[TaoMaas]

I don't care for personal attacks or the people who make them to be honest.

Well, if we're being honest, you didn't start out commenting on the existing photograph at all. You were being critical of someone's advice.

[Liney]

Imageman, my apologies if you felt that my second post was a personal attack, it was not intended to be. However I would suggest that if you had originally posted your more complete appraisal rather than a single terse line I may have responded differently.

To go back to the image, I think we have shown that there are many different opinions about a single shot, and perhaps that's one thing that makes photography so interesting.

[TaoMaas]

I would suggest that if you had originally posted your more complete appraisal rather than a single terse line I may have responded differently.

Absolutely! The first response was just poppin' off. The second contained a very valid opinion which deserves serious consideration.

[Imageman]

Well, if we're being honest, you didn't start out commenting on the existing photograph at all. You were being critical of someone's advice.

That is not correct, where was I critical of the advice given, my advice simply was opposing it, is opposing advice no longer allowed?


The advice given followed an existing rule, I see much of the advice given in this forum that amounts to following a rule, usually its the thirds rule, and its easy to suggest that, the rule exist and it takes no artistic flair or expertise to state a rule.


The photographer wants advice the image is not following the thirds rule, tell him to follow the third rule.


This advice may well have been good but I see the exact same advice trotted out time after time after time, like a mantra


Picture of caterpillar, crop it so it is on the thirds, Picture of sunbather crop it so its on the thirds etc etc etc.


I simply said following rules slavishly can lead to boring pictures, where is this not advising about the image. if the golden ratio is applied slavishly that may not be appropriate, if a spiral shape is searched for and the image cropped to reveal it that is slavishly following a rule, if three things are revealed by other cropping that is slavishly following a rule. None of these rules may contribute to the image, but they are simple to trot out.


I never criticised the advice given I merely offered encouragement to allow the image to stand uncropped and following no artificial rules, but you read into it criticism that doesn't exist.


I saw a tv program of a possible future and in it pictures were being assessed, they were all assessed using the same rules of composition, and all the pictures turned out identical, the content was slightly different, same subjects arranged in very similar ways all following accepted rules of composition. all were explained as being clever and meaningful, but all were the same.


The artists had long since stopped producing unique and worthwhile pictures because the same rules were used to assess them and unique pictures simply would not sell, so they were no longer made.


Every image I see these days bar a few, have the subject sitting on the thirds, simply because its the rule and feels natural, we have to rigidly crop so every image looks the exact same compositionally. Utter nonsense. Have the courage to defy convention. Look at the very best images of the last 200 years, how many followed these rules, not many.


I still don't criticise the advice, by all means try a thirds composition but do have the courage to be different.

---------- Post added 09-07-14 at 02:51 AM ----------

No problem Liney my own post could be seen as being critical as well, its all about interpretation, and thanks for those kind words recently given, its always hard to offer good criticism and advice, it often seems unwarranted or even harsh, this is a good forum and I think your desire to excel shows and contributes to help it improve as it does with many.

[Dewman]

slavishly following rules of composition makes for boring images

I agree..... wholeheartedly! There are NO rules of composition that MUST be followed.... as long as the photo can stand alone and be interesting. In the photo in question, I think if the overall scene had been more vast with subject girl centered in the mass of out-of-focus chaos while retaining the Rembrandt effect, it would have been better. I like the overall darkness and lack of sharp focus in the periphery. It only adds to the mystery of it all.

Dewman
SW Idaho

[Liney]

I agree..... wholeheartedly! There are NO rules of composition that MUST be followed.... as long as the photo can stand alone and be interesting. In the photo in question, I think if the overall scene had been more vast with subject girl centered in the mass of out-of-focus chaos while retaining the Rembrandt effect, it would have been better. I like the overall darkness and lack of sharp focus in the periphery. It only adds to the mystery of it all.

It's nice to see so many people who are obviously passionate about their art and their interpretation of anothers work. As the one who first offered advice (and having been rebuked for said advice) I just want to say that when I originally posted my intent was to give my interpretation of the original image and offer advice on how to tailor it as I saw it.

There is a lot to say for "breaking the mould" and stepping out from the accepted norm, and the more you look at the image the more you see possibilities. However we all have to start somewhere, and starting with the excepted norms is one place.

[Imageman]

ok im sorry for what I said and I retract it totally I was talking rubbish, always follow the rules.


Im sorry I upset you Liney. Ill shut up now

[Dewman]

ok im sorry for what I said and I retract it totally I was talking rubbish, always follow the rules.


Im sorry I upset you Liney. Ill shut up now

Imageman, don't be condecending. You were right in your very first statement and need not further explain. Your assessment was valid and it stands alone. If others can't appreciate your comment and it's validity, then let them wander about with those who would always follow the rules. I tend to keep those of that ilk at a distance and it has served me well. I have not, nor will I ever be, part of the "grey milling crowd."

Dewman
SW Idaho

[Liney]

Imageman

Hold on now, I'm not upset. There are varied levels of experience and understanding on this forum, and I may be one of the more basic "follow the rules" type interpretations because that's where I feel most comfortable at the moment.

[Imageman]

Its ok Liney im not upset either and im not being condescending, theres a slight misunderstanding that's all. Were cool.

[Schraubstock]

Hi

I like the shot but as far as B+W goes I find the image a wee bit flat.
I have increased brightness and contrast, and of course cropping the image is a good move.
As is often the case, cropping can increase the worth of a photo.

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

[OldGeaser]

I thought I'd try what Liney suggested. Perhaps I got it a little too light.

[Imageman]

Ok, I rarely go into in depth dissertations on composition maybe I just don't like rules but I will make an exception. What follows is purely personal and probably worthless.


A subject on the thirds becomes meaningful because of its relationship to the rest of the image. Consider a blank wall and subject on the thirds. The image is meaningless, the blank area means nothing, the image is just a subject stuck somewhere in a blank field.


Not so when you add some detail. Add detail whether blurred or sharply defined and the subject now has a relationship, it becomes meaningful for the subject to sit on the third.


Consider now this image. The crop that has the subject on the third, only can succeed by its relevance to the other details in the image, even though they are blurred. There is another rule, a rule of strength, this rule states that in an image there should be 2 elements only. Element one is subject, element two is ground.


This means a subject well defined, and a ground not well defined. (a well defined ground can become a subject).


Looking at this cropped image with the subject on the third, I see a well defined object sitting in the ground, the bicycle. suddenly the bicycle defeats the rule of subject and ground, you have 2 subjects, the cropping while addressing the rule of thirds has in this image relentlessly exposed the bicycle as a strong element which fights for attention and weakens the composition.


The original uncropped image subdued the bicycle to one of many minor elements and the bicycle was simply in my view a counterpoint within the ground and was not competing with the real subject in that image.


I believe in the original image the blurred objects in the ground although identifiable, served as context for the subject, and moreover showed a world the subject had turned her back on. The world she had abandoned to look at the camera is a rich one, and this original image is a commentary on the photographers art, there is a cornucopia of imagery in the world and the photographer in becoming the recorder of the world, abandons it to become that image recorder. It is a paradox, and this image exposes it.


Not so the cropped image, the detail of the world beyond the photographer is lost and just a bicycle remains. The commentary is lost, all meaning for me in this image is now lost.


I agree it looks more pleasant with the subject on the third, but pleasant contributes nothing.


The original image was obtuse, slightly gritty, disconcerting, and full of meaning. Are we right as photographers to turn away from the world or should we embrace it. Should we be pensive as this photographer in the original image is, or should we participate in the world with joy and exuberance.


This image positively vibrates with significance for the photographers paradox. I love the original uncropped image, with all its foibles and edginess.

[TaoMaas]

There is another rule, a rule of strength, this rule states that in an image there should be 2 elements only. Element one is subject, element two is ground.

I love to learn about photography. Where did you find that rule?

I love to learn about photography. Where did you find that rule?

Not really a rule but Figure / Ground is a principle of Gestalt psychology describing human visual perception. The key ideas of Gestalt Perception Psychology are Emergence and Reification.
Here's one version of that list:

Gestalt Principles of Perception
Law of Prägnanz (Good Figure, Law of Simplicity)
Closure
Figure / Ground
Continuation
Symmetry and Order
Common Regions
Proximity
Similarity
Focal Point
Common Fate
Parallelism

That context of human visual perception, together with design elements and design principles, all go into the creative blender with form, content and subject. No secrets here.

In the case of Figure / Ground, Objects are perceived as either Figure or Ground. It's the relationship between Positive and Negative space. We separate Figures from their Ground to understand what’s being seen. It’s one of the first things people will do when looking at any composition. The Figure/Ground relationship can be stable or unstable. The more stable the relationship, the better we can lead the eye of our audience. The unstable state, Figure / Ground Ambiguity, is the basis for camouflage.