|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2008 10:22:35 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
Gordon, am I right to assume you rather just let people figure things out on their own rather than have the site encourage or teach these things? |
No, pretty much not that. If you read back to the start of this branch of the thread I pointed out that some other people totally reject the notion of learning the rules first. Other people, not me so much. I'm too far gone to think that. It's too late for me. |
Another post along those lines, mostly rejecting the idea that you 'have to learn the rules before you can break them'. Maybe there are no rules. Maybe the rules you learn get in the way of seeing what's actually in front of you, while you struggle to make it conform to what you've told it should look like.
Worth considering, at least. Conventional wisdom often is just convention, rather than wisdom after all. Maybe it is possible to teach photography and improve picture taking without coming up with some quick fix set of superficial tricks and tips to make your pictures look like all the others. Maybe there aren't rules, just good pictures. |
Interesting read. To clarify, I'm not concern with teaching technical rules either. We have too much of that already to the point where too often good technicals is mistaken as good photography. My suggestions earlier was to help shift the focus away from this by exposing challenge participants and voters to a little bit history and works from the masters so we can all have a better understanding and perspective, which is to say there is a world outside of DPC as crazy as that sounds. Who know maybe we'd see less inspiration coming from past challenges (especially if they are hidden when they are repeated), which can only be a good thing.
Message edited by author 2008-12-27 22:59:56.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2008 09:09:04 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
High art, by definition, only appeals to a select few. |
In general, that's a "bingo" post Doc. Very good observations.But nevertheless, within the context of the side challenges etc, education can and should be part of the mix. The more we begin to perceive of WHY artists do certain things, of WHAT they are trying to say/accomplish, the more we begin to appreciate their art. And where the seeds of appreciation get sown, the groundwork is laid, bit by bit, for more "sophisticated" voting on a broader scale.
R. |
"High art, by definition, only appeals to a select few."
Doc-the only thing I'd tweak in that statement is the word "appeals" and change it to understood or include it in the sentence.
Which leads to Bears point "WHY artists do certain things" or in other words their intent. A good deal of people have a tendency to pass right by the artists/photographers intent and start in on the technical's, often missing the entire point of the image.
Ubique posted an image in another thread where the comments I thought were, off the charts foolish...useless drivel to anybody who does what they do for a reason.
The photographer stated after the vote that he was trying to show vastness through an image using a "Little Sailboat". There were five calls that the sail boat was too small and others that thought the sky was too vast. The noise wasn't that overpowering to be an issue in anyway but that too was a sticking point. They missed the whole point...the photographers intent was completely pissed on and they managed to regurgitate all the silly crap that some of us find repulsive.
All for now... |
Great post, thank you!
|
|
|
|
12/29/2008 11:37:31 AM · #203 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Maybe the rules you learn get in the way of seeing what's actually in front of you, while you struggle to make it conform to what you've told it should look like. |
That's a great point and well made.
I've always felt that we (humans) have a limited capacity to concentrate or focus properly on many things at once. It's possible but rarely can we operate consistently at a level where everything is perfect and in place.
Focusing on the moment or "what's in front of you" and understanding the depth of that particular experience, takes a great deal of energy to process accurately, so parking "the rules" (if there are rules) and devoting full attention to your subject can yield stunning work. Placing any weight or premium on rules is a great insurer that you will dilute your focus and in doing so, the power of any given moment. Things can fall into place nicely, when you establish some rhythm but it's really not all that important if you don't do justice to the moment.
Personally, I've been placing most of my energy and thought on seeing a moment or a point of interest (a face, a scene, something quirky) more than anything else. If I worry about other elements or worse, try to please people that are hyper-concerned with that my work is doomed. It requires 100% and if the rest falls into place, great but capturing the moment is paramount to everything else.
eta: That was a great read. Thanks for posting the link.
Message edited by author 2008-12-29 13:32:26. |
|
|
|
12/29/2008 02:40:26 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
Gordon, am I right to assume you rather just let people figure things out on their own rather than have the site encourage or teach these things? |
No, pretty much not that. ......I pointed out that some other people totally reject the notion of learning the rules first. Other people, not me so much. I'm too far gone to think that. It's too late for me. |
Another post along those lines, mostly rejecting the idea that you 'have to learn the rules before you can break them'. Maybe there are no rules.....
Worth considering, at least....... Maybe there aren't rules, just good pictures. |
Gordon.... writer of your link has broad outlook on photographic method which seems appropriate for many to consider.
I see rules at dpc, to have merit, some not. Some operational requirements are necessary.
I would not be convinced this site necessarily promotes a comprehensive educational experience. The broad arbitrary editing rules are anti-educational. Though touted by many, as a learning site, the short duration of challenges (as others mention) preclude a proper personal exploration. Rather, it becomes for the entrant - What do I have or can be made and presented in a brief time period? What in my life relates to this challenge?
The site and challenges are designed to tap the abilities and experience (limited or extensive, able to take a proper exposure or not) of those who may enter in a way that requires time line, which I think is the most attractive & important aspect of dpc challenges. All other requirements are secondary.
As for the proposal of challenges requiring a formal lesson plan including learning objectives, this might be a necessary job description for those who write or submit them, but probably not the only requirement.
Rules&Tools components an individual uses or promotes to make & design images through ones craft, for dpc or anything else can contribute to forms of success, as well as an individual's development to style or genre (when it can be seen or read). However, I do not completely agree this the most important.
Photography in all its forms has become a mature craft, nuance of the art, technical and a direct link to visual art of the past are important areas of consideration to any student, old or young.
For me viewing challenges, I think one can have no expectations beyond the minimum - but yes, there are some great "good pictures" here - which communicate to me, and I see no way to categorize them.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2008 02:46:56 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Focusing on the moment or "what's in front of you" and understanding the depth of that particular experience, takes a great deal of energy to process accurately, so parking "the rules" (if there are rules) and devoting full attention to your subject can yield stunning work. Placing any weight or premium on rules is a great insurer that you will dilute your focus and in doing so, the power of any given moment. Things can fall into place nicely, when you establish some rhythm but it's really not all that important if you don't do justice to the moment. |
I think you were right to say "tools" instead of "rules." The thought that photography has rules is ridiculous (it reminds me of Merryl Streep in Postcards from the Edge... "Comedy rules??"). But if you learn the skills and tools of photography, and practice them, then when the subect, the moment, is in front of you, you are ready. You do *not* focus on your skills because you already have them. You are instantly choosing the right settings and snapping the shot. |
|
|
|
12/29/2008 04:18:33 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
[quote=pawdrix] Focusing on the moment or "what's in front of you" and understanding the depth of that particular experience, takes a great deal of energy to process accurately, so parking "the rules" (if there are rules) ...quote]
You are instantly choosing the right settings and snapping the shot. |
That sounds familiar. Didn't we do something like that at the bar with e301?
Rule is a misnomer without question. The Tool of Thirds would be more appropriate.
A lot of this applies directly to what I like to shoot. Since I don't set up my shots...well, very rarely, I don't have as many takes as I want or need. As I look through my captures for a day I see that each moment or slice of time is uniquely different from the other. Again, not having the ability of multiple takes limits me to being in tune with the subject or action or I have nothing and divided attention hinders my power to sense what's going on.
Screw the rules (if there are rules)...capture the moment. |
|
|
|
12/29/2008 04:30:22 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Rule is a misnomer without question. The Tool of Thirds would be more appropriate.
Screw the rules (if there are rules)...capture the moment. |
Well Said!! I was gonna say it should be called the Rule of Turds, but that would be snarky, and I don't play that..... :-) |
|
|
|
12/29/2008 04:30:36 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Rule is a misnomer without question. The Tool of Thirds would be more appropriate. |
I like to call these compositional rules "principles"; that's the way I taught them. The "principle of thirds" has a much more palatable ring to it than the "rule of thirds", doesn't it?
Here's the bottom line; these rules/principles become established because they describe things that actually work most of the time. Most "average" landscape photographs can be "improved" by using the "principle of thirds", that's just a fact. In other words, the average landscape shot by an amateur is a pretty static thing, and using the "principle of thirds" brings a little dynamicism into play, most of the time.
But that's not to say (indeed, I'm emphatically NOT saying) that you have to use the "principle of thirds" to take a good landscape photo. In fact, I'm not even saying that a "dynamic" landscape is, in and of itself, "better" than a "static" one. Nevertheless, if you present two versions of the same landscape, most viewers will respond more positively to the one where the horizon is 1/3 of the way up from the bottom than they will to the one with the horizon in the center. It's a fact, I tested it a few times in my classes.
So what I'd urge, what I always HAVE urged, is that any student of the craft should learn these compositional principles, should be aware of them and of how/why they work, if only so that s/he can surge off into a different aesthetic with a complete awareness of the base from which it builds. A study of the history of photography, engaged in intelligently, will work just about as well for this as will a study of the compositional principles, because you can derive all these principles by seeing what most acknowledged masterworks have in common. And when you've gotten that far, it's a great thrill to come across other acknowledged masterworks that disregard these principles in their execution.
This image, for example, fairly well ignores the "principle of thirds", and if the boat were fully centered left-to-right it would be pretty static, but as it is the image is in a sort of balancing act between the dynamic and the static elements of the composition. Or so I intended it, anyway...
R.
Message edited by author 2008-12-29 16:36:48.
|
|
|
|
12/29/2008 07:53:17 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Rule is a misnomer without question. The Tool of Thirds would be more appropriate. |
I like to call these compositional rules "principles"; that's the way I taught them. The "principle of thirds" has a much more palatable ring to it than the "rule of thirds", doesn't it?
R. |
Bear-I think everyone here is pretty much in agreement (or those who are posting).
I'm more concerned how one would move the sites collective psyche to a place where these points of view are understood. It seems that people kinda get "the rules" but don't have a deeper understanding why they exist or the possibility that they can be broken.
As it stands for a two week period, first shooting then into the voting stage a Centered Composition is very cool but right after the winners hit the front page, it's bad again. There's no penetration and if there is, it's barely noticeable.
I'll go with the word "principle". Shit, anything is better than rules. Rules kill the whole push of art. |
|
|
|
01/04/2009 10:32:26 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by yanko:
But how to do get from not shooting randomly to shooting with a purpose if you haven't learned at least some of the basics? If you give a kid a camera or an adult who has never taken a photo before chances are all they would need is to be shown the shutter button and they will be able to take a picture and do so with an idea of some of the basics already learned such as centering the subject or even off center to get something else in the shot as well, asking people to smile to get more emotion, etc. |
There's a second part to all this - and probably the main reason people wander away from the site. After a certain point, shooting random subjects week in week out isn't going to help you go much further. I don't think DPC can do much about that, as it's geared to always guide you away from working to any depth on a given subject. Certainly it doesn't have to be the sole outlet for your picture taking, but the constant changing of focus makes it less interesting for me the more pictures I take. I wrote something about this yesterday, based on some discussions I had a few years ago, that tries to sum some of this up.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2009 11:26:41 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by yanko:
But how to do get from not shooting randomly to shooting with a purpose if you haven't learned at least some of the basics? If you give a kid a camera or an adult who has never taken a photo before chances are all they would need is to be shown the shutter button and they will be able to take a picture and do so with an idea of some of the basics already learned such as centering the subject or even off center to get something else in the shot as well, asking people to smile to get more emotion, etc. |
There's a second part to all this - and probably the main reason people wander away from the site. After a certain point, shooting random subjects week in week out isn't going to help you go much further. I don't think DPC can do much about that, as it's geared to always guide you away from working to any depth on a given subject. Certainly it doesn't have to be the sole outlet for your picture taking, but the constant changing of focus makes it less interesting for me the more pictures I take. I wrote something about this yesterday, based on some discussions I had a few years ago, that tries to sum some of this up. |
I'll agree with this ' to a certain extent '
When i look the work i've amassed in the last 7 years is is very disconected .. the works that are accepted/shown in gallerys (except the first which was meant to be exclectic) are very theme oriented
probably a good newyears resolution inthere somewhere ... |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:53:26 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:53:26 PM EDT.
|
