Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/07/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] IMG: composition
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)
Date: Tue Jul 31 20:38:37 2007

> I tried to show what makes it into (IMO) a composed and balanced image 

> here:

> <http://www.fullflavor.be/_POR0869_comp.jpg>

> 

> What it all boils down to: it is full of repetitions (tone and form), 

> parallels, and balanced proportions.

> Which is pretty remarkable for a completely intuitive shot.<<<

 

 

Hi Philippe,

I'm going to use some of Steve Barbour's post and add some of my words.
Hopefully it will make sense about your picture and composition.

 

But before that I must say I'm quite taken by your composition diagram of
the image. I've never done that type of analysis of any of photograph.
Although I have on occasion when someone from the art community has
explained a photo in similar manner you have shown. Which amazes me as I see
the action or light of the moment, "click!" :-)  That's why I always say "I
just get lucky!" ;-) 

 

Steve said:

>>> a wonderful and forceful analysis....which I completely understand.<<<<

 

Ted::

I agree with Steve and it saves me writing more of the same.

 

Steve said:

>>>I am a believer that the image must say it...and better than words,

in fact the more words needed to explain it, the weaker the image...<<<

 

Ted:

Philippe there isn't any question, if a photograph requires several
sentences to explain what the photographer thinks the photo means, then
viewers may not see what the photographer saw. Even with the photogs words
and well meaning of explanation.

 

Steve said:.

>> when I look at the image, the things that it means to you...

don't come to me clearly from the image...<<<

 

Ted:

Philippe we as photographers are not only affected by our emotions when we
shoot, we're also affected physically and mentally as well as our sense of
smell & hearing. So we often read far more into the meaning of a picture to
ourselves due to these feelings. However, when strangers view the picture
they only see what is before them in the cold light of day on the screen or
a flat piece of photo paper. ERGO! They do not have the same sensory feeling
you did on location and feeling of the "click" moment. So they can easily
dismiss the photo as a sort of failure. Obviously it isn't in the eyes of
the creating photographer. You, in this case.

 

As photographers we have at some time felt more into a picture than are
there visually for others to appreciate, no matter what we may feel. Your
explanations are solid reasons for "your feelings" toward the picture, but
that isn't what the picture says to viewers because we don't have the same
sensations of feeling.

 

I have great difficulty with the chopped off limbs and not seeing what the
boy is doing. I'm not sure whether he's planting a tree? Digging a hole?
Whatever he's doing?  It seems like an incomplete photograph.

 

Philippe explains:

>>> Before I try to explain why I called it 'composition', which IMO it  

> is more than anything else, something about how it originated.

> 

> It was shot on a photographically very productive weekend when we  

> went visiting one of my 2 brothers. Both of them have only boys,  

> and it is always interesting for me to observe them, having 2  

> daughters myself (and coming from a nest with 3 boys).

 

> Boys and sand are a magical combination: they immediately start  

> digging, building, making camps etc. It takes them hours, and never  

> they pause.: always acitve, never a moment of rest. It must be a  

> Jungian thing...<<<<<<<<<<,

 

Philippe mon ami!  .. And right here you start creating mental images of
what the boys do. But in reality all the things missing from the real photo
were actually in your minds eye of the boy in action.

 

I realize that sounds a bit convoluted but I'd put money on it that you shot
an image you saw in your mind that really didn't exist. OK it sounds good.
;-) 

 

If I were on a judging panel and this photo was entered for whatever reason,
I'd give it a thumbs down simply because I don't see it as a complete
photograph. Even though you gave a most incredible explanation with diagram
to back it up. But in the cold cruel world... It just doesn't work.

 

I trust you're not offended by my critique.

 

ted

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+tedgrant=shaw.ca@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Steve
Barbour
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 5:06 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] IMG: composition

 

 

On Jul 31, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Philippe Orlent wrote:

 

> Well Ted, it will be an honour.

> 

> First, I want to thank you, and all those that responded.

> I somewhat predicted the outcome, but it was an interesting  

> experiment proving that the audience doesn't always agree, even if  

> you like a shot. And, in the end, and unless one would like to  

> spend his life in complete excile, the audience is the most important.

> I will not go into describing of what makes an audience, quid  

> quantifying and qualifying 'target groups', because, just like  

> statistics, it can prove about any axiom. Which is a contradiction  

> anyway.

> But let's not wander off.

> 

> About the first posted, then withdrawn, then reposted image (and  

> only for comparison reasons).

> Yes, it has smooth tonalities, yes it captures the boy's aiming,  

> yes it captures a typical boyish action, yes the composition is OK.

> But i find it terribly dull. And not at all capturing the essence  

> of kids. Being: never a moment of rest when awake.

> 

> Which brings us to the second -and my preferred but very rightly  

> put into question- image.

> Before I try to explain why I called it 'composition', which IMO it  

> is more than anything else, something about how it originated.

> 

> It was shot on a photographically very productive weekend when we  

> went visiting one of my 2 brothers. Both of them have only boys,  

> and it is always interesting for me to observe them, having 2  

> daughters myself (and coming form a nest with 3 boys).

> My youngest brother lives close to the Belgian coast. All Belgians  

> do BTW: max distance from any place in Belgium to its -only- coast  

> is about 120 miles. But he lives in Bruges, and that's just a 15  

> min drive. So when we're there, and the weather's fine, off we go.

> 

 

 

 

 

 

> Boys and sand are a magical combination: they immediately start  

> digging, building, making camps etc. It takes them hours, and never  

> they pause.: always acitve, never a moment of rest. It must be a  

> Jungian thing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Being used to my daughters, who BTW were gently playing on a beach  

> towel, or just sunbathing, this was like my own youth coming back  

> to me.

> One difference though: being used to our girls, I found it quite  

> 'exhausting' to constantly follow the 2 boys in their action :-)

> This lead to a mental state of looking, but not very attentively.

> In such case, the eye tends to focus on the background (infinity  

> focus, so to speak): every foreground motion will be noticed, but  

> OOF. Until the OOF motion gives alert signals: then the eye will  

> refocus.

> In other words: looking to this scene through my VF, my mind  

> wandered off, and I shot it almost inconsciently.

> When revising it later on, the shot grasped my attention: it  

> captured exactly what I was seeing (and feeling) at that moment.

> 

> I judged it interesting, because even in that case (completely OOF  

> in classical terms of speaking), it not only captured what I saw,  

> but it also exactly showed what the boy (Jules is his name) was  

> doing, with a minimum of information.

> Which, for me, in about any form of visual reproduction, is  

> paramount: give as much information as possible, with a minimum of  

> elements. It's so much more exciting to leave the (exact)  

> reconstruction of a scene to the viewer instead of giving him so  

> much that his personal interpretation becomes irrelevant.

> 

> Secondly, when revising, and knowing that it was shot  

> inconsciently, I found it remarkably well balanced. Which is also a  

> big thing for me, because I have too much a tendency to  

> (painstakingly) compose, thus literally construct an image (one of  

> the reasons why I love an M, BTW: it just forces you to shoot  

> pensatively). And I'd love to get to a point where composition  

> comes naturally. Because it will make my images more natural. I think.

> 

> That's why I called it 'composition'.

> 

> I tried to show what makes it into (IMO) a composed and balanced  

> image here:

> <http://www.fullflavor.be/_POR0869_comp.jpg>

> 

> What it all boils down to: it is full of repetitions (tone and  

> form), parallels, and balanced proportions.

> Which is pretty remarkable for a completely intuitive shot.

 

 

Philippe,

 

 

 

but,

 

 

 

 

maybe I wasn't prepared prior to seeing,

 

I just don't have the emotional  ....yes, right, wow... reaction to  

the photo, whether I can put it into words or not...

 

 

I am just not emotionally/intellectually prepared for it as you are...

 

 

I guess that's why different images mean different things to  

different people...

 

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

> 

> So yes, I'm pretty proud of it, and I hope later on it will prove  

> to be a benchmark in my photography. Ahem.

> BTW: some liked it too. Strangely enough offlist ;-)

> 

> Hell, maybe I should become a Lomo adept again? ;-P

> 

> Philippe

> 

> 

> Op 30-jul-07, om 23:50 heeft Ted Grant het volgende geschreven:

> 

>> Philippe Orlent showed & asked:

>> Subject: [Leica] IMG: composition

>> 

>> 

>> 

>>>>> That's what I consider it to be.

>> 

>> I won't pull this one back like I did with the former posting, rest

>> 

>> assured.

>> 

>> But I'm suspecting that I might be one of the few that like it.

>> 

>> <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/phorlent/_POR0869.jpg.html>

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Philippe mon ami,

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> Before I offer a critique, a question? As I'm sure others may wish  

>> to know

>> also. Would you please explain why you cropped or shot or why you  

>> like the

>> composition in this manner as it is?

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> In that fashion we the viewers will understand how you see and  

>> feel about

>> the picture. Certainly more so than one word "composition." Thank  

>> you.

>> 

>> 

>> 

>> ted

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> Leica Users Group.

>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

>> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Leica Users Group.

> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

 

 

_______________________________________________

Leica Users Group.

See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information

 

 

-- 

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition. 

Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.0/927 - Release Date: 7/30/2007
5:02 PM


Replies: Reply from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] IMG: composition)
In reply to: Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] IMG: composition)