What is 'Strong Composition"?

[Deleted member 88956]

I think it’s funny how the human psyche works.

Drop a big name and search for magic in the image afterwards. And then find the magic.

I have countless such images that go unnoticed. Tag a big name on them and suddenly they’d become masterpieces.

meh.

+1

Warhol's photo a pooping dog sells for a million or is proudly displayed at MOMA, you take one the same and PETA will have come after you. And your photo is a greatest piece of garbage ever taken.

This is why discussing composition with examples from known names doesn't work, it hampers independence in evaluating it. And a lot of such examples are bad ones to begin with.

 

[foc]

have countless such images that go unnoticed. Tag a big name on them and suddenly they’d become masterpieces.

I don't wish to be rude but that sounds like sour grapes.

 

[wyofilm]

On the other hand ...

Sometimes the big names became big names because they are just that good. It is easy to later say, "I could've done that." But you didn't and neither did anyone else. Since this is a strong composition thread, I'll pick approaching shadow from Fan Ho. A photograph I really admire. Yes, I could replicate that shot. Technically, it isn't that hard. But he did it. He had it in his mind, brought a relative as a model, had her dress in a certain way, placed her at the right time, etc. He orchestrated all of it. For me it's brilliant.

https://dgeiu3fz282x5.cloudfront.net/g/l/lg7715.jpg

(No one could claim it to be as TDB - See Vaughn above.)

 

[MattKing]

That Stephen Shore photo is a great example of very subtle but effective composition.
And it doesn't matter whether it was carefully and meticulously put together before the shutter was released (which I am sure it was) or whether it was a quick grab shot that Stephen Shore decided to print and display. In either case, it is still a great example of very subtle but effective composition.
It fits very well with Stephen Shore's other work, which is also very subtle, and that is important too, because Stephen Shore doesn't really work in individual images, but rather in series of images that speak as a whole.
And it is entirely okay not to like that type of work.

 

[NB23]

I don't wish to be rude but that sounds like sour grapes.

Not at all.
It’s just what it is. That’s how it works. You don’t like BigMacs until you see Tom Cruise eat one (you get the idea).

Here’s an example:

-Look at her Ugly bag.
-The Prada?
-Yes, the Prada. Beautiful, ain’t it? I want one.
-Gorgeous.

 

[wyofilm]

I liked Big Macs before Tom Cruise was a thing.

Don't confuse marketing with aesthetics.

 

[NB23]

I liked Big Macs before Tom Cruise was a thing.

Don't confuse marketing with aesthetics.

Well, name dropping in a conversation has everything to do do marketing (and manipulation) and nothing to do with aesthetics.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I can eat a Big Mac in ONE bite now. Back in the 80's I couldn't.

 

[wyofilm]

Name droppers are trying to market themselves and not the name they have dropped. The art belongs to the later.

Beethoven was popular in his day. He is popular today. Why? Because of the aesthetics of his work. Why was he popular in his day? Because of both talent and marketing. Undoubtably, the world once held other 'Beethovens' that didn't successfully market themselves. Again, marketing is separate from the art.

 

[wyofilm]

I can eat a Big Mac in ONE bite now. Back in the 80's I couldn't.

Always strive to improve.

I once knew a girl who could put her entire fist in her mouth.

 

[Vaughn]

On the other hand ...
...(No one could claim it to be as TDB - See Vaughn above.)

Very strong geometric and figure composition, indeed! By not putting her feet at the apex of the triangle, tension is created beyond just the angular vs rounded forms of the composition.

 

[wyofilm]

On the other hand ... (I think the third hand now.) There are a large number of artists that are great marketers and usually produce shock-ful art (extra heavy on the shock). I doubt many will remember their contributions decade and more from now. I won't name any of I believe that fit into this category, because it is a sure way to derail a good thread.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

On the other hand ...

Sometimes the big names became big names because they are just that good. It is easy to later say, "I could've done that." But you didn't and neither did anyone else. Since this is a strong composition thread, I'll pick approaching shadow from Fan Ho. A photograph I really admire. Yes, I could replicate that shot. Technically, it isn't that hard. But he did it. He had it in his mind, brought a relative as a model, had her dress in a certain way, placed her at the right time, etc. He orchestrated all of it. For me it's brilliant.

https://dgeiu3fz282x5.cloudfront.net/g/l/lg7715.jpg

(No one could claim it to be as TDB - See Vaughn above.)

The only point is that a no name shoots same image without ever seeing one from the "big" guy and would not get recognition even, if it were viewed side by side. Is it wrong that HCB was not all that great? He is not god. Have you seen all his negatives? Neither have I? Why? Because his hit ratio was like 1 to a thousand, pretty much like most of regular photo Joe Does. Had ever a look at Magnums Contact Sheets? Sometimes I have hard time believing they released them, but at least they are a published proof of subjectivity of seeing.

You refer to someone taking a shot before anyone else. That's hog wash, how many photographs are taken every day world wide? Seen any measurable portion of them?

Fame puts a photo on wider display, but should never blindly justify its visual quality, yet it does, in spades. I like Fan Ho, but what he's done needs to be put in perspective of places, history and culture where he worked. By shear differential his images are easy to notice in the Western world. I won't take anything away from Fan Ho, as I think he had an elusive way of seeing and capturing what he saw, and done it with striking consistency without being repetitious.

There are many great photographers, there are countless more who, for one reason or another, are at best just capable of repeating themselves and their supposed talent dries out pretty quick, only proving they actually had none, but hit it at a right moment and lasted a few moments more. Reading some commentary from gallery directors on an exhibit is a great proof of what kind of bull this whole business is surrounded by. Yet it drives opinions on composition in a significant way.

 

[MattKing]

Marketing can be an art in itself.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

+ 1

Not at all.
It’s just what it is. That’s how it works. You don’t like BigMacs until you see Tom Cruise eat one (you get the idea).

Here’s an example:

-Look at her Ugly bag.
-The Prada?
-Yes, the Prada. Beautiful, ain’t it? I want one.
-Gorgeous.

 

[wyofilm]

Very strong geometric and figure composition, indeed! By not putting her feet at the apex of the triangle, tension is created beyond just the angular vs rounded forms of the composition.

Yes! Vaughn the feet! I've always been impressed how the feet overlap the shadow and are not in the shadow. In the second case, it would look like the feet were cut off. If she were closer to the back wall the shadow might have covered her feet and ruined the photo (ok, not ruined ...).

 

[wyofilm]

Marketing can be an art in itself.

What is that called today? Social media influencers?

 

[MattKing]

And there is nothing wrong with using an image that many are already familiar with to illustrate a point about composition.

 

[MattKing]

What is that called today? Social media influencers?

That is a strange way to market, but it certainly is effective. If your target audience lives on the internet ...
Here is another effective way to market: https://culturecrawl.ca/
I never worry too much about whether a photographer's work is popular. But I like the fact that popular photographers' work is accessible.

 

[Vaughn]

Yes! Vaughn the feet! I've always been impressed how the feet overlap the shadow and are not in the shadow. In the second case, it would look like the feet were cut off. If she were closer to the back wall the shadow might have covered her feet and ruined the photo (ok, not ruined ...).

Yes, and even the tilt of the head is perfect.

 

[wyofilm]

Here is another effective way to market: https://culturecrawl.ca/

That looks wonderful!

 

[wyofilm]

Yes, and even the tilt of the head is perfect.

Yep, that too!

 

[NB23]

Indeed.

Same age-old, frustrated artist argument going on here. "My awesome art gets no recognition because my name isn't [insert big name]".

It's right up there with "my kid could paint that".

My 12 year old kid could certainly come up with the images you’re posting, that’s certainly a honest thought I had. And I can assure you, there is absolutely no jealousy here

 

[NB23]

And we all believe that, don't worry.

If only your stellar work was recognized for its genius.

It has been many times.

Last of a long list, and judged by prominent photographers, was finalist top 3 miami street photography festival. Funny thing, my images are stored at the Miami museum.

I don’t blame you for not following me, though. It can be a quite frustrating experience for the envious person.

 

[NB23]

My premise was clear, but you somehow decided to transform it.

Very, very, very weak jabs.

But I stand corrected. I can’t expect more from a weak, mean minded person.

Wow, you're even more bitter than I thought. What is it that set you off? Stephen Shore being a great photographer?