose form and content are organic to the tools and materials that made it. Still photography is a chemical, mechanical process. Literal description or the illusion of literal description, is what the tools and materials of still photography do better than any other graphic medium. A still photograph is the illusion of a literal description of how a camera saw a piece of time and space. Understanding this, one can postulate the following theorem: Anything and all things are photographable. A photograph can only look like how the camera saw what was photographed. Or, how the camera saw the piece of time and space is responsible for how the photograph looks. Therefore, a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs. I like to think of photographing as a two-way act of respect. Respect for the medium, by letting it do what it does best, describe. And respect for the subject, by describing as it is. A photograph must be responsible to both." - Garry Winogrand
These photographers were all fluent in the language.
Sparrow
Veteran
RichC; ... in that instance I knew when I saw the ice-chream tractor what I was going to get, I took a couple of others as it approached but that was the one I was after, the green cast in the sea versus the red group and blue sky and sea versus the yellow group ... but normally? ... well no, its instinct, just snapshots
This stuff is about communication mostly, once you start to understand it you can talk about art to others who understand ... check out the last few photos Ned posted in his Street thread and although he doesn't subscribe to this stuff anyone who has read this will see the effects explained here, present in them
Frogman; ... sorry, I dont care what the 'greats' say, their photographs give lie to their opinions don't they?
This stuff is about communication mostly, once you start to understand it you can talk about art to others who understand ... check out the last few photos Ned posted in his Street thread and although he doesn't subscribe to this stuff anyone who has read this will see the effects explained here, present in them
Frogman; ... sorry, I dont care what the 'greats' say, their photographs give lie to their opinions don't they?
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Not at all Stewie. They could communicate really well using language but not preconceived rules. Like Weston implies if everyone is following the same rules of composition then everything starts looking the same. As it does today with people getting focusing screens with the RoTs etch in them. No wonder it's hard to tell one persons work from the next.
I remember when I was teaching an advanced portrait class a few years back we were having a critique. One of the students created this amazing portrait. A couple of the other students immediately dismisses it because it didn't fall into the preconceived RoTs.
The point is and you see it in forum land all the time. People dismiss things that don't fall into preconceived rules like RoTs which I told the students their time would be much better spent learning the language of how to communicate and thinking but that is far more difficult than following someones rules.
I actually think talking about how the language works gets to the very heart of this thread. Like I said earlier you seem to be good at it.
I remember when I was teaching an advanced portrait class a few years back we were having a critique. One of the students created this amazing portrait. A couple of the other students immediately dismisses it because it didn't fall into the preconceived RoTs.
The point is and you see it in forum land all the time. People dismiss things that don't fall into preconceived rules like RoTs which I told the students their time would be much better spent learning the language of how to communicate and thinking but that is far more difficult than following someones rules.
I actually think talking about how the language works gets to the very heart of this thread. Like I said earlier you seem to be good at it.
Sparrow
Veteran
... well I'm glad you've got that sorted out Airfrogman, do you think it's OK for me to carry on now? ... I wouldn't want to interrupt your quotations, class anecdotes and opinion needlessly ... it makes the place look so untidy
so if it's OK with you: next ... Closure (or the real reason its wrong to cut your subjects feet off)
ah, no I'll do an anecdote of my own about visual conventions so ...
next ... Convention (or learning to love skinny women)
so if it's OK with you: next ... Closure (or the real reason its wrong to cut your subjects feet off)
ah, no I'll do an anecdote of my own about visual conventions so ...
next ... Convention (or learning to love skinny women)
airfrogusmc
Veteran
AAHH come on Stewie. It's a forum not a dictatorship. A little give and take is good. And what good is an opinion if it can't be substantiated by some credible sources. And I do agree with most of what you are saying.
So let's see'm Skinny or not.
So let's see'm Skinny or not.
Sparrow
Veteran
true ... and I don't mind comment, but please not both barrels from those dead guys again ... and the skinny women is a trick
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I deleted the dead guys the first time around and its about time for some photos and skinny fat whatever it's all good.
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
I'm surprised at how many people appear to be approaching this as a series of rules one must attempt to remember just before taking each picture. I agree that some knowledge and understanding of certain things, that some of us now call rules, will help us to successfully communicate using a visual language. In the same way that spoken and written language is able to communicate more successfully with a larger vocabulary and a greater understanding of grammar. Of course the caveat to that is those viewing, listening or reading need to share that language otherwise communication is incomplete.
My real interest in this thread, and what I thought was Stewart's original intention, is learning how my brain subconsciously interprets the world in front of me and how this inevitably affects the way I compose, be it within 1/250 sec or ten minutes of moving a tripod around.
Enjoying the thread....and the comments.
My real interest in this thread, and what I thought was Stewart's original intention, is learning how my brain subconsciously interprets the world in front of me and how this inevitably affects the way I compose, be it within 1/250 sec or ten minutes of moving a tripod around.
Enjoying the thread....and the comments.
paulfish4570
Veteran
yes, Simon ...
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Thats my point Simon. There are no rules. I work my mind is blank and I am only responding. I really don't think when I am working. It's about what you've put in before and how you edit after that makes the difference. I think before and after. And looking and analyzing images as Stewart is showing helps put stuff in the visual tool box. Learning the language and what is working or not working visually is kinda what I thought this was about. As you know understanding the language is not about rules because like I said in #25 what works in A can fail miserably in B.