[Leica] IMG: composition

[philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent)]

Hi Ted, and Steve,

Thanks you both for your replies.

Rest assured: I do not feel offended at all. Ofcourse you have a  
point there.

Just experimenting, as I explained in a later mail to Mr. Rabiner.
It might be one just for my personal cabinet.

Thanks,
Philippe


Op 1-aug-07, om 05:26 heeft Ted Grant het volgende geschreven:

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