Ruining many sheets and rolls of film, looking critically at contact sheets, and trying again.
Ruining many sheets and rolls of film, looking critically at contact sheets, and trying again.
Probably watched too many films. Wouldn't mind getting my hands on that psycho-determination book....it sounds interesting. Roughly 30yrs ago I wanted to study painter's motivation, etc., and use time lapse technique. The artist chickened out at the last moment - she'd feel too exposed (excuse the pun).
Anyway, most likely trial and error...to obtain that balance.
Les
I think it was Edward Weston who said that consulting the rules of composition before making a photograph is like consulting the rules of gravity before taking a walk.
I think it is life experiences (I mean visual experiences although I am sure there are other psychological aspects as well) and thinking about them and working with them. In other words, it is engaging with a visual process as deeply as possible. Its all the millions of tiny little personal Aha! experiences in the past and how they have shaped one's eye. In one way, I think photography is a unique visual medium in that you are restricted to some extent by what is out there. A painter is free to move objects around, delete them, add them as s/he sees fit. And sometimes I think that is a drawback because it permits facile compositions without personal growth. It takes great work and drive to get around that. With photographs, you have to extract the composition (or visual experience) that is there. And I'm not bashing painting because I happen to paint as avidly as I work with a camera. The media are different not only in the substance but also in the experience.
Cheers, DJ
MDM -- I do not remember a medium format image of first waterfall -- though this is a tiny little 4x5 negative (and scanned carbon print). The image of the waterfall on the far right is a 16x20 silver gelatin print from a 4x5 negative (TMax100, using a 150mm lens).Originally Posted by Heroique
Heroique, I am going to guess that you are referring to the image of the waterfall on the far right. It is near the end of Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand. I spent about 4 or 5 days in this area, a long time compared to other areas...the only other places I spent that much time was Tongariro National Park and a couple one-week backpack trips. Lots of rain and thus lots of wet rock and waterfalls. Spending the time there helped me to get a good feel of the place...which was very active. High water in the river, new waterfalls popping up, and rock slides.
The glacier has been in retreat for a long time. The area in the photograph was covered by the glacier 20 years before this image was taken (1997). The glacier held up those big slabs of rock, which fell after being no longer supported by the glacier. That large rectangular rock -- one could park a couple Greyhound buses on it with extra room. The fall is about 80 feet tall perhaps...at least 60 feet anyway. It has been a long time. Scale is fun to play with.
What attracted my eye was the quality of light reflecting off the smooth rock face. It glowed in the strong, but overcast light. My choice of camera position was limited, I had only the one lens. The rule I broke was to put what most people would consider the subject (the fall) in the center of the image, but really the subject was the light. The decisions were mostly intuition, but a lot of conscious decision making was done concerning the placement of the top of the frame. It was tempting to include a little more on the top, but in the end I decided to limit what was seen up there -- thinking to encourage the viewer to imagine the rock continuing upwards. I remember working with the lower triangle of rubble to anchor the image, and everything else sort of just fell into place...the dark center behind the fall and the light radiating from it into the three sections of the image. Or falling into that dark center, if one is so inclined to see it that way. It should be a stable centered image, but somehow I caught the energy of the place where the retreat of the ice has left over-steepen slopes.
A few more of the same area:
Funny, I was referring to Chilnualna Creek (post #15, second from left), but my comments about dissonance could apply to your Franz Joseph Glacier shot, too – even though its absence of far-interest and glowing rocks make it different. Your narrative about composition is quite instructive.
In your post just above, I think you’ve touched upon an oft-overlooked element of composition: “I decided to limit what was seen up there – thinking to encourage the viewer to imagine the rock continuing upwards.”
That is, do you want your borders to keep your viewer’s attention inside the frame, or invite their attention to “jump the fence.” The former is, of course, a Renaissance convention, the latter more modern. Most of my landscape photos, now that I think about it, try to keep my viewers inside the borders. Kind of like I’ve posted a natural “no trespassing” sign that the viewer, one hopes, feels no need to read.
I want to do both in the same image...keep their eyes within the frame, but keep their imagination free to roam. To give the viewer the gut feeling that there is more than what they see. When photographing in the redwoods, this will often determine a vertical or horizontal image for me.
I was going to post two good examples of this, but I got a new computer and the lay-out of this forum is all weird -- and the "Manage Attachments" button does not work. Perhaps later when I am on a different computer.
The other waterfall -- all I particularily remember is being able to isolate the large rock by surrounding it with light (water), and giving the viewer a little bit of ground to stand on, but not much.
Edited to add photos (in a different browser). The vertical is meant to give that sense of continued height of the central tree, and in the horizontal (sorry a little dark), the eye movement is suppose to circle around the central tree.
Last edited by Vaughn; 13-Mar-2013 at 11:56.
Drawing and painting and going to art school.
I had a great teacher in college who I credit with teaching me a lot about composition. He didn't just teach and was also a working artist. I remember that he did these fantastic illustrations for a children's folk/fairy tale book which was published.
whipping thru flickr most recent pix - hours at a time
just looking at a lot of pix and seeing what I think is good - which is very little..but still
when I find it - it just stands out
I also have a ton of books / magazines I've collected that I go back thru for inspiration/ideas
Took a photography course 35 years ago; it started my journey in photography
Practice
Looking at photographs, from:
- well known photographers (initially AA, then others)
- museums and galleries
- websites, including this one and flickr
Composition is something that I have only recently become conscious of in my work, and have started making efforts to improve.
Looking critically at pictures I find sharpens my sense of composition. I try to get at least 10 000 new images in front of my eyes every year.
Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks