Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: feppe on July 26, 2010, 02:12:07 pm
-
I recently started a new project shooting simple landscapes - although I think I should call them minimalist so they won't get offended.
Please note they are also part of my ongoing War Against Rule Of Thirds.
Here first three. Any constructive positive and especially negative critique welcomed. I'll get my head filled with the positive and ignore the negative.
-
they are tranquil. I can see it covering a wall for a mood set. As much as the 1/3 rule works, a rule is just a boundry. If you don't step out the boundry, you will never make your own rules.
-
You should just go ahead and shoot without waging war! A pacifist approach. If it pleases you then that is what counts. If you are confident in your own ability and tastes then if someone criticizes your image then you can safely ignore them? You don't need to battle against them. Number 1 and 3 are nicely balanced compositions - imo - and prove your point.
-
Feppe
I like your pictures. I do quite similar things in B/W, very often. But I don't understand your "war".
If we take frame #1, the pathway through the crop (which is our leading-line) falls on 1/3 in from the left. And the horizon line may be below the third, but actually the real tonal transition is the light sky immediately above the horizon, which is also 1/3 from the bottom of the frame. So this picture is in fact a very good example of the so-called "rule" of thirds.
John
-
I use to be bothered by those rules before, then I just grew tired of it.
Soon enough, you'll be tired of this war of yours as well.
-
I like the way that you've split the second one into thirds. You've got the foreground with the mountains taking up the lower third, then that strip of blue sky deliniating the split between the top & middle third.
-
LOL at this war!
Years ago my Mum did a HND in photography and was set an assignment about the using the photographic rules; including the rule of thirds.
She hates that sort of thing - so set herself a personal challenge.
To take a single image that BROKE as many rules as possible but still be a good photograph.
She managed a wonky horizon, sheep's bum sticking in one edge of the frame, telegraph pole right in the middle of the image, blown highlights, clutter and rubbish which she might have been able to remove by moving a step or two and many other sins which I can't remember.
That image became her best selling post card.
Personally I think the rules make a good starting point when trying to explain why some images work better than others.
There are some people whose images (annoyingly) seem to work regardless of the technical problems in the image; the rest of us have to work at it.
-
Feppe
I like your pictures. I do quite similar things in B/W, very often. But I don't understand your "war".
If we take frame #1, the pathway through the crop (which is our leading-line) falls on 1/3 in from the left. And the horizon line may be below the third, but actually the real tonal transition is the light sky immediately above the horizon, which is also 1/3 from the bottom of the frame. So this picture is in fact a very good example of the so-called "rule" of thirds.
John
I agree with JRS. Rules, like the Golden mean, rule of thirds and others, are really guidelines, which are very helpful to both photographers and painters, especially beginners. But ultimately, we must strike a balance between all the elements in order to convey what we want as effectively as possible.
JMR
-
I like the photos. In Number 3 you have the little islet intersecting the vertical third on the left and the transition from blue to orange water makes a nice horizontal third.
-
Thanks for all the comments. I agree fully that rules are optional, and to be broken. Judging how you all find thirds everywhere it seems like the war has already been lost. If I didn't know better I'd think you're all in on it and looking for them on purpose
-
Please, keep breaking rules!
-
I like the photos, but they are not very good attempts at breaking the rule of thirds, I'm afraid...
-
Judging how you all find thirds everywhere it seems like the war has already been lost. If I didn't know better I'd think you're all in on it and looking for them on purpose
I'm afraid that we were all having a little bit of fun at your expense . . .
But it was meant in the nicest possible way
John
-
I think that the natural truth lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to make a picture that does not follow the rules because there is an instinctive need to balance things out, make the weights work in the overall favour of the frame. To do otherwise would be to offend your own eye - why would you do that?
Taking your claim about avoiding any 'thirds' seriously, you can see that you obviously couldn't do it even if you believed that you were.
You do nice work, feppe, don't mess with your mind or invite others to try!
Rob C
-
I think that the natural truth lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to make a picture that does not follow the rules because there is an instinctive need to balance things out, make the weights work in the overall favour of the frame. To do otherwise would be to offend your own eye - why would you do that?
Taking your claim about avoiding any 'thirds' seriously, you can see that you obviously couldn't do it even if you believed that you were.
You do nice work, feppe, don't mess with your mind or invite others to try!
Rob C
I was about to post something in a similar vein, but the wise old man summed it up nicely
-
I think that the natural truth lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to make a picture that does not follow the rules [...]
Especially if you work with the exact phrasing of the rule or thirds :
"In any image, the subject is closer than 1/6th of frame of the 1/3rd or 2/3rds lines (or maybe it's the borders)".
-
The rule of thirds is valuable for two things:
It gets the photographer to avoid putting objects in the middle of the frame which is the number one problem with beginning photographers.
It is difficult to have symmetrical images if you place objects on the thirds. Symmetry is a natural response to the environment but it can be boring.
At the moment I am at a loss to think of one photographer who is considered to be a master of photography who makes highly simplified images. The problem is that every time you look at that image you see the same thing. It quickly becomes boring.
Rules are meant to be broken. Thinking about the person looking at your images and creating images that are interesting and long lasting is much more important.
Cheers,
-
At the moment I am at a loss to think of one photographer who is considered to be a master of photography who makes highly simplified images. The problem is that every time you look at that image you see the same thing. It quickly becomes boring.
John Paul Caponigro (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/) comes immediately to my mind - he has some of the most insightful views and opinions on color, and it shows in his photography. I would categorize many of them as simplified images. But definitely not boring.
-
John Paul Caponigro (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/) comes immediately to my mind - he has some of the most insightful views and opinions on color, and it shows in his photography. I would categorize many of them as simplified images. But definitely not boring.
I agree! And as for the "Rule of Thirds", I've noticed that a great many of John Paul's images have a horizon line that is (a) not in the middle of the picture, and ( b ) very deliberately not one third of the way from either the top or the bottom.
He's a good role model I'd say.
Eric
-
I agree! And as for the "Rule of Thirds", I've noticed that a great many of John Paul's images have a horizon line that is (a) not in the middle of the picture, and ( b ) very deliberately not one third of the way from either the top or the bottom.
He's a good role model I'd say.
John Paul can get away with bending the rules because he's mastered them. People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing.
-
John Paul can get away with bending the rules because he's mastered them. People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing.
Very true.
-
Problem is, by the time you start to hear about rules, find out what somebody else says that they are, begin to subscribe to them, you might well find that you have thrown your chance of being you and not a rule-addicted clone of whichever master whose rule you have decided is the shining path to wisdom and serenity.
I wonder if Haskins followed rules, Avedon, Stern, Bailey, French, Sieff, Horvat, Moon, Watson, Demarchelier, Kane, Turner etc. etc. - you get the photo...
;-)
Rob C
-
Problem is, by the time you start to hear about rules, find out what somebody else says that they are, begin to subscribe to them, you might well find that you have thrown your chance of being you and not a rule-addicted clone of whichever master whose rule you have decided is the shining path to wisdom and serenity.
I wonder if Haskins followed rules, Avedon, Stern, Bailey, French, Sieff, Horvat, Moon, Watson, Demarchelier, Kane, Turner etc. etc. - you get the photo...
;-)
Rob C
.....and thats what seperates a an istructor that teaches how to do things his/her way, vs an instructor that teaches you how to see.
-
I wonder if Haskins followed rules, Avedon, Stern, Bailey, French, Sieff, Horvat, Moon, Watson, Demarchelier, Kane, Turner etc. etc. - you get the photo...
Look at how the great artists came up. They all began by learning and applying the rules. Picasso, Warhol, Matisse--they all began by making competent and fairly traditional art. Only after they had mastered the rules did they move beyond them into new territory, and generally they were heavily criticized for doing so. We live in a time where artistic rules are misunderstood and tend to be regarded as creative strait jackets--beneath anyone who wants to pursue art seriously. As a result we're swimming in mediocre, stupidly derivative and just plain bad art by egotistical dilettantes who are smugly convinced of their own genius.
-
I think that the natural truth lies in the fact that it is almost impossible to make a picture that does not follow the rules because there is an instinctive need to balance things out
I'm usually composing pictures so they are visually pleasing to my eye and not following any rules - but then it could easily be that my eyes are, unknowingly, searching for exactly those proportions
This is one example: composing was done unless visually pleasing - but oops...it turned out to follow the 1/3-rule...
[attachment=23568:20100803...and_0039.jpg]
-
Look at how the great artists came up. They all began by learning and applying the rules. Picasso, Warhol, Matisse--they all began by making competent and fairly traditional art. Only after they had mastered the rules did they move beyond them into new territory, and generally they were heavily criticized for doing so. We live in a time where artistic rules are misunderstood and tend to be regarded as creative strait jackets--beneath anyone who wants to pursue art seriously. As a result we're swimming in mediocre, stupidly derivative and just plain bad art by egotistical dilettantes who are smugly convinced of their own genius.
You may have a point, but it would be hard to show that those guys did actually follow anybody at all. It would also be fairly difficult to show that people such as Picasso, having mastered tradition, really went on to contribute anything worthwhile rather than just personally rewarding in the financial sense of reward.
If you watch enough art shows, you have to be very fair indeed not to come to the conclusion that the entire thing is an edifice built for the generation of wealth for 'artist', dealer, critic, magazine, TV company as well as every other Tom, Dick and Harry whose fingers touch the subject. The raw truth is that taking away the monetary value associated with most of this stuff from the 'masters' I wouldn't give it space on my walls over the stuff I have up of my own. At least mine means something to me. I agree: we do indeed swim, if not drown, in crap. If I have to swim in any, might as well be my own - at least I'd know where it came from and how good it might have been before it turned into art.
To be blunt: the art world functions on the mutual suspension of disbelief.
Rob C
-
You may have a point, but it would be hard to show that those guys did actually follow anybody at all. It would also be fairly difficult to show that people such as Picasso, having mastered tradition, really went on to contribute anything worthwhile rather than just personally rewarding in the financial sense of reward.
If you watch enough art shows, you have to be very fair indeed not to come to the conclusion that the entire thing is an edifice built for the generation of wealth for 'artist', dealer, critic, magazine, TV company as well as every other Tom, Dick and Harry whose fingers touch the subject. The raw truth is that taking away the monetary value associated with most of this stuff from the 'masters' I wouldn't give it space on my walls over the stuff I have up of my own. At least mine means something to me. I agree: we do indeed swim, if not drown, in crap. If I have to swim in any, might as well be my own - at least I'd know where it came from and how good it might have been before it turned into art.
To be blunt: the art world functions on the mutual suspension of disbelief.
To each his own. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion about the value of art. Personally, I regard Picasso as one of the greatest visual artists of all time. Coincidentally, so do many others. That's neither here nor there, really. It's only called great because a lot of people have judged it so over time. And notions of what's great art change all the time. Today's master is tomorrow's fool, and visa-versa. Picasso's reputation has been amongst the most durable. But in the end it all comes down to whether you yourself like the art in question. We must all agree to disagree on the relative merits of art and artists.
Your condemnation of the way art is marketed is understandable up to a point, IMO, however the high-end art market as we know it today didn't exist prior to WWII. But in my mind, it doesn't matter. I have no problem with artists making money, or even getting filthy rich, off their art. If the buying public loves their art so much that they're willing to buy it, more power to them. An artist doesn't need to take a vow of poverty to earn my respect, nor do I think that a serious artist need be uninvolved in the marketing of their art.
-
Here three additions from last weekend on my trip to Ireland. Taken around Glenmacnass Waterfall in Wicklow County south of Dublin.
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/ireland/Ireland_-_Wicklow_(Glenmacnass_Waterfall_Topside).jpg)
Glenmacnass Waterfall Topside
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/ireland/Ireland_-_Wicklow_(Minimalist_Landscape_V).jpg)
Wicklow (Minimalist Landscape V)
(http://www.harrijahkola.com/img/ireland/Ireland_-_Wicklow_(Minimalist_Landscape_IV).jpg)
Wicklow (Minimalist Landscape IV)