Composition Rules...really?

[Sirius Glass]

what you suggest about manipulation is like suggesting that a hand thrown pot is not manipulated between the time it is a lump of clay and water
and it magically becomes a pot. exposure is the same thing ... exposure forms/creates the image, not just composition
maybe others do, but i don't perceive life in fractions of seconds or time lapse. shutters manipulate time.
the idea that manipulation can only take place after an image is created on film or a sensor is a fallacy as far as i am concerned.

ROTFLMAO!!! Thank you for a good laugh at your expense! There is no logical or illogical connection between pottery and photography. Such statements invalidate all the rest of your post and your non-logic.

 

[eddie]

There is no logical or illogical connection between pottery and photography.

Really? I see a connection. They're both subject to the aims, skills, and vision of their creators. Every creative endeavor has that connection.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

(1) what you suggest about manipulation is like suggesting that a hand thrown pot is not manipulated between the time it is a lump of clay and water

and it magically becomes a pot. exposure is the same thing ... exposure creates the image, not composition
maybe others do, but i don't perceive life in fractions of seconds or time lapse.
the idea that manipulation can only take place after an image is created on film or a sensor is a fallacy as far as i am concerned.

(2) whatever is happening deep within a computer file is similar to what happens when one manipulates a latent image
to turn it into a negative.

both can be manipulated and often times are. every day on this website people ask questions about
how to manipulate images they have recorded on film so they look a certain way. people ask questions about
manipulating images through burning and doing and sometimes ferricyanide bleaching and other post processing.
whether it is more easily detectable on film or file doesnt' matter, neither media are trustworthy.

there is a saying - believe half of what you hear and none of what you see. that didn't just come about during the digital age.

(1) I hate to be the one to break this to you, but a lump of clay and water is not a pot. Except as an abstract concept in the potter's mind. The lump can be manipulated into a pot because it already exists as a lump. But the pot must first be created from the lump before it can itself be manipulated. Would you pour your hot coffee all over a lump of clay, then try to pick it up and drink from it?

(2) No, it is not. Were that assertion true, then removing an SD card from your digital camera and dunking it into a tank of D-76 would produce a silver-based image, instead of a trip to the computer store for a new SD card. Functionally equivalent does not define physically equivalent. Saying two things are the same because they superficially appear to produce the same results is incorrect. Sometimes we need to be a little more thoughtful before throwing out rash assertions. The audience is listening.

It's incredibly naive to believe that photography only starts when light hits sensor.

Yes it is. But that's not what I said I believe.

I said the image is rendered when light hits film or sensor. (Let's not leave out film. This is, after all, APUG.) And that in order to manipulate an image, one must first have an image. Unless you know something more about the arrow of time than the rest of us.

The process of photography is a much larger superset of activities and processes than just those related to the subset of an image. This superset is where the abstract idea of a future image can exist in one's mind. But actual physical processes must first render that abstract idea into reality before the final image can, in fact, exist in the real world to be manipulated.

Careful unambiguous definitions and clear thinking do count.

Ken

N.B. Note that I have again quoted the original 'jnanian' post verbatim and in full in order to avoid any confusion due to later reworking.

 

[eddie]

The process of photography is a much larger superset of activities and processes than just those related to the subset of an image. This superset is where the abstract idea of a future image can exist in one's mind. But the actual physical processes must first render that abstract idea into reality before the final image can, in fact, exist in the real world.

Can't you say the same thing about the lump of clay and the coffee cup? The potter renders the idea of a coffee cup, and turns it into reality.

 

[removed account4]

Can't you say the same thing about the lump of clay and the coffee cup? The potter renders the idea of a coffee cup, and turns it into reality.

how can you say such nonsense .. that someone has an idea, and turns it into a reality.
and to think you said something like that invalidates everything you have ever posted ..

:munch:

 

[eddie]

how can you say such nonsense .. that someone has an idea, and turns it into a reality.
and to think you said something like that invalidates everything you have ever posted ..

:munch:

Maybe, John. Lately I've been told I'm not even making photographs. Last September, a curator told me my new stuff shouldn't be called photographs, even though they're done with film, paper, and in a darkroom.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Can't you say the same thing about the lump of clay and the coffee cup? The potter renders the idea of a coffee cup, and turns it into reality.

If I'm understanding you correctly Eddie, absolutely. One cannot manipulate the coffee cup (say, pour coffee into it), until it exists in reality. And it can't exist in reality until the potter renders it in clay, according to his pre-rendered abstract mental idea of what he wants it to be.

And until he does that, it's just a lump of clay and water that demonstrates absolutely none of the attributes or behaviors of a coffee cup, but does demonstrate all of the attributes and behaviors of a lump of wet clay.

But something nagging is telling me I missed your point?

Ken

 

[removed account4]

Maybe, John. Lately I've been told I'm not even making photographs. Last September, a curator told me my new stuff shouldn't be called photographs, even though they're done with film, paper, and in a darkroom.

don't listen to the noise, from people who don't " get it"
their noise is deafening sometimes.
I've been told similar things I wasn't making photographs ( they were enlarged prints )
I didn't listen ... you should do the same ...

 

[mdarnton]

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/06/22/chip-away/

 

[eddie]

Ken- I doubt you missed my point. I don't see a difference between a lump of clay, destined to become a mug from a latent piece of film, destined to become a photograph. They're both just ideas, until the creators turn them into a finished product.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken- I doubt you missed my point. I don't see a difference between a lump of clay, destined to become a mug from a latent piece of film, destined to become a photograph. They're both just ideas, until the creators turn them into a finished product.

Yes, then we are yet again transmitting and receiving on the same wavelength.



Ken

 

[eddie]

don't listen to the noise, from people who don't " get it"
their noise is deafening sometimes.
I've been told similar things I wasn't making photographs ( they were enlarged prints )
I didn't listen ... you should do the same ...

Actually, he liked the work. He was one of the jurors who awarded me first place in photography. After talking awhile, I said I may call them "cliché négatifs". He liked that...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/06/22/chip-away/

But the chipping still has to somehow happen.

There are no shortcuts. There are no free lunches.



Ken

 

[removed account4]

Actually, he liked the work. He was one of the jurors who awarded me first place in photography. After talking awhile, I said I may call them "cliché négatifs". He liked that...

traveling back to glass and soot, and French too .. I like that

 

[eddie]

traveling back to glass and soot, and French too .. I like that

Exactly. Probably the most accurate term to use.

 

[coigach]

Really? I see a connection. They're both subject to the aims, skills, and vision of their creators. Every creative endeavor has that connection.

Me too. In fact, I think part of the trick of 'seeing' differently is to look across the whole spectrum of lots of genres of art.

In my experience, many other artists do. I know many visual artists (painters, sculptors, printmakers) and writers, and the ability to cross-fertilise their imagination from other mediums and ideas seems to be a characteristic. In my experience, photographers often seem more concerned with equipment rather than challenging themselves to 'see differently'.

 

[removed account4]

thanks gavin --

 

[Tony Egan]

This well known Arnold Newman photo of Stravinsky often comes to mind when this subject comes up.

 

[coigach]

This well known Arnold Newman photo of Stravinsky often comes to mind when this subject comes up.

It's a killer picture, isn't it? Interestng to see how it was cropped etc.

What makes the picture so special for me is that it seems to be a visual expression of Stravinsky's music - sharp, angled, and formally precise. It provokes an emotional and intellectual response and works on different levels - for me this is the hallmark of something great.

 

[removed account4]

There is no logical or illogical connection between pottery and photography.

read the last couple of pages and maybe it will make sense ?
if not PM ken, he seems to have an understanding, he might
be able to further explain what i ( and later eddie , mdarnton and coigach )
are talking about. hundred page theses have probably been written on this same subject.
i really can't explain it in a sound bite any better than what has been written in this thread.


sorry none of this makes sense, oh well ...

 

[eddie]

There are concepts which are universal to all art forms. We speak of harmony in music and visual arts. We use analogies, such as "the negative is the score, the print is the performance", and "that print sings", borrowing musical terms to describe photographs. As photographers, we don't work in a vacuum.

 

[blansky]

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.

 

[mdarnton]

I went through a jazz phase. Before that I'd had the completely wrong idea about it. Imagine my surprise to discover that almost universally, the good players had solid conservatory backgrounds in music theory, lots of training and that they very rarely were "winging" it. They had accumulated building blocks, and were inserting them based on competent theory. When their knoweldge wasn't up to it, they sought help. People who aren't artists have this idea that artists work completely differently from the way they really do.

A great read in this line that will appeal to photographers is the entirety of the Jazz Loft Project, the radio shows and the books. It's all based on W Eugene Smith's photos and recordings of jazz musicians in the building in which he had his studio. Get sucked into the radio shows here, http://www.jazzloftproject.org , then buy the book. One of the neat stories in the book is about how the classical composition teacher at Juilliard had his studio in the loft and made students come there. Simultaneously with teaching classical composition, he was helping jazz players like Thelonius Monk with their arranging--for instance, Monk's famous Town Hall Concert was done with his arrangements.

 

[markbarendt]

(1) The image does not exist until it hits film or sensor. It therefore cannot be "manipulated" before it exists. Perhaps you are confusing "manipulation" with the process of "composition", which does happen pre-acquisition, and is the actual topic of this thread?

When I use photography my goal is making a print, not a negative. I'm after a positive on a piece of paper, so IMO my photos don't exist until the final print is "ready to hang on the wall". My family and friends have a similar "so what" attitude about negatives, they don't see negatives as photos.

Because of that worldview, I look at all the bits and pieces and parts and actions I take along the way to my final print; as manipulations. Composition is in my world, just another word for manipulation. The print is what matters, the negative is nothing more than one of the links in the chain.

I consciously decide where in the process I want to do all the necessary bits of manipulation needed to make my print. In this I am using bits of Adams thoughts and bits of others thoughts to "see" the print I want in my head before I grab a camera and leave the house looking for it. I manipulate where I shoot, the situations I shoot in, my subjects attitudes (think Karsh and Churchill), the angle of view, my perspective, the timing (the decisive moment), the... I manipulate everything on the way to the print.

A simple practical example of how I may choose to manipulate: I may actually choose my Holga based on the fact that I want a square print with vignetting that is sharp in the middle and soft around the edges. Now sure I can get that look with with my Nikon 28mm f/2 I just move those manipulations to the enlarger. The net result in the look of the print is essentially the same, whether the manipulation is done pre film exposure or post is truly irrelevant.

Another: On top of my Holga I might (and regularly do) put my Nikon Speedlight to add in a bit of fill flash, the alternative (to no artificial lighting) is burn and dodge. Both methods have the same general effect on the print; they are equivalent manipulations of the print.

 

[HiHoSilver]

A difficult thing in software dev. is getting the perspective of a naive user - one who knows nothing about what the code is supposed to do. (test w/ fools to get foolproof). When it comes to aesthetics, I'm not safe outside w/out my mother. Which is to say its not a resident talent & must be arduously learned. This has involved at least 10hrs/wk looking/studying curated photos online, reading my tail off & needing outside input on how the result showed up on film. The rules helped inform, but I can't say they're even conscious while I compose. (yeah, I know - it shows ) They helped get me started. 'Helps to have a wife w/ an art hist. background. So I pay my dues now to learn the craft. Rightly or wrongly, I'm convinced that composition trumps almost any other skill. The biggest internal struggle is keeping subjective perfection at bay long enough to get some exposures. The close calls in composition inform me & add to the gazillion shots I think I have to retake to get them right. The feedback I get here is more valuable than I can say.