Thanks to Don Eason for suggestion this month's theme - Textures. Let's see those photos where texture or textures play a key role in making the image work!
Guy - that lily pond shot is great... it reminds me of a Monet painting. Besides showing interesting texture, the image compositionally is dominated by excellent examples of pattern... the tree trunk reflections and the lily pads create patterns (that are themselves heavily textured). I love it!
Grant, I really like your Old Pariah shot too. Great colors and lines. The quality of light is beautiful.
Lance, thanks for the comments, and you are right - I use texture a lot in my work. I identify textures everywhere I look (it can actually get quite annoying) and just start shooting like crazy. Also, I usually crop aggressively in-camera, creating isolates of textured subjects.
This monthly post illustrates that as a design element, texture rarely can carry an image alone. All of these images portray strong texture along with a variety of other photographic design elements. For example my shot of the cactus makes heavy use of line and pattern. Kalin's dunes shot features strong line and shape. Grants uses line, form and color etc.
As these examples show, when texture is combined with other design elements they can elicit a strong reaction because of the way textures "feel" to us. Texture is all about feeling - soft, scratchy, smooth, slippery, sticky, sharp... all descriptions of tactile sensations, as if we were moving our fingers over the surface of the subject. We learn as children that these sensations have connotations of good or bad, based on whether they are unpleasant, painful or nice etc.. So textures prompt strong natural and quick response from the observer.
Identifying what compositional devices are most prevalent in your work helps to reveal your motivations and can help define an individual style.
Zebra Slot was popular as a Layers topic, but I find myself drawn to the texture of the walls as much as to the repetitive layering. Some of you have seen this earlier this year...
San Ynes Mountains above Ojai, California. In keeping with Professor Coalson's excellent monograph, it exibits both textures (nubbly? feathery?) and layers.
Scott, your Spooky shot is great; amazing DOF and the textures almost give physical pain! I bet it would make an effective abstract in B&W.
My submission is from my most recent Utah trip, back in late March. This is a spot in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that I'd been before, and knew I wanted to come back and get this shot (among many others there! ). I had shot this same rock wall on 4x5 the year before, but with full, late afternoon sun. I dig the shot, but after looking at some of my digital snap shots form the same spot, and in post-sunset cool light, knew I wanted to try it that way this time!
So, after shooting some stuff in the warm sunset light, I bolted for this spot, and set up. Almost got there too late, as this turned into a 30 second exposure once I tacked bellows compensation factors on. But, I'm happy with the way it came out! Nature sure can give you some crazy stuff!
There's some really, really good images here ... but that is over the top Brent. NICE.
Posted by Lee Robinson on July 10, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Here's one from mid-May at the North Rim. As I scouted the location and waited for the light to be softened by the cloud cover, I was taken by the textural layers in this scene.
Posted by Scott Fricke on July 11, 2007 at 12:54 AM
"Scott, your Spooky shot is great; amazing DOF and the textures almost give physical pain! I bet it would make an effective abstract in B&W."
Thanks Don, f22 with a 17-40. It in fact did give physical pain, the canyon right there is just big enough to squeeze through sideways and if you lean too far back, well they leave a mark.
Posted by Scott Fricke on July 11, 2007 at 12:59 AM
Love that shot Brent, looks so much better without the light on it, much more abstract.
Okay, I've been holding this one back for a different theme, but the more I look at it the more I think it should be posted under Textures. I have titled it Spicy Chinle.
Don - thanks for the compliment on my diatribe I've been teaching a lot and it's finally getting a little easier to put these visual things in words.... I've also been reading Freeman Patterson's excellent book "Photographing the World Around You". That guy really has a way with words. This book was published in 1994 and is still a wealth of information about composition and photographic devices. Highly recommended.
Your San Ynes shot is an excellent example of texture. According to Patterson, though, "layers" is not an element of photographic composition in and of itself. Rather, your shot is an excellent example of edges (similar to but not to be confused with lines), and in this case the edges form shapes (triangles and polygons).
I really like the color and sense of place in the Spicy Chinle shot!
IMHO, Brent's and Steve's photographs might be the best examples of photos depicting pure texture here, because they don't contain other photographics that take attention away from the texture itself.
For all the talk about technology and tools these days, I'm personally very intrigued by the challenge of creating truly effective compositions, and this is something that I expect will never fade. It's what makes photography, photography. Excellent thread!
Nat brings up an interesting point in his comment about Brent's and Steve's images. I've been asked by quite a few people what my "criteria" are for selecting the monthly cover image. I think as most know, the cover image is selected from the monthly theme thread from the preceding month. When selecting an image, I don't look for the "best" image that is consistent with the theme; rather, I look for an image that most successfully utilizes or most purely represents that month's theme.
If that makes no sense, an example would be this month's cover shot by Michael Deleon. If I were voting for the "best" overall image in last month's Layers thread, I might have selected a different image. But I thought Michael's shot best illustrated how layers could be used to successfully create an image. There were plenty of images that successfully utilized layers, but most of the others relied upon other elements as well - grand scenery, lines, textures and/or colors, as a few examples. Michael's shot relied almost exclusively upon layers to make it work, and - in my subjective and no doubt biased opinion - best illustrated the positive impact that layers can have in making/strengthening a composition.
Nat, thanks for the kind words and the tip about the Freeman Patterson book. I'm thinking about teaching a basic photography course to some homeschoolers, and that sounds like a good resource.
Not knowing where Patterson is going with his terminology, I can't find fault with it. But in the case of the San Ynez shot, I will persist in using the term layers (though the layers certainly have edges that create compositional shapes) in that they overlie and underlie one another and create a sense of successive disances by virtue of their haze levels and scalar variations due to the foreshortening (is that the right word?) of perspective. Layers seems an appropriate word for that.
I love the discussion this theme is generating. Words are the building blocks of thoughts, and thought makes us better photographers.
Don - I understand your viewpoint perfectly and might suggest another way to look at it:
In photography, all the photographics (the graphic elements that exist in the picture space) are two dimensional.
So from a purist point of view (of which I am not claiming) "layers" are not photographic design elements because they imply three dimensions - as does form, which is clearly a commonly used "design element". The edges of the planes create the illusion of depth (or layering). But layers most definitely are a result of the rest of the elements coming together,
I've seen a number differences in the lists of elements of photographic design; but essentially, they include:
Line
Shape
Form
Pattern
Texture
Note that only form and texture have anything to do with revealing 3-dimensions; the rest are entirely 2-D. So an effective photograph must also employ perspective, dominance, scale, rhythm, etc. And it all is dependent on the properties of light.
Brenda Tharpe and Bryan F. Peterson's books are also great resources.
I'm also enjoying this discussion.... fun stuff!
Posted by Ron Leraaen on July 11, 2007 at 11:25 PM
From Mt. Evans. I was shooting the Bristlecones one evening when I had a call of nature to find a men's tree. I went into a thicker stand of trees and found this.
Something a little "different": a 15 inch long footprint, one of a series of tracks i found while hiking in the Trinity Alps Wilderness (CA); either a decent hoax, or a Bigfoot!
Saw this old plow hanging on a wall in Taos, thought the juxtaposition of the three materials made an interesting composition. Wood, leather & iron. I had originally intended for this to be B&W, but I liked the touch of color better.
Discussion
34 repliesI just looked at your site, Nat...it seems Textures is made for your forte.
http://www.alittlemoore.com/albums/Kona-Volcano-2005/100_5505.jpg
Akaka Falls, HI 2005
I was struck as the strong, layered texture of this rock formation in Canyonlands.
Sand Detail
Grant, I really like your Old Pariah shot too. Great colors and lines. The quality of light is beautiful.
Lance, thanks for the comments, and you are right - I use texture a lot in my work. I identify textures everywhere I look (it can actually get quite annoying) and just start shooting like crazy. Also, I usually crop aggressively in-camera, creating isolates of textured subjects.
This monthly post illustrates that as a design element, texture rarely can carry an image alone. All of these images portray strong texture along with a variety of other photographic design elements. For example my shot of the cactus makes heavy use of line and pattern. Kalin's dunes shot features strong line and shape. Grants uses line, form and color etc.
As these examples show, when texture is combined with other design elements they can elicit a strong reaction because of the way textures "feel" to us. Texture is all about feeling - soft, scratchy, smooth, slippery, sticky, sharp... all descriptions of tactile sensations, as if we were moving our fingers over the surface of the subject. We learn as children that these sensations have connotations of good or bad, based on whether they are unpleasant, painful or nice etc.. So textures prompt strong natural and quick response from the observer.
Identifying what compositional devices are most prevalent in your work helps to reveal your motivations and can help define an individual style.
Lots of good images! Keep em coming!
Last week at Great Sand Dunes
Scott, your Spooky shot is great; amazing DOF and the textures almost give physical pain!
My submission is from my most recent Utah trip, back in late March. This is a spot in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument that I'd been before, and knew I wanted to come back and get this shot (among many others there!
So, after shooting some stuff in the warm sunset light, I bolted for this spot, and set up. Almost got there too late, as this turned into a 30 second exposure once I tacked bellows compensation factors on. But, I'm happy with the way it came out! Nature sure can give you some crazy stuff!
Thanks Don, f22 with a 17-40. It in fact did give physical pain, the canyon right there is just big enough to squeeze through sideways and if you lean too far back, well they leave a mark.
Your San Ynes shot is an excellent example of texture. According to Patterson, though, "layers" is not an element of photographic composition in and of itself. Rather, your shot is an excellent example of edges (similar to but not to be confused with lines), and in this case the edges form shapes (triangles and polygons).
I really like the color and sense of place in the Spicy Chinle shot!
IMHO, Brent's and Steve's photographs might be the best examples of photos depicting pure texture here, because they don't contain other photographics that take attention away from the texture itself.
For all the talk about technology and tools these days, I'm personally very intrigued by the challenge of creating truly effective compositions, and this is something that I expect will never fade. It's what makes photography, photography. Excellent thread!
If that makes no sense, an example would be this month's cover shot by Michael Deleon. If I were voting for the "best" overall image in last month's Layers thread, I might have selected a different image. But I thought Michael's shot best illustrated how layers could be used to successfully create an image. There were plenty of images that successfully utilized layers, but most of the others relied upon other elements as well - grand scenery, lines, textures and/or colors, as a few examples. Michael's shot relied almost exclusively upon layers to make it work, and - in my subjective and no doubt biased opinion
Not knowing where Patterson is going with his terminology, I can't find fault with it. But in the case of the San Ynez shot, I will persist in using the term layers (though the layers certainly have edges that create compositional shapes) in that they overlie and underlie one another and create a sense of successive disances by virtue of their haze levels and scalar variations due to the foreshortening (is that the right word?) of perspective. Layers seems an appropriate word for that.
I love the discussion this theme is generating. Words are the building blocks of thoughts, and thought makes us better photographers.
In photography, all the photographics (the graphic elements that exist in the picture space) are two dimensional.
So from a purist point of view (of which I am not claiming) "layers" are not photographic design elements because they imply three dimensions - as does form, which is clearly a commonly used "design element". The edges of the planes create the illusion of depth (or layering). But layers most definitely are a result of the rest of the elements coming together,
I've seen a number differences in the lists of elements of photographic design; but essentially, they include:
Line
Shape
Form
Pattern
Texture
Note that only form and texture have anything to do with revealing 3-dimensions; the rest are entirely 2-D. So an effective photograph must also employ perspective, dominance, scale, rhythm, etc. And it all is dependent on the properties of light.
Brenda Tharpe and Bryan F. Peterson's books are also great resources.
I'm also enjoying this discussion.... fun stuff!
Ice detail, Zapata Falls near the Great Sand Dunes - Olympus C8080
dan