[Liney]

OldGeaser, thanks for cropping the image. When I originally sugested the crop I was looking at something of that ilk, where the image of the photographer with the man and the bike in the background. If I saw it for the first time now (without reading the discussion) I would think it showed a photographer checking her latest image as the rest of the world goes by. Her face is lost in thought, perhaps it has not turned out as she expected and the out of depth background could almost emphasise the lonely search for that perfect shot..

Imageman, I read your description carefully after I had written my own, While there are similarities in the description I think that the "thirds" image is just as powerful as the original. But as we have already discussed, there are many different opinions and interpreatations.

Brooke Meyer, an interesting topic and I suppose you realy only scratched the surface of it. It is interesting how we perceive the world around us and the difference in that perception which may be influenced by so many factors. By profession I am technically minded, an engineer, which most likely shapes the way I look at things.

[TaoMaas]

Not really a rule but Figure / Ground is a principle of Gestalt psychology describing human visual perception.

Thank you! I had never heard of that, but I agree with it to a certain degree. I always cringe when people talk about the eye's ability to take in a greater tonal range than cameras because I think that's a bit of a myth. (Yes, our eyes can, but not to the extent some folks believe.) As soon as we concentrate on any one object, our eyes adapt to that and everything else goes into the background. I also believe that we remember things in snippets....little flash frames of the overall experience. And the closer a photograph comes to capturing that ultimate flash frame, the more people think, "Yes...that's Cape Cod!" (or wherever) I'm also not convinced that figure/ground applies completely to 2-dimensional views, such as photographs or paintings. I'll have to do more thinking about that. But it seems to me that the camera, especially, has the ability to mess with that equation due to it's ability to artificially compress and expand the relationship of subject to background through the use of focal lengths and camera position. However, now I get what Imageman was saying...but I still don't agree that the image is fine as-is. For me, that bright light at the top of the frame IS the subject as long as it's in the frame. It needs to go, but there definitely needs to be a sufficient amount of the environment left to give that sense of place to the main subject.

Thank you! I had never heard of that, but I agree with it to a certain degree. I always cringe when people talk about the eye's ability to take in a greater tonal range than cameras because I think that's a bit of a myth. (Yes, our eyes can, but not to the extent some folks believe.) As soon as we concentrate on any one object, our eyes adapt to that and everything else goes into the background. I also believe that we remember things in snippets....little flash frames of the overall experience. And the closer a photograph comes to capturing that ultimate flash frame, the more people think, "Yes...that's Cape Cod!" (or wherever) I'm also not convinced that figure/ground applies completely to 2-dimensional views, such as photographs or paintings. I'll have to do more thinking about that. But it seems to me that the camera, especially, has the ability to mess with that equation due to it's ability to artificially compress and expand the relationship of subject to background through the use of focal lengths and camera position. However, now I get what Imageman was saying...but I still don't agree that the image is fine as-is. For me, that bright light at the top of the frame IS the subject as long as it's in the frame. It needs to go, but there definitely needs to be a sufficient amount of the environment left to give that sense of place to the main subject.

Gestalt perception principles are about human visual perception, whether 2D or 3D. Figure / Ground ambiguity is how camouflage clothing works. WWII ships were painted in "zazzle" patterns make them hard to see. Bev Doolitte's paintings are 2D example. And you're right about how we see, it's more like a video, a series of images we assemble in our brain.

The camera is simply what it is, a tool than can extend our vision, help us see things. Unlike our vision and our brain, the camera image is 2D, uncorrected for color or distortion, unedited and without emotional memory.

[ZombieArmy]

P.S.
Just recently I have noticed, uploading here is degrading the picture quality something terribly.

Yes don't upload it here, use a service like imgur.com to post the direct link of the image or just embed it here.

[TaoMaas]

Gestalt perception principles are about human visual perception, whether 2D or 3D.

It can't be. In 2D, those choices have already been made for you.

[wildman]

The camera is simply what it is, a tool than can extend our vision, help us see things. Unlike our vision and our brain, the camera image is 2D, uncorrected for color or distortion, unedited and without emotional memory.

Which is precisely photography's great strength (ideally) over many other graphic mediums - It's just raw data until we decide what it means. It's not an image until someone says it is.

All we can say about any image is what we think it should mean and PP accordingly.

Where's the beef?

It can't be. In 2D, those choices have already been made for you.

Not the perception, how we "see". That happens in our brain, nothing to do with what comes into it via the input devices, aka eyes. We interpret, we identify patterns and symbols for ideas of things. Its why we have to teach colors and letters to infants, its why 2 year old's have "Speak n Spells". We learn and build up the database. There are no outlined letters in the AT&T and IBM logoes but we see them as such, we perceive them to be letters. They're just a bunch of lines but their relationship allows us to complete the idea. Scatter the same lines all about and its meaningless. The composition of a photograph is the same.

Trompe l'oeil is an example of fooling the eye. Its why people instinctively jump from an image on a flat movie screen that seems to be heading right at them. Nothing comes out of the screen and we know it can't but we perceive it as possible.

One of the originators of Gestalt psychology in the 1920's was intrigued by movie marquees which appeared to move. They were made up of lots of individual light bulbs and none was moving but lighting them sequentially, it looked like they were moving.

We even "see" when its dark and our eyes are closed and we're unconscious, in our dreams. Vividly.

The point of their work was to try and understand our visual perception. How we decide things are related has nothing to do with 2D or 3D. Web and Graphic designers understand Gestalt principles very well. The same principles apply to how we read a photograph, how we perceive it.

[TaoMaas]

...nothing to do with what comes into it via the input devices, aka eyes.

I disagree with that. I think there's a big difference between 2D and 3D. You mentioned Bev Dolittle. Has she not already decided for us that the figure and ground shall merge? It's a similar thing in reverse with the current trend of ultra shallow depth of field. The creator has predetermined what is figure and what is ground. Yes, we may look at the out of focus elements and wonder what that pattern is in the background, but then we're getting out of that Gestalt theory and back into more traditional theories of composition.

Web and Graphic designers understand Gestalt principles very well. The same principles apply to how we read a photograph, how we perceive it.

Maybe the ones you work with do. I've worked with quite a few, too, over the past few decades and I can pretty much guarantee you that they would look at me like I had two heads if I were to come talk to them about this stuff. LOL It may be instictual to them...but, no...they wouldn't have any idea about this if you were to bring it up in a conversation.

[wildman]

There are no outlined letters in the AT&T and IBM logoes but we see them as such, we perceive them to be letters. They're just a bunch of lines but their relationship allows us to complete the idea. Scatter the same lines all about and its meaningless. The composition of a photograph is the same.

Really? - a relatively simple commercial advertising symbol and, say, the image we are critiquing here?
I don't know about you but I like to think that I take a more wholistic, organic, and dare I say, intuitive view of a image.
Frankly I can't imagine trying to understand the sense of an image and be limited in such a narrow, reductionist, systematic, and analytical way.

Perhaps it works for a simple logo or a web page but for something as subtle, nuanced, and complex as a photographic image - not for me at least.

I disagree with that. I think there's a big difference between 2D and 3D. You mentioned Bev Dolittle. Has she not already decided for us that the figure and ground shall merge?

Nope, she just decided that the figure and grounds relationships are ambiguous which is why we have to work so hard to see them.


Maybe the ones you work with do. I've worked with quite a few, too, over the past few decades and I can pretty much guarantee you that they would look at me like I had two heads if I were to come talk to them about this stuff. LOL It may be instictual to them...but, no...they wouldn't have any idea about this if you were to bring it up in a conversation.

Design Principles: Visual Perception And The Principles Of Gestalt | Smashing Magazine

---------- Post added 09-13-14 at 09:11 PM ----------

Really? - a relatively simple commercial advertising symbol and, say, the image we are critiquing here?
I don't know about you but I like to think that I take a more wholistic, organic, and dare I say, intuitive view of a image.
Frankly I can't imagine trying to understand the sense of an image and be limited in such a narrow, reductionist, systematic, and analytical way.

Perhaps it works for a simple logo or a web page but for something as subtle, nuanced, and complex as a photographic image - not for me at least.

Whether it's a simple or complex image, our brains work the same way. I wasn't trying tor reduce, narrow, systematize or analyze anything, just point out how we tend to respond to visual patterns. Its measurable. Which has nothing to do with the influences of subject, culture, experience or emotion. I didn't say or mean to imply anything about understanding.

If it were that simple, it could be an algorithm, a "good picture button". Ain't one.

[wildman]

I didn't say or mean to imply anything about understanding.

Fair enough.

[TaoMaas]

Perhaps it works for a simple logo...

That is my impression. I've quizzed several art/graphics majors and a life-long artist so far. They all had to google this to know what I was talking about. These are folks who have studied at Rhode Island School of Design and the Chicago Arts Institute. They've seen the principles, but never heard of them grouped this way. Eh...maybe they forgot...kinda like algebra formulas that we don't think we'll need, ya know?

That is my impression. I've quizzed several art/graphics majors and a life-long artist so far. They all had to google this to know what I was talking about. These are folks who have studied at Rhode Island School of Design and the Chicago Arts Institute. They've seen the principles, but never heard of them grouped this way. Eh...maybe they forgot...kinda like algebra formulas that we don't think we'll need, ya know?

Here's an article from the Adorama website, by a photographer 6 Principles of Gestalt Psychology That Can Improve Your Photography

[TaoMaas]

Here's an article from the Adorama website, by a photographer 6 Principles of Gestalt Psychology That Can Improve Your Photography

Good for them. I asked our resident Graphics Artist about this stuff on Friday. He has an art degree and has been making his living in it for about 20 years. As I said before, when I brought this up, he gave me a blank stare and said, "I've heard of the term Gestalt being used in psychology, but I don't remember it being used in my art classes." When I explained the situation to him and told him that nobody else had heard of it either, he said, "Whew...for a minute there, i was feeling stupid!" The bottom line is that, while this may be a valid theory of human perception, it is FAR, FAR from a commonly used theory. That doesn't make it wrong or right. It just doesn't make it on a par with the rule of thirds or leading lines or any of the other more common rules.

Good for them. I asked our resident Graphics Artist about this stuff on Friday. He has an art degree and has been making his living in it for about 20 years. As I said before, when I brought this up, he gave me a blank stare and said, "I've heard of the term Gestalt being used in psychology, but I don't remember it being used in my art classes." When I explained the situation to him and told him that nobody else had heard of it either, he said, "Whew...for a minute there, i was feeling stupid!" The bottom line is that, while this may be a valid theory of human perception, it is FAR, FAR from a commonly used theory. That doesn't make it wrong or right. It just doesn't make it on a par with the rule of thirds or leading lines or any of the other more common rules.

Why would anyone worry about "feeling stupid"? Life's an open book test and none of us have read all the books. Your friend is in mid career and might find this interesting:

Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye – by Rudolf Arnheim

The Amazon reviews are pretty accurate. Gestalt was his starting point and his work is still widely cited. Not light reading but I think the effort will be rewarded. You'll find Leading Lines (Direction ), a full explanation of Rule of Thirds ( Structural Skeleton of a Square) and a great deal more.