PDA

View Full Version : pictures that break composition rules



BetterSense
6-Jul-2015, 07:51
I recall seeing some famous portraits with appendages cut off, perspective distortion, lines leading out of the frame, tops of heads cut off etc. Can you think of specific examples either from photography or painting that an art teacher may have scolded you for but nevertheless is famous?

Paul Metcalf
6-Jul-2015, 11:46
1) soft elements in composition (lack of DOF)
2) no soft elements in composition (too much DOF)
3) no black tones
4) too many/much black tones

Alan Klein
6-Jul-2015, 12:21
Well if the picture is of Winston Churchill, viewers won't notice. But if it's a picture of your kid brother, you better compose better.

RSalles
6-Jul-2015, 13:19
Ladies & gentlemen, prepare yourselves to the show of horrors...
:o

BetterSense, just kidding, even when braking the supposed rules I find myself on the path of rules or flexing its muscles.
Last week I saw a terrific shot here at the forum with a "reverse" rule applied which I just loved,

Cheers,

Renato

Kevin Crisp
6-Jul-2015, 14:40
I did not know there were rules to break.

jp
6-Jul-2015, 14:53
The only rules I had in high school art class were to be on time, don't ingest the photo chemicals, clean up after you're done, and don't misbehave enough to get sent to the principal's office.

Gertrude Kasebier's "Miss N" portrait is an interesting example of cut-off-head composition. It looks like the subject leaned forward to the camera/you after composition. Of course that's not the case as it would be out of focus with large format, but it still provokes that idea. Perfect abuse of contemporary academic composition, but masterful use of notan style of composition.

Wayne
6-Jul-2015, 16:39
I posted a picture on the trains thread a few years ago that someone said "broke a rule but worked anyway", but I didn't know the rule then and don't know it now.

Heroique
6-Jul-2015, 17:02
I posted a picture on the trains thread a few years ago that someone said "broke a rule but worked anyway", but I didn't know the rule then and don't know it now.

I think you should re-post your train right here.

All the well-meaning forum critics will happily identify the broken rule you're curious about, plus many more besides.

And I bet your image would be better than its critics. ;^)

jcoldslabs
6-Jul-2015, 17:06
I've always found this Steichen image to be visually striking despite--or beacuse of?--the fact that the background is in focus and subject isn't, not to mention the cropped head and torso.

http://kolstad.us/ebay/Steichen-Black-Vase.jpg

Jonathan

paulr
6-Jul-2015, 18:11
Does anyone even use the term rules of composition anymore? It's such an archaic idea.

We should at least agree that they're evolving all the time. Consider that Robert Frank was lambasted by photo critics for breaking all the rules with "The Americans." But for anyone who grew up after the '50s, that book defined half the rules.

Never mind Friedlander or Winogrand. They broke a lot of rules, but influenced at least three generations. Keep in mind those guys did much of their seminal work a half century ago. Looking farther backwards, what about the impressionists? The cubists? For at least the last 150 years, new rules were created by every generation. If you play by your grandfather's rules, you're probably not the one controlling the narrative.

[Edited to add: I am suspicious of anyone's claims to not know the rules. In art as in culture, the most powerful and controlling rules are often the insidious ones that no one articulates. Remember David Foster Wallace's point that fish don't know they're swimming in water. We should all beware of assumptions we make about "good" and "bad" photographs. Do we know what rules inform our intuitions on this? Are we open to questioning them?]

paulr
6-Jul-2015, 18:11
The only rules I had in high school art class were to be on time, don't ingest the photo chemicals, clean up after you're done, and don't misbehave enough to get sent to the principal's office.

Ok, those are still pretty good rules.

djdister
6-Jul-2015, 18:28
1) soft elements in composition (lack of DOF)
2) no soft elements in composition (too much DOF)
3) no black tones
4) too many/much black tones

Some more that I remember hearing long ago:
5) don't put the horizon exactly in the middle
6) don't put the subject dead center
7) avoid completely symmetrical compositions

Tim Meisburger
6-Jul-2015, 18:33
Opps... I cropped her head (4x5, Universal Heliar, 2012)
136459

Leszek Vogt
6-Jul-2015, 18:38
If the image works, does it matter that it follows the rules ?....or not ?

Les

djdister
6-Jul-2015, 18:49
Opps... I cropped her head (4x5, Universal Heliar, 2012)
136459

In motion picture work this would be an extreme close up, and completely within the rules of that format...

Iluvmyviewcam
6-Jul-2015, 20:35
Here is something I did on comp. (Most is not LF)

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/the-best-picture-rings-with-the-eye-as-the-right-chord-rings-with-the-ear/

bigdog
7-Jul-2015, 03:45
Cut her head off.

Amateur ... :rolleyes:

http://www.chemamadoz.com/images/gallery/original/A/A1.jpg

Tim Meisburger
7-Jul-2015, 07:24
Opps... I cropped her head (4x5, Universal Heliar, 2012)
136459

I actually broke two rules here (I guess I'm just a rebel). Not only did I crop her head, but the focus is on her skin rather than her eyes. At the time I wanted to echo and balance the texture and highlight on her skin with the texture and highlight on the black leather sofa on the right, but now I realise how truly wrong that was,

DrTang
7-Jul-2015, 07:58
Oh Oh


the background stand is showing

136476

Randy
7-Jul-2015, 08:24
Along with the "rule of thirds", I was instructed to have my subject facing "into the picture", not out of the picture...I just liked this more.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52893762/linda2a.jpg

jp
7-Jul-2015, 08:39
That's good Randy.

A common rule for the masses is to keep the sun behind you. I think it's a pretty nice composition item. It works for painting but people don't do it much in photography (aside from reactionary sunset photos) for reasons of dynamic range or technical simplicity.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8214/8340407618_6e0f5ea1f9_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/dH1LBm)img945 (https://flic.kr/p/dH1LBm) by Jason Philbrook (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/), on Flickrhttps://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8495/8340646826_0fefe7c7d0_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/dH2ZHC)img948 (https://flic.kr/p/dH2ZHC) by Jason Philbrook (https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/), on Flickr
and in smaller format: https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/19127907892/

I had someone get after me once for posting a square format photo in a square format flickr group that was a couple pixels shy of being square. I laughed and ignored them.

Toyon
7-Jul-2015, 08:46
Pretty callous stuff.


Here is something I did on comp. (Most is not LF)

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/05/17/the-best-picture-rings-with-the-eye-as-the-right-chord-rings-with-the-ear/

SergeiR
7-Jul-2015, 10:17
Most of pictures here do not break actual rules of composition, apart from Randy's and DrTang's :)

Most of cited things aren't more than "general wisdom" (e.g head cropping and center stuff). Its pretty darn hard to actually break composition rules and still have something that is even remotely memorable as image.

Jac@stafford.net
7-Jul-2015, 10:35
Along with the "rule of thirds", I was instructed to have my subject facing "into the picture", not out of the picture...I just liked this more.

Me, too. And it takes some class to dress so well for a gun fight.

136487

Looking off-camera, arm cut off, all kinds of errors.

jp
7-Jul-2015, 10:41
Me, too. And it takes some class to dress so well for a gun fight.

136487

Looking off-camera, arm cut off, all kinds of errors.

It's like "Christina's World" with a gleaming motorcycle, so that's cool. (The real Christina is also faced wrong for a portrait)

Peter Yeti
7-Jul-2015, 17:35
How many "rules" do I have to break in order to qualify?:)

I think Sergei is right, most of these things are guidelines from experience and common sense how images are preceived. It's hard to ignore them entirely and still get a good picture. On the other hand, rules are for the weak, incapable of seeing or feeling what works and what doesn't. What counts in the end is only the impact an image has on the viewer, not the rules it obeys or breaks.

Peter

Jac@stafford.net
7-Jul-2015, 18:23
It's like "Christina's World" ... (The real Christina is also faced wrong for a portrait)

Christina was blind, so the stress of knowing that, and that she was facing home, listening to the breeze in the field, the plants moving against the wind and themselves make that painting just perfect for me. Profound ambivalence, looking inward in bright daylight. It is one of the most important illustrations I've enjoyed.

Best,
JS

RSalles
7-Jul-2015, 18:24
A portrait from the back without the portrayed person's face does qualify?

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/353/18566393598_e6ae6d2c7e_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/uhDBYs)_MG_7506-Pes_2015_WEB (https://flic.kr/p/uhDBYs) by Renato Salles (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sallesrenato/), no Flickr

Cheers,

Renato

Alan Klein
7-Jul-2015, 19:56
Me, too. And it takes some class to dress so well for a gun fight.

136487

Looking off-camera, arm cut off, all kinds of errors.

Although she's looking out of the frame, you succeeded in creating a very balanced picture. The barn balances against the weight of the girl and fills in what would otherwise be a very negative area. The bike is in the middle and the power pole also balances it all out. It's all pretty static. Actually, if you left the barn out, you;d have even more tension added to the girl looking out of the picture. The "rules" often provide for a more aesthetic picture because the 'rules" just reflect what our brains find attractive in the first place. It's like saying that the rule for a tasty meal is to added sugar or salt. The rule only reflects what our palettes already find tasty. However, if your picture is trying to say something different, let's say you're aiming for tension, then breaking the rules of aesthetics is a good move. It comes down to what you re trying to say with the picture and what it's purpose is.

Wayne
7-Jul-2015, 20:27
Broken rule: Monkeys should never compose self-portraits

136518

h2oman
8-Jul-2015, 05:01
Along with the "rule of thirds", I was instructed to have my subject facing "into the picture", not out of the picture...I just liked this more.

One could argue that she is in fact "looking" into the frame, as it appears she is thinking about the possibility of someone over her shoulder. To me, that is why the image works.

paulr
8-Jul-2015, 07:19
If the image works, does it matter that it follows the rules ?....or not ?

Les

Someone would have to ridiculously pedantic, and probably from another century, to say no. Which is why calling anything like this a "rule" is just confusing.

My dad's boss in advertising, the late David Ogilvy, had all kinds of guidelines for making an ad work. But he yelled at employees who called them rules:
"Tools, not rules, you fools!"

Those old rules of composition could be useful as diagnostic tools. If an image doesn't seem to work (let's leave aside for know what that might mean), then you can use these tools to help figure out why.

There's also a more sophisticated way to think about them. These rules were established during the Renaissance, based largely on the way art from 2000 years earlier looked. The neo-classical and renaissance esthetics were about solidness, stillness, balance, and calm: all compositional tensions resolved.

In the 21st century, we're past the time when people assumed art had to have those qualities. But we can use the old rules as tools. If we know, for example that person on the edge of the frame looking into the picture gives a sense of stillness and balance, then we can likewise use that information to create a bit of tension: have her face the other way.

This isn't "breaking a rule" except in the most pedantic sense. It's just using what we've learned about how pictures work. Using that knowledge to make a picture work the way you want it to.


[edited to add]
There are parallels in music with the rules of harmony that came out of the baroque period. Following them helped make music that was satisfying, by the standards of tension and resolution that defined the esthetics of the period. But by modern times, composers figured out that you could play any note against any chord, and you could do it effectively if you understood the tension you'd create, and where it was trying to resolve. The old rules could still help you understand those tensions. But they no longer told you what to do with them.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Jul-2015, 08:06
Someone would have to ridiculously pedantic, and probably from another century, to say no. Which is why calling anything like this a "rule" is just confusing. [...]

My gosh, this brings back the memories of scholarly tomes which, regardless of the authors' fine efforts, just annoy the hell out of me largely because they are so easy to refute in order to make more scholarship! I tend to a somewhat scientific approach regarding visual processing unavailable to the language center.

One part of a theory that still makes me wince is like something from Dead Poets Society. The author claimed (or cited, I cannot remember) how the upper part of a picture represents the ideal, and the lower the real, for example a picture with billowing clouds over an ordinary landscape. He went on to claim that the left section is fact, the right supportive materials. I wish he were my art instructor so that I could so easily mess with his head, or whatever that lump was behind his eyes.

Then there is a book first written as a thesis of a theory of the language (not mathematically) and impression conferred by shapes. I'm saved from recalling the title and author by my hostility. :) He began by claiming that symmetry says nothing interesting because it has no history, for example, a soft-drink can. A crushed can, however, does say something because its new shape indicates history, an incident.

Enough. I must rush off to my monthly probation appointment. Should have never given a history to that bloke's head.
.

RSalles
8-Jul-2015, 09:15
Rules, rules, bad or good rules... Things I have to mention that worth to mention are the books of Kandinski about how colors, shapes, lines and forms works in a canvas relate to each other, or taking a picture upside down as Cartier-Bresson usually did to see if it stands.
If a picture is composed with visual elements, and these elements can be reduced to it's simplest forms, it's a matter of artistic taste, a pint of intelligence and some knowledge to start to figure out the prime forces which drives those elements inside the frame. I remember the old adagio of Edward Weston: the best composition is the strongest.

Cheers,

Renato

Toyon
8-Jul-2015, 10:37
It's like "Christina's World" with a gleaming motorcycle, so that's cool. (The real Christina is also faced wrong for a portrait)

Except "Christina's World" wasn't about some chippie wearing advertising.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Jul-2015, 11:26
Except "Christina's World" wasn't about some chippie wearing advertising.

Sure it ain't. (http://www.digoliardi.net/christinas-other-world.jpg)

jp
8-Jul-2015, 11:42
Except "Christina's World" wasn't about some chippie wearing advertising.

I live about 10-15 miles away from the location of the painting and it's a popular activity for local people to go to the site and spoof the painting in some silly way with a friend and a camera. I've seen a variety of spoofs.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Jul-2015, 12:01
I live about 10-15 miles away from the location of the painting [...] I've seen a variety of spoofs.

Not Christina, but ... spoof (http://www.digoliardi.net/sargent_pepper.jpg) ....

Toyon
8-Jul-2015, 12:35
Sure it ain't. (http://www.digoliardi.net/christinas-other-world.jpg)

Why don't you read about Christina and the making of the picture. Its easy to draw facile (and erroneous) conclusions.

Jac@stafford.net
8-Jul-2015, 14:53
Except "Christina's World" wasn't about some chippie wearing advertising.

I know about the creation of Chistina's World and respect it always, have since I was much younger. It is a wonderful painting in so many respects.

I gather you are objecting to the commercial marque of my photo.
Yes, I agree with you, but commercialism was not the intent.
It was something about the era in which it was made.

Best,
Jac

Kirk Gittings
8-Jul-2015, 14:59
https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/strand-town-hall.jpg

Kirk Gittings
8-Jul-2015, 15:08
I did not know there were rules to break.

There shouldn't be but there are.

Peter Lewin
8-Jul-2015, 19:21
Kirk: I'm not sure anything from Strand's "Time In New England" can break the rules! I thought that if anything, the icons of photography were the ones who defined the rules... (Or variants might be, "If Paul Strand can't break the rules, who can?" or "Far be it from me to criticize Paul Strand!")

jp
8-Jul-2015, 20:08
My Mortensen 1946 copy of "On the negative" seems written to a intermediate skilled audience and Mortensen discourages soft photos and puts forth lotsa rules. I guarantee it's a case of do as I say not as I do. His "The Model" book is clearly helpful advice and not hard rules though and is written to a more advanced audience.

Kirk Gittings
9-Jul-2015, 07:26
Kirk: I'm not sure anything from Strand's "Time In New England" can break the rules! I thought that if anything, the icons of photography were the ones who defined the rules... (Or variants might be, "If Paul Strand can't break the rules, who can?" or "Far be it from me to criticize Paul Strand!")

maybe it's break the "norms".

Toyon
9-Jul-2015, 07:39
I know about the creation of Chistina's World and respect it always, have since I was much younger. It is a wonderful painting in so many respects.

I gather you are objecting to the commercial marque of my photo.
Yes, I agree with you, but commercialism was not the intent.
It was something about the era in which it was made.

Best,
Jac

I don't object to the commercial marque. The Wyeth painting contains a powerful meaning in an original image. The photograph uses familiar tropes and symbols with a message of hedonistic vacuity. Clever by being in its way of being the antithesis of the Wyeth picture. The woman, essetentially a mindless bearer of a borrowed corporate personality. The bike a potent symbol of simulated, purchased manhood. The fields and barns - someone else's labor and someone else's world. A good photograph.

SergeiR
10-Jul-2015, 13:40
Guys.. :) I am sure we all can use google here.. Seriously - there are rules of composition, they been developed prior to days of photography and continuously upgraded. Its virtually impossible to break them and yet have picture that would be memorable.

Now there are plenty of general guidelines and "folks wisdom" in photographers world - that been going on/off with trends. Like "everything should be tack sharp" "there should be always rule of thirds positioning" "people should not look away from frame" and so on. Those we can outplay and every generation got its own heroes that go and do.

But truly classical rules - good look figuring out how to make good picture without having contrast. Or making something that would be totally out of paths. Or something that wouldn't have at least white/black patterns and so on :)

IMHO - its easier to concentrate on shooting than on trying to breaking something ;) But then what would i know , right.

Kirk Gittings
10-Jul-2015, 16:10
http://www.markrothko.org/images/paintings/orange-and-yellow.jpg http://tripoligallery.vaesite.net/__data/3b239672912be612b8e09b9def6f2d08.jpg

Jac@stafford.net
10-Jul-2015, 17:10
Guys.. :) I am sure we all can use google here..

That is an impoverished way to pursue knowledge as it concerns art.


Seriously - there are rules of composition, they been developed prior to days of photography and continuously upgraded. Its virtually impossible to break them and yet have picture that would be memorable.

I accept that accept that as a challenge, and I am certain many other will, too.

RSalles
10-Jul-2015, 21:10
That is an impoverished way to pursue knowledge as it concerns art.



I accept that accept that as a challenge, and I am certain many other will, too.

Without rules, no challenge, no ref point to go nor toward neither against it. That's what we're talking about, or something else as nihilism in art?

Cheers,

Renato

Emil Schildt
11-Jul-2015, 06:54
One of my old teachers said: "There are no rules.... Break them"... :)

sun of sand
13-Jul-2015, 21:50
I recall seeing some famous portraits with appendages cut off, perspective distortion, lines leading out of the frame, tops of heads cut off etc. Can you think of specific examples either from photography or painting that an art teacher may have scolded you for but nevertheless is famous?



Are you entirely sure this exact thread hasn't already hsppened

Deja vu from beginning but
Appendages cut off about sealed it
Positive its been done

sun of sand
13-Jul-2015, 22:06
Again
Cause I'm sure I'm right

There are no rules
They are guides
Helpful hints
Beginner exercises

The only rule
Balance


The striking non portrait is great because the composition is great
Its not a portrait
Its a composition of elements one of which happens to be the figure of a woman

F the entire roundness of the head were displayed it would subtract from the background etc

Appendages
No, they're not. They are merely shapes.

You could call it abstraction
Geometric abstraction

Callahansphoto with telephone out the head of Eleanor
Oopsies
Bad portrait
Its not really a portrait. Its a composition.

paulr
14-Jul-2015, 12:23
The only rule
Balance


I wouldn't even go that far. "Balance" is an esthetic value. Probably the central one of classicism. But most avant-garde movements have defined themselves in opposition to classicism, so in those esthetic worlds, off-balance is a more likely rule. In contemporary work, balance is more likely to be seen as one option among many.

djdister
14-Jul-2015, 12:27
Here's a hypothetical:

It is important to understand the rules of composition, before you set out to deliberately break them.

True or false?

pdh
14-Jul-2015, 12:54
The answer to that one rather depends on how wedded one is to orthodoxy and tradition.

In 1910, Hartmann was writing in Camera Work about the possibility of discovering ( creating?) new laws of composition ...

evan clarke
15-Jul-2015, 17:59
This whole thread is silly.

pdh
16-Jul-2015, 00:57
It is silly because ... ?

Kirk Gittings
16-Jul-2015, 05:05
I wouldn't even go that far. "Balance" is an esthetic value. Probably the central one of classicism. But most avant-garde movements have defined themselves in opposition to classicism, so in those esthetic worlds, off-balance is a more likely rule. In contemporary work, balance is more likely to be seen as one option among many.

"balance" is not necessarily symmetry.

paulr
16-Jul-2015, 05:59
"balance" is not necessarily symmetry.

Sure. My impression is that the classical ideal involved a sense of balance, which may or may not have involved symmetry. Symmetry is a geometric property; balance is a subjective one. I'd characterize it a sense that all the visual tensions are resolved, and so the elements of the image appear to be sitting comfortably within the frame.

This ideal of balance saw a lot of challenges during the Romantic era, and got blown off the wall in 20th Century. But not by everyone. The American formal modernists made pictures had ideas that strike me as classicist. Weston, for instance. His democratic subject matter was modern, but much of his sense of form, and his talk of ideal forms in nature, go straight back to ancient greece.

paulr
16-Jul-2015, 06:07
I'm working on a book of pictures of an abandoned factory. During the editing, I noticed pictures with at least three different esthetics: straight up architectural (which is textbook classicism); documentary pictures where the formal qualities aren't especially assertive; and formally experimental ones that challenge classical ideas of balance and coherence. The last group was the most fun and interesting for me, and was also the most natural expression of the factory itself, which had a crazy density of detail and complex space.

It's going to be interesting getting these different kinds of pictures to play well together.

Iluvmyviewcam
16-Jul-2015, 06:14
nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/upside-down/

sun of sand
16-Jul-2015, 16:34
I don't believe an imbalanced image any art form will prove to be a good one

It may be pretty good but there will always be a tension within it that holds it back
You probably think you're challenging rules/ideals but in reality they're probably just your norms


But seriously
How many threads full of "wonderful" dialogue and yet still obviously little understanding

Time to try something else imo

Alan Klein
16-Jul-2015, 20:01
You may want tension in a picture for editorial reasons, making a point or getting someone uncomfortable. Of course you'll know better how to do this if you know the rules that makes them feel more relaxed and happier which comes from looking at an aesthetically balanced picture.

sun of sand
16-Jul-2015, 21:24
Wife makes a beautiful dinner of baked ziti homemade sauce and sausage and garlic bread
Then husband with little dumb husband brain picks up parmesan cheese in a can that you shake onto your food

Tension

Almost
But that cheap cheese ruins it.
Still goodnuff
But not as good as it could have been
IOW ruined

The shaker cheese will never be the star of the show no matter how you try to play it


Take a look at all the elements in the harry Callahan Chicago photo. Telephone pole portrait.
Tell us how they all work together to balance the composition

If balance is too abstract perhaps
weight
will work better for some or in some instances

Equal and opposite
Cantilever
Negative space

Learn to see weight and the "rules" will appear

Leading lines
If the rest of the elements aren't in balance with how that line has divided the space it won't work

Leszek Vogt
16-Jul-2015, 23:53
Despite The shaker cheese the hubby personalized his experience.....to his taste. It may not be to yours or his wife's taste.


Hmmm, photography is similar....once one get the standards...one does not need to follow the herd....and can develop (no pun intended) their own style. This works for me.

Les

sun of sand
17-Jul-2015, 06:07
Sounds sophisticated but show me something to prove it



From all time

SergeiR
17-Jul-2015, 07:34
That is an impoverished way to pursue knowledge as it concerns art.
I accept that accept that as a challenge, and I am certain many other will, too.

By all means ;)

SergeiR
17-Jul-2015, 07:35
"balance" is not necessarily symmetry.

Yup. Also it has relation to at least three types of contrast in composition ;)

sun of sand
17-Jul-2015, 08:11
Here is an example I just found as this was bothering me

This guy attempts to see weight after reading a blog and is doing a pretty good job

He shows a photo taken from under a pier
Printed well. Seen well. Great shot, it seems.
He himself notices something about that others may not like about it
But I think he's wrong about the issue
- of there being too much space on the left.

The problem is not enough weight on the right
But that isn't the photo he wants to create.u
So what do you to resolve the tension?

Great looking pic. Lively? All the ripples and contrast and wave
How can you make it even more dynamic and fix the imbalance at the same time

In my opinion7
Crop up from the bottom to rid most of the foremost pillars shadow
Crop off the right most pillar or even the two on that side
Crop from the top a little as well

Instantly more powerful
Isn't it?

The barely felt static created by the 3 pillars of same size across the middle is gone
Leading line becomes much stronger
The large background wave becomes more prominent, I think
instead of being an otherwise lost "add on" you search for
The shadow on foremost pillar equals shadow on pier ceiling


I think its much more effective with that crop and he still has the photo he wanted

http:// imagesbyeduardo.com/main/story-telling/imbalance-in-composition

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 09:29
Here's one that I absolutely love, from Mike Smith's "You're Note From Around Here."

Full of crazy tensions and surprises and deliberate sabotages of traditional spacial rendering. He might even be out-Friedlandering Friedlander here.

137025

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 09:41
That's a fun shot, Paul. But a number of people were "out-Friedlandering" Friedlander a long time ago.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 09:58
That's a fun shot, Paul. But a number of people were "out-Friedlandering" Friedlander a long time ago.

Show me an example.

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 10:03
The 70's,Paul, the 70's. Piles of pictures back then. Even me. I never have figured out what the big deal with Friedlander was. Connections I guess.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 10:26
I never have figured out what the big deal with Friedlander was.

Well, I have.

If you don't get Friedlander, I don't know how you can have an opinion on people who did what he did. I can't name anyone working working in the 70s (or ever) who did what he did, did it well, and did it with any consistency.

Jac@stafford.net
17-Jul-2015, 10:35
If you don't get Friedlander, I don't know how you can have an opinion on people who did what he did. I can't name anyone working working in the 70s (or ever) who did what he did, did it well, and did it with any consistency. Indeed. L. Friedlander floored me when I (think) I got it. His pictures were about the world, not about pictures.

More not-composition. Title: "All I really saw that day" :)

137036

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 11:01
Indeed. L. Friedlander floored me when I (think) I got it. His pictures were about the world, not about pictures.

He did so many different kinds of things. I think a lot of his work, on some level, was about pictures. Szarkowski described his approach as being a kind of game, to see if each picture could be put together using a set of visual rules never used before. So the rules of the game, by their nature, changed with every click of the shutter (I'd quote him directly, but my copy of Looking at Photographs is in storage).

I don't think this describes all Friedlander's work by a long shot. But it fits the bodies of work i return to most often. Some samples from the web ...

137037

137040

137043

137044

He's probably the most prolific photographer to answer a thread like this, since his work didn't reject formal principles as much as play with them and poke at them endlessly.

Jac@stafford.net
17-Jul-2015, 11:08
You are right. He did a lot with composition. The triangle sign with a crown of clouds and evergreen lieutenants ...
Thanks for bringing it back.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 11:31
It's fun revisiting his work. Almost overwhelming. Of course you post a million of his portraits, or motel room pictures, or jazz musician magazine pics, etc. that don't play with form in any of these ways.

I wish people would pay more attention to his yosemite pics. After a 100 years of pictures of the place seeming like they came out of the same rule book, Friedlander's are refreshing.

137045

137046

137047

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 11:51
Just looks like tons of other tricks from the early 70's that I've seen elsewhere. Maybe the way he poked fun a little less blatantly than others - how you kinda
trip over it unexpectedly in certain images - is what made him attractive. I dunno. Not saying these things aren't interesting, but... And titling this thread about
"breaking" composition rules is nonsense to begin with. Not all of us share the same rules as a paint by numbers hobby store kit.

Lenny Eiger
17-Jul-2015, 11:58
Show me an example.

The first person to split the frame vertically was Stieglitz. He probably wasn't the first, but it caused such a great stir, with people asking how he could do such a thing, etc., that he is considered the first...

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 12:11
One who have to be quite a researcher with hard dates to figure out who influence who, and even then a lot of guessing involved. I was a bit
shocked the other nite when a PBS documentary "discovered" an allegedly brilliant mid-century muralist and half the signature pieces were literally copied from my aunt's work a decade earlier. In this case, I've seen the work sketches and could hypothetically prove outright
plagiarism. But why rain on anyone's parade at this point. My aunt would have been flattered anyway, if she were still alive. But in terms
of these photo genres, I've seen prints where Carleton Watkins divided space like this a century before (though finding copies in a book aren't
likely), and gosh, painters decades and decades earlier. Harry Callahan was doing things in color reminiscent, if a bit tentatively. A flood of it
was happening here on the West Coast, mostly in color. Most of that has been forgotten, even if it got academic attention at the time. As usual,
New Yorkers think they invented or discovered everything there and nowhere else. Or perhaps more fairly, the demographic latches more onto
pictures with human subjects in the composition, while so much done in the West utilizes landscape themes, even when the compositional
strategies are analogous.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 12:19
Just looks like tons of other tricks from the early 70's that I've seen elsewhere.

Then you're seeing imitations of Friedlander.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 12:23
The first person to split the frame vertically was Stieglitz. He probably wasn't the first, but it caused such a great stir, with people asking how he could do such a thing, etc., that he is considered the first...

I think you'll find examples this in the 19th century if you look for a little bit. At any rate, this only hints at the spatial and perspective games played by Mike Smith and Friedlander.

FWIW, bisecting the frame isn't so uncommon or interesting (except that it goes against what grade school art teachers advise), but creating compositions that confuse spatial rendering with the picture frame offers a lot of possibilities. Stieglitz does that a bit here. Smith and Friedlander get it going on several levels at once.

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 12:25
Doubt that very very much, Paul. I think it's the other way around. Sure, he put his own tricks into it. But once these things get in the air, they catch on like wildfire, so hard to say who influenced who. Just like Pop art slightly before, which partially inspired this poke fun of the establishment thing. Now it's the establishment, the oppressive Ottoman Empire ripe to be forgotten. Anyway, what did it ever do that Dada didn't?

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 12:34
Doubt that very very much, Paul. I think it's the other way around.

Show some evidence. I don't think you're respecting the influence Friedlander had on all his contemporaries.

Here are some places to start, if you want clues: Atget. Walker Evans. And F's contemporaries ... Callahan (who you mentioned), Shore, Eggleston, and Winogrand. You'll find some similarities and antecedents, but I don't think you're going to find anyone who took things as far as he did, did it at well as he did, did it with his sophistication, or with his consistency.

If you disagree, share some links. You've already confessed to not getting F's work, so you can understand my skepticism toward your having anything to add here.

Alan Gales
17-Jul-2015, 12:34
I got into a discussion about rules with another forum member once. He felt that they exist only for neophytes. I feel that they exist for everyone. I see them as guidelines to help but as you become a better photographer or artist you learn when to break the rules. Sometimes breaking the rules just looks right like the photographs in this thread.

Anyway, rules or no rules it's all opinion. What looks good looks good.

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 13:37
Pontificating has its limits, Paul. I was thinking more of late 19th C and early 20th precedents. But trends do get forgotten and reinvented. But not much is truly
original or creative for the sake of creativity worships, as in Western Modernism (which you'll no doubt have fifty shades of convoluted alternate terms for).
But per photographic constructivism long before Friedlander - Sheeler, conspicuously. Then Watkins well before that, though those particular images might not have
gain enough currency to become a wide influence. Like I already pointed out, the best of them might never have been published. In New York, anything without
stomped bubble gum on it gets dismissed as Rock's n' Trees these days. Fine with me - rocks will still be around even if there's a nuke war.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 13:52
Show me the Sheeler images you're talking about. Or the Watkins images. I'm very familiar with their work and can't think of anything that prefigures the Friedlander esthetic under discussion.

This "the rest of them might not have been published" hedge stinks of your usual retreat when anyone asks for evidence.

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 15:25
Paul.. I entered this arena as a color photographer, so might not be correct about the timing of Friedlander's influence in the monochrome "street photographer"
sense. Color allows certain other spatial strategies, which painters were obsessed with long before Friedlander was ever born. And plays on spatial ambiguity were
common with certain photographers in ca. the 1920's. If you're not aware of that, then do your own homework. I was doing big color prints with very complex
spatial ambiguities before I ever heard of ANY of the above - even displaying them, but will probably never show them on the web, because that would castrate
every nuance that make them work to begin. As usual, you're displaying the typical NYC arrogance that if it's not the current conversation in a Starbucks there,
it must not exist.

paulr
17-Jul-2015, 15:54
I was doing big color prints with very complex spatial ambiguities before I ever heard of ANY of the above - even displaying them, but will probably never show them on the web, because that would castrate every nuance that make them work to begin.

Ok, so we'll all accept that YOU are the unheralded source of inspiration for Friedlander's genius. No wonder you're mad. And how tragic that your work depends on subtleties that a medium as coarse as the web could never convey. That must feel very lonely.



As usual, you're displaying the typical NYC arrogance that if it's not the current conversation in a Starbucks there, it must not exist.

I have no idea what this sentence means. If you're ever actually in NYC, I'll promise not to take you a Starbucks. No opinion about the state of conversation there, but the coffee's pretty bad.

Drew Wiley
17-Jul-2015, 16:21
No. I was going about it from a completely different direction, with different background influences, mainly painters, even if subconscious. Gosh, Paul... I sure hope
the web isn't your only standard of evidence. People knew how to make the equivalent of flip-card moving images of animals on cave walls 40,000 years ago. New York didn't even exist yet. Nor did the web.

Alan Klein
17-Jul-2015, 17:56
Today, 11:11 #70
sun of sand


It's not the crop. He should have aimed more to the right or moved himself to the right to get a different perspective. This is why it's so important to try to get it right in the camera. Cropping doesn't always help. The correct perspective often cannot be corrected afterwards.

Jim Jones
18-Jul-2015, 06:32
It's not adherence to the rules that makes great photographs. Those rules are tweaked, often by non-photographers, to conform to great photographs. This has long been true in the other arts. Sometimes this tweaking lags many thousands of years after the original creative works, as in Altamira and Lascaux. Ignoring the rules frees the artist for creating the most innovative work. Blatantly breaking the rules may give others notoriety, a poor substitute for lasting fame.

sun of sand
18-Jul-2015, 07:21
Too bad proper lines are never drawn regarding rudeness

And there isn't any innovation in art
Its all stolen
You may have a considerable break as in abstract painting where abstraction of the figurative turned completely non figurative
But who created the first abstract?
I bet we don't even know. Someone stole it from a nobody.
Then it took decades to be formally announced as having arrived on the scene


Instead of giving examples bring someone in you can trust and ask them whether you can break the ultimate rule of balance and get anything good
Well, great.
Good is judged by too many who have not yet tried to understand balance carefully

You're not breaking rules
You're graduating from shorthand to script

paulr
18-Jul-2015, 09:33
And there isn't any innovation in art
Its all stolen

This thesis would require a very shallow reading of the word 'innovation.'

Oren Grad
18-Jul-2015, 09:40
And there isn't any innovation in art
Its all stolen
You may have a considerable break as in abstract painting where abstraction of the figurative turned completely non figurative
But who created the first abstract?
I bet we don't even know. Someone stole it from a nobody.

Turtles all the way down?

jp
18-Jul-2015, 13:48
The first person to split the frame vertically was Stieglitz. He probably wasn't the first, but it caused such a great stir, with people asking how he could do such a thing, etc., that he is considered the first...

He and many of the pictorialists of that group were influenced by Whistler (1872-1875 range):
137104

In Mike Weaver's "Alvin Langdon Coburn Symbolist Photographer" book, Hiroshige's "Kyobashi Bridge" from 1857 is also referenced for a source of Whistler's composition. It was a woodblock, so it had been potentially copied for distribution around the world. Many pictorialist photographers had copies of Japanese prints and were influenced by them.

137105

RSalles
18-Jul-2015, 14:42
Too bad proper lines are never drawn regarding rudeness

And there isn't any innovation in art
Its all stolen
You may have a considerable break as in abstract painting where abstraction of the figurative turned completely non figurative
But who created the first abstract?
I bet we don't even know. Someone stole it from a nobody.
Then it took decades to be formally announced as having arrived on the scene


Instead of giving examples bring someone in you can trust and ask them whether you can break the ultimate rule of balance and get anything good
Well, great.
Good is judged by too many who have not yet tried to understand balance carefully

You're not breaking rules
You're graduating from shorthand to script

One of the first that I know is Kandinski, circa 1903. And it was absolutely intentional, and based on his own studies about color, shapes, lines, plane, weight, complementary colors, etc. His work is everything you want but not "stolen" in any manner neither accidental. IMHO he was one of the guys which opened an entire universe in art terms and was immediately recognized by many painters like Paul Klee and Picasso, just to name few,

Cheers,

Renato

Jac@stafford.net
18-Jul-2015, 19:08
But who created the first abstract? I bet we don't even know.

Who created the creator? See how it is?

sun of sand
18-Jul-2015, 20:46
Cezanne was pretty abstract but still representational
Cubism was still representational but borrowed heavily from Cezanne and I frankly don't care for cubism
abstraction as we know it around 1910/11
One of my favorite artists is frantisek kupka
His among others work was coined orphism and was the accepted first break from reality into complete abstraction

But did Cezanne steal from someone
Was Cezanne the first to be accepted as working in that style while pulling it off somewhat successfully
I would put money on it. Did Picasso invent cubism or did he see something in somones work somewhere that had that look to it but was still yet in that artist n its infancy and unacknowledgeable.
So while one artist is exploring an idea which borrowed from something else here is Picasso at first glance diving directly into that cubist language and developing it while the other guy is wrestling with where his work is taking him


I think its a disservice to art to deny the evolution of it and instead try and determine who came up with what

That's like giving the guy who first put ketchup on a hamburger credit as the man who invented the modern hamburger
He just slightly altered something that already existed
And someone else in all likely hood beat him to it by 3 years only they weren't noticed and he got the idea from a grandmother in carolina anyway who served patties in a tomato sauce and saw little kids spooning some onto slices of bread

Egg 1st
Is a hamburger a hamburger
North america was pretty well discovered before any European ship drifted ashore
What counts and what doesnt

N Dhananjay
18-Jul-2015, 22:24
Turtles all the way down?

:) Which also begs the question why isn't it elephants all the way down? Except I suppose elephants don't swim through space....

Robert Langham
19-Jul-2015, 12:51
Rules apply after the photograph is complete, but not before.

137125

Barn Owl, 1987

David Lobato
19-Jul-2015, 15:40
Compositional rules generally support harmony and order. But breaking the rules results in a dissonance that can be part of one's vision.

Alan Klein
20-Jul-2015, 09:01
Compositional rules generally support harmony and order. But breaking the rules results in a dissonance that can be part of one's vision.

+1

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 09:48
There is really no doubt who first came up with abstraction. Kandinsky. We even know the exact painting, and it was not an accident by any means. There were
plenty of precedents from himself and Cezanne especially, but actually crossing the line required some boldness. There is not such thing as an abstract photograph.
Certain subjects might be abstraction-inspired; but if a lens was pointed at them, they're real things, not abstractions. Photosensitive materials might can hypothetically be used completely apart from any subject; but then it would be difficult to call them photographs at all.

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 10:39
Drew soooooo
..... what if someone constructs something solely for the purpose of making an abstract photograph. See my friend's album "Vanishing Point" http://philipaugustin.com/
http://philipaugustin.com/New%20Website/Portfolios/Vanishing%20Point/13-060-06L.jpg

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 11:06
Then I wouldn't personally call it a photograph. Maybe someone would. Painting with light perhaps. Unfortunately, nowadays we have Fauxtoshop too, to further
blur the line, for people too lazy to actually paint. But taxonomy is never a precise science. Abstraction in its strict sense never involves a visible object, except
in the imagination. Photographers go out and see patterns in nature and so forth and label it abstract subject matter, but it isn't. Analogously, others see scatters
of lichen color or whatever and mimic what J.Pollack did with paint drips, but it's not the same mindset at all. If he hadn't done it first, they never would have noticed something like that to begin with. But they found it - he created it. Whole different game. In some ways, it's harder to find it; but sheer creativity generally
lands squarely in the painter's ball court.

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 11:17
Ok one more time......someone builds something abstract for the purpose of photographing it, they photograph it and make a print (in Phillips case a silver print) and you wouldn't call it a photograph? Really.

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 11:32
No. Absolutely not, Kirk. They photographed it. They built a tangible, visible set or model, focused upon it. It was there, and therefore not an abstraction in sense Kandinsky first broke that threshold, as defined by the precedent of painting. The model might be an abstraction, in the sense of a collage or sculpture. But the photograph of it isn't.

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 11:42
... of course, that is a rule to be broken too. Don Worth made shadow boxes with collages and porcelain plates at flowers. The flowers were obviously perishable.
But otherwise, one was just left wondering why he bothered. The big Ciba prints from the 8x10 chromes were wonderfully detailed due to such a shallow depth
of field; but why didn't he just build the shadow box and leave it at that? But that was a kinda obvious cul-de-sac. I've got an equipment customer who makes huge intricate origami-style sculptures out precisely cut and folded aircraft aluminum honeycomb panel, which in turn have 3-D iridescent hologram photographs
printed on them. Expensive commissioned work, of course. How do you classify it. I dunno. If I photographed something like that, it would still be a photograph.

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 12:05
No. Absolutely not, Kirk. They photographed it. They built a tangible, visible set or model, focused upon it. It was there, and therefore not an abstraction in sense Kandinsky first broke that threshold, as defined by the precedent of painting. The model might be an abstraction, in the sense of a collage or sculpture. But the photograph of it isn't.

Actually the Kandinsky threshold is likely a phantom.http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/articles/first-abstract-artist-and-its-not-kandinsky Who knows how many other people were out there experimenting that never made it into the art history books. Kids for example just playing with color and shape for the hell of it.

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 12:20
I don't think so, Kirk. That link had distinct subject matter in it, flowers. Kandinsky was conspicuously edging up to something incrementally, conceptually, along
with others like Cezanne and the Fauvists. I'm even more fond of when he was almost to the finish line than over it. It wasn't about mere quilt patterns. There
was a level of genius to it, not accident. I'm sure you or I could go out and find some petroglyphs and call that "abstract", but it still wouldn't be the same thing,
any more than tic-tac-toe crosshatches. I've got one of those fun "Why Cat's Paint" calendars. No cat is Kandinsky. Who knows what they're thinking when someone sticks their paw in paint and has them swat a piece of paper - maybe killing birds and watching the feathers fly? One of my cats swats the TV screen anytime a bird documentary is on. Otherwise, she completely ignores TV. No cat is a starving artist. They expect to be fed for no work at all.

RSalles
20-Jul-2015, 12:30
Kirk,

I understand otherwise, abstractionism being another thing but not figurative... If it's from a person, a portrait, if an object, a still life, from a nature scenery, a landscape.

It have been a real issue for figurative painters when photography became "the exact representation of the object perceived" in terms of shapes, light, shadows, and so on. Their calm and assured way of life as a figurative painters has been shaken deeply with the advent of the photography. We can understand the necessity of these artists going toward a path each time farther from the purely descriptive painting, searching for new perception characteristics other then the exact replication from the visible reality - which any person with good skills with the new medium could make with less "talent".

We find sometimes all sort of conversations of photography being or not an "art" in the strict sense, but looking otherwise, what really have been happen with the painture in terms of innovation if never have been a thing like photography, to challenge its status of perfect medium of reproduction of the visual reality,

Cheers,

Renato

Kirk Gittings
20-Jul-2015, 12:30
Who knows what they're thinking Exactly. Hence there is no good reason to not think they were doing abstraction.

djdister
20-Jul-2015, 12:30
Well I guess this thread should be removed or renamed then...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?58941-Abstracts

prendt
20-Jul-2015, 12:50
One of my cats swats the TV screen anytime a bird documentary is on. Otherwise, she completely ignores TV. No cat is a starving artist. They expect to be fed for no work at all.

Drew, cats are one of the few animals capable to watch TV like we, humans, do. I.e. they capable of seeing a scene on the screen and perceive it as a reality you're in. No wonder your cat ignores Shakespeare but watches birds on TV.

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 12:55
Well, everyone knows what "abstract" photographs allegedly involve, so no big deal. I've never seen an abstract photograph. I've seen lots and lot of photographs
of things in nature people labeled as abstract. But they're not. They're seen things, which mimic the feel of what painters have done. Analogously, using a soft focus lens and printing colorful things on pastel paper does not constitute Impressionism. It merely mimics it, usually badly. One has the consider what went into
the pipeline first, then went out afterwards, before one confuses Kandinsky with some kid with a DLSR and macro lens aimed at some rock cracks, or what some
aerial photographer does with landforms. I enjoy the challenge of finding things in situ and making an intriguing composition out of it. But that's photography.

RSalles
20-Jul-2015, 13:49
I like a lot what Man Ray, Lazlo Moholy-Nagy, Carl Chiarenza and many others make, in the middle of what is supposed to be a pictorialist or "straight" photography and pure abstractionism. "Purity" - btw - always have to be pushed, pressed, straightened, tortured until the born/conception the new comes to life - and just to cite what I readed from a forum member some time ago, otherwise we could have been still painting cave walls,


Cheers,

Renato

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 14:01
Yeah... they'd smush a soft emulsion and then paint alter it as they perceived some imaginary image in the smush. All kinds of fun things that tweak the taxonomic pigeonholes. On one hand, rules are made to be broken. On the other hand, it's pretty darn liberating to confine yourself to a flat rectangular plane on a groundglass and make something compelling out of that. But what Kandinsky did with that historic watercolor, nobody else could have done. Every little squiggle has magical feeling, form, and color balance proprietary to him. There was a tremendous amount leading up to it. Nor can someone dropping a can of paint on the highway ever equate to a Jackson Pollock painting, though we photographers might select something within an accidental paint splatter that achieves a satisfying composition. But it was there, to be found, seen, photographed. But don't knock the cave painters. It was Miro who stated that art has only gone downhill since.

paulr
20-Jul-2015, 14:37
It's popular to cite Kandinsky as the originator of abstraction, but it's quite easy to argue for others, even if Mr. K was the most influential innovator of the idea. Around 1912, when he was doing his first pure abstractions, there were others working in a similar vein, including Delaunay and Kupka. Curators at the Tate posit that Hilna Klint predated Kandinsky. Here's one of hers from 1907:

137184

When it comes to abstraction inching its way into painting, you have to look back to the Romantics (Whistler, etc.).

And of course we're just talking about Western art here. Islamic art has had a tradition of abstraction for hundreds of years.

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 14:47
Well, you and I are always going to lock horns on terminology, Paul, though I'm eager to see what you do with your upcoming book, since the theme seems right up youd alley, and hope you will forgive me for suggesting you are more in the vein of constructivism than "new topographics", even though I hate being pigeonholed myself. But "abstraction" for all practical purposes is a term molded in Western Art. Islamic art can be highly decorative, just as Appalachians quilts
can be, and many other things. But they weren't conceptually trying to achieve the same thing. And when the time is right in history, it is always because of an atmosphere of precedent. A lot of haystacks were piled up and finally someone threw the match. I'll defer to the experts who might or might not have thrown the first one. But there's little doubt whose match started the first forest fire in that respect. And yes, we can go clear back to Courbet if necessary. But crossing the finish line in abstraction certainly didn't seem to happen until slightly after the turn of the Century.

paulr
20-Jul-2015, 15:24
Drew, we're probably not going to lock horns on this one (unless now we're locking horns over locking horns). I think it's a reasonable argument that Western abstraction is a different tradition than the non-western abstractions I mentioned (although I could well be ignorant of global traditions that are closer.

I also don't like to push too hard with the who-did-what first line of inquiry, since what seems to matter most in history is who the influencers are. There are often ahistorical examples of things ... people who seemed to be way ahead of their time, but who sit outside the historical flow because (sad for them) no one noticed. 19th century photography is full of examples that seemed to prefigure much later movements. These are great reminders of how history can leave individuals behind, but it doesn't help us understand the evolution of a movement or tradition.

I brought up people like Klint to just show that the claims of Who's First always need some hedging. I'd agree Kandinsky was the granddaddy of abstraction, even if he had some formidable contemporaries and antecedents. He just kicked so much abstract ass.

Re: my being a constructivist ... ok. I'll entertain the idea. But won't get bogged down in it. And I would never claim to be a New Topographer. Those guys are defined by an exhibit, and are a solid generation ahead of me.

Drew Wiley
20-Jul-2015, 15:30
Hmmm.... We seem to agree on a lot today. Must be the phase of the moon. Anyway, hope you are enjoying your project!