| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2006 12:08:01 PM · #1 |
I took a picture, trying not to have a subject but there is a focal point that your eyes are drawn to.
Is this the subject?
Like if I took a pic of water droplets (I did not), aren't those the subject, your eyes are drawn to the drops of water but the entire frame is filled with water drops...I don't get it. Maybe I should enter it in free study. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 12:22:10 PM · #2 |
Using your example, if the water droplets fill the frame, then the "subject", as it were, is ALL the droplets, not any one of them individually nor any subgrouping of them collectively.
For me, a "subjectless" image is one where you see the entire image as unified whole, with no indvidual component of it standing out in a figure/ground relationship, taking precedence over the other components. The interesting part of this challenge is to overcome our "need" to HAVE a definable subject that is a major component of the image, and learn to see the entire canvas, as it were, as unified whole.
Here's a piece of abstract art by Jackson Pollock that is truly "subjectless" yet has strong compositional elements within it:
Here's an entirely abstract image by Franz Kline that DOES have a subject, compositionally; see the figure/ground relationship?
Robt.
Message edited by author 2006-08-27 12:22:53.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2006 12:37:52 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
For me, a "subjectless" image is one where you see the entire image as unified whole, with no indvidual component of it standing out in a figure/ground relationship, taking precedence over the other components. The interesting part of this challenge is to overcome our "need" to HAVE a definable subject that is a major component of the image, and learn to see the entire canvas, as it were, as unified whole.
|
Can images have separate "parts" and be able to have the parts not stand out?
I guess I don't know what you mean about the figure/ground relationship, either.
Message edited by author 2006-08-27 12:42:22. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 12:41:42 PM · #4 |
I must keep telling myself this...
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
I like having an assignment that gives me some direction. I like my picture. I had fun taking it and PP it. I did my best. I am not an expert, I am very new and have lots to learn. I will never learn if I am too afraid to submit pictures...This is all that matters.
Message edited by author 2006-08-27 12:42:57. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 12:43:18 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
I like having an assignment that gives me some direction. I like my picture. I had fun taking it and PP it. I did my best. |
YAY! You should be very proud :-) |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 12:49:28 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I guess I don't know what you mean about the figure/ground relationship, either. |
FIGURE
The part of a composition that we pay attention to is called figure. The figure is also called a positive shape. In a simple composition there may be only one figure. In a complex composition there will be several things to notice. As we look from one to another they each become figure in turn.
Recognizable objects (subject matter) are easy to see as figure. In compositions without recognizable subject matter what we see as figure will depend on the abstract relationship between the visual elements. The most interesting at any moment is the figure.
GROUND
Everything that is not figure is ground. As attention shifts from figure to figure the ground also shifts so that an object can go from figure to ground and back.
Ground is sometimes thought of as background but this is not always true. In a flat composition there is nothing behind the figure (if there was there would be the illusion of depth). The shapes are side by side.
When the figure is surrounded by space in the composition the ground looks like a shape (the format) with a hole in it the shape of the figure (see example to the left). In this case the ground looks like a background for the figure and there is a shallow space developed. In this example the figure and ground are both visible even though the ground (red) is all that is shown.
If the figure contacts the edge of the format or other figure shapes the ground seems to surround the figure and a series of ground shapes are made. These are called negative shapes and no longer appear as a background. The space stays flat.
From //daphne.palomar.edu/design/fandg.html
|
|
|
|
08/27/2006 01:43:29 PM · #7 |
To me, this is a perfect example. It has a variety of things with no particular place to focus. I predict we will see lots like this (good and bad) as well as busy city scenes and macros. I have nothing to enter. :~( |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 01:46:21 PM · #8 |
I've entered one in a similar vein to the "Thames" image below. Hopefully I won't get too many "DNMC" comments, but I am prepared for a few.
I had what I thought was actually a superior picture, but I felt it had a bit too much of a possible subject.
My last possibility was a street scene that had a couple of buses in it, but I reckon that would have screamed too much that the bus was the "subject" rather than just part of a scene. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 01:55:15 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Jutilda:
To me, this is a perfect example. It has a variety of things with no particular place to focus. I predict we will see lots like this (good and bad) as well as busy city scenes and macros. I have nothing to enter. :~( |
I bet there will be several "unidentifyable" abstracts as well... Will be interesting to see all of the different interpretations, I'm sure mine will probably bomb:)
Message edited by author 2006-08-27 13:56:02. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 02:07:13 PM · #10 |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 02:07:49 PM · #11 |
| Whoooohhhooo! This is the first time something from my lil' portfolio has been chosen as an example. I've got something completely different than that for the No Subject challenge, though. The depressing thing is that I've edited and re-edited the same shot this entire day. I can't decide how much is too much and how much is too little processing. Ah well, it's going to be fun to see the entries in this challenge! |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 02:11:56 PM · #12 |
| I have a photo for enter in the contest .... a shot found last day.... in the last hours.... but without a photo in the contest I am bored :) |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 02:20:53 PM · #13 |
This challenge could have been more justly presented simply: an image without a main subject. I decided not to enter it because it is a challenge that will invite much disagreement. However, between now and deadline I may change my mind. I tried earlier today but the rain has pited down consistently. It is more like deciding what is and is not a major element.
On the plus side, I think it will teach much to inquiring minds. That is, it will get you ready and alert to seek a main subject when shooting. Which is what is desired in most cases.
The problem is that the mind will conjure a main subject accordingly in many instances. Think of it, if you do droplets, they are indeed a subject but so many will render the image lacking a main. A regular outdoor scene can be easily rendered to exist without a main subject. Then you have texture shots of stones, cement, foliage etc, etc.
Just thinking about this topic can not but help you become aware of taking a better image that requires a main.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2006 02:26:04 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Just thinking about this topic can not but help you become aware of taking a better image that requires a main. |
Yup! And it can open a few eyes as to how it's actually POSSIBLE to make a fine image that lacks a main subject. I think it's a lovely challenge, myself.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2006 03:22:44 PM · #15 |
| I am afraid that my pic has a main subject but then again it does not...oh well, I took it and I entered it. We'll see. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 06:06:17 PM · #16 |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 06:23:00 PM · #17 |
| A little bit of discussion here. |
|
|
|
08/27/2006 07:43:34 PM · #18 |
Personally I can't wait to get bashed around the head with limp lettuce by the DNMC people for this - I predict my lowest score ever for this one but hey, I probably deserve it. Anything over 5 will be a bonus...
|
|
|
|
08/27/2006 07:45:27 PM · #19 |
| I just entered mine.. Its going to get slapped around I can see it coming |
|
|
|
08/30/2006 11:32:31 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by slickchik:
I must keep telling myself this...
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
this is for fun...what is important is that I like the picture
I like having an assignment that gives me some direction. I like my picture. I had fun taking it and PP it. I did my best. I am not an expert, I am very new and have lots to learn. I will never learn if I am too afraid to submit pictures...This is all that matters. |
That is a good attitude to have!
DPC is an absolute remarkable resource for all levels of digital photography IF you can keep your focus on your own goals. Those goals could be to score high here BUT there are lots of other goals too.
If you can like what you are getting from the site and feel good about your photography regardless of score or negative responses...that is awesome.
Don't be afraid of criticism (deserved or not). Don't be afraid of shooting any and all types of photos.
I'll enter anything, anytime, with any level of processing (popular or not) if it tickles my fancy.
  
You better develop thick skin if you do. I see lots of people PRETEND they don't care but they do..and they end up ranting in the forums when the scores and comments drive them insane or they quit.
HANG TOUGH and KICK ASS!!!!!! |
I agree with you both....I'm a newbie here, but I've been taking pictures as a pleasure hack photog for years and have much forum/site participation on different levels as well.
There will ALWAYS be people who seem to get their pleasure breaking others' stones.
That's not my style, I like to keep the focus on the positive and offer only supportive feedback.
I enjoy my own photography and have just come on board 'cause I like what I've seen and am looking to improve my skills and enjoy others' work as well.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:49:18 AM · #21 |
I would agree with graphicfunk
"This challenge could have been more justly presented...." Essentially this is a design challenge, and is really not identified as such. The name and description of this challenge is confusing and obscure.
From the discussions and now posted challenge entries it is evident the idea of field is to be used as the main component and element.
The expression subjectless I have seen used to describe this kind of visual device however the more common term used in art is field, which I think would have been more appropriate and more easily researched if necessary. Try to google subjectless - now try field painting. |
|
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: 08/27/2025 04:41:41 PM EDT.
