I try to do that and hopefully my perspectives and explanations (also misunderstood at times) are not perceived as argumentative either ... even when they are contrasting.
Maverick ... or simply out of vogue by being classic and a bit "old school" ... or a bit of both. Bottom line ... its your work, its your point, its your message ... we mostly just share our tools. What you choose to "use or lose" of them ... totally up to you.
I am vastly grateful to the contributors of this forum. Without it, I'd be stuck in a very different place that I was in years ago following "cookie cutter" recipe's. Today, I have many more tools at my disposal. Some I use more judiciously than others and I always need refinement ... but it is a place to grow ... and with honest feedback that you can "take or leave", but still know it was honest.
I look forward to seeing much more of your work and exploration.
ben egbert wrote:
To your core question. I do not wish to guide the viewer to any specific place within the scene. I want the viewer to scan the scene just as I do when there...
I understand and accept your point of view of just shooting what's there and letting the viewer wander and find what interests them — it after all works for you — I just don't subscribe to that school of thought and think you overlook the fact you are guiding the viewer to one place or another by how you choose to compose the scene in the viewfinder. You perhaps don't consciously consider it "guiding" because it's an instinctive part of your workflow and "photographic DNA" at this point but isn't that the net effect of one cropping decision you make vs. another?
Psychologists use eye movement studies of people viewing photos to better understand human cognition. Reading papers on sites like the Journal of Vision has given me insights on why some compositions work better than others. On the most primitive level of perceptual the brain looks for foreground / background contrasts to identify the shape of objects. Next the brain tries to match the pattern with some known object. If the object appears to be known the brain makes assumptions about it based on memory and those memories trigger emotional reactions.
The perceptual process is predictable because it's hard wired. How individuals react emotionally varies. You may like a photo you take better than others because you are emotionally invested in the experience of capturing it. You have context in memory that isn't accessible to a viewer who only guided by the clues they see in the photo.
Here we have three composition choices you made. Some are more effectve, IMHO, than other based on the clues provided in the way you decided to frame them. What I sometimes do to isolate and analyze my "primitive" perceptual reaction to a photo is blur and view it as an abstract tone map, and see what, if anything I recognize that way and what attracts my attention first, where I'm drawn next and what I wind up dwelling the most on. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Blur1.jpg
The first one, when blurred becomes a "sea of sameness". No feature contrasts in the foreground and the contrast of the sky pulls the eye up into equally uniform space. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Blur3.jpg
In the second there is color contrast and tonal contrast in the foreground which on a perceptual level attracts attention and becomes a focal point. Compared to the first I find it more interesting to look at and I look at it longer. I'm drawn up by the contrast of the sky then I'm motivated by curiosity to wander back down and explore the foreground again. Nothing in the foreground of the first shot created imilar motivation. http://super.nova.org/EDITS/Blur2.jpg
In the third shot there is a contrasting area in the foreground that mirrors the shape and tonal value of the sky on top. That creates better overall balance between sky and foreground. I'm still drawn upward by the contrast of the sky, but the equally contrasting area at the bottom pulls me back down even more than the second shot.
What I've come to understand having done this exercise many times with my photos and others I've critiqued is that when a photo work well on that primitive perceptual level it helps explain what made the un-blurred original seem effectively composed or not.
On a primitive abstract level the third shots is the more interesting for me because it has the best balance. It pulls my eye up to the sky then back down for a second look with the contrast pattern alone. What the second shot has that the other two lack is the element of both color contrast and something more interesting than rocks to stop and look at.
So Ben whether you consciously set out to guide my eye or not you did it subconsciously just by the way you framed the shot in your viewfinder.
Like everyone else on the planet I know what I like when I see it. If photography was as simple as seeing and automatically knowing what makes a photo work for others it would be far simpler than it has proven to be so far over the past 40+ years. Doing C&C on photos different than I would take and exploring and understanding WHY I liked them or not is what helps me broaden my horizons. Exercises like the blurring help me understand why things work in compositions. When I get a new insight I incorporate and it changes the way I approach the next similar scene.
This is a very interesting idea and one I will try. I assume you used Gaussian blur.
I am very technical on the gear side of taking an image but composition for me is intuitive. I usually never know what I like until I get home and have spent some time with it as with these shots. Often I need to process it and get some of the snap into it before I even start liking an image.
I sometimes like leading lines, like the rocks in my second image. But when viewed blurred, I see light patterns. The first has a sort of capital A on its side near the center. The second has a dark band starting from the lower right. The last has a large lazy x on its side. I have found the lazy x pattern in other images I end up liking.
When your goal is a realistic representation of what you saw, it's hard to usefully critique. How can we know what you saw. Experience suggests I see scenes rather differently than many folks. I have a suspicion that folks who've had a long experience often "see" to match what film used to render. I was always frustrated with film because it never rendered as I saw. Now that I've developed sufficient PP to render images as I saw them, I've come to dislike being limited to realistic representation. I often want to portray what the scene *felt* like - to image my personal emotional response to the scene. That's why I teasingly suggest reality is for people who lack imagination.
Good point, and you could perhaps substitute the word art for imagination and I would be guilty as charged. What I always hated about film was the lack of DR (still a problem) and in those days, my style and gear meant that nothing was sharp.
But so far as the value of critique I disagree. I can still use help getting realism. Until the camera can take an image exactly as seen by people we still need to add the missing elements in post processing. This is always a matter of judgement and our visual judgement needs to be developed along with our post processing skills. Hard to know when to stop without it. In fact, I think I know a lot more about PP than I do about when to stop or keep going.
In the field we have the choice about how good a scene is. Is it worth setting up? Where? What lens? Where to point it? Even if I take a mechanical approach, I have to make choices. But here I am all intuitive. Rules for focus, none for comp.
Feedback from a forum like this will not save an image already taken, but can inform the next time out.
AuntiPode wrote:
I was always frustrated with film because it never rendered as I saw. Now that I've developed sufficient PP to render images as I saw them, I've come to dislike being limited to realistic representation. I often want to portray what the scene *felt* like - to image my personal emotional response to the scene. That's why I teasingly suggest reality is for people who lack imagination.
I'm exercising the photographic equivalent of Godwin's Law by mentioning AA, but your comment reminded me of what Ansel Adams said motivated him to learn more about photography.
He has written about his early disappointment in the photos that he took not conveying the emotions he felt when he took the photograph. I recall reading about a forest scene with dappled sunlight that for him had a light, airy feeling which did not come across in his photographs. He began to study the more technical aspects to learn how to convey his feelings.
Too many techno-freaks bow at the AA alter, not realizing they are putting the cart before the horse. The technical quality of his photos are a means to an end, not the end itself.
He tried and eventually rejected pictorial photography. I'm comfortable with both Group f/64 and pictorialism as means to convey emotion.
Ben, if you google rules of composition and rules of photo composition and rules of photographic composition you'll find a wide selection of composition rules. You can find four composition rules, or ten rules or a dozen rules. You can find whole books of rules and guidelines for composition. What you won't find is a rule for making good photographs. With a nod to Doug's comment,
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams
Consider, when you attempt to portray "reality" you are actually attempt to portray *your* reality. Others may see the same scene but see it very differently. They may also experience it emotionally in a very different way. Our experience, our personal contexts, our preferences, our emotional maps, our sensation of color, the differences in our eyes, and likely the differences with which our brains process similar scenes all contribute to our individual interpretations of what we experience as reality. You can't avoid bringing yourself to the process. That's a good thing.
I have been exposed to the rules for 30 years and find many of them illogical with respect to how I see things. I have decided that instead of attempting to memorize rules I am making my own. That means trying to make photographs the same way I see nature.
I am in the process of writing this down to help me understand how I see things.
I have no ambition to sell photographs or become an artist. I just want to improve my ability to capture what I find worth recording.
When other people like my images, they are often not my own favorites. Last night I watched a camera club judging and was amazed at what the judges said. They like stuff I thought was terrible. I still got best of show and they raved over it. But it was my least favorite of the 4 I submitted. But all 4 of mine were just plain old fashioned photographs without any manipulation to make them unique for the jaded viewing audience.
I once heard a judge suggest placing a lunch box on the Wave to add interest. As if the Wave was not enough.
"I once heard a judge suggest placing a lunch box on the Wave to add interest. As if the Wave was not enough."
For the judge it probably wasn't enough. I was in a photography club more than 40 years ago. I found the club's monthly judging rather inane - not just for my images, but for most images. I realized I needed to follow my own muse. If I made my images to gain their approval *I* wouldn't like 'em. A few years ago I tried some FM weekly assignments, but too often could not fathom why a particular image might "win" when several other images I found much better did not. A difference in experience, taste and expectations, is my guess. When others like my images, great. If not, well, so be it. I photograph to satisfy my urge to express what I see and feel. It's a worthy end in itself. Any additional approval is just gravy, it's not the meat and potatoes of why I make images.
When I offer suggestions here, it's to try to help folks achieve their own vision. Sometimes I guess right about what they want to say. Sometimes I don't. Folks can pick and choose advice and, hopefully, grow their skills to better say what they want to say with their images. To me, that's what the critique forum ought to be about.
AuntiPode wrote:
When I offer suggestions here, it's to try to help folks achieve their own vision. Sometimes I guess right about what they want to say. Sometimes I don't. Folks can pick and choose advice and, hopefully, grow their skills to better say what they want to say with their images. To me, that's what the critique forum ought to be about.
Ditto
Judging ... really depends on what level the judge is judging on.
I auditioned for a talent show once as a magician. I had a "killer trick" that nobody could touch and it was my favorite. Sadly, I pulled it off so proficiently that the judges couldn't even realize what I had done and they passed on my "talent". I was only a teenager and it stung ... but I came to realize that the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" has more merit than many give credence to.
I occassionally play in the WA and enjoy it from time to time. I do so mostly to hone / test my skills and while votes & wins are fun, I mostly enjoy the comments from those I respect as being "knowledgeable judges" ... yet am probably my hardest critique. I know when I've achieved what I set out to do ... and when I've come up short ... with or without a judge to tell me so. I'm mostly suprised when I am well regarded by many more so than by few.
The nice thing about this forum is that I know that when I present ... I get honest feedback from our panel of "judges" that behold a range of what they/we/I constitute as good. Like Karen said ... we just offer up what we have to offer ... its everyone's personal decision whether to use it, lose it or put it aside for a rainy day. Sure makes rainy days less dreary when the light does finally come on.
Sounds like this is the forum for me. I joined the camera club for critique and found it wanting. I am getting much better stuff here and to tell the truth, I think the level here is higher.
At some point you need to become self-critical by establishing goals and criteria for success.
C&C is based on the criteria of the reviewer. When I comment I try to convey what criteria I am using to rate how effective I find the photo to be at creating the desired emotion reaction, based on my reaction.
Reactions vary based on preferences. Everyone will like a well executed photo of a pretty girl. But in some cases the reaction may be different than the photographer intended.
I remember a case where a mother learning portraiture posted a photo of her teen daughter in a tight white sweater on a dark background over on DPReview. The guys commented on for pages on how sexy she was. That confused the mother because she saw her kid differently and it wasn't her intent to make her look sexy. She couldn't understand what caused that reaction or how to prevent it.
I explained that the reason for the reaction was the fact the key light was aimed down on the girls chest with the face in darker shadows. The breasts contrasted more than the face, drawing more attention. Once the mother understood that a criteria for an effective convention portrait is to make the face contrast the most, she put more light on the face and the daughter in a darker sweater and it read less like the centerfold of Playboy and more like the senior photo she had intended.
Why didn't Mom see the problem? She only focused attention on the familiar face when looking at it and tuned out the distractions mentally. The viewers on the forum reacting to the clues in the photo focused on what contrasted the most with the background.
If you define goals and criteria like making the focal point of the face or one area of a landscape contrast the most what you will find happen is that while shooting you will keep the criteria in mind and avoid doing things that don't meet them. But then my criteria for an effective composition include having a focal point and making it contrast so it's easy to find. I compose a shot by first picked the focal point where I want the viewer to dwell then adjust the crop outwards from it until I see distractions pull my eye away. That way I wind up with a composition that pulls attention towards the focal point vs. away from it.
ben egbert wrote:
Last night I watched a camera club judging and was amazed at what the judges said. They like stuff I thought was terrible. I still got best of show and they raved over it. But it was my least favorite of the 4 I submitted. But all 4 of mine were just plain old fashioned photographs without any manipulation to make them unique for the jaded viewing audience.
I once heard a judge suggest placing a lunch box on the Wave to add interest. As if the Wave was not enough.
Sometimes you just wonder. At Art Center, I spent nearly every day for three years having my work critiqued. You get to know the likes and dislikes of your instructors, as well as how to put their comments in perspective. The critiques were much more frank (and honest) than what you'll see here. There were some crybabies who got offended. They washed out early.
I have judged numerous photography contests, both amateur and professional. Usually there's a panel of judges, that helps to even things out. I always liked judging with non-photographer artists, they brought a different perspective.
I'm with Karen, I try to critique based on the aims of the photographer. I try to help them further their vision, not impose my way of seeing on their work.
dmacmillan wrote:
I'm with Karen, I try to critique based on the aims of the photographer. I try to help them further their vision, not impose my way of seeing on their work.
Vision and technical factors are two different pieces for the same puzzle. The first relates to the message of the photo, the second to how well it is delivered.
A photographer might be blessed with good intuition for balance and composition by genetics and temperament and that will allow them to create images with a fresh point of view but they don't come into the world understanding how to operate a camera and lights, manage a color workflow, or tell a story effectively.
If a person posts a photo and I suggest an alternate crop or contrast adjustment I'm not trying to "change their vision" I'm just trying to show them options for improving it's delivery because the message they were trying to deliver didn't create the reaction they'd hoped for me.
Reactions vary based on personal biases so isn't it logical that those biases will be reflected in the critique. Ben likes corner to corner sharpness. Doug doesn't like the use of flash. I like symmetry and balance in facial angles and lighting patterns.
The best way to find out if you are doing something the most effective way is to try something different and compare the results. I give people the credit for being able to sort out what works best for them, what I suggest or the way they do it already.
If I suggest an alternate facial angle or lighting pattern when offering C&C is a way of asking them whether or not they notice those things when shooting. More often than not they don't or consider how the face would look if shot differently. They are best able to see this when they post six shots of the same face with different angles and lighting patterns and I can explain why #3 works better than #6 by comparision. They were all taken with the photographer "vision" thing. What am I doing by asking them to compare the differences and decide for themselves works best? Furthering and refining their vision.
Years ago I pointed out to a successful pro photographer that the far side of the face in nearly every obique view he took was acute to the point of disappearing from view. He's blew off the C&C saying that stuff didn't matter to him, he never follows rules — all the usual defenses — but six months later I noticed most of his obique views were more balanced. Just pointing out the situation caused him to notice it in ways he hadn't previously and after trying what suggested and comparing the results he must of liked it. Did I change his style? No. I just improved the delivery of it.
cgardner wrote:
Vision and technical factors are two different pieces for the same puzzle. The first relates to the message of the photo, the second to how well it is delivered.
A photographer might be blessed with good intuition for balance and composition by genetics and temperament and that will allow them to create images with a fresh point of view but they don't come into the world understanding how to operate a camera and lights, manage a color workflow, or tell a story effectively.
If a person posts a photo and I suggest an alternate crop or contrast adjustment I'm not trying to "change their vision" I'm just trying to show them options for improving it's delivery because the message they were trying to deliver didn't create the reaction they'd hoped for me.
Reactions vary based on personal biases so isn't it logical that those biases will be reflected in the critique. Ben likes corner to corner sharpness. Doug doesn't like the use of flash. I like symmetry and balance in facial angles and lighting patterns.
The best way to find out if you are doing something the most effective way is to try something different and compare the results. I give people the credit for being able to sort out what works best for them, what I suggest or the way they do it already.
If I suggest an alternate facial angle or lighting pattern when offering C&C is a way of asking them whether or not they notice those things when shooting. More often than not they don't or consider how the face would look if shot differently. They are best able to see this when they post six shots of the same face with different angles and lighting patterns and I can explain why #3 works better than #6 by comparision. They were all taken with the photographer "vision" thing. What am I doing by asking them to compare the differences and decide for themselves works best? Furthering and refining their vision.
Years ago I pointed out to a successful pro photographer that the far side of the face in nearly every obique view he took was acute to the point of disappearing from view. He's blew off the C&C saying that stuff didn't matter to him, he never follows rules — all the usual defenses — but six months later I noticed most of his obique views were more balanced. Just pointing out the situation caused him to notice it in ways he hadn't previously and after trying what suggested and comparing the results he must of liked it. Did I change his style? No. I just improved the delivery of it.
Good thoughts here. I hope I can figure out as much of this as possible when taking the image. I always feel like I have failed when I have to make too many changes in post processing. Bad enough that I have to fix all the camera short comings in post.
My personal quest for now is in making better compositional choices in the field. This could also include choosing better light or angle, but hopefully not too much post processing manipulation to add what was not there. I already do too much of that.
When I post an image here for critique, I am open to any and all suggestions, but I still have a personal vision to meet.
ben egbert wrote:
When I post an image here for critique, I am open to any and all suggestions, but I still have a personal vision to meet.
Precisely the attitude I recommend.
Just remember, with a nod to Doug's previous comment, for Ansel Adams, the post exposure processing of the negative and making the print were as vital as exposing the film. It isn't enough to capture the right photons with a piece of film or a solid state sensor. What happens after the capture is just as essential.
