Posted by David Bush on October 4, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Reading through one of my books on photography I came across an interesting comment. The ability to recognize a picture, to select the elements in the composition is significant. The final or print is secondary. Seems to me I had read that Ansil Adams visualized the final print when creating an image. I tend to look for the composition and then later think of the finished product. I was wondering how others would view this idea?
I almost never think about elements or composition - I simply compose in the camera something that I think will look good on the wall or in a book or calendar. I think photographers think too much - look at a scene, if you like it, frame it the way you want it to be, take the picture. When folks start to analyze my photos I simply yawn and nod - I just don't have the brain power to keep up I guess.
On the other hand sometimes I will see a scene in my mind and then spend a day or week trying to find it out there somewhere in the natural world, and in the process will normally find a dozen other images that are better...
Posted by Wayne Rhodus on October 5, 2006 at 9:20 AM
David,
Nice thread. There are probably many things to consider here.
First would be the experience of the photographer him/herself. With experience, the ability to instinctively know a technically correct, balanced image when you see it should become second nature. I know that after four years I more quickly rule out certain scenes/compositions that don't have the right elements than I used to.
Second would be what you intend to do with the image. I am actively trying to sell my images and because of that I am learning what people will buy and what they won't. I mentioned in a recent thread that a georgous photo of an exotic flower, while beautiful to look at, will probably not sell well. But a good shot of a familiar flower, like a white rose, may sell very well (at least mine does).
For a professional, I think their experience and knowledge of composition and understanding of what will sell ultimately melts into an instinctive ability to capture both at once. Thanks for the post.
Posted by Bill Dark on October 5, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Good question, David. When I get out and wander around, sometimes I'm not looking for anything in particular, but "stumble" on to some really nice scenes. Other times when I'm after a particular shot I "stumble" on to something that's better than what I'm out there for. That's just one of the great things I enjoy about being out in the woods with a good camera - you never know what you're going to find. However, I think photographers tend to think a lot alike. There is a scene I've been wanting for awhile that I've yet to get a good shot of - falling autmn leaves. Technically, it may be a challenge with my Nikon since I'm somewhat limited to a slow ISO and slow shutter speed.
I think I could say that one of the things that has helped me the most has been taking lots and lots of shots. By doing so, I've learned what looks good and what could be done to make an image look better. That's what has made digital so great for me.
But Wayne has made a good point regarding the intended use. My wife has family roots from the Beaver, Arkansas area, where her great grandmother used to ride the train to work in Eureka Springs. I've given her relatives two black and white prints of an image of the suspension bridge I took awhile back, and they absolutely treasure them. I doubt if anyone else would give them a second look...much less pay for one. It's all about emotion, IMO.
Discussion
3 repliesDavid
I almost never think about elements or composition - I simply compose in the camera something that I think will look good on the wall or in a book or calendar. I think photographers think too much - look at a scene, if you like it, frame it the way you want it to be, take the picture. When folks start to analyze my photos I simply yawn and nod - I just don't have the brain power to keep up I guess.
On the other hand sometimes I will see a scene in my mind and then spend a day or week trying to find it out there somewhere in the natural world, and in the process will normally find a dozen other images that are better...
Nice thread. There are probably many things to consider here.
First would be the experience of the photographer him/herself. With experience, the ability to instinctively know a technically correct, balanced image when you see it should become second nature. I know that after four years I more quickly rule out certain scenes/compositions that don't have the right elements than I used to.
Second would be what you intend to do with the image. I am actively trying to sell my images and because of that I am learning what people will buy and what they won't. I mentioned in a recent thread that a georgous photo of an exotic flower, while beautiful to look at, will probably not sell well. But a good shot of a familiar flower, like a white rose, may sell very well (at least mine does).
For a professional, I think their experience and knowledge of composition and understanding of what will sell ultimately melts into an instinctive ability to capture both at once. Thanks for the post.
I think I could say that one of the things that has helped me the most has been taking lots and lots of shots. By doing so, I've learned what looks good and what could be done to make an image look better. That's what has made digital so great for me.
But Wayne has made a good point regarding the intended use. My wife has family roots from the Beaver, Arkansas area, where her great grandmother used to ride the train to work in Eureka Springs. I've given her relatives two black and white prints of an image of the suspension bridge I took awhile back, and they absolutely treasure them. I doubt if anyone else would give them a second look...much less pay for one. It's all about emotion, IMO.