Subtle photographs

MattKing · May 28, 2007

This is going back to the depths of time for me, so apologies if I haven't remembered this correctly.

There are essentially two processes available to aid in developing rules - inductive, and deductive.

The inductive processes are the ones where you produce rules based on observations of recurring patterns. IMHO, all rules respecting composition are inductive in nature.

A rule formulated using induction is, paradoxically, both more useful, and less likely to be "true" than one arrived at by deduction. More useful, because it is likely to incorporate more observations, but less likely to be "true" because it is based more on likelihood, than observable certainties.

Matrix metering is essentially an inductive process.

There is a very large likelihood that if the composition of a photograph is satisfying, than it is consistent with other photographs that previously were deemed to be satisfying.

You don't have to be aware of the rules themselves, to be aware of the images that are consistent with them.

You probably do have to be aware of them, however, in order to effectively break them.

Matt

eddym · May 28, 2007

Ryan McIntosh said:
Roger,

I think a good place to start when making a photograph is just by seeing. The reason I say seeing and not looking is because all to often a photographer is influence by that in which they already know and that in which they have already seen in the past. Therefore, when a photographer goes out looking for photographs, they are only looking for things in which they already know would make a good photograph. In a way, they are just reinforcing what they already know and possibly only recreating what they have already done.

Very good point. There is a totally different mindset involved in "looking for photographs" and "seeing." The former reinforces preconceptions. The latter stimulates creativity.

jstraw · May 28, 2007

Matt speaks eloquently about the nature of 'rules.' His post and Ryan's description of making a photograph that's consistent with a 'rule' while not being aware of it, are what I was trying to get at earlier.

Early Riser · May 30, 2007

Ryan McIntosh said:
Attached is an example of a recent photograph I made from my Boneyard series.

Ryan McIntosh
www.RyanMcIntosh.net

Ryan, nice image, however I think it does have a subject, actually two, the star is a prominent element as is the black seam.

Subtle is very hard to pull off and I think that that is why so many people take note of the lack of a subject in a photo, they are searching for something in the image to hang their hat on. And most of the time a subject less image does not work for them.

I only have one image that has no subject in it, and it is an image that works well only large. I do not have it on my web site nor do i have it posted here because it simply looks like a mess unless it's large enough to see detail.

User Removed · May 30, 2007

Your right. Although not very obvious at first, that image I posted does have someone of a focal point.

This was a topic I was exploring a few months ago when I started creating images from a Littlerock, AR yearbook. Visually, the image explored the idea how a photograph can have somewhat the "all over" texture appearance, but still contain a focal point. There was also an unlying concept behind these images that was created by the placement and construction of the photograph.

Attached is an example.

Richard Boutwell · May 31, 2007

I think it is crucial first to recognize what the intention of the photograph is before talking about the importance of a clearly defined subject. If the goal is a successful commercial photograph, then yes, there should be an obvious subject, but it might benefit having a not-so-simple design (of course that is all dependant on the companies brand and so forth). If, however, we are talking about photographs as art then I think it is all very personal, and there are only opinions and preferences about the subject. Though I do think it is important to understand what is meant when something is considered a "subtle photograph".

Subtly in photographs doesn't always have to mean something without a strong sense of obvious composition. It could be like some of the first "all over" photographs by Frederick Sommer-- the Arizona Landscapes of the 1940's-- which paved the way for many of the "all-over" photographs that followed. Or subtlety could mean Callahan's weeds in the snow, or the weeds against the sky. In terms of color, the early work of Joel Meyerowitz is a prime example of success with the use of a subtle pallet (even though I don't agree, it could be said though that is that due to the available materials he was using at the time). Alternatively, subtlety in photographs could be like Jeff Wall's work where the references from art history that influence and inform the work are usually subtle or obscure.

One of my favorite photographs at the moment is by Robert Adams of his wife pulling stickers out of their dog's feet. It is plate eight in A Portrait in Landscapes. At first glance, it seems like a simple snapshot. But, when I looked closer and noticed the trees and variation of land near the edges of the frame, I saw that the simplicity of the subject was successful because it was supported by the subtle placements on the edges.

Personally, I prefer photographs that are subtle-- whether it is in terms of the subject, contrast, composition or pallet. For me, there is something about the photographs that don't beat you over the head that lend themselves to be appreciated more over time.

__________________
www.RichardBoutwell.com

Richard Boutwell · May 31, 2007

Sparky said:
that's just dumb. i'm not into astrology either.

I couldn't agree more.

It is true that if you take many of the "Masterpieces" of art, and apply these mathematical principles, many will exhibit properties of the Golden Mean-- just as do the tonal frequencies on the harmonic scale. But that does not mean that you have something that is any more, or less, beautiful, only something that is un-necessarily substantiated scientifically.

As HBC said in the introduction to the Decisive Moment, "In applying the Golden Rule the only pair of compasses at the photographers disposal is his own pair of eyes."

AND

"I hope we will never see the day when photo shops sell little schema grills to clamp onto our view finders; and that the Golden Rule will never be etched on our ground glass."

__________________
www.RichardBoutwell.com

Richard Boutwell · May 31, 2007

Ryan McIntosh said:
Therefore, when a photographer goes out looking for photographs, they are only looking for things in which they already know would make a good photograph. In a way, they are just reinforcing what they already know and possibly only recreating what they have already done.

If one just goes out seeing what is around them, not letting any rules or past ideas about things influence their vision, they will discover something that is completely new and visually different from that in which they have done in the past.

This is exactly what Michael A. Smith says when he prefaces what will be taught over the course of the "Vision and Technique Workshop."

From what I have seen from workshop participants, the ones that were able to let go of their preconceptions are the ones that have started to create really meaningful work. Not because they were given any secrets for composition, but because they picked up something that gave them the confidence to trust their own discoveries and allowed them to work confidently from a more personal place.

__________________
www.RichardBoutwell.com

Struan Gray · May 31, 2007

Richard, it's a pleasure to find another admirer of Sommers' Arizona landscapes. Meatyard's landscapes and zen twigs evoke similar feelings for me, but it's a style that seems to have mostly explored by painters. Sommers' cacti could come straight out of Mondrian's early seascapes, and I have an abiding fascination with 50s all-over abstract painting, particularly the quieter, more spiritual paintings of Mark Tobey.

In colour, Misrach seems to be the photographer who has most successfully incorporated Cape Light's palette and style into his work.

I think of it as avoiding 'Lego' colours, although lately Lego have been producing a lot of bricks in an odd secondary spectrum of hues so perhaps I need to find a new name.

A lot of this sort of subtlety works best in a well-made book, or in private, domestic settings where contemplation and regular re-viewing are more likely. It also is easily destroyed by poor reproduction, or by a change of scale, which is good news for APUG-ers since it argues strongly for ownership of an original work, and not dissemination as an online meme.

juan · May 31, 2007

I'm bothered by the idea that many have (camera club judges, for instance) that a photograph has to have as its subject a physical object - a tree, for instance. I find myself photographing the relationship between things - the spaces, the textures, the reflective values, etc., much of which is lost on a lot of viewers. Oh, well, I'm right and they're wrong.

Good to see you posting on this topic, Richard.
juan

Richard Boutwell · May 31, 2007

Thanks Juan. I aggree that some of the idea here are lost on many people, but in the end you can only shrug and find solice in the idea that you are not making pictures for them, but for yourself.

Saying that you photograph relationships is a great way to sum up your visual instrests. In one of the incarnations of my artist statement I wrote that I am interested in relationships-- not only the visual relationships within the frame, but also the the personal, historical and societal relationships of what is within the frame.

Struam, I am glad that you mentioned Richard Misrach. Misrach's Brovo 20 was the first book of color photographs I ever purchased. I spent more money than I could afford on it, but there was somehting about the work that screamed at me to buy it. Another color photographery book that is an excelent example of the power of subtle photographs is The Painters Pool by Jem Southam. I couldn't wrap my brain around the work for more than a month, but now I love the book and am exhauseted after every time I look through it.
__________________
www.RichardBoutwell.com

darinwc · May 31, 2007

Thanks everyone for your input so far. I hope this thread continues on for a while as i enjoy reading different views.

"Subtly in photographs doesn't always have to mean something without a strong sense of obvious composition." - Richard Boutwell
Thanks for mentioning that, Richard. If we take the definition of a strong composition (as in bold, not necessarily good), and take the opposite of the elements, do we get the elements of a subtle composition?
Strong - Subtle
Full tonal range - limited tonal range
Prominant focal point - no focal point or focal point not prominent
Saturated color - muted color
definate fore/mid/back-ground - flat / 2-dimentional

So... I think it will be fun to look at some examples given and consider the composition. Looking at which of these breaks the normal rules and why they are still good artisticly.

Richard Boutwell · May 31, 2007

I looked quickly through my website to see what would be considered subtle under your posted criteria.

Here are three. I am interested in what people think of the pictures' degrees of subtlety.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

__________________
www.RichardBoutwell.com

Mike Lopez · May 31, 2007

Richard, I was just admiring your third picture this morning. I like it.

Ed Sukach · May 31, 2007

It would be simpler IF ....

I don't think there is any logical (Note 1) way of defining a hard and fast, concrete rule as far as "subtility" is concerened.

I've been musing over the criteria necessary for defining a "successful" piece of art... and so far the only concensus I've been able to determine is, "It either WORKS, or it doesn't WORK."
That word, "Work" is really a cop-out ... I think it is difficult to describe just what is meant by that ... but it seems to be understood through a wide area of Art and among Artists.

I have seen, and produced photographs that "work"... and I can't really limit them to either "Lots of Impact" or "Subtle".
But then ... I have NO idea of what specific characteristics make something "work", or NOT "work".

Note 1 ... "Logic"? Is there any place for "logic" in art? Isn't "aesthtic" really an antonym of "logical"?

mcfactor · Jun 1, 2007

For me, paul caponigro is the master of subtle images, especially his stonehenge series. I didnt recognize it until i saw them in a person but the understated composition adds a depth and beauty that not many others can match.

smieglitz · Jun 1, 2007

roteague said:
Try looking at your image on this site: http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/photo-adjuster.html. I think you will find your attached image follows the Golden Mean a lot closer than you realize...

That is so cool! Thanks for the link.

Joe

MattKing · Jun 1, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
Note 1 ... "Logic"? Is there any place for "logic" in art? Isn't "aesthtic" really an antonym of "logical"?

Ed:

I don't think aesthetic and logical are antonyms, but rather in different but parallel universes.

They both relate to attempts to measure things of value, but their strengths are very different.

IMHO, if you try to make an argument that one is more important than the other, you will inevitably fail.

They can, and do, however complement each other very well at times.

In a past life, I spent meaningful amounts of time with some very accomplished mathematicians. At first blush, they appeared to be immersed in a world where logic was the only valuable commodity. The interesting thing, however, was that they tended to measure the success of a proof or a theory by how elegant it was - clearly a measure that was as much related to issues of aesthetics as anything else.

The irony - the most impressive proofs were the most subtle, with logic that was most pleasing in its aesthetic.

Maybe the best description for a subtle photograph, or subtle mathematical proof for that matter, is it tends to sneak up at you, and eventually smile with wild eyed wonder.

Matt

sun of sand · Jun 1, 2007

Eliot Porter subtle?
That's the work that comes to my mind.

I get tired of sunsets and cityscapes and tide pools and
I like to see the beauty in everything.

I think most subtle photographs are very complex in composition ..they have to be, I guess
They work the way abstracts work
balance of negative positive space/color/weight
Only when that relationship is mastered does a subtle photograph appear "easy"
Many would call a masterful photo/painting of this kind
"snapshot" or "child's play"

No main subject?
I start thinking about introverts and extroverts

A good photo can smack you in the face
A good photo can run away from you

There are plenty of both that never make it anywhere.
The ones that never make it are the ones I see as being nothing
empty
Not the subtle

Subtle is more everything than nothing

Think of a Jackson Pollock
How would you describe it?
I'd be willing to bet that if you don't see greatness in his works
your "subtle" photography isn't any masterpiece
yet rather
empty
"sucks"

Sparky · Jun 1, 2007

MattKing said:
I don't think aesthetic and logical are antonyms, but rather in different but parallel universes.

Well - there's the 'academically' accepted use of universal 'english' - and then, interestingly a 'shadow' or street language that many people seem to use - that, interestingly, based on an economy of meaning DIFFERENT from that of the 'neutral' or academic language. A language of the emotions, if you will, so commonly employed by politicians (see also george lakoff). Tell me you haven't noticed this...? (the way that, for example you can use the word 'exploit' and many people will take it as a so-called 'negative' act? So- anyway - I think for some - the concepts these two words denote, are maybe somewhat polar.

MattKing said:
The irony - the most impressive proofs were the most subtle, with logic that was most pleasing in its aesthetic.

Maybe the best description for a subtle photograph, or subtle mathematical proof for that matter, is it tends to sneak up at you, and eventually smile with wild eyed wonder.

Okay - NOW we're on to something... I was following this thread a bit - but found most of the talk too vague to really respond to. But this, I guess I can sink my teeth into. That's actually a pretty great analogy, Matt! I've always thought of images, at the VERY least, to be 'embedded information' whose 'subject' needs to be found by interpolation of a sort. I think, maybe, it's got to do with using language efficiently at more than one level at the same time, whether that language be visual, mathematical, poetry, what-have-you. And I suspect that the ability to embed and decode at those sorts of levels probably has something to do with the 90-odd percent of the brain that we purportedly never use.

darinwc · Jun 5, 2007

Richard, I like yor first example very much. The other 2 not so much. Hard to explain why.

Here is a recent example that i think would qualify as subtle yet is very powerful:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Katharine Thayer · Jun 7, 2007

Richard Boutwell said:
Personally, I prefer photographs that are subtle-- whether it is in terms of the subject, contrast, composition or pallet. For me, there is something about the photographs that don't beat you over the head that lend themselves to be appreciated more over time.

Me too.

I've been having trouble following this thread because the definition of "subtlety" seems to keep jumping around between subtlety of subject, subtlety of contrast, subtlety of composition, sublety of color saturation, etc. I like subtlety in everything, but in analyzing why I prefer Richard's first picture, the tire tracks, over the other two, I realized that subtle contrast is what I like most, along with subtle color, if the work is in color.

My favorite bodies of work tend to be rather subtle in contrast and occupy narrow tonal ranges : Joyce Tennyson's and Lilo Raymond's high-key images, Bll Jacobsen's low-key portraits. I thought I disliked Ansel Adams' work until someone introduced me to his earlier, subtler work, which is very nice. I consider subtlety more sophisticated and interesting than "punch" or "pow" which after all are cartoon notations for being socked in the face.

Katharine

copake_ham · Jun 7, 2007

Subtle photo?

darinwc · Jun 10, 2007

I would not call that subtle.

DrPablo · Jun 10, 2007

Ed Sukach said:
Note 1 ... "Logic"? Is there any place for "logic" in art? Isn't "aesthtic" really an antonym of "logical"?

Certainly not in music composition, in which there are "logical" structures based on defined rhythm, harmony, temperment, etc. This goes for all kinds of music, including various popular kinds as well as kinds from elsewhere in the world. Aesthetic choices are based on an understanding of these structures. It may be very intuitive to composers (which I'm not), but if you listen closely, a lot of phrases in classical music deal in tension and resolution.

Subtle photographs

MattKing

Moderator

eddym

jstraw

Early Riser

User Removed

Richard Boutwell

Richard Boutwell

Richard Boutwell

Struan Gray

juan

Richard Boutwell

darinwc

Richard Boutwell

Mike Lopez

Ed Sukach

mcfactor

smieglitz

MattKing

Moderator

sun of sand

Sparky

darinwc

Katharine Thayer

copake_ham

Attachments

darinwc

DrPablo

Subtle photographs

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency