Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Howard Smith on January 06, 2004, 05:55:45 pm

Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 06, 2004, 05:55:45 pm
I intended to compliment Michael's image of the dunes.  "Bland" I don't find to be especially complimentary.  The dunes at that time of day are quiet and the light soft, the colors warm.  But I don't find them bland at all.

Perhaps my negative impressions of the lake and reflections comes partly from never having been there to experience the scene.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 08, 2004, 01:26:42 pm
Quote
subjective within reason
Exegeter, What ever box they gave you at your art/design school - jump out and throw the box out with the garbage. Your restricting your creativity too much on what you think is reasonable!

Understnad the rules and then create compositions that create impact and reaction. If one of my clients called my work reasonable I would throw the work out and start over!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Exegeter on January 09, 2004, 03:14:51 pm
Ray, "all other ways" is why the composition is good.  i.e. not random elements used just because they're elements.  They work together.

Scott, I see what you're saying.  You're right in my not wording that very well.

Victor, we can agree to disagree.  Please just don't start quoting line from the Matrix...
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 12, 2004, 11:00:16 am
One thing that touched off all this discussion was Micheal's statement that he cropped the dunes to create "dynamic tension."  Maybe Michael could tell us what he meant.

The other factor was the bit of bland sky that was distracting.  While it is somewhat difficult to quantify good composition, it is known that the human eye is attracted to certain things, one being relatively light or bright areas.  Cropping the sky prevents he viewer from being unwittingly attracted to an insignificant part on the image.  Pretty straight forward.  Michael's image is about the orange dunes, so make the viewer look at them.  The portion of the mountains behind the dunes is dark and not very interesting to the eye.  The color also harmonizs with the dunes, so the mountains do not attract attention.

As discussed elsewhere on this site, human's have been attempting for some time to quantify what is good or pleasing compositions.  The golden mean and the rule of thirds are examples.  Artists talk about balance, which introduces size and color of elements as well as location.  Yes, these are but guides and following them does not guarentee a good photo, just as breaking them does not always produce a bad photo.

Perhaps good composition (and good art if you will) can be better measured by human acceptance over time.  Some art has endured for centuries.  Look at how it is put together.  It may provide clues into what makes art good.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 13, 2004, 12:13:09 pm
To get back to Scott, perhaps if there were something happening up in the sky, like dramatic and threatening clouds or sunset clouds with color, maybe the inclusion of the mountain tops and sky could provide some dynamic tesion as I define it.  Threatening clouds would play against the dry serene dunes.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 14, 2004, 01:42:50 am
Quote
The tree on the right does go from bottom right to top left, and the fallen bits do go from left to right, and everything is reversed if you flip the image horizantally. There's nothing perpendicular about the fallen bits. Are we confused about horizontal, perpendicular and 45 degrees?
The main section of fallen roof is mostly perpendicular to the tree trunk on the right edge of the frame; perhaps that's what's being referred to?

As to the Swiss bank account deposit, how about a 25% discount off your first order at my Print Store (http://visual-vacations.com/store.htm)?
 
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 18, 2004, 08:36:32 pm
Ray, I think that if you were to go back and read this one down from the top you'd have to agree that a lot of the discussion revolved around what is meant by the word 'tension'.  It differed from person to person.  In fact one person seems to have offered two different definitions.

There were offered images in which some found tension.  Others found none.

There would have been no, or certainly little, discussion as to whether an image were in color or B&W, whether an image had a green tint or a red tint.

As long as one chooses to use poorly defined terms, or at least use terms for which various definitions exist, communication is going to be hampered.

If you've spent time in a particular 'art' group you probably have evolved shared meanings that allow you to adequately  communicate within that group.  But to a large extent you will most likely find it a group-specific language.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 19, 2004, 11:31:49 am
Quote
Can then we agree on what creates tension or is that too just out of reach, as individual as the viewer?
What if we were to restrict words such as tension to relay our inner/subjective feelings?

If we say that Michael's image produces tension then we are intimating that it causes a feeling of tension in all viewers.

If we say that the way the smooth dunes are contrasted with the rugged mountains creates a feeling of tension within us, personally, then we have described the image in terms that are less subjective.  We have also described our internal state with no requirement that others produce the same internal state.

Mi tensión no es su tensión.        ::
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 20, 2004, 09:55:58 am
Quote
Quote
Ray, you say "Schzooom!  Straight to the figures in red."  Schzooom from where?

I guess the truthful answer is, I just don't know. It's all happening too quickly.

Quote
As for what they are talking about.  I know.  It is their modeling fee.  Now, what are you going to do with that bit of information?  It is useless in the context of the photo, just as the photo being taken is of no consequence to the figures, so who really cares.  Might as well wonder who the tailor was that whipped up the red garment.  And why red?

That's why the thought they might be talking about the man-eating lioness adds a certain drama to the image and definitely tension.  :)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 19, 2004, 07:08:39 pm
Quote
And it doesn't matter a wit what they are talking about, or what language they are using, or if they are even talking at all, but singing a song.  

I don't care what wave length of light is causing me to think the person is wearing something red.  While I understand why heat blurs the image, I don't care that it did, or that Michael manipulted it by adding some blur.
Howard,
Don't you think you're being just a little 'narrow' in your interests here?  :D
Title: Effective composition
Post by: sergio on December 21, 2003, 09:22:40 am
I really like the photograph in your front page, though I have to admit I came to really like it after looking at it many times. The first time I saw it I felt like I wanted to see the tips of the distant mountains that were just outside the frame cropping. It felt as an unstable composition that had some uneasyness to it. If it were composed in a more traditional way, like including more of the distant mountains, maybe I would have seen it as a nice photograph but nothing more. What a great photograph, Michael. I took the liberty to link it here for others to appreciate right here in this post.

Sergio

(http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/dunes6385-thumb.jpg)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 06, 2004, 03:52:30 pm
Quote
but I still find it pleasing.
And that is a great compliment for the photo!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Exegeter on January 08, 2004, 03:12:06 pm
Scott, I must be missing the contradiction.  

Victor, that's a bit too postmodern for me.  If you write a poem with a bad meter, it's a bad meter.  Meters aren't good just because they're meters.  A poem isn't good just because someone goes on and on with bad grammar and inexplicable injambment.  Composition isn't good simply because it uses elements.  The simple act of elements being present doesn't make anything art.  Jackson Polluck doesn't have the most expensive paintings in the world just because he splattered paint.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 09, 2004, 01:55:53 pm
Perhaps it is because so may photographs are taken for commercail purposes - ads.  If the caption had not told me, I would not have known what kind of car is shown in front of the Eiffel Tower and I certainly wouldn't want to rush out and buy one.  Nor do I want to buy a ticket to Paris.  My first impression is: "So what?"  Frustration, not tension.

The photo of the girl is fine. But it isn't what I would call compelling.  Before you ask, I don't know what "compelling" is, but I do know when I see it.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 12, 2004, 12:16:38 pm
Howard, I generally agree with what you say with a couple of exceptions.

First, "The portion of the mountains behind the dunes is dark and not very interesting to the eye."

Perhaps the word 'interesting' was not the best choice for what you were saying.  The mountains make this picture for me.  They are what I really look at - once I see them.  Without the mountains the image would be a fairly boring (to me) frame of orange.  

The mountains are dark, a small part of the entire frame, and tucked into an area that is not the first typically visited by the eye (center, then lower right, etc. if I remember correctly).

So perhaps 'drawing to the eye'  might have worked better?

Second, " Perhaps good composition (and good art if you will) can be better measured by human acceptance over time."

Remember that the taste of the public changes over time.  van Gogh couldn't sell a single one of his works during his lifetime.  More than one 'now-revered' composer has had the debut of one of his work met by boos and catcalls.  

Art and music go in and out of fashion.  The high art of today may be forgotten in 50 years, rediscovered 50 years later.
 

(All facts subject to be faulty due to inadequate memory functions, not solely due to the aging process.)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 13, 2004, 12:09:38 pm
Jonathan, I think there is some tension, something going on.  The building seems to be about to fall down.  However, the bright patches o sky on the left detractfrom the image.  The bright pact seen through the windows keeps the eye on the building, its openness and condition.  Burn down that sky on the left and the image would be improved.

All personal opinion, which is indisputable and you can do with it what you want.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 18, 2004, 07:56:30 pm
Quote
But there is a lack of specificity that allows for common agreement as to when this property of 'tension' exists.

In the context of photography what is 'conflict'?  The listed definition of tension relies on another poorly defined word.

Show a group of people a series of photographs and some will find conflict, some won't.  Some will find tension, some won't.  

  

These terms are much too be subjective for anything more than creating discussions about how an individual is using the word.  They aren't specific enough for clear communication.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. How specific do you want to be? 'Conflict' is another common word which has slightly different meanings in different contexts. If you're having trouble with the 'lack of specificity' of the word, again the dictionary might help.

If you see a definition of 'conflict' along the lines of ... "An encounter with arms; a fight; a battle", and that's the only definition you can find, get a bigger dictionary.

However, if you come across a definition along the lines of ..."The clashing or variance of opposed principles, statements, arguments, visual effects etc etc...", then applying a bit of common sense, the latter definition would appear to fit the context better than the former in relation to Michael's photo.

The fact is (in my view, I could be wrong) the language of art and common experience is a language of simile and metaphor. If we attempt to be absolutely specific about everything we want to say, we could hardly have a conversation about anything.

A simple statement such as, "The grass is green", then becomes incorrect, if you want to be specific. There is no evidence to support the theory that grass is green, or that violets are blue, or that fire engines are red. It's all an illusion, my friend.

However, we could make a very specific statement along the lines, "One of the properties of this leaf is its ability to reflect that part of the magnetic spectrum with wavelengths ranging between 500 and 600 nanometers."

The greenness of a leaf is a quality which exists only in our minds and imagination, as does the experience of viewing Michael's photo.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 19, 2004, 12:39:24 pm
Everyone that looks at an image is going to interpret it differently.  Some people will like it, and some will not.  Some will feel tension and some will not.

If an abstract concept like tension could be quantified, and measured; then someone could point the tension meter at the image, get a reading, and that would be it.  I don't think there would be much point in discussing it if that were the case.

I think it's interesting to discuss these things because they are subjective, open to interpretation, and everyone sees them differently.  Even if I don't agree completely with what someone else says, it gives me an opportunity to look at it differently.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 14, 2004, 02:14:26 am
Quote
The fallen bits of the house and the tree branches are perpendicular.
Okay! Gotcha! Perpendicular to each other. I'm coming from the more literal, scientific world. I should have figured that out  :D

Jonathan, I'd love to buy some of your photos, but it doesn't make sense when I'm still debating whether or not to buy PhotoCal, Monaco, Eye-One or the Sony Artisan when Sony eventually decides to run a batch  of their latest and best for the Southern Hemisphere.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 19, 2004, 07:04:35 pm
Quote
and what are they discussing?
How to catch that man-eating lioness!

There's no sense here of the eye beginning in the bottom left corner and making an anti-clockwise motion around the picture, wouldn't you agree? Shzooom! Straight to the figures in red.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 20, 2004, 10:09:26 am
Ray, I may be wrong, but I don't think this is a news photo documenting some Masai under a tree talking about the latest man-eating lion on the prowl, or whatever.  The photo really misses the mark as a news photo or a photo documenting people talking.  It is an excellant photo of people in their own environment doing what they sometimes do there - stand and wait and chat.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: on December 21, 2003, 11:05:02 am
Thanks.

The reason that the mountain tops are cut off is to create "dynamic tension". Sometimes when things are simple, neat and orderly they can lose their tension. By clipping the peaks I found that the composition was enhanced.

It was also done to remove a bit of bland sky which distracted the eye from the more interesting and important parts of the frame.

Michael
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 06, 2004, 02:47:01 pm
Maybe instead of "why," I was thinking "what for."  The image does nothing for me, and I wonder "Why did the person take the photo?"  There isn't any tension is such a question.

Yes, I have seen more compelling images of the dunes than the one shown, but I still find it pleasing.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Exegeter on January 08, 2004, 03:23:12 am
haha.  

Well, subjective within reason.  Nothing in your example leads me to the point of tension, it all leads away.  I'm not looking up and expecting.  So it's not tension so much as it is a random missing chunk.  That's alright too.  I'm not coming down on you or anything.  Just trying to offer things to consider.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 11, 2004, 06:48:18 pm
Quote
I knew it was time to leave when we couldn't decide whether it was an exhibit or a wiring repair.  Because I haven't forgotten that experience and still wonder but know, was it "art choked full of tension?"

During that same visit, I saw several photographs of gas stations on the wall.  They were flat (low contrast), not well printed and needed to be spotted very badly.  They were junk.  Did they have tension because I had no idea how such bad work gets displayed?
I think that in the more abstract matters of taste ("tension" is a perfect example) it is difficult to extract one's self from one's prejudices and personal paradigms and agree on what constitutes "good taste" or "good composition" or what is "pleasing" or "good art". One man's profound principle is another's pseudo-intellectual kopfscheiss. This is why people tend to obsess and discuss more concrete things like resolution, sharpness, the pros and cons of various pieces of gear, and things of that nature that the arguably more important things like "good composition". It's not that hard to test to see if the EF 24-70 f/2.8 has a better MTF that the EF 50mm f1.4 at 50mm, and setting aside unit variance, the results are repeatable and verifiable science. But defining "good art" has a tendency to devolve into endless arguments and flame wars and people get tired of that. I'm happy to see that has been avoided here so far and look forward to the continuing discussion here with interest.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2004, 07:46:28 pm
On Jonathan's photo of the derelict house, I agree with Howard. The eye tends to move from left to right, as we read. (The Chinese might well have a different view on this, however.)

The bright patches of sky, top left corner, tend to get the eye stuck on the first word. Flipping the image horizontally produces an improvement in my view, but that out-of-focus tree trunk in the foreground tends to spoil the image somewhat.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 16, 2004, 12:58:07 pm
Howard, I think Kodak wanted to do that camera! For my own part my composition is best when I just let it flow, the more I think the more pictures end in the trash can!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 19, 2004, 07:06:35 am
Quote
"Green" is a term that is specifically linked to light within a specific range of wavelengths. So that is clearly and measureably definable.
Well, I'd agree there is a sensation of greenness, an inner experience of greenness, that is linked to specific wavelengths of light, and I'd agree that a neuroscientist could probably measure subtle changes in our brains that result from the perception of different wavelengths of light.

However, that sensation of greenness seems to me totally subjective and is a property of our humanity. There's no objective greenness out there. For all I know, reality could be a totally colorless world.

In fact for some creatures, it is a colorless world, and other creatures, some species of birds, can see a fourth primary color directly linked to wavelengths that we would describe as ultraviolet. But I think it's impossible for us to imagine what a fourth primary color would look like because we're not constructed that way. The best we can do is imagine it as perhaps a deeper or different shade of blue, as different from blue as Sony's emerald green is different from standard green.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 19, 2004, 07:03:37 pm
I have no idea what they are talking about, Victor.  And it doesn't matter a wit what they are talking about, or what language they are using, or if they are even talking at all, but singing a song.  Because of our vastly different cultures, I likely wouldn't know what they were talking about even if they told me.  The only thing that is happening for me is that something appears to be happening.  If they were just standing there looking blankly at the camera, I don't suppose I would be wondering why either.

I don't care what wave length of light is causing me to think the person is wearing something red.  While I understand why heat blurs the image, I don't care that it did, or that Michael manipulted it by adding some blur.

I just like the composition and design of the image, and the use of color.  I can only imagine what a really large print would look like.  I bet it would be wonderful.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 20, 2004, 07:21:48 pm
Howard, you're probably right. It's just me. I've been watching too many B grade movies featuring man-eating Lions, or wildlife programs from Africa where scenes of lionesses bringing down their prey are very common.

It's just, those people out there look so vulnerable under that lone tree surrounded by miles of grassland in the middle of nowhere. Are lions attracted to red? I'm getting scared just thinking about it.  :)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: JeroenM on December 23, 2003, 03:27:02 pm
Quote
Thanks.

The reason that the mountain tops are cut off is to create "dynamic tension". Sometimes when things are simple, neat and orderly they can lose their tension. By clipping the peaks I found that the composition was enhanced.

It was also done to remove a bit of bland sky which distracted the eye from the more interesting and important parts of the frame.

Michael
that's really neat to know. I never thought about a picture in terms of "tension"
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 06, 2004, 12:26:39 pm
'Why' is just what the tension is about. I have seen much better dune pictures, I find Michael's pictures a bit bland, IMHO.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 08, 2004, 07:05:57 am
Exegeter, you've contradicted yourself.  First you state that tension is created when you take something good and screw it up.  Mybe that was a typo or something, but I would agree with that after a fashion.  

You can create tension by violating the normal rules of composition.  Having the subject looking out of the frame, for example, can create tension.  I think hacking off the top of the mountian can create tension as well.  It doesn't neccesarily make it an image I would like, but to me it creates tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 11, 2004, 09:29:44 pm
But! none of the examples create real emotional tension in the viewer, so is it the wrong word to use?

So if tension is messing up what could be good, then can the messing up be brutal croping?

My point about the snap shot of the towers was the missing lower part did not create any tension! (It was part of a of a stich - trash!).

FYI: The news photo was taken with a 500mm lens, the wide 20mm shot just shows the whole column not even the banner.
 Protestors (anti apartied) scale Nelsons Column in London's Trafalgar Sq  (http://members.shaw.ca/aberdeenz/news.html)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2004, 07:30:53 pm
Quote
Would the contrast between the dunes and the mountains create tension even if the sky had not been cropped out.
I'm now beginning to see that the dynamic tension in Michael's image results solely from the contrast (on many levels) between the dark mountains and the bland dunes. What we have here is a Yin and Yang principle; a contrast between light and dark, weak and strong, smooth and rough. Not only that, but there's a contrast of predominantly two shades of color, pale orange and dark orange. The image is like a well dressed person with  good color sense.

Cropping the sky is merely excluding that which is irrelevant to the above concept. The cropping does not 'create' the tension, but contains it.

In a sense, the mountains and dunes are like two separate photos that have been skilfully joined or enmeshed like two pieces of a jigsaw, each complementing the other, like man and woman.

Adding a sky could ruin the whole effect. How would dark grey/cyan fit in with the color scheme? Maybe a swirling, dust storm sort of sky, another shade of orange with the sun trying to peek through ???
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 16, 2004, 09:35:27 am
Victor, if there were an absolute right way, Canon would have made a camera with a little red light that would come on in the viewfinder telling you the photo is perfect.  Seriously though, if you know what works and why, you can consistently take good photographs.  Some photographers are able to do ths without consciously applying rules and giving each frame a lot of thought time, but the thought is there.  Accidents happen but rarely please.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 19, 2004, 11:23:40 am
Quote
However, that sensation of greenness seems to me totally subjective and is a property of our humanity. There's no objective greenness out there. For all I know, reality could be a totally colorless world.
How about for purposes of this discussion we agree that we all pretty much agree that the world is 'real', not a fiction in the dream of some amorphous caterpillar in some unknown universe?  And let's hold our discussion to what is normally seen by physiologically intact adult humans.

What we talking about at the moment is the ease of defining certain terms.  Colors are easily defined by their measured wavelengths.  And we can describe the properties of a 'new' color to someone on the other side of the globe and she/he can accurately create that same color by working back from the definition.

Other words just aren't as easy to define.  There are no 'controlling entities' as to what we mean when we use those words.  If we were to agree to pick a standard, say the Oxford English Dictionary, and abide by it our communication would become easier.  But we don't do that.

We use these words in idiosyncratic ways.  Meanings morph from person to person, group to group, time to time.  Take for example the words "cool" and "bomb".  Cool can be hot, bomb can mean excellent.

As long as we continue to use poorly defined words we will continue to argue over the words and be distracted from discussing the photographs.

The solution?  Don't have one.  

A partial solution would perhaps be if people would  make more of an attempt to describe in physical terms what it is about the image that strikes them.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 19, 2004, 06:39:04 pm
Yes Howard, and makes the photo more interesting as a result! and what are they discussing?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 20, 2004, 07:34:48 pm
Maybe it is in a park, in downtown of a city of 5 million it's just lost in the shimmer...
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 03, 2004, 11:43:24 am
Photographically, what is "tension?"
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 07, 2004, 07:10:14 am
I think it's kind of ephemeral.  It's like when you are in a room and it is tense, that kind of feeling.  When it is late in the third period, and your team needs that tying goal.  I look at the lake photograph, and it makes me feel that same way.

The way those mountains are cut off in the lake picture does that to me.  I look at them, and I know there is supposed to be more there, but there isn't.  I want to see the rest of the mountains.  I can see it in the reflection, but it is not the same.  In this case I think it might be a little too tense for me personally.

I think in the lake picture as well, there is a tendency for my eye to be drawn out of the frame in search of the mountains.  The dunes can keep my eye in the frame so it doesn't bother me so much.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Exegeter on January 07, 2004, 10:59:14 pm
I'm new to photography, but I'll be graduating this year with a minor in design and media production.  In this past fall semester we had an assignment to demonstrate tension.  I'd just finished looking at the Russian Suprematists and thought my illustration with four blue squares evenly spaced across across the stage (the "paper" you draw on in graphics programs) except for the last was absolutely brilliant.  It got me a C.  

If I were to redo it the boxes would all be evenly spaced and I'd have something like a puke-like olive tint to one.  THAT would be tension.  Tension is when you take something good and screw it up.

Tesnion is tension because the composition works in all other ways.  Michael's photo has a theme of similar curves and colors, and it's tension because an otherwise good composition is screwed up.  It's not the most tense image I've ever seen, but it works.  And that's ok because I'm sure Michael wasn't trying to give us a lesson in tension, thus overplaying it.  It's subtle.  

Hacking the top off that other photo doesn't add tension, just bad composition.  I think it'd be better if he/she re-instated the top.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 10, 2004, 08:20:51 pm
Tension seems to be there when the excluded is drawing your attention, maybe because we don't know what to expect. Or am I in the wrong place?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 12, 2004, 05:22:24 pm
Quote
The portion of the mountains behind the dunes is dark and not very interesting to the eye.  The color also harmonizs with the dunes, so the mountains do not attract attention.
I tend to agree with Bobtrips here. The background mountains contrast with the foreground dunes on so many levels, light and shade, color and texture, smooth and rough. It's this contrast that makes the picture, together with the diagonal lines and flowing curves which really create the dynamism.

There is tension, in my view, resulting from the cropping of the top of the frame. But I'm not sure it's the cropping of the sky that creates this tension, but rather the cropping of the mountain tops.

We tend to expect to see the complete thing, but within certain categories that have been culturally defined over the years. A head and shoulders portrait would probably show great tension in a society that always expected to see the whole human figure. Some of Cartier-Bresson's portraits create tension by cropping out, say half the head, a technique he seems to have got from the painter Pierre Bonnard who so frequently filled up spare spaces on the canvas with, for example, a dismembered arm, elbow resting on a table, the rest of the person being off the canvas.

In fact, a painting by Pierre Bonnard is not complete if half a foot hasn't been cropped, or an ear or a forehead. A bit disconcerting really.  :)

I noticed recently a self portrait by Jonathan Wienke on the Sony F828 thread, demonstrating the qualities of the Canon 35-350 zoom at 70mm. The download stopped just below his eyes. I wasn't sure if this was an attempt at being avant-garde, or just a bug in the system - but it did produce a bit of tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 13, 2004, 07:20:35 am
Would the contrast between the dunes and the mountains create tension even if the sky had not been cropped out.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 19, 2004, 01:00:45 am
I really haven't kept up with my physiology of the visual system, but I doubt that there's any mushiness at the receptor/neural transmission levels.  Green sensitive cones fire.  Chemical outputs from those cells fire off the neural network to which they are attached.  The signal most likely reaches everyone's CNS in the same fashion.

Mushiness might occur in labeling green due to two factors.  First a faulty system.  Some people are color blind.  But let's skip that one.  

The second, more probable reason for a mushy definition of 'green' is a cultural mushiness.  If your particular culture hasn't found it important to tag the narrow wavelength band of light that we commonly call green you might have trouble labeling it.  Perhaps your culture doesn't value 'greenness' enough to label it.  The old tale is that the Eskimos so value the different types of snow that they have developed 26 different words for different types when we use only a handful (powder, corn, etc.)

And don't think that those definitions are fixed.  Purple, a few centuries ago, was what we now call blue.

Now that we've devised operational definitions of some words (color names, for example) we are less likely to see definitional drift over time.

(And, yes Ray I have learned a few things.  And have had some fun...)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 19, 2004, 10:38:03 pm
Quote
If we say that the way the smooth dunes are contrasted with the rugged mountains creates a feeling of tension within us, personally, then we have described the image in terms that are less subjective.  
I don't get it! An opinion is an opinion, and therefore by definition subjective. People have a habit, on the net, of adding, or beginning a sentence, with IMHO. It took me a while to figure this out. I can assure such people I have no delusions that what they are writing is an opinion; there's or someone elses.

In fact, there is a school of Philosophy that maintains there are "in reality" no facts, but only consensuses of opinion.

There is no total unanimity of opinion on any subject. Of course, it goes without saying, if you want to get an idea of the 'factual' status of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, you have to get an opinion from a Physicist. One should ignore opinions from people who are not likely to have a clue what they are talking about. Also, there are some pretty obvious examples of almost universal agreement on common matters such as; if you stick your hand in a fire it will get burnt, or; if you get shot through the heart with a .45 you'll die. But I wouldn't be too surprised if there are sometimes exceptions even to these seemingly obvious effects.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 21, 2004, 12:17:52 pm
Over the weekend, my fiance said that Michelangelo's David is a good example of tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: boku on January 03, 2004, 12:24:32 pm
Quote
Photographically, what is "tension?"
Ambiguous or unresolved environment leaving the mind to wonder and wander.

Result - people ponder the photograph.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 07, 2004, 02:53:14 am
Bob, I'm not putting words here for Scott, but my take on the word tension in this context is -

The interplay of conflicting elements in a piece of literature, especially a poem.

Which is from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tension) most of the other references are about pulling etc.
 
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 08, 2004, 03:01:09 am
Quote
Hacking the top off that other photo doesn't add tension, just bad composition.  I think it'd be better if he/she re-instated the top.
'bad' in your opinion, composition is subjective not definitive. That you don't like it is obviously causing you some tension  
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 10, 2004, 08:47:56 pm
Quote
Tension seems to be there when the excluded is drawing your attention, maybe because we don't know what to expect. Or am I in the wrong place?
Not in the wrong place, just stuck in an age-old problem.

Trying to use poorly defined terms is a real bear.  Without standardized definitions communication is very difficult.

If there were a standard and accepted definition of 'tension' in photography then the discussion could have run a smoother course.  If the first person in the door had defined the term then communication would have been cleaner.

There is a very large problem in the 'artsy-fartsy' world in which people show how clever they are by using a not commonly used word to describe how they feel about a painting, sculpture, print, etc.  Seems like you get points for being obtuse.

We don't seem to have much trouble deciding whether a print is color or B&W.  We've sort of nailed those definitions down.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 12, 2004, 06:02:32 pm
Just remember that tension is an ill-defined term.  It means different things to different people.  A picture that leads one person to use the label 'tension' might well lead another person to use the label 'boring'.

Most people probably aren't heavily affected by musical scales.  The best way to bother my mother was to start a scale on the piano beginning with, say, middle C and continue upward to B, omitting the final C note.  

She would have to leave whatever she was doing, come to the piano and play the final C.  Most people wouldn't even notice what, in her, caused great tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 13, 2004, 04:44:35 am
I've done some homework on "dynamic tension."  Seems the term is used often but never clearly defined. The closest I can come to is: the photograph, its composition and elements give the viewer the impression of a happening; something is going on.  A sense of movement in a static medium brought about by the various elements in the image and their composition or relationships to one another.

Based on this, perhaps an example would be a still life of a vase of flowers.  Pretty static, as the term still life would indicate. Now place a flower petal as if it had fallen from the flower to the table.  Something happened.  Same kind of hing with a bowl of fruit.  Put an apple on the table nxt to the neat bowl and something happened.

A portrait can be very static, like a mugshot.  But put some dramatic lighting on the subject, turn the head a bit, and somehing happened.  Maybe let some hairfall out of its proper place and cover one eye.

Now getting back to the dunes.  Perhaps if the entire scene is shown, the scene becomes static and documentss a place - Death Valley and the dunes.  Crop out some of the environment, the shape of the dunes and curving lines show motion that might be otherwised missed.  Crop out the bit of bland sky to keep the viewer's eyes from coming to rest on an insignificant element - keep the eyes moving.  The viewer focuses on the sand, maye sees ripples created by wind.  Maybe then hears the wind.

The "something happened" doesn't have to be all that unexpected, like the orchastra suddenly jumping from Mozart to AC/DC.  That is a jolt and might be quite unpleasant.  However, composers often use a sudden change in tempo or volume to "jolt" the audience.  Stick a cigar in the pretty girls mouth - something happened and its jolting.  OK if that is what you want, but perhaps a bit heavy handed.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 19, 2004, 04:30:45 am
And yet we still find it hard to put a picture, or the emotion derived from a picture into words. I think this is a good thing, to have it there but at the same time just out of reach.

Can then we agree on what creates tension or is that too just out of reach, as individual as the viewer?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 19, 2004, 07:54:48 pm
Quote
How about for purposes of this discussion we agree that we all pretty much agree that the world is 'real', not a fiction in the dream of some amorphous caterpillar in some unknown universe?  And let's hold our discussion to what is normally seen by physiologically intact adult humans.
Bobtrips,
I assure you I wasn't trying to imply that the world might be a fiction in the dream of an amorphous caterpillar, but rather a fiction in our own dreams and imagination, to at least some extent.

The point I'm trying to make with this little excursion is how very, very difficult it would be to apply precisely defined terms to completely subjective experiences, given human variability.

On the matter of how we perceive color, we tend to assume that people are either color blind or not, and if they're not color blind, they will experience color exactly as we do. That's a bit like saying, you're either healthy or you're not, you're either tall or short, you're either fat or slim.

Common sense would tell me that the relatively few words we have (or at least use) for shades of green, for example, might indicate that uniformity of experience at even this basic level is not as great as we like to imagine, but we don't realise this because the terms we use for a particular colour are so broadly defined, like the word 'tension', that it gets us in the ball park.

When I first started using Photoshop, I was a bit mystified when attempting to increase the saturation of green foliage, using the Hue/Sat control and eyedropper, to discover that what I thought was green (would even swear was green) was in fact yellow or yellow 2, according to Photoshop.  ???
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 06, 2004, 02:30:26 am
And maybe the emotion you feel looking at the picture, here a much better example! (http://www.michaeljamesbrown.com/mountains/stobdubh.htm)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 06, 2004, 09:09:38 pm
Scott - please define the word 'tension' in terms of the lake picture.  I'd like to know what you're talking about.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 07, 2004, 03:24:19 pm
Well said Bob.

1)  Anyone who puts their image in public should be open to critiques, good, bad or otherwise.

2)  "Taste is indisputable."
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 08, 2004, 05:16:14 pm
Then who is the judge of what is good and what is bad. It is not the meter of a poemthat makes it good but the effect it has on listeners or readers.

In Dead Poest Society - Williams has the students rip out the pages defining 'good' because good is not measured on a scale. If you want to admire Jackson Polluck do it because it moves you, not because your told it is good.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 09, 2004, 01:32:20 pm
There seem to be very few photos that show tension, and I have not found any that work with buildings! So I'll guess that as photographers we tend to provide a complete composition. Here  an example (http://contaxg.com/document.php?id=7954) that hs (for me) no tension at all! Portraits however it seems to matter even less,

No tension here (http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1120677) maybe because all the elements of the face are there?

So why do so few photos show tension?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 09, 2004, 07:17:26 pm
Quote
Perhaps it is because so may photographs are taken for commercail purposes - ads.  If the caption had not told me, I would not have known what kind of car is shown in front of the Eiffel Tower and I certainly wouldn't want to rush out and buy one.  Nor do I want to buy a ticket to Paris.  My first impression is: "So what?"  Frustration, not tension.

The photo of the girl is fine. But it isn't what I would call compelling.  Before you ask, I don't know what "compelling" is, but I do know when I see it.
Well, there you go!  :)  Subjective opinion has endless variation. Both photos, the car and Eifel tower, and the portrait of a girl, show the element of tension as it has been discussed so far.

Most comments on the girl portrait express a desire to see the other eye. Call it frustration if you like, but is the result not tension?

The comercial shot of the Citroen and Eifel Tower is very contrived. There's an obvious attempt to create an association between two icons of fine engineering and the crass and hackneyed nature of this technique might well spoil the image for you. Nevertheless, if you set aside personal 'prejudices', for want of a better word; the fact that you've seen the top of the Eifel Tower a million times; the fact that you're not in the market to buy a luxury car and couldn't give a stuff what the rest of the car looks like, I think you'll find that the image demonstrates the elements of tension.

Are you not just slightly curious about the possibility that someone is hanging on for dear life from that upper viewing platform (ie. there might be something interesting going on up there)?   Are you really not interested in what the rest of the car looks like, and if you are really not, is that because you already know what the rest of the car looks like because you've been gloating over lots of glossy advertisements of Citroens?  :D
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 10, 2004, 10:52:21 pm
Well, I tend to agree with Bobtrips. What I've been trying to do here is isolate the 'technique of creating tension by excluding a part of the image in such a way that it adds to the general interest of the photo'.

I'm trying to make a distinction between the subjective appreciation of the whole image (do you like it or not?) and the recognisable application of a tension producing technique, whether it is successful or not in a particular viewer's opinion.

Howard may be of the opinion that the hair obscuring one eye in the girl portrait does not produce tension, so for him this tension producing technique, deliberately employed by the photographer (I assume) has not worked. He says, 'no big deal, I expect her right eye to be the same as her left eye. No mystery here.' Fair enough! But we don't really know that, do we! Let your imagination run riot and I'm sure you could think of a hundred plausible reasons why the hair is covering that eye.

Looking at Victor's recent examples, the Dubai Towers are just boring. There's no sense of a 'technique' being used. It's just a snapshot with a camera that didn't have a sufficiently wide angle lens to take in the whole tower.

Same with the monument in London. To make this photo really interesting (of course it's already a lot more interesting than the Dubai Towers) you need a wide angle lens shot from slightly above the climber which includes the whole monument, receding into the distance, with the traffic and people below appearing as ants.

The child's windmill is in another category. This has got tension, but not because of what is excluded. It's basically a rather garish semi-abstract that derives its tension from a clash of colors and shapes. There's a tendency to either like it or hate it. Personally, I would not have this on my wall, but I recognise there's tension there.

Could be I'm spouting complete rubbish. Maybe I should get back to less elusive matters, such as commenting on lens performance.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howad Smith on January 11, 2004, 05:03:47 pm
Scott is correct.  Just like a well composed photo can be bad.  Carefully examining what is right and wrng with a photo and understanding that is a powerful tool in making your own work better.  A good open critique of your work and the work of others is a good plac to get many opinions and new insights.  Never be afraid to learn and never be afraid to call junk junk.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 12, 2004, 12:19:29 pm
The converging lines for the towers lead into the frame.  The converging lines in the shot of the mountains and lake lead out of the frame.  I think that's a big difference when it comes to tnesion.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 13, 2004, 11:34:38 am
How about this as an example of tension?
(http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/MiscImages/187U3987.jpg)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 14, 2004, 01:16:51 am
Quote
I resized the house shot to 600 pixels, darkened the sky just a little, and moved the crop slightly to the left to shift the focus to the fallen porch roof a little more.
Okay! That's better!  :)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 18, 2004, 12:21:07 pm
I don't think it's something that can be quantified.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 18, 2004, 11:09:25 pm
Quote
If you've spent time in a particular 'art' group you probably have evolved shared meanings that allow you to adequately  communicate within that group.  But to a large extent you will most likely find it a group-specific language.
Well, you might be right there. Apart from general art classes as a kid at school, I've never attended a formal art class or photographic tutorial, so I'm certainly open to instruction from those who have.

I'm sure there are 'group specific' languages, but in all disciplines without exception, there is often a lively debate as to the 'true' significance of the sensory data presented. Doesn't matter whether it's art, religion or science. The debate goes on.

In this thread, we seem to have got stuck on the meaning of 'tension' as it applies to a work of art or an 'arty type' photograph, which might imply that we're all complete novices.

I've certainly learned something from this thread. Have you?  :D
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 15, 2004, 08:12:34 pm
I am conscious that we fall into a trap - perception is reality, so we think a rule works, but only have each others opinion as validation. For example I recall that Kodak did a study on color that indicated we see color in a context to the other colors it is with not by the absolute color! They had done a huge amount of research before they even posed this ‘idea’.

My point and question is where is the research on composition and interpretation of a picture, I would like to learn more, and more?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 19, 2004, 01:48:32 pm
Yes Bob, I think this is the key, to create an emotional reaction, that we as the creators of the image just feel but cannot describe.

Or in the words of Edgar Allen Poe -  "FOR MY own part, I have never had a thought which I could not set down in words with even more distinctness than that with which I conceived it. There is, however, a class of fancies of exquisite delicacy which are not thoughts, and to which as yet I have found it absolutely impossible to adapt to language. These fancies arise in the soul, alas how rarely. Only at epochs of most intense tranquillity, when the bodily and mental health are in perfection. And at those weird points of time, where the confines of the waking world blend with the world of dreams. And so I captured this fancy, where all that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream."

And a picture tells a thousand words!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 19, 2004, 07:18:22 pm
I think they are talking about the guy pointing a camera at them.

I like this image too.  I'm not sure the shot on the screen does it justice though.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 06, 2004, 03:14:18 am
There's something about Michael's picture that makes me want to see into the distance.  The cropping leads my eye up and under the top edge of the frame.

No insult intended to whomever shot the other one, but I just don't get the same feeling.  There's no "What's around the corner?" feeling in it for me.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 06, 2004, 07:36:09 pm
I like the dunes picture because of the curves and the shapes.  I had assumed the tops of the mountains were cut off to crop out the sky.  I'm not sure that adds more tension for me, my eye keeps following the curves in the dunes.

The lake picture seems like it has more tension to me.  I don't know that I like that photograph, but it certainly has a lot of tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 07, 2004, 03:47:10 pm
It is good if the viewer either likes or dons’t like a photo.

But when the opinion is ambivalent! That causes tension for me – but only if I had taken the photo!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 08, 2004, 06:58:03 pm
Quote
Tesnion is tension because the composition works in all other ways.  Michael's photo has a theme of similar curves and colors, and it's tension because an otherwise good composition is screwed up.  
This is the contradiction. You seem to be saying Michael's picture is flawed or even ruined because of a regrettable tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 09, 2004, 07:44:01 pm
I think tension is something that probably makes people feel uncomfortable and something people feel they want to avoid.  If I had a wall size mural of the image with the lake and the mountain I probably wouldn't want to spend much time in that room.  It's probably like using red, too much can be overpowering, and a little bit can make something stand out.

I think in the image of the car, the headlight draws my eye, and seems to be the center of the composition.  The car seems to be moving into the frame from the left.  The tower is cut off, but it is more of a supporting element in the composition, so there isn't really any over powering tension for me.  If the headlight had been further to the right of the frame it might create some more tension, but the whole composition would probably have to change to incorporate the same element.  I might be difficult to frame is so that the headlight draws my eye like it does now.

I think the portrait bends the rules a bit with the placement of the model.  What I think appeals to me in that image is  the way it seems to flow from left to right.  My eye moves naturally across the frame through the blank space, across her hair and right to her eye.  If her hair had been covering her left eye, or had been a mirror image, I don't think the composition would work as well for me.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 12, 2004, 04:43:10 pm
Good points Bob.  I'll stick with "interesting" for now but add that there isn't anything back there that grabs the eye right off, not like the dunes.  If not for the dunes' shapes and colors, I would have pasted right over the image.  Maybe after one lingers for a while, the eye goes to the mountains.  I didn't find anything especially interesting and came back to the dunes.  You and others may find the mountains very interesting.

It is true that many artists were not well acepted in their own time.  But their art has endured.  While rejected by some or even most,there must have been something compelling about the art to keep it around and allow it to enjoy a revival.  There is a lot of art today that will not likely last too long.  Too soon to tell.  I would likely have been one of those that booed the "new stuff."  Michaelangelo's David has endured and will continue to endure, but that heap of stainless steel called "art" out in front of the university Art Building may not.  Rap has come and will likely go, but Mozart will endure.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Hward Smith on January 09, 2004, 12:31:45 pm
A good critique of your work is vital to getting better.  Nothing like it.  Park your ego at the door and there is a lot to learn.  The forum must be one where the participates can say whatever they want.  No obligation to praise and no fear in voicing a negative opinion.  The feeling when you know the image is good and you get a "wow" from a respected photographer - well, priceless.

I am glad to see so much discussion about two photogarphs on this website.  So much is posted here about hardware and software, and so little about the results.  Nothing makes me crazier than; "Nice picture.  What kind of computer (camera, lens, tripod, printer) do you have?"  Like, but for the lens, I wouldn't be a photographer.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 10, 2004, 10:00:37 pm
Bob, Thank you - your so correct, but some of this stuff is emotion so is harder to articulate with out searching for common understanding
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 11, 2004, 04:43:38 pm
An image can have tension in it and not be an effective image.  Looking at an image that is not effective, and understanding where the tension comes from can still teach you something.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 18, 2004, 12:03:14 pm
This whole discussion was started by Michael's statement that he cropped the dunes the way he did o create "dynamic tension."  Maybe he could tell us what he meant.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 19, 2004, 12:31:41 am
Quote
A simple statement such as, "The grass is green", then becomes incorrect, if you want to be specific. There is no evidence to support the theory that grass is green, or that violets are blue, or that fire engines are red. It's all an illusion, my friend.

However, we could make a very specific statement along the lines, "One of the properties of this leaf is its ability to reflect that part of the magnetic spectrum with wavelengths ranging between 500 and 600 nanometers."
Almost, but not quite. "Green" is a term that is specifically linked to light within a specific range of wavelengths. So that is clearly and measureably definable. Where the mushyness comes in is what happens in an individual's brain once light in the "green range" hits the retina and gets traslated into synaptic pulses that go up the optic nerve, and how those signals are perceived and interpreted. Green is a measurably definable concept; the details of how an individual perceives and interprets "green" is currently not.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 13, 2004, 10:26:40 am
Scott, I think not.  A bright bland sky at the top would be a place the eye would go to very quickly and want to stay there instead of on the subject. The composition would be weak and off balance.  When the eye stops moving, the image becomes static.  The viewer might become bored and move on.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 14, 2004, 01:25:23 am
But we need a consultation fee, paid into my Swiss Bank account. (Only kidding, of course  :D )
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 15, 2004, 01:28:54 pm
It is important to know how people "rad" photographs when composing an image.  I think, don't have proof, that that is why such composition fundamentals as the rule of thirds or the golden mean work.  Not they define how to compose but describe how people view photographs.  The size, shape, color and relative brightness are also important to composition because of how people perceive these things.

Undersatnding these "rules" or principles also allows artists to break them creatively.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 19, 2004, 03:16:06 pm
The current front pge photo - Masai waiting - is a very effect composition.  The stripes of horizonal land form about thirds.  The tree is located at about the third point and cuts all three horizonatl stripes.  The colors are very mild and pleasing.  Then you see - can't help it - the red and blue of the figures.  The eye is drawn to the figures by the colors.  While the figure are small (which lends to the feeling of size), it appears they are engaged in a somewhat animated conversation - hands moving.  Something is happening in the very static environment.  The sense of something happening is what I now think of as dynamic tension.  A huge quiet environment with some colorful animated figures.  Very good photo.  I call this wall art.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 19, 2004, 07:16:00 pm
That bottom left thing happened as your assessment of the scene (image) – it is how you found the red, it is so fast you'll almost not notice if you watch for it - and being a personal action not everyone will cooperate! But everybody will visually asses the scene in a consistent process before they perceive an element of the scene!

What, however is important, and we all seem to agree on is that photo creates some tension, a question that drew us further into the picture. And maybe they were deciding on the model fees to charge that rich Canadian photographer
 
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 06, 2004, 08:51:37 am
Quote
 There's no "What's around the corner?" feeling in it for me.
That's because what's round the corner, in the other one, is revealed in the reflections. Michael's is perhaps a better example of tension.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 08, 2004, 07:31:55 pm
Look, there are rules and there are rules.  In photography the rules are generalizations that might help you to make images that you like better than what you have been making.

"Rule of Thirds", "If the picture doesn't grab you, you weren't close enough".  Good rules.  Learn 'em, try 'em out.

But they don't always make the best[/i]picture in the eye of every viewer.  Sometimes I stick a face dead center of a shot because I feel it gives more power.

And some people may hate the shot for a variety of reasons.

Tastes vary.  Go figure....
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 09, 2004, 10:16:03 pm
Quote
I think tension is something that probably makes people feel uncomfortable and something people feel they want to avoid.  
Not at all. Tension is part of dynamism, activity in general, and the meaning of life. Complete lack of tension is synonymous with death, or at best a Yogi meditating in a cave.

Tension is very evident in modern (serious) music. Wagner was one of the first serious composers to stretch 'tension' to the limits. Jazz composers do it quite often. They start off in a well defined key, then wander off over the whole world, leaving the listener in a state of suspended animation, till finally they end up where they started from, making us feel quite 'resolved'  :D .
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 11, 2004, 04:09:24 pm
My wife and I went to the Los Angeles Museum of Modern Art.  There in the middle of one room was an area roped of with orange cones and yellow tape.  In the middle of that on the floor was an elctrical outlet with the insides pulled out and wires exposed.   I knew it was time to leave when we couldn't decide whether it was an exhibit or a wiring repair.  Because I haven't forgotten that experience and still wonder but know, was it "art choked full of tension?"

During that same visit, I saw several photographs of gas stations on the wall.  They were flat (low contrast), not well printed and needed to be spotted very badly.  They were junk.  Did they have tension because I had no idea how such bad work gets displayed?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2004, 09:39:30 pm
For me, the photo is improved merely by flipping it horizontally. The tree is then on the left and leads one into the rest of the image. The relatively bright sky on the right then becomes less of a problem. The fact that the tree is out of focus causes me some concern. I don't want it to be sharper than the rest of the image, but at least as sharp or almost as sharp, because this is what my eye settles on first.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 15, 2004, 06:45:48 am
Quote
they often begin in the lower left and take an anti clockwise curve round the image back to the lower left.
Victor,
How often? The only clear example I can find demonstrating eye 'scanpaths' on a typical photograph can be found at:-

http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/newrese.../issue2_2+3.pdf (http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/newresearch/pdfs/issue2_2+3.pdf)

In this example, the eye begins its journey on a roof top, upper left, moves on to a brighter spot diagonally upwards, does a bit of a clockwise turn, then a counterclockwise turn as it moves to the lower portion of the picture and onwards.

I think it's going to be too simplistic to describe one particular path. It's going to vary enormously with the composition of the image and with the individual viewer, but it seems clear (for Westerners at least) there's a broad movement from left to right.

This can be demonstrated most graphically by imagining a set of unattached stairs in the shape of a triangular block. If the lowest step is at the lower left of the page and the highest step at upper right of page, then the viewer is likely to describe the object as a set of ascending stairs.

If the image is flipped horizontally so the lowest step is at the bottom right of the page and the highest step is top left of the page, the viewer is then likely to describe what he's seeing as a set of descending stairs.

However, for Arabs (assuming literacy and not too Westernised) the reverse descriptions would apply because they read from right to left.

The Chinese situation is interesting because traditionally they read in columns from top to bottom and right to left but have also adopted Western methods of left to right. So in Taiwan, so I believe, street names are sometimes written left to right, or right to left, or top to bottom.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 16, 2004, 01:26:00 pm
Quote
My point and question is where is the research on composition and interpretation of a picture, I would like to learn more, and more?

Victor, my fiance has a background in art, and teaches art in public school.  I have been pilfering her collection of books.  Most of them are geared towards painting or drawing, but I think the same rules apply.  A lot of the techniques go back hundreds of years.

Most of the books specific to photography seem to be geared towards the technical aspects.  There is usually one or two pages that describe the rule of thirds, and the rest is on cameras, shutter speed and aperture.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 06, 2004, 09:18:15 am
The "reflection" image also has that annoying piece of bland sky.  The only tension I feel is "why?"  It is just another image of a mountain lake.

The Death Valley dunes are one of my favorite places to visit and to photograph.  It is a place to sit and think, or just sit and look and listen.  Because I know what's "up there," I don't wonder, but I do recall.  The image is quiet like the dunes, but I can hear the wind and birds.  I find the image very pleasing.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 08, 2004, 07:06:42 pm
Well, I meant

Quote
Tension is when you take something good and screw it up.

vs

Quote
Hacking the top off that other photo doesn't add tension, just bad composition.

My contradiction is, admittedly, open to some interpretation.  Like Art for example.

I've said it before, I am still, and always will be, learning.  I think that if you follow the rules all of the time you probably aren't going to ever create anything new.

On some further thought, I think I find the lake pciture somewhat troubling because I see the mountain as the primary element in the composition.  In the dunes picture the mountains are a secondary element.  My focus is on the dunes themselves, so the fact that mountians are cropped has less of an impact on me.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 10, 2004, 02:32:42 am
I'm interested to see if this tension is just an above thing, is the portrait an exception?

This is a snap of a childs Windmill (http://members.shaw.ca/aberdeenz/pix/Windmill.png) - tension here?

When the lower margin is cropped as shown  in some Dubai Towers (http://members.shaw.ca/aberdeenz/pix/Dubai_Towers.png) -  tension here?

Off with the top as in the news picture from
London (http://members.shaw.ca/aberdeenz/pix/Film0102.png) -  tension here?

I'm interested because so few photographers seem to use this...
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 11, 2004, 01:25:41 pm
Quote
I think that if I study different images and try to understand what makes them effective, then I might get better myself.  Tension is something that I keep hearing about all the time, maybe if I understand it better I will be able to use it as well.  
I think you hit the critical issue in the first quoted sentence.  I've learned a tremendous amount about photographs by spending time viewing photos, reading critiques, and attempting to verbalize my own feelings about the photographs.

I think your second sentence highlights the problem that is created by some critiques.  Words such as 'tension' are very well defined in science, have no fixed meaning in art.  What's tension for you may well not be tension for me.

It's (relatively) easy to describe the physical aspects of a photograph.  It's over-sharpened, well focused, grainy, etc.  Those things are well understood and defined.

But the subjective aspects are difficult, and certainly not universal.  My 'glorious swelling of the soul' feeling is not necessarily your 'glorious swelling of the soul' feeling.

But I can say that the way Michael framed his shot makes me stop and consider the immense differences in textures that exist side-by-side in the natural world.  As long as I describe what I see, how I feel and avoid trying to tag a 'label' I suspect that I can avoid getting caught up in a word war.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 13, 2004, 09:56:13 pm
The fallen bits of the house and the tree branches are perpendicular.  My eye moves from left to right along the house bits, and then hits the tree branches.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 14, 2004, 02:19:35 pm
I don't have the resources or interest to do the suggested experiment.  But, two questions.  Do people who read right to left look at photos the same way people who read left to right?  If a page shown to me, how do I first learn it is a photo so I can start start at the lower right, or a page of text so I can start at the upper left?  You have to start somewhere.

Also I do not agree that people look at the entire photo before going to the bright spots.  No matter where you start, the eye will see the bright spot and go directly to it.

Look at bill boards.  They must capture one's attention very quickly and get the message accross very quickly - a few seconds at most.  Where do they put the text on a photo.  I don't see many with the text in the lower right corner.

Print ads are a bit different because they have a little more time to capture the audience.  But not much.  If the text is at the bottom, the photo must be a real eye catcher.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 16, 2004, 01:05:24 pm
Quote
I am conscious that we fall into a trap - perception is reality, so we think a rule works, but only have each others opinion as validation. For example I recall that Kodak did a study on color that indicated we see color in a context to the other colors it is with not by the absolute color! They had done a huge amount of research before they even posed this ‘idea’.
And folks continue to use the word 'tension' as if it had been firmly defined, had real meaning in the context of photography.  

---

Kodak could have benefited by doing a literature review.  Psychologists working in the field of human perception demonstrated that phenomenon decades, many decades, ago.

Or they could have just asked people who mat pictures....
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 07, 2004, 02:12:45 pm
"The interplay of conflicting elements in a piece of literature, especially a poem."

Let me start by saying that I'm a bit uncomfortable critiquing the lake/mountain shot as I'm not sure who the photographer is and whether he/she wanted that to happen to his/her shot.

Nevertheless, let me charge forth....  

Personal preferences can be vastly different, and there's just no accounting for the differences.  Some people really love those Robert Kincaid (sp?) and 'big-eyed kid' paintings.  The lake/mountain shot does nothing for me.  For someone else it might be the best thing since pre-plucked chickens.

I get no feeling of tension (as defined above) from this shot.  In fact, I find this shot rather disappointing.  

Not only is there a bit of meaningless sky in the upper center but there's a bit of distracting purple in the upper right.  That purple isn't large enough or exciting enough to get me to wonder what it is, where it came from.  (It reminds me of unfixed CA.)

The reflection in the water is not detailed enough to give any sense of mystery to the upper peak.  I don't look at it and want to be able to see the top of the undisclosed mountain.  In addition the reflection is disrupted by various and sundry things protruding from the water.  The reflection is cluttered, at least at the size presented.  Maybe a large print would be better.

I don't find any discordant elements.  There's a mountain with a body of water below it.  Common.  Common.  Give me a shot of a camel on an ice flow and I'll be wondering what the #### is going on.  There's nothing discordant or unusual about this image.  My eye isn't drawn from area to area in an attempt to reconcile the differences.

Now when I first glanced at the dune shot the impression was that I was seeing something created by a computer artist in a hurry.  A huge swath of solid vivid color, little detail.  

A second later I'm seeing these incredibly detailed peaks.  Something totally different from the first impression.  That snapped me back a bit.  I experienced an immense "interplay of conflicting elements".

But, hey!, that's just my opinion....            
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 09, 2004, 07:13:39 am
I just think it's interesting discussing the two images though.  Maybe I am dissecting things a bit much, but I think I am learning something in the process.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 10, 2004, 01:01:28 pm
In both of the building examples, they look as though they are falling over.  While this does create tension, most people would immedaitely claim the image had been badly composed because the buildings are crooked.

I think that people naturally try to acheive balance, and follow rules when they compose an image.  Some of this can be subconcious.  I know I struggle sometimes with trying to crop through an object in an image, even though this can lead to a more effective composition.  My natural tendency is to include the entire object.

Tension can be used to keep people's attention and catch their eye, but I think it is something that most people naturally try to avoid.  When someone composes a photograph, they may naturally try to blance the elements so there is no tension withou really thinking about it.  In the process they may be reducing their chances of creating a more effective image.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 11, 2004, 10:18:34 am
I don't think "tension" is what makes a mediocre photograph (or worse) into something wonderful.  My waste can is full of crummy photos with lots of "tension."  Seems every photo must exclude something.  Show the woman's other eye and then wonder does she have ears.  Where does it end and you admit it is just an mediocre photo?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 12, 2004, 07:31:27 pm
Quote
The best way to bother my mother was to start a scale on the piano beginning with, say, middle C and continue upward to B, omitting the final C note.  

She would have to leave whatever she was doing, come to the piano and play the final C.  Most people wouldn't even notice what, in her, caused great tension.

Good point! But I'm not sure most people wouldn't notice that. The final missing semi-tone is not much, for sure, but it's effect is very 'tension' producing for anyone with an ear for music. In fact, there are some good analogies to be drawn from the music world, regarding tension.

Imagine an 18th century audience of the aristocracy, packed into a large drawing room, listening to the mellifluous, harmonius and soothing tones of a Mozart concerto. Imagine a brief pause, then the orchestra launches into an exciting part of the Rite of Spring, or the final few chords of Ravel's Bolero (I'd include some extreme examples of pop music (AC/DC ?) but that would be stretching credulity to the limit).

The effect, I'm sure, would be devastating. The women would suffer from palpitations and headaches for weeks thereafter, the men would engage in law suits against the orchestra (for emotional damage - but perhaps that only applies to modern America) and/or the members of the orchestra would be banished from polite society for ever more.

The purchase of Jackson Pollack's painting 'Blue Poles' in Australia during the Whitlam government era (1970's), caused an outcry. A million dollars for that pile of c**p, many folks said (or thought but didn't say because they were too polite).

Funny thing, art! But science is a bit bizarre at times. Anyone tried to make sense out the theory of Quantum Mechanics, lately?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2004, 11:11:48 pm
What on earth are you talking about! The fallen bits of the house are at 45 degrees, either way.  ???  ???
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 14, 2004, 12:03:41 pm
Howard, In my experience people don't read pictures like text, they often begin in the lower left and take an anti clockwise curve round the image back to the lower left. Then they move to the highlights and then shadows.

There is a simple way to see this in action, place a video camera where you can wath the eye movements and hand the person a few photos! You'll not see it with your eyes, slow the video down and then you see the eye movements.

For a sound result you'll need to do 25-100 people!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 16, 2004, 09:23:08 pm
The photo of the lone gnu has the rule of thirds written all over it.  It seems to work quite well and is pleasing.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 20, 2004, 12:14:09 am
Red, he must be dressed for english tea

And as for the .45, From  Woody Allen - Standup Comic - Years ago, my mother gave me a bullet...a bullet, and I put it in my breast pocket. Two years after that, I was walking down the street, when a berserk evangelist heaved a Gideon bible out a hotel room window, hitting me in the chest. Bible would have gone through my heart if it wasn't for the bullet.

Would there be tension on the picture of the bible at the decisive moment of impact?  :D
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 07, 2004, 12:24:53 pm
Unresolved tension can lead to frustration.  Rather than get frustrated with the lake image, I just gave up.  No lasting memory.

The dunes may have tension from the cropped peaks, but I don't feel it.  I too like the colors, curves and light on the dunes.  I don't wonder about what isn't there, but keep moving around what is there.  It's an image of the dunes, not the dunes and mountains in the background.  Someone here said perfection is when there is nothing left to remove.  The mountains would have added nothing to the dunes, except to perhaps help identify where they are.  There is no need to know this is Death Valley.  No caption needed to explain the image.  It doesn't matter which dunes they are.  The image is about shapes, light and color.  Perhaps that is why Michael found the bland sky annoying and removed it.

Ansel Adams did this.  I love his image of cliffs and snow reflected in a mountan lake.  I never really knew (or cared) where it was.  But one day, I found myself sitting and looking at that exact scene in Kings Canyon.  Wow, did that make an impression.  I just sat and looked.  Now THAT is a great photograph.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 11, 2004, 10:06:47 am
If I look at the phjotograph of the monument in London, and consider what it would look like if the pillar wwere parallel to the frame; would it have the same impact.  I don't think it would.  The composition would be more static, and wouldn't hold my attention as long.  Even if I don't really care for a photograph overall, it can still have tnesion in it.

I understand the subjective nature of the topic very well.  Even if there was way to quantify tension, it wouldn't neccesarily lead to better images.  Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I think that if I study different images and try to understand what meks them effective, then I might get better myself.  Tension is something that I keep hearing about all the time, maybe if I understand it better I will be able to use it as well.  It's pretty competitive out there, and technical proficiency is not going be enough to make my images stand out and get attention.  I need to get better at the artistic side as well, a lot better.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 12, 2004, 10:25:20 pm
Quote
I noticed recently a self portrait by Jonathan Wienke on the Sony F828 thread, demonstrating the qualities of the Canon 35-350 zoom at 70mm. The download stopped just below his eyes. I wasn't sure if this was an attempt at being avant-garde, or just a bug in the system - but it did produce a bit of tension.
Self-Portrait (http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/PortfolioImages/Portraits/187U7480-8x10.jpg)

It is a print-sized file, so viewing on a 1600x1200 monitor will only show the upper right quadrant of my hat unless you engage the scroll bars. It's not intended as an exercise in tension, unless you are on a dial-up connection!
 
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 09, 2004, 01:23:49 am
So what is important is that both photos are liked, and disliked. regardless of the rules - just enjoy another persons view  :D
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 10, 2004, 01:44:07 pm
Well Ray, we see the car-Eiffel Tower and the woman's portrait quite differently.  I am not familiar enough with Citroen autos to know that is the kind of car it is.  So, as an ad, it doesn't sell me a car any more than it does the camera it was taken with.   No, I don't wonder what drama may be playing out on the top of the Tower, any more than I wonder if there is a dead body in the trunk.

Now the woman's portrait.  It is a nice picture, not uch more.  No, I don't need to see her other eye.  I am willing to assume it looks very much like the one I can se and I don't wonder if she has a glass eye or a shiner.  I am willing to assume she also has two ears, two arms and two legs but don't need to see them.

Neither photo is what I call "wall art."  I can't imagine hanging either in my home.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 14, 2004, 12:55:12 am
Maybe it's just me.  I see two big bits of house leaning from the bottom left to the top right.  The tree on the right of the frame kind of goes from the bottom right to the top left.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 14, 2004, 11:34:24 am
It is interesting that Ray suggested flipping the image horizontally.  People who read text left to right tend to read photos the same way.  Starting at the left, the eye immediately runsinto the bright sky behind the trees.  Bright means stop.  So it is hard for us left-to-righters to find your way across the scene.  Then the bright window in the center s another "go here and stop" point.  All in all, I don't think the scene flows to well even though there is some movement.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 16, 2004, 03:01:28 pm
Try "The Art of Photographing Nature" by Art Wolfe and Martha Hill.  A little bit on rule of thirds and lts on effective composition for various effects.  It already assumes you know how to use a camera.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 19, 2004, 11:15:45 pm
Ray, you say "Schzooom!  Straight to the figures in red."  Schzooom from where?  Certainly not the lower right corner.  I tried to be fair and I think the first thing I stop at is the top part of the tree, then the figures below.  I still say "Schzooom.  From the upper left to the tree top to the red."

As for what they are talking about.  I know.  It is their modeling fee.  Now, what are you going to do with that bit of information?  It is useless in the context of the photo, just as the photo being taken is of no consequence to the figures, so who really cares.  Might as well wonder who the tailor was that whipped up the red garment.  And why red?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 09, 2004, 12:13:59 pm
Scott, I really agree with you.  I spend time on a travel oriented photography site where people engage in a lot of constructive criticism, including editing and re-posting other's work.

Writing critiques and reading critiques written by other people have been very valuable to me.  

It's helped me to improve from being a very marginal photographer all the way to being an almost mediocre photographer.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 09, 2004, 04:21:37 pm
You should know the rules before you break them.  You don't know the reason you are breaking the rules otherwise.  Read Paul's letter to the Romans.

I submit that most sucessful photographers (artists) know the classics and the rules and the "whys" before they set out to break the rules.  Otherwise, the results are haphazard and seldom reproducable in a new way.  Most of us have taken the accidental "great" photo that compells our friends to tell us we should quit our jobs and become famous photographers.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 11, 2004, 12:53:58 am
Quote
Tension is nothing more than throwing otherwise good balance awry.
I must admit I don't find examples of how to design advertisements for "Bradley's Lawn Care" all that exciting, but I can see there are some good principles being taught here.

However, I could find no mention of tension resulting from exclusion. Seems to me, one can exclude something in a picture by two methods; cropping it out or covering it up. The former applies to Michael's shot of the dunes, the latter to the girl portrait. I wonder if Howard would feel the same way about that shot if the eye obscured by hair was instead a b r e a s t  :D . (Sorry if I seem crude. I'm really trying to maintain my usual high(?) intellectual standards.)

Of course, the striptease is the perfect example of tension being created by covering up something. The very successful fashion item, the bikini, also relies upon that technique.  :)
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 13, 2004, 09:15:28 pm
Quote
 It is moving against the grain of the rest of the image.
Do you mean by that, it's at a different angle, opposing angle, to the fallen section in the middle, or that it's not sharp as opposed to the rest of the image being sharp?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Jonathan Wienke on January 14, 2004, 01:07:09 am
Just a note: I resized the house shot to 600 pixels, darkened the sky just a little, and moved the crop slightly to the left to shift the focus to the fallen porch roof a little more.
(http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/MiscImages/187U3987.jpg)
Comments?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 16, 2004, 12:52:13 am
Howard, you may be right, more right than you think. As there may be no absolute answer.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Bobtrips on January 18, 2004, 11:08:39 am
Quote
Quote
And folks continue to use the word 'tension' as if it had been firmly defined, had real meaning in the context of photography.  
There are many definitions of 'tension'. After all, it's a pretty common word. Here is a couple, courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary, one from the field of art and the other from the field of Physics.

(1) The conflict created by interplay of the constituent elements of a work of art.

....
Yes, Ray, you found a string of words that purport to define tension.  But there is a lack of specificity that allows for common agreement as to when this property of 'tension' exists.

In the context of photography what is 'conflict'?  The listed definition of tension relies on another poorly defined word.

Show a group of people a series of photographs and some will find conflict, some won't.  Some will find tension, some won't.  

Just look back through the previous discussion.  

These terms are much too be subjective for anything more than creating discussions about how an individual is using the word.  They aren't specific enough for clear communication.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Dan Sroka on January 09, 2004, 12:00:52 pm
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: victoraberdeen on January 09, 2004, 07:07:41 pm
Howard, I agree, knowing and understanding how you achieved the photo is a defining part of artistic style.

Exegeter Matrix...? dunno what you are refering to!
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Exegeter on January 10, 2004, 11:32:47 pm
I looked up "design elements tension" on google.  This is the best that came up for our purposes here.

http://desktoppub.about.com/library/weekly...symmetrical.htm (http://desktoppub.about.com/library/weekly/aa052301c-asymmetrical.htm) - multiple examples of different forms of tension in design.

Tension is nothing more than throwing otherwise good balance awry.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Scott_H on January 13, 2004, 08:27:45 pm
I wonder if the tree on the right could create some tension.  It is moving against the grain of the rest of the image.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 18, 2004, 07:30:21 am
Quote
And folks continue to use the word 'tension' as if it had been firmly defined, had real meaning in the context of photography.  
There are many definitions of 'tension'. After all, it's a pretty common word. Here is a couple, courtesy of the Oxford English Dictionary, one from the field of art and the other from the field of Physics.

(1) The conflict created by interplay of the constituent elements of a work of art.

(2) A constrained condition of the particles of a body when subjected to forces acting in opposite directions away from each other, balanced by forces of cohesion holding them together.

As you can see, the two definitions are not entirely dissimilar.
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Ray on January 14, 2004, 01:12:44 am
The tree on the right does go from bottom right to top left, and the fallen bits do go from left to right, and everything is reversed if you flip the image horizantally. There's nothing perpendicular about the fallen bits. Are we confused about horizontal, perpendicular and 45 degrees?
Title: Effective composition
Post by: Howard Smith on January 15, 2004, 08:46:53 pm
To answer your question, I don't know of any single source.  The notions I have  have gathered over a long time.  I can;t prove any thing or back up my opinions with references.  That is why I try to avoid saying I'm right and you're wrong, even if I think that.  I know what works for me and tr to share it.  But I am not saying what I say is fact.

As for colors, I was thinking in very broad terms.  Like why are stop signs red.  Warning signs are now coming in some sort of day glow yellow to attract attention.  I understand part of the reason is people see that color very well, and people have become jaded by red.