|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2006 06:36:24 PM · #1 |
to continue from the other thread...
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by skiprow:
one of the greatest lessons i've learned at dpc: always have a strong subject, even in a landscape. |
Not to derail the thread (in fact this should and could branch off somewhere else) but this is a lesson that applies to some great photos - it isn't a requirement for all great photos. Some of my most favourite images don't have any obviously defined subject or a very small, non-dominant subject. There is a predispostion towards the style of the 'strong, bold subject' at dpc and I think it is a particular malaise of the small format/ 640x480 or 4"x6" style that digital mostly encourages, but it isn't the only type of photo. |
you may be right. i have 100's of photos i've taken of basically nothing (sunsets, landscapes, whatever) that *i* like, but the general feeback i've gotten is basically a shrugged type comment along the lines of 'well, that is kinda nice'. the thing is, unless there's something absolutely amazing about it (say a sunset with unbelievable clouds and colors), images of 'nothing' tend to be forgotten quickly.
of course i shouldn't have said "always," but, by the same token, having a strong subject is a good rule to master before branching out to where you're comfortable breaking rules. the thing is, if you learn to look for a subject before shooting, you wind up with a lot less snapshots that leave people wondering wu'dja take it for...
here's a shot i like, but it's of nothing. some people like, but most people won't even click on it, let alone remember it.
here's a shot that catches your attention. it's not just another sunrise
and here's a shot with a very non-dominant subject--however, it does have a subject, nonetheless, the brings you in and anchors your visit.
i'd love to hear what others have to say about this, and how they approach this aspect of composition. i'd also like to hear how much "shooting for dpc" weighs in on how they choose to compose their images.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2006 07:18:39 PM · #2 |
We've actually been working our way through this in the latest Landscape Learning Thread. It's my contention that in landscape photography the entire landscape can become the "subject", and that by including a dominant object to shift the focus away from the landscape to the object.
Sometimes I think there's a confusion between "focal point" and "subject". Take your "Absolute Still" image, one of the highest-scoring in DPC history:
Now put it in Photoshop and desaturate the red channel in hue/saturation:
Does anyone think this version would have ribboned?
On such subtleties are great images built...
R.
Message edited by author 2006-04-28 19:19:16.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2006 07:37:26 PM · #3 |
Wow Skip, a lot to think about.
To be honest, only my studio shots are composed for DPC; my freeshooting and work shooting are composed for either me or the newspaper. Both completely different from DPC. For DPC, I typically pick very simplified images with one strong focal point (at least I learned something over the last year). I rely on lighting to convey the emotion. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Funny, my studio/composed for DPC shots do better here. My non-studio shots do better at my camera club and in sales. Go figure.
As for subject, so many things can be subject...Color, tone, light, shadow, rythm, pattern, emotion, and noun, to name a few. For what its worth, I think the best images are very strong in subject, even if you can't pin-point what that subject might be. For example, one can take a picture of a chair but the chair might not be the subject; it could be the lighting on the chair, the way it bounces around the frame, the textures and patterns it brings about...
Sometimes, in DPC land, people are so focused on what a picture is apparently of (is it boring? child? pet? toy?) they don't look at the other aspects of the image. One of the things I look for here is strong use of lighting - often overlooked as a compositional element. I have seen many images score poorly due to being boring even when the lighting was excellently mastered.
Anyway, my point in responding is that sometimes what appears to be subjectless/weak subject (such as your third shot) in actuality has a very strong subject, be it color or light or pattern or whatever else. I think overlooking these things as subjects, both when creating and viewing images, weakens your eye so to speak.
A pretty picture is a pretty picture (and yes, DPC likes pretty pictures) but a well planned image, where lighting, color, pattern, and if needed 'subject' are all taken into consideration, blows me away everytime. I'd post a few of these from your portfolio, but I'd have a hard time picking just a few. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 12:24:37 AM  |
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: 08/30/2025 12:24:37 AM EDT.
|
