| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2005 12:00:46 PM · #26 |
"Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space."
As I see it. Your eyes should be drawn to the subject. Nothing else.
The better you accomplish this the better it is. That is my perception. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:01:33 PM · #27 |
Well I have to say I am moving onto the next challenge,,I like what I chose to do,,but its to dark as I thought before I submitted so now I am getting all kinds of comments on how dark,,oh well,,,I learn to listen to my instinct and move on,,,,,
Thanks |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:11:24 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Unfortunatly the definition of minimalism in the challenge discription is incorrect... I think perhaps this is where all the confusion is coming from. The Japanese Flag is a perfect example of minimalism if it were a painting. The subject is NOT small in this example, but it is a perfect example of what minimalism is. |
Correct! And, the Japanese flag is a great example. Minimalism could be defined as reducing the subject to its most basic geometric form, somewhat a counter to abstractism. But, by the challenge guidelines no such criteria is expressed.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:21:59 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by bcoble:
"Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space."
As I see it. Your eyes should be drawn to the subject. Nothing else.
The better you accomplish this the better it is. That is my perception. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am not going to question your perception as you have stated it but according to this definition it means you will favor a small balloon in an open sky. The more negative space the better. However, what happens when the images grow more subtle and negative space is not employed. This is where all the gray areas come in. It happens in all challenges. Suppose you see an image filled with playing cards and one sole chip, yet, at first glance the colors of the playing cards capture your fancy and then you look again and see the chip. These two are related. Here one will ponder if perhaps the card splash has overtaken the chip. Outside of this there are many more images then you can imagine that do have a purpose for their presentation. To separate subject and background is not readilly that apparant. We all look at things differently and our judgment varies.
Look, do what you think is right. In challenges, I am like a detective seeking the meaning and intent of an image with respect to the challenge and I am always surprised with a creative entry that meets the challenge yet challenges my initial inspection. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 12:28:50 PM · #30 |
posted on another thread this morning by me...and i ditto it here
04/27/2005 08:08:05 AM
ok woke up a while ago and decided to vote on the photos before i read any posts about it....minimalism to me does not mean take a picture of your subject from as far away as possible.....also as stated before in this thread make me have to think as to what is the subject in the shot...the subject should be clear and stand out on a backround that is pretty consistant in its look so as not to distract....this is how i voted...."so it is written so it shall be done".....yuel brenna the 10 commandments |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 01:21:12 PM · #31 |
"Look, do what you think is right. In challenges, I am like a detective seeking the meaning and intent of an image with respect to the challenge and I am always surprised with a creative entry that meets the challenge yet challenges my initial inspection."
The intent by the artist in centered on one item. If I have to search for that item, and guess on whether it is the center of the photo, than I feel it did not meet the criteria. A house in the middle of a forest does not(to me) meet this challenge.
It is very hard and everyones perception will come into play here.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:02:42 PM · #32 |
Making the subject small is one thing. Making it small yet still strongly identifiable as the the subject is another. Shooting a face and having only the eye or nose in focus might not cut it if the rest of the face is recognizable enough to the point that you know it's a face.
Negative space is only one way to accomplish it, and even then you should still find a way to frame the image in order to keep your eyes from drifting off.
I don't have to know the intent of an artist to see if a subject is not strongly identified. Intent shouldn't be a crutch for execution.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:14:45 PM · #33 |
I don't interpret the title "Minimalism" in this challenge as relating to the art form, because in the minimalist art form the subject can and often does take up a large portion of, if not the entire frame, and this would be in direct contradiction to the challenge description. So if we're looking for the subject to be small in relation to the rest of the frame, this can be accomplished in many ways, including macros, including sparse/stark/empty backgrounds, including busy backgrounds (assuming the subject stands out clearly as the subject). That last option is open to interpretation, of course, as the photographer may not have accomplished the goal in the eye of the beholder. Accordingly, I don't have a problem with any of the examples in this thread. A house in a forest -- there's nothing wrong with that per se, as long as the house clearly stands out as the focus of the photograph. The same with the tiny balloon floating in a blue sky, or the poker chip and playing cards.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:18:10 PM · #34 |
If negative space is the only way then this places a most boring limitation. Negative space requires a lot of skill to execute otherwise it becomes 'dead space.' Another way to look at these interpretations goes something like this.
You enter your image for a challenge that you feel you have met. Then when you look at the other entries, you at once see that you have been outsmarted, outdone and the image you thought so good now is overshadowed by these other entries. Happens all the time. Somebody else uses the same tools and outsmarts us. Well, that is what happens with interpretations. You interpret and thewn somebody else interprets with more clarity and surpasses your definition.
It is always better to use a broad basis on the spirit and intent of a challenge otherwise you shortchange yourself and your friends. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:33:40 PM · #35 |
//www.wwar.com/masters/movements/minimalism.html
By going to the link, one can learn what "minimalism" in art is. The title of this challenge is "mimimalism".
The description: "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." describes true "minimalism" only in a small way.
//www.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/reisehtml/mov_minimalism.htm
"We usually think of art as representing an aspect of the real world (a landscape, a person, or even a tin of soup!); or reflecting an experience such as an emotion or feeling. With Minimalism, no attempt is made to represent an outside reality, the artist wants the viewer to respond only to what is in front of them. "
Just a little research to stir things up. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:46:06 PM · #36 |
Belive me and I repeat this challenge has very little to do with minimalism. The challenge is clearly described by making your subject occupy a small amount of the real estate of the frame. If you do this than you have met the challenge.
Yes, there are many expert who will take issue but their points are individualistic perceptions which vary according to the indidivual.
Take the above mentioned house in the forest. If the photographer exposed and focused on the house than what else could be considered the main subject. Again, this is looking at a portrait and saying that the background is the subject and not the person.
The image is presented and if the photographer is conscious his focus and exposure will favor the subject. If this subject matter is in decent proportion to the overall image size then the challenge is met.
It is dangerous to adhere to fixed definitions when describing artistic efforts. First seek the spirit before you apply the litmus test.
Message edited by author 2005-04-27 14:51:49. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 02:51:38 PM · #37 |
When I get home which will be in about an hour I will upload one I took of a barn I was going to use for minimalism and see what you guys think. I didn't use it or anything close to it. However it would probably do better than the one I entered currently at around 3.6. It is my lowest so I turned of the update button and am not sure quite where it is now. :)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:08:26 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Belive me and I repeat this challenge has very little to do with minimalism. The challenge is clearly described by making your subject occupy a small amount of the real estate of the frame. If you do this than you have met the challenge.
Yes, there are many expert who will take issue but their points are individualistic perceptions which vary according to the indidivual.
Take the above mentioned house in the forest. If the photographer exposed and focused on the house than what else could be considered the main subject. Again, this is looking at a portrait and saying that the background is the subject and not the person.
The image is presented and if the photographer is conscious his focus and exposure will favor the subject. If this subject matter is in decent proportion to the overall image size then the challenge is met.
It is dangerous to adhere to fixed definitions when describing artistic efforts. First seek the spirit before you apply the litmus test. |
I'd only score that high if it was done well. Is there enough contrast for the house to stand out? Are there any compositional methods employed to make the house a point of interest? How's the lighting? Is the background a distraction? Is the image in general busy?
Don't overlook the "strong point of the image" part of the challenge.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:26:37 PM · #39 |
Here is the photo I promised. Would this classify a minimalism? The barn takes up very little of the photograph. This is just a rough edit for the purpose of this thread. I was driving 60mph as stopping on this highway was not an option.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:34:25 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by rex:
Here is the photo I promised. Would this classify a minimalism? The barn takes up very little of the photograph. This is just a rough edit for the purpose of this thread. I was driving 60mph as stopping on this highway was not an option.
|
Ask yourself is the barn the subject or is the whole landscape including the barn the subject? |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:37:00 PM · #41 |
I would say the barn is the subject and the landscape compliments that.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:47:33 PM · #42 |
Maybe you should go back and look at the rules and think again. This challenge is minimalism in title only. They pretty clearly defined what they were looking for in this one.
Tom
Originally posted by kyebosh:
The size of the subject is not the key thing in minimalism. Just making the subject small is not the goal. The key thing is that we're trying to make the photo as simple as possible. Basic shapes, smooth surfaces, again simplicity. Use of negative space is of course one easy way to do this but surely not the only way. If there is much busyness in the photo it isn't really minimalism. |
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:51:57 PM · #43 |
So how are you determining these percentages. Do you have some sort of automated subject area integrator? ;)
Tom
Originally posted by skiprow:
i really wrestled with this, but finally came up with something that works for me: a sliding scale based on the pctg of the image that the subject takes up.
5% starts at 7
8% starts at 6
10% starts at 5
12% starts at 4
15% starts at 3
17% starts at 2
20% or more starts at 1
after i score them for proportions, i'll go back and either bump or bang the image based on personal appeal and aesthetics. this is pretty much the same type of approach i used with the billboard challenge... |
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:55:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by ovenbird:
So how are you determining these percentages. Do you have some sort of automated subject area integrator? ;)
Tom
Originally posted by skiprow:
i really wrestled with this, but finally came up with something that works for me: a sliding scale based on the pctg of the image that the subject takes up.
5% starts at 7
8% starts at 6
10% starts at 5
12% starts at 4
15% starts at 3
17% starts at 2
20% or more starts at 1
after i score them for proportions, i'll go back and either bump or bang the image based on personal appeal and aesthetics. this is pretty much the same type of approach i used with the billboard challenge... |
|
i have a highly digitized measure-a-tron... it's called my thumb. if your subject fits under my thumb, it is minimal. if it comes out from under my thumb, i start to take points away.
Originally posted by rex:
I would say the barn is the subject and the landscape compliments that. |
as rendered, i would respectfully disagree. if the barn were to stand out from the background a bit more, i would consider the barn the subject. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 04:55:25 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by ovenbird:
Maybe you should go back and look at the rules and think again. This challenge is minimalism in title only. They pretty clearly defined what they were looking for in this one.
Tom
Originally posted by kyebosh:
The size of the subject is not the key thing in minimalism. Just making the subject small is not the goal. The key thing is that we're trying to make the photo as simple as possible. Basic shapes, smooth surfaces, again simplicity. Use of negative space is of course one easy way to do this but surely not the only way. If there is much busyness in the photo it isn't really minimalism. |
|
The challenge also states that it should be a strong subject, not just small. Personally, I think a busy image will detract from the subject.
Going with a minimalism approach is one way of meeting the challenge, though I wouldn't base my voting on adherence to true minimalism ideals.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 05:03:49 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by sofapez:
//www.wwar.com/masters/movements/minimalism.html
By going to the link, one can learn what "minimalism" in art is. The title of this challenge is "mimimalism".
The description: "Create an image where your subject is the strong point of the image, but only occupying a very small portion of the image space." describes true "minimalism" only in a small way.
//www.tate.org.uk/archivejourneys/reisehtml/mov_minimalism.htm
"We usually think of art as representing an aspect of the real world (a landscape, a person, or even a tin of soup!); or reflecting an experience such as an emotion or feeling. With Minimalism, no attempt is made to represent an outside reality, the artist wants the viewer to respond only to what is in front of them. "
Just a little research to stir things up. |
Sort of was my take on it. I under stood it as Minimalism was the subject matter, and the description was the parameters being placed on the minimalist concept. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 05:38:01 PM · #47 |
My voting method on this one ...
(BAD) << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> (GOOD)
|
|
|
|
04/27/2005 05:43:53 PM · #48 |
| We could just open our minds to what other peoples interepataion might be (since we know that the interpetations of the challenge are wide and varied) and vote how well the artist portrayed his/her interpetation. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 05:59:15 PM · #49 |
I would like to say this. In order for one to vote on this subject, one must understand the definition. Minimalism is defined as a style or technique (as in music, literature, or design) that is characterized by extreme spareness and simplicity. How would a fly on a white wall rate, no matter where he lands on the wall? It is simple and provides extreme spareness and simplicity. Another image that would be good is something focused with a subject with the entire back ground and foreground blurred out. This still provides Extreme spareness and simplicity, but I will say black and white are the easiest two ways to provide extreme spareness in any form of art.
Message edited by author 2005-07-09 13:24:31. |
|
|
|
04/27/2005 06:09:03 PM · #50 |
How lazy of a rule that is! You should read the definition of minimalism. Minimalism is defined as a style or technique (as in music, literature, or design) that is characterized by extreme spareness and simplicity. One could take a picture of a face and blur the entire face and leave the nose in focus and this would be minimalism. Minimalism should cause one to become completely engrossed in the subject of focus that they lose complete control or thought process of where their eyes have ran off too.
Originally posted by ovenbird:
So how are you determining these percentages. Do you have some sort of automated subject area integrator? ;)
Tom
Originally posted by skiprow:
i really wrestled with this, but finally came up with something that works for me: a sliding scale based on the pctg of the image that the subject takes up.
5% starts at 7
8% starts at 6
10% starts at 5
12% starts at 4
15% starts at 3
17% starts at 2
20% or more starts at 1
after i score them for proportions, i'll go back and either bump or bang the image based on personal appeal and aesthetics. this is pretty much the same type of approach i used with the billboard challenge... |
|
|
|
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: 06/21/2025 11:08:12 AM EDT.
