Image without subject - I can't visualise this one

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/22/2006 09:59:26 AM · #52

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by karmabreeze:
You can describe a cohesive scene in a single word or phrase - that's the subject.

What you say would apply to any photo. Everything has a "subject" or can be described as you say - however, in the context of this challenge I think you (the viewer) need to be able to look at an image and not have one single item readily identifiable as THE subject of the image.

JMO of course. ;^)

I think I can refine what karmabreeze said. To have a subject means that you can say "This is a photo of ______", where the blank is a single word or phrase.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/22/2006 10:04:07 AM · #53

Originally posted by posthumous:

I think I can refine what karmabreeze said. To have a subject means that you can say "This is a photo of ______", where the blank is a single word or phrase.

Well, I disagree with that; you can say this of just about any image that isn't entirely abstract; "this is a photo of water", "this is a photo of wheat", etc.

But a photograph that fills the frame entirely with a broad expanse of backlit wheat may be "subjectless" in the sense of this challenge, while a photo of a single backlit stalk of wheat against the sky would definitely "have" a subject in the traditional sense.

I was assuming karmabreeze meant if you can describe the photo as "wheat" it is subjectless, and if you have to describe it as "a stalk of wheat against the sky" it has a subject. But I've been wrong before and I'll surely be wrong again :-)

R.

posthumous

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/22/2006 10:34:20 AM · #54

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by posthumous:
I think I can refine what karmabreeze said. To have a subject means that you can say "This is a photo of ______", where the blank is a single word or phrase.

Well, I disagree with that; you can say this of just about any image that isn't entirely abstract; "this is a photo of water", "this is a photo of wheat", etc.

But a photograph that fills the frame entirely with a broad expanse of backlit wheat may be "subjectless" in the sense of this challenge, while a photo of a single backlit stalk of wheat against the sky would definitely "have" a subject in the traditional sense.

I was assuming karmabreeze meant if you can describe the photo as "wheat" it is subjectless, and if you have to describe it as "a stalk of wheat against the sky" it has a subject. But I've been wrong before and I'll surely be wrong again :-)

R.

I think some voters are going to think like me and some will think like you, which leaves the photographers in the dark, as usual. :) but it can be fun in the dark!

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

08/22/2006 10:41:41 AM · #55

Originally posted by posthumous:

... it can be fun in the dark!

Take a photo while you're there...that should be an 'Image without Subject'...

...well, I imagine some subject could be applied to it if you think hard enough. ;^)

sangeeth

Nikon D50

08/24/2006 08:31:06 AM · #56

I did not get how ripples on water would not be an image with out a subject and how wrinkled skin would become truely subject less !

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by hopper:
OK, so help me understand how "the composition itself comprises a subject" ... I guess I don't understand. Also, please help me understand the difference between "subject" and "point of interest" within a photograph.

I am not sure how valid a distinction, or rather how useful a distinction, that is. But nevertheless, imagine a completely abstract photograph that nevertheless has "composition" to it; it has some sort of a flow, some sort of visual interest. This image essentially has no "subject" in the sense that we usually think of it; in a "conventional" photo, there is subject and there is ground, there is some degree of duality, and in this imaginary abstract photograph the entire image is either all "ground" or all "subject", depending how you choose to define it. THAT is a clear-cut "subjectless photograph". The example I posted earlier Of ripples on the water would come close to this, except that it is not entirely "abstract", int he sense that the image is recognizably OF water, see?

Now imagine a closeup of a person's face, perhaps a very old person with lost of character lines. Imagine that the image includes the eyes. You can see how the eyes would very likely become the subject of the image, and the highly-textured skin itself would be the "ground", and we have a subject/ground duality that makes the image not truly be "subjectless". The same image cropped not to include the eyes would undoubtedly lack this subject/ground duality, and be truly subjectless, even though it is clear to us that it is a picture OF skin.

We don't need to get really hung up on this, because in the end the voters will establish the parameters of this particular challenge, and who can predict what they will do? But it's nonetheless obviously a very intriguing challenge, for the simple reason that so many people seem to be caught off-guard by it, meaning that it will be a challenge that causes many people to look at the whole idea of composition a little differently than they have been; and this is a Good Thing; it's a potential learning experience.

Buried early in the Landscape Learning Thread, in a post dated 4/07/2006 at 1:08:44 PM, is an "assignment" for "Landscape Without Subject", and we continued on discussing that for quite a while after, so this might provide some useful background for how people feel about this, although it's admittedly tailored around my particular perceptions of the topic.

The thing of it is, in DPC we tend to heavily favor images with clearcut, definable, appealing subjects in a very conventional compositional sense, but it's nevertheless true that REALLY nice photos can be created that don't rely so heavily on this approach, and that's what the challenge is about.

Hope this helps...

Robt.

posthumous

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

08/24/2006 09:15:57 AM · #57

Originally posted by sangeeth:

I did not get how ripples on water would not be an image with out a subject and how wrinkled skin would become truely subject less !

That depends. Is it a picture of ripples or simply a picture with ripples in it? aummmmmmmmmmmmm

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/24/2006 10:32:56 AM · #58

Originally posted by sangeeth:

I did not get how ripples on water would not be an image with out a subject and how wrinkled skin would become truely subject less !

My first paragraph was to point out that the "ripples" shot could be recognizably "of" water and yet not truly abstract; that "subjectless image" does not mean it has to be unrecognizable. I used an example of a truly abstract shot with an unidentifiable content for extreme comparison.

For me, the general concept is that the entire image, as a whole, is the only definable "subject"; I see the challenge, myself, as encouraging the making of an image that does not have a single element in it that stands out in a way that it can be defined as "the subject". The idea is that MOST of the time we shoot that way; we have a "subject" and we place it against a supporting "ground", if you know what I mean? When you can no longer separate subject from ground, when they are one and the same thing, that is "subjectless" by my definition.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-08-24 10:33:17.

FireBird

08/26/2006 09:59:22 AM · #59

I predict that the winning entry will have a very well defined subject. And will come from Iceland. teehee

Sunshyne

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

08/27/2006 06:29:50 PM · #60

This is my first challenge I'll submit since I just joined last week, but I found it to be quite interesting - I have too many to choose from! Unlike a lot of the comments and interpretations, I don't think of a landscape as being subjectless...I was thinking more on the lines of shapes, colors and textures???

Rebecca

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5- 5.6G ED DX

08/27/2006 06:45:36 PM · #61

Basically, if you can't look at a photo and say "it's about a _____", even if you can look at it and say "______ is the point of interest", then it has no subject.

But if you can look at a photo, say "it has no obvious point of interest", even if you can say "it's about a _____", then it can also be interpreted to have no subject.

Broken down even further:
A point of interest is not necessarily a subject, and a subject is not necessarily a point of interest.

So voting on this one is going to be a big hairy pain in the patootwa. I predict that very few people will be happy with their scores since the images that qualify under the different interpretations are of two very different varieties.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/27/2006 08:29:08 PM · #62

I agree with Becky 2000%

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/27/2006 08:35:30 PM · #63

I'm in and knowing my luck, this is one time when someone will actually see a subject when there isn't supposed to be one, instead of the other way 'round. Entry #172, by the way, which I'm hoping will be a good solid 5.5.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

08/27/2006 08:37:10 PM · #64

Originally posted by Melethia:

Go Deb Go!!! I'm voting yours an instant 9, just because! :)

wavelength

Nikon D300

08/27/2006 08:48:36 PM · #65

I think a truly "subjectless" picture is pretty insane. Even a picture that is a black frame can be said to have a sugject. The black is the subject, and the only one.

However, what I really interpret the description as having meant to say "no definable primary subject.

From

jjbeguin

and some from me too

GinaRothfels

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III

Olympus 8mm f/1.8 M.Zuiko Digital ED Fisheye PRO Lens

08/27/2006 09:02:10 PM · #66

I've just submitted mine. Could this be my first ribbon? Brown, that is.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/27/2006 09:38:23 PM · #67

The fat man is in at #201.

All fear the fat man's subjectless photo, fear and vote accordingly. Woe shall follow the sub-9 voters.

You are warned.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

08/27/2006 09:46:25 PM · #68

Originally posted by Melethia:

Heh, most all of my photo's are "soft focus" except the one I have in "soft focus". I've also heard I have "no subject" more times than I can count. Of course, this won't be one of those times! Deb, I only wish I could get scores like yours. I'm in at number 200 and I predict a 4.5. Heh!

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/27/2006 09:47:48 PM · #69

I did it! I did it! I shot, submitted, am quite pleased with the image, all is well in the universe. If this scores a 4.2 I'm gonna burn villages! lol

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

08/27/2006 09:51:13 PM · #70

Originally posted by idnic:

I did it! I did it! I shot, submitted, am quite pleased with the image, all is well in the universe. If this scores a 4.2 I'm gonna burn villages! lol

dnmc

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

08/27/2006 09:53:08 PM · #71

Originally posted by alfresco:

Originally posted by idnic:
I did it! I did it! I shot, submitted, am quite pleased with the image, all is well in the universe. If this scores a 4.2 I'm gonna burn villages! lol

dnmc

ack!! Now that's just not right!