Posted by Bill Brennan on November 30, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Thanks for the link to a worthwhile discussion. Have taken a couple of classes with John Schaeffer, who has written two books on Ansel Adams and also arranged for the U of Arizona to become the repository of AA's work. Dr. Schaefer centers many of his macro photos of cactus flora.
I always chuckle during a critique, when there are technical issues raised about a composition that would not make the composition stronger.
Your group must have a lot of fun.
Bill Brennan
Posted by Mel Ladewig on December 1, 2010 at 8:49 AM
I have to wonder why anyone thinks any of these images is breaking a rule of composition.
#1 - Inverted triangle
#2 - Triangle or leading lines
#3 - Rule of thirds for layers
#4 - Repetition and pattern
There is much more to composition and design than the rule of thirds. Shape, eye movement, lines, vectors, contrast, color contrast, texture just to name a few.
Posted by Chris Rice on December 1, 2010 at 8:34 PM
Oh boy now we are talking...
Mel says:
There is much more to composition and design than the rule of thirds. Shape, eye movement, lines, vectors, contrast, color contrast, texture just to name a few.
YES YES YES... however, don't get too fouled on these things, after all, photographic art is all a perception, what you like I may hate, so stick your own vision and style, and don't get too wrapped up in the details (especially the technical ones, because your buyer most likely doesn't care, know, or wants to know). BUT the message remains:: do not stray too far away from the fundamentals, after all it was artists like AA that came up with this stuff, and, I think he was quite successful at it.
As you can tell I like these threads... gee wonder why?
Posted by Ken Wyatt on December 1, 2010 at 10:01 PM
As I mentioned in the original post (link above), for those who aspire to create fine art black and white prints, I would highly recommend George DeWolfe's book, "B & W Printing", which takes you way deeper into some advanced compositional techniques expressly for B&W prints. Much of these techniques, I suspect, could also be transferable to color images. DeWolfe also demonstrates many of his adjustment techniques using Lightroom and a free Photoshop action he calls "Percept" (downloadable from his Web site). The book also includes eight contemporary "featured artists" that are well-known for their B&W prints.
He also recommends reading and going through the exercises in Betty Edwards' book, "{The New} Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". Edwards teaches drawing as a perceptual skill. There is an accompanying workbook, The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain Workbook", that he claims, if you work through the exercises, will be the one of the best things you do for your photography in your lifetime! I just ordered mine!
Posted by Chris Rice on December 2, 2010 at 2:27 AM
Ken;
You bring up an interesting point here - and it hinges on the ability to use your extremities (hands) to actually draw, and eventually paint, if you will - a skill that I lack to the nth degree. So why is it, that I, a photographer by my own execution and self-taught ability, able to compose a scene using my camera - but cannot draw/paint worth a damn? All things aside, it makes one consider if they are, in the real sense of the word - an artist, regardless of the 'medium'?
As a photographer, the artist observes their 'canvas' inside a viewfinder, then a plane of film or sensor - does this really 'count'? Obviously the answer is Yes - but why? and how?
A snapshot in time is in essence the epitome of the art itself - a slice in time that nobody can recreate - so, I suppose there is the correlation to a fine art painting (just might not take as long), that perception of a place, forever captured in whatever medium it may be.
As much as photographers want to express themselves, they must do it in these fashions by which are 'outrageous', 'extreme', or 'noncontemporary'; 'noncompliant', in order to be recognised among a large pool of competitors - something that the discipline of photography is experiencing now... think about the year 2000 - were you shooting digital images? probably not at the capacity you are now, if at all, isn't that a major paradigm shift?
So that leaves the burning question - with all of this new, industrious, instant-gratifying technology - has it made us complacent? pervasive? ideological? pragmatic? Maybe so, but the fundamentals are still there - despite the technological changes, which are all bullsh|t anyway...
I continue to struggle with this artform - can someone here set me straight? I'm not ready to give up so soon.....
Presumably another big question is... is black & white photography that much different than color photography? Let's explore that....
Posted by Ken Wyatt on December 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM
All good points you bring up Chris. There's no question in my mind that all photographers can be artists, but a lot depends on our style and personal vision as to whether others consider what we produce as "art". Of course, the challenge is that viewpoints vary to a degree that I guess anything these days can be considered art. I've sold prints that I think are rather ordinary and definitely not my best effort, yet some purchasers think it's extraordinary and lavish praise! Some of my best work just sits there for months in the gallery! Go figure!
As far as sketching and drawing (not so much painting, per se), George DeWolfe starts out his mentoring workshops with a weeks worth of drawing first - which he says usually results in consternation and sometimes, downright anger by the students. However, he claims that after that week, photos students have taken before versus after the drawing exercise, yield huge improvements. Now understand, he's teaching the art of B&W photography, not color.
To address your last question, yes, I believe strongly there is a major difference between color and B&W photography. B&W relies heavily on graphic elements like patterns, texture, tonal values, edge definition and graphic elements. While color can also include these elements, I believe what's more important are color hues and tonality, contrasting color, etc.
It turns out George has posted a bunch of the material from the book cited above on pixiq.com. Here's the Web link: http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/banjo. His article on Luminance versus Luminosity was rather eye-opening for me and I'm still trying to understand all the concepts he describes. Basically, there's a difference in how the light falls on a subject (luminance) versus how the luminance data is translated via the retina and visual cortex part of the brain to construct the image we actually "perceive" (luminosity). His book describes how to adjust the luminance image the camera records into the luminosity image our brain sees (using Lightroom, mainly...plus his Photoshop plugin, PercerpTool2). Fascinating stuff!
Back to the point of learning to draw. By sketching out a subject, DeWolfe claims we're forced to picture it in two dimensions, recording the negative and positive spaces, the graphic elements, edge definition, and contrast. He claims this helps the photographer "see" the subject as a B&W image using edges and contrast to provide depth to the 2D image the camera actually "sees". Here's a link to that article: http://www.pixiq.com/article/luminance-vs-luminosity.
I've only just finished chapters 1 and 2, but am learning a LOT more than I did about B&W photography! Can't wait to try some of my own conversions.
Discussion
6 repliesI always chuckle during a critique, when there are technical issues raised about a composition that would not make the composition stronger.
Your group must have a lot of fun.
Bill Brennan
#1 - Inverted triangle
#2 - Triangle or leading lines
#3 - Rule of thirds for layers
#4 - Repetition and pattern
There is much more to composition and design than the rule of thirds. Shape, eye movement, lines, vectors, contrast, color contrast, texture just to name a few.
Mel says:
YES YES YES... however, don't get too fouled on these things, after all, photographic art is all a perception, what you like I may hate, so stick your own vision and style, and don't get too wrapped up in the details (especially the technical ones, because your buyer most likely doesn't care, know, or wants to know). BUT the message remains:: do not stray too far away from the fundamentals, after all it was artists like AA that came up with this stuff, and, I think he was quite successful at it.
As you can tell I like these threads... gee wonder why?
He also recommends reading and going through the exercises in Betty Edwards' book, "{The New} Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". Edwards teaches drawing as a perceptual skill. There is an accompanying workbook, The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain Workbook", that he claims, if you work through the exercises, will be the one of the best things you do for your photography in your lifetime! I just ordered mine!
You bring up an interesting point here - and it hinges on the ability to use your extremities (hands) to actually draw, and eventually paint, if you will - a skill that I lack to the nth degree. So why is it, that I, a photographer by my own execution and self-taught ability, able to compose a scene using my camera - but cannot draw/paint worth a damn? All things aside, it makes one consider if they are, in the real sense of the word - an artist, regardless of the 'medium'?
As a photographer, the artist observes their 'canvas' inside a viewfinder, then a plane of film or sensor - does this really 'count'? Obviously the answer is Yes - but why? and how?
A snapshot in time is in essence the epitome of the art itself - a slice in time that nobody can recreate - so, I suppose there is the correlation to a fine art painting (just might not take as long), that perception of a place, forever captured in whatever medium it may be.
As much as photographers want to express themselves, they must do it in these fashions by which are 'outrageous', 'extreme', or 'noncontemporary'; 'noncompliant', in order to be recognised among a large pool of competitors - something that the discipline of photography is experiencing now... think about the year 2000 - were you shooting digital images? probably not at the capacity you are now, if at all, isn't that a major paradigm shift?
So that leaves the burning question - with all of this new, industrious, instant-gratifying technology - has it made us complacent? pervasive? ideological? pragmatic? Maybe so, but the fundamentals are still there - despite the technological changes, which are all bullsh|t anyway...
I continue to struggle with this artform - can someone here set me straight? I'm not ready to give up so soon.....
Presumably another big question is... is black & white photography that much different than color photography? Let's explore that....
As far as sketching and drawing (not so much painting, per se), George DeWolfe starts out his mentoring workshops with a weeks worth of drawing first - which he says usually results in consternation and sometimes, downright anger by the students. However, he claims that after that week, photos students have taken before versus after the drawing exercise, yield huge improvements. Now understand, he's teaching the art of B&W photography, not color.
To address your last question, yes, I believe strongly there is a major difference between color and B&W photography. B&W relies heavily on graphic elements like patterns, texture, tonal values, edge definition and graphic elements. While color can also include these elements, I believe what's more important are color hues and tonality, contrasting color, etc.
It turns out George has posted a bunch of the material from the book cited above on pixiq.com. Here's the Web link: http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/banjo. His article on Luminance versus Luminosity was rather eye-opening for me and I'm still trying to understand all the concepts he describes. Basically, there's a difference in how the light falls on a subject (luminance) versus how the luminance data is translated via the retina and visual cortex part of the brain to construct the image we actually "perceive" (luminosity). His book describes how to adjust the luminance image the camera records into the luminosity image our brain sees (using Lightroom, mainly...plus his Photoshop plugin, PercerpTool2). Fascinating stuff!
Back to the point of learning to draw. By sketching out a subject, DeWolfe claims we're forced to picture it in two dimensions, recording the negative and positive spaces, the graphic elements, edge definition, and contrast. He claims this helps the photographer "see" the subject as a B&W image using edges and contrast to provide depth to the 2D image the camera actually "sees". Here's a link to that article: http://www.pixiq.com/article/luminance-vs-luminosity.
I've only just finished chapters 1 and 2, but am learning a LOT more than I did about B&W photography! Can't wait to try some of my own conversions.