Composition Rules...really?

pdeeh · Jan 20, 2016

blansky said:
Interesting how a thread about composition turns into an anti digital thread.......again.

I'm amazed and entertained how so many people here, are seething just below the surface, and can't wait or control themselves when discussing photography related subjects, and let the veil drop and head off on a rant about digital.

It's like religion and politics. It's all just lurking there below the surface just waiting to ejaculate up.
.

An apposite choice of word ... it does often seem like a masturbatory frenzy ...

HiHoSilver · Jan 20, 2016

blansky said:
Interesting how a thread about composition turns into an anti digital thread.......again.

I'm amazed and entertained how so many people here, are seething just below the surface, and can't wait or control themselves when discussing photography related subjects, and let the veil drop and head off on a rant about digital.

It's like religion and politics. It's all just lurking there below the surface just waiting to ejaculate up.

It's like racism in a way too. There is a curtain of civility, but hiding underneath is the real feeling.

Kinda sad.

Its like this in most other areas where change is in motion. I'm pretty sure we'd see anti-small format verbiage when 35 became popular. Probably the polaroid film when it first hit. I saw quotes in military interviews that mirror forced gentility in criticizing new gear that turned out well. 'A very human thing. In film v dig. we have some of the reality obscured by the flickrs of the world - applying saturation, contrast & sharpening till our eyes need bandaids. The marketeers over-promise, try to stir up the masses over 'new' and 'cool'. And the human traits play out.

coigach · Jan 20, 2016

HiHoSilver said:
Its like this in most other areas where change is in motion. I'm pretty sure we'd see anti-small format verbiage when 35 became popular. Probably the polaroid film when it first hit. I saw quotes in military interviews that mirror forced gentility in criticizing new gear that turned out well. 'A very human thing. In film v dig. we have some of the reality obscured by the flickrs of the world - applying saturation, contrast & sharpening till our eyes need bandaids. The marketeers over-promise, try to stir up the masses over 'new' and 'cool'. And the human traits play out.

Unfortunately, the tendency Blanksy highlighted is an APUG trait that long-time users have seen a million times. For me, it's one of the reasons I use APUG less than I used to.

BrianShaw · Jan 20, 2016

coigach said:
Unfortunately, the tendency Blanksy highlighted is an APUG trait that long-time users have seen a million times. For me, it's one of the reasons I use APUG less than I used to.

... and why I started using the ignore list function.

DWThomas · Jan 20, 2016

OK, I made a few comments earlier, but perhaps as one who in fact dabbles in the clay arts, as well as photography (and occasionally pen&ink or watercolor), I'll say some more.

Regardless of the media:

a) In many cases I'm not really sure why I do it in the first place, and in general (for me) it's a rather intuitive process. Sometimes with clay (not always), it is in fact making a functional piece for use here or as a gift. Mayhaps that threatens to drag us into "what is art?" (Ummm - sorry!)

b) In just about all cases, when I actually begin the physical process, I am pursuing some sort of "vision." Maybe I'm visualizing the finished work -- or maybe I want to "do something with that texture/those shadows/that interplay of shapes. (Or occasionally I just want a flower pot with interesting glaze for that houseplant that's gotten too big for what it's in!)

c) Many times what I do is perhaps mostly about experimenting and personal challenge -- I'm thinking of a < .*.*.*> -- can I make one; if an image, can I use what I know to make it happen. Do I think my stuff will be in museums in 2315 -- No. Do I care -- No! Sometimes I may be looking to stretch a personal boundary, other times I may want to do what I did before -- but better.

Am I aware of "rules" -- Yes. Do I follow them religiously, no (I don't even follow religion religiously!) Do I use any technology I have access to that might help me get what I want -- Yes!

Am I having fun? Yes!
(And that's all that matters. :munch: )

{Can't seem to find that animated .GIF of the guy beating the comatose equine ....}

Vaughn · Jan 20, 2016

I love how the anti-anti-digital crowd crawls out of the woodwork, too! A lovely merry-go-round!

pdeeh · Jan 20, 2016

It is a fundamentally trivial difference in fact, even if one accepts the terms of the "argument" made for it.

Nothing hangs on it, it has no consequences, and only its proponents care to get in a froth about it.

Nobody else gives a flying donut.

removed account4 · Jan 20, 2016

its too bad people have to bring digital up in threads like this, and detract from the whole point of the thread.
even if the image posted was a 2016 digital recreation of the dali portrait it is still a great exercise in composition.
there is something to look at in every part of the frame, one's eye travels with the swirling water and cats and its great.
and i agree with ralph that for a lot of people composition comes into play ( fussing around with a projection to make it look good )
comes after the negative is made, unless someone is super carful with framing, or they are used to LF cameras and contact printing full-frame.
my 35mm slr i dont' think gives me a full frame ( or so i have been told ) and i've learned over the years because of film wastage and lf use
about trying to compose something that looks good, if i can, while looking through the viewer ( or ground glass ) ...
sometimes mies van der rohe's saying "less is more" is useful both when looking through the lens and when thinking about rules and "stuff"
a cluttered mind and cluttered frame are sometimes not useful ( unless there are flying cats and pails of water ).

removed account4 · Jan 20, 2016

i don't know either michael ...
seems most everthing is a waste of
effort and time .. unless it isn't.

RobC · Jan 20, 2016

MattKing said:
This brings rise to a smile for me as well.

But it also highlights one of the realities behind some of the composition rules.

The characteristic curve is quite "natural", in that it is similar in shape to a number of naturally occurring results from the interplay of every day circumstances (see the water above). Many of the rules of composition favour such naturally occurring relationships.

Not true becasue the characteristic curve has been logarithm-ized. Without that the curve would be upswept and very quickly become a vertical line.

cliveh · Jan 20, 2016

How do the images by Lee Friedlander fit into the rules of composition?

pdeeh · Jan 20, 2016

cliveh said:
How do the images by Lee Friedlander fit into the rules of composition?

Surely you meant to ask "How do the images of Lee Friedlander fit into intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame?" ?

cliveh · Jan 20, 2016

pdeeh said:
Surely you meant to ask "How do the images of Lee Friedlander fit into intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame?" ?

No, because that was my own question and rejected within this thread. But Friedlander is quite well known.

Sirius Glass · Jan 20, 2016

pdeeh said:
An apposite choice of word ... it does often seem like a masturbatory frenzy ...

Which is why I dropped out of the thread. Someone could not conceive the concept that I am allowed to have my options about major manipulations and that I could not begin to care even less about his justifications of his option. Guess what, if there were a court case in which each party had a vastly different image of the same scene one of which was manipulated, showing the judge and jury the original negative would outweigh an attorney's expert witness blubbering about the wonders of Fauxto$hopping.

michr · Jan 20, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Which is why I dropped out of the thread. Someone could not conceive the concept that I am allowed to have my options about major manipulations and that I could not begin to care even less about his justifications of his option. Guess what, if there were a court case in which each party had a vastly different image of the same scene one of which was manipulated, showing the judge and jury the original negative would outweigh an attorney's expert witness blubbering about the wonders of Fauxto$hopping.

How is an original negative distinguished from a copy which has been manipulated?

Sirius Glass · Jan 20, 2016

Good question. However if the principal investigators on in the photograph they could be questioned on the stand, but I think that no one could reasonably believe the jumping shark.

cliveh · Jan 20, 2016

michr said:
How is an original negative distinguished from a copy which has been manipulated?

Presumably because the original negative would be produced to show the manipulated copy is a fake.

Sirius Glass · Jan 20, 2016

michr · Jan 20, 2016

Two negatives, one contains the image of a person, one without. Has the person been added or removed? From my perspective what you hold up as an original negative is merely a second negative. Proving that it's the original should rely on more than just demonstrating an alternate version of the image.

Maris · Jan 20, 2016

Sirius Glass said:
Yes

This is a sharply pertinent point!

In the state where I live photographs presented in criminal court cases used to have the status of physical evidence because the positive shown to the jury could be traced to a negative from a police camera. In turn, this negative could be shown to be physically linked to an actual crime scene.

Since the police service here has gone digital the pictures shown to juries now have the status of testimony. This because someone sentient, or at least breathing, has to get up in the witness box and attest that the picture represents the crime scene.

Evidence versus testimony ; I know which one I'd prefer to believe.

cliveh · Jan 20, 2016

michr said:
Two negatives, one contains the image of a person, one without. Has the person been added or removed?

The manipulated image would lack integrity and show up like a beacon in the night.

michr · Jan 20, 2016

cliveh said:
The manipulated image would lack integrity and show up like a beacon in the night.

I also am glad you said this because if that's the case, why are we even debating digital images. Wouldn't a manipulated digital image lack integrity and show up like a beacon also?

removed account4 · Jan 20, 2016

what does a court of law have to do with the salvador dali portrait a few pages back or a 15 page long discussion on composition ?

cliveh · Jan 20, 2016

michr said:
I also am glad you said this because if that's the case, why are we even debating digital images. Wouldn't a manipulated digital image lack integrity and show up like a beacon also?

I didn't realise we were debating digital images. I thought this was APUG not DPUG?

removed account4 · Jan 20, 2016

cliveh said:
I didn't realise we were debating digital images. I thought this was APUG not DPUG?

we aren't debating digital images,
but somehow the conversation on composition was hijacked
by someone who has a bone to pick with digital images ( every chance he gets )
and how they are untruthful and chemical based negatives are unmanipulated and pure ...

as i said 5 pages back a tired argument and it really has nothing to do with this thread.

Composition Rules...really?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency