|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2005 02:05:47 AM · #1 |
Whether it is Judging or Taking Photographs I think this article is very insightful. It̢۪s long but I believe worth reading. Some may have read it before but if you have not please take the time to read. I think it will answer a lot of questions we the photographer and voter may have.
Photography can be judged. Art is subjective. But it can be judged. And it can be judged, differently. If one prefers a particular style, that doesn't make one wrong. But others may insist upon it. For example, the F/64 school insisted upon sharp photographs, which notion still dominates much thinking, today. So they therefore judged certain work - bad - because it was fuzzy (pictorialism). Others might argue it was because they wanted something somehow 'truer' to their school. But then that, itself, would be a prejudice from a particular school of thinking about F/64. Conversely, others look at the F/64 group's landscape portraits and consider those - bad, or uninteresting - and really never more than somewhat uninteresting record photos (a record photo being just a glorified snapshot; a record of the object or event, etc.).
So like the F/64 photographers, or like any judgement of art, generally, there is philosophy. There are schools of thought. Within this, photography is judged. Beyond that there is maturity and changing interests. One can even go to a new school, as it were. In an article I wrote on the subject of, art, I suggest that some work is even transcendent, cutting across one's interests and age, and across the tendencies and desires of others, and is regarded by many, over the generations, as great art, whatever their competing prejudices, and leaving out only a stubborn few. That is, in short, it is possible.
Given that framework, there are, however, certain things that appear in a decent photograph. It, too, is subject to debate, and schools of thought, certainly. But many, not all, might agree with these. People have laid down certain 'rules' and then, being a certain sort that they are, call them 'guidelines' and prefer that you not hold them responsible as rule-makers. Here's a rule. F/64 still insists upon sharpness in photos. And now most go that way. And it might take some effort to see an appropriately soft focused photo as worth your time. That doesn't mean it isn't. And whether something was or was not the photographer's intent should be of no importance.
So here's another rule. The photo speaks for itself; regardless of the photographer, the equipment, or the history of the 'shoot'. This is the 'painting-must-stand-by-itself', rule, without some elaborate exposition in 'artzy' double-speak as to the 'real meaning' of the thing. One may speak of the meaning of the photo. But whatever that meaning is, must be reasonably present to the viewer. It's what you see.
Another rule seems to be that of line, or composition, taken from art - sculpture, painting, etc. Even F/64 would look to emphasize smooth, sharp contours in the landscape, portraits, and so on. The line would stand out, or would be suggested, as it becomes the negative. This is different than imaginary or overlayed 'composition' lines. The reference, here, are to actual lines and edges in the photograph. The 'deco' work of palm close-ups, and 'pictorial' shapes would be characteristic. So now another rule might be - find shapes that emphasize lines, curves, even repetition of same.
But that goes to composition. And composition might suggest a flow, or a line or curve, that is only suggested by the photo. Crop in more, remove more of the original, and another, even more abstract, version is found both with regard to the photo itself and with regard to the edges of the photograph as printed or displayed. And because of that, and the general movement of the eye, you can find ways to describe one or more dominant composition lines. These are lines that don't necessarily appear in the photo, though they certainly can. Those that strike some as a bit 'static' tend to be straight diagonals from corner to opposite corner. It can be important to have these. Another, perhaps sometimes better line, is to pull those diagonals into curves, where the object(s) push these lines up or down, depending, as if the lines were 'strings'. Even if it fades or is occluded, the photo might suggest a c-curve. Or for example, it might suggest an, s, a serpentine if you will; the shape of the letter, S, either 'written' right or flipped horizontally, or however. For portraits, although it's unavoidable given the human body, many recommend looking to emphasize the natural a-shape, from head over the arms, or the bent knee, or other c or s curves, in combination. Again, these composition lines are not necessarily always shown as actual lines in the photo. But they could be, even in part. So another rule might be - keep in mind the one, or even more, composition lines before clicking the shutter.
The idea of the composition lines is often related to suggesting depth to the photo. It's an attempt to draw the eye in rather than off the edge of the photo. It's a means to interest the viewer, and suggests that as the photographer you were yourself interested in the photo and what it tries to say. Part of that is to try and keep the horizon level. But then where do you place the horizon? Sometimes, it works in the center of the photo. Oftentimes it's low, even at only 1/4 of the way up from the bottom. It just depends on what is interesting, above; perhaps clouds and a spectacular sunset/gathering-storm. And if the horizon is level and where it ought to be, then what about a close-up? How much do you leave? If the area around isn't necessary, interesting, or part of what you want to say, then crop it out. Don't crop to the edge of the building, if that's what it is. Leave a margin, noticeable, but not too wide.
There's another composition rule which would have you break the photo into nine squares. You divide by thirds, horizontally, and thirds, vertically. Sometimes you place the objects in, or roughly within, each of the three sections; that is, only either vertically or horizontally. And some suggest that horizon line is best when placed on one of the two horizontal lines, high or low, depending on your shot. And others suggest you look at the four intersection points of those nine squares. They might call them 'power points', or whatever. And they might note that many photos that people consider decent tend to have the subject not centered, but placed more on one of these 'third's intersection' points. In other cases centering is certainly best, though taking care to leave a margin if you like. Sometimes, centering and cropping on the top or side is preferred. Head shots sometimes benefit from cropping below the hairline, for example.
But that leads to something more of a reminder, before speaking about the 'meaning' of the subject. There is something planned, artificial, added-in - controlled (which appeals to many, unfortunately, and not just in photography) - that makes a lie of the original scene. You can make the photo anything, of the scene. It's not unlike the 'phoniness' of the film set, where you see the set, say the interior of a house, and are led to believe there's a room in the back, when it's just scaffolding down to the concrete floor of the sound stage. You see people running over the ground, but it's two months after the original scene; or close-ups of troops jumping out of trucks on a country lane, that if the camera only pulled back would reveal the hot lights and soundstage. That is, it's never part of any scene. So they didn't build a room. They just don't let you see the set. It's an illusion - a lie. And macros are particularly good for this. Macro photography, in the same way, can suggest a world that you really wouldn't see in full view.
But even almost any crop will do. It's the nature of the camera, not just the still photograph. You can be in a shopping mall, next to a potted plant, and a swarm of insects descend, into this 'world'. It could be more interesting that having to constantly swat at these insects to get a shot in the 'field', and not just because it is more convenient. It might just say more, and look much better. The great sweeping landscape of the mountaintops might be taken from your table in the hilltop restaurant as you wait for the ravioli or salad to be served. But even in the field, with the old guys and the mules, hiking Yosemite or the California coast, the moment was, as in most photos, not something to easily be recaptured; even for the movement of the sun, and 'uniformity' of the land, at least week to week. Adams saw some birches, I believe it was, standing with a group of other photographers. But that crop, that lighting, was apparently only something he, himself, saw. It's not how it looked, at least to the other photographers. So, just as all that we see is a view, a vision, a 'model', that can co-exist with others' views and opinions, yet be in some sense deeply true, and factually false, and even in that, true, so a photo lies about the scene, but also literally shows what was there. That is, perhaps, if people say - the photo always lies - they mean to use another word than, lie. In fact, some will insist a photo never lies, and won't try to use clever language.
So in keeping with the lie, or really the truth of photos, another rule goes to why the photo 'says' what it does. Why is the subject there? What's the object, or the point, or the 'effect', or the emotions, even? Does anything detract? Is it a clean shot? Can something be removed by the angle at which you shoot? Can something be de-emphasized, later, whether chemically or by software? Is the photo just of what you wish it to be? Another rule might be - have a reason for why everything in that photo is there. If you can't find a reason, if it was 'just in the shot', then get rid of it. If you have some trees that seem 'boring' in some sector of a landscape, even that might stand to be burned away, then do so. If you have someone else casting their shadow in your posed 'deco' portrait, then you probably need to get rid of the other shadow. And that might be difficult to do, later, without a lot of effort. If there's a lot of sky, and no clouds in the sky, and that sky isn't what you wanted people to consider in really any way, then crop away some sky. Don't shoot it. If there's no reason for something to be in the photo, it's probably best it not be there. Think about what the shot is about.
Every photo is a photo of light, and a study of light. Because light can be so bright, it can also washout, whiteout, show 'hot spots' on a photo. Unless there's a reason to washout part of the photo, perhaps for effect to satisfy the previous rule and remove unnecessary objects, it's better to keep the highlights to the point where you can see, or recover, some detail. Same for the shadows. That's not always easy. Cut filters and gels can help for a shot that you can take a few minutes to compose. And with newer digital cameras, some, there is the ability to grab the image right off the sensor, which they save as a .RAW file, but which can go by any name, really, depending on the manufacturer. Now there may be cause to have the shadow flat black, perhaps as a frame for the photo, or to serve as a line, and so on. But if the eye is trying to move into the black area, as you designed the photo to do, then it's better to keep the shadow light enough where you can see or recover some detail there. So another rule might be - keep what is supposed to be in the photo, within the range of the camera's/film's sensitivity. If you can't, and use digital, seriously consider the sensor dump, the 'RAW' image. You can play around with it in software, afterwards. Shooting a scene with both bright highlights and dark shadows is a difficult thing.
Of course, others have others rules, and other things they'd suggest one avoid. Ultimately, again, there's a philosophy at work. Many might still even agree, sometimes, that certain rules usually work - maybe. Maybe in just that sense you could see them as mere, guidelines. Some thought must be applied in their application. And so hopefully different schools can agree - sometimes. And so people look for the truth they can't always find, so easily, themselves; perhaps even in a snapshot. What matters is what each does with that.
Message edited by author 2005-01-04 04:29:09. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:08:28 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 02:15:22 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by f-32:
Who wrote this article? |
The article did not specify but I believe it to be by Bob Krist.
Message edited by author 2005-01-04 02:15:38. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 04:06:28 AM · #4 |
| BUMP FOR OTHERS TO READ IF THEY WISH TO DO SO. |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 04:17:24 AM · #5 |
SDW,
Can you edit this, please, so there's white space between paragraphs? That would make it a lot easier to read. Fascinating article, if a bit dense...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 04:29:43 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
SDW,
Can you edit this, please, so there's white space between paragraphs? That would make it a lot easier to read. Fascinating article, if a bit dense...
Robt. |
Done |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 04:47:17 AM · #7 |
|
|
|
01/04/2005 05:52:47 AM · #8 |
As far as I am aware, F64 formed as a retaliation against groups such as DPC where people would judge photography by a set of rules and rank according to the subject or competition criteria.
In essence, F64 just wanted to produce sharp clean good looking photographs
A train of thought I pretty much have taken on board.
I honestly feel competitive photography ruins your photography in a few ways. As does trying to read a photograph and judge it accordingly.
For example, as someone whom once would never think of not entering a DPC challenge I haven't submitted for ages until this week, I now find the comments are all presuming this and that, presuming that you have edited to much when there has been no editing, and remarking on width of border rather than the photo.
This in my opinion is a shame.
Message edited by author 2005-01-04 05:53:49.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 06:08:00 AM · #9 |
Jon,
Not all of us do that. Some of us deal with the photos on their own terms. Gotta take the chaff with the wheat, eh?
The good thing about "challenge" photography is it can force photographers to address tasks and concepts they might otherwise let slide.
The main thrust of f:64 was to "revolt" against the prevailing misty pictorialism of the then-current photography scene. Before f:64, photography was judged as art based on how well it emulated "painterly" practices of the time. f:64 proposed a new paradigm, where photography would be freed of these strictures. They were as rigid, in their way, as the people they rebelled against.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 10:34:28 AM · #10 |
Where did you find that very interesting article Scott? Knowing it's context would add weight to it's credibility, at least for me. Can you give us a link please.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 11:25:21 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Where did you find that very interesting article Scott? Knowing it's context would add weight to it's credibility, at least for me. Can you give us a link please. |
I came across this article while searching the net about photography. I don't know who wrote the article but I did notice that 'Bob Kirst' link was at bottom [not working].
|
|
|
|
01/04/2005 11:15:19 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 07:21:56 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/09/2025 07:21:56 PM EDT.
|
