Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Primitive  (Read 2292 times)

churly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1294
Primitive
« on: October 16, 2013, 05:14:24 pm »

I think this shot has a sort of primitive feel to it although I don't think I can explain what that means.
As I have broken about every rule of composition with this one I would value some critique.

Chuck

Logged
Chuck Hurich

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Primitive
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2013, 07:00:20 pm »

Not sure about "breaking the rules," as it appears to me classically composed. There is a diagonal leading line from bottom left to the intersection of thirds on the upper right. The main point of focus appears to be the darker tree that happens to be in that intersection of thirds. All that is fine, nothing wrong with the composition, classical or not.

That type of image, with a lot of intricate detail, works best when printed really large, so that the viewer can appreciate and examine it slowly, in several steps, rather than absorbing the whole image in one go. The smaller the image, the less detail and more simplification is needed (think Michael Kenna, who rarely prints bigger than 8"x8"). On the other end of the spectrum would be, for instance, A. Gursky with his "99 Cents Store."

Back to your image, I might vignette the bottom a bit, to balance it against the dark sky.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 01:53:52 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Primitive
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2013, 10:06:28 pm »

I find the clutter of the branches gloriously messy. Hey, nature is what it is. There is also a nice 3D effect to how you separated the sky from the trees. To me it is good.
Logged

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
Re: Primitive
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2013, 10:06:38 pm »

I like this a lot, it really pulls me in. Another example of keeping everything within the frame. Without a scale for reference, it feels like a miniature.

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7393
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Primitive
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2013, 04:26:45 am »

Not sure about primitive, to me it speaks more "organic", with all the branches dominating the composition. Well done.

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 972
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: Primitive
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2013, 07:59:01 am »

Composition may work best when you have something(s) to compose. Composition or no composition, sometimes the best thing to do is keep it very very simple and ask yourself..."what is in the frame". Is it interesting? Is it more interesting than other similar things? Why is it interesting? why is it more interesting than other similar things...etc., etc.. In this example, there is a bland fairly non-distinct mass of "juddering" foliage...with some vertical trunks and branches on the right half. This along with some light and dark bands of clouds...that I don't think support the other particularly. If I was shooting this area, I would have tried to find some of the more interesting trunks (shapes and tonal variations) and work around and focus on that, not worrying about the sky so much. Also, it is very difficult to tell show sharp the leaves are in the fg foliage...sharpness would critical to me in working on a tableau like this...and if it wasn't sharp it would be a no-go.  Otherwise, I don't think this is worth spending time processing etc., etc..
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 08:37:00 am by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

churly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Primitive
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2013, 01:32:04 pm »

Thanks everyone for the comments!

Slobodan - I understand what you are saying - thanks for the in depth discussion!

brandtb - thanks for the detailed response.  I have to admit that I posted this image because I'm a bit tired of the simplfy, simplify, simplyfy mantra.  I understand what it is about and agree with and use the idea but I don't think that is the only way to compose a pleasing image.  I made the shot because I personally enjoy 'busy' images - clearly not everyone does and that is fine.  To me this one is so busy that you have to mentally abstract it to take it in (or print large as Slobodan indicated).  Its fine that you don't care for the image but I don't think that makes it a non-composition.  In fact, I put a lot of effort into getting what I wanted in the frame.  I deliberately pushed the sharpening back in the foreground because I wanted to push the viewer toward the dark tree sticking up on the right side. Slobodan even found a diagonal that does the same thing.  I have to admit, I didn't see it before he pointed it out.  Anyway, please don't see this as a rebuttal to your comments.  I'm just saying that there is more than one way to do things.  I understand that the result may not appeal to everyone (thus my original comments about breaking the rules of composition).  I do appreciate the effort you made in responding.  :)
Chuck

PS.  I have been studying complexity and fractal geometry for a lot of years and that has no doubt warped my appreciation of messiness.  I sort of liken types of images to types of writing.  We can have everything from simple and pure poetry though messy 1000 page novels.  They all communicate and I like them all.
Logged
Chuck Hurich

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 972
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: Primitive
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2013, 02:20:57 pm »

Chuck - just to clarify a bit.  What I said was...
Quote
Composition or no composition
...meaning that wasn't the salient point for me...just that there isn't anything interesting in the image for me.

As an aside, I personally would try to steer clear of this sort of thing
Quote
you have to mentally abstract it to take it in
I can't imagine I would ever find the need necessarily to do this to an image especially for representational landscape work. On the most basic level, what is in your image, is in your image. Subjective thoughts/"mental abstractions" do not exist within your image, only outside of it.  Not saying this is the case here for your image... but just for an (extreme) example ...every so often you run into a series of photographs where they've been given fanciful titles and "stick on" narratives by the photographer...say they take a picture of a trash can and call it "The Sleepy Dragon's Lair"...and swear that if you look deep within the image for just long enough that you will find that it really is about a hidden dragon. Well at the end of the day for most people...it's still just an image of a trash can.

Again, composition aside, I think it best when working through and studying one's image making... that one start with the very basics first...what is actually in the picture plane.

Good luck on your work /B
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 04:18:35 pm by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

churly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Primitive
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2013, 04:18:24 pm »

On the most basic level, what is in your image, is in your image. Subjective thoughts/"mental abstractions" do not exist within your image, only outside of it.  

Sure, but two people look at an image and don't see the same thing.  The pure essence of the image doesn't make it through the layer of abstraction we use to interpret the image and we assign meaning or lack of meaning (or content) based on the nature of our personal filter or abstraction.  It can be useful to go through the exercise of breaking things down into their components to analyze them but that certainly has obvious limitations.  So the image I posted says nothing to you but it does to me.  No value judgement here, I'm just saying that people see things differently.  I appreciate that what appeals to me doesn't appeal to you.  The same must be true of literature and music but that doesn't imply a breakdown in technique unless one requires appeal to be universal.

Anyway we can agree to disagree and I'm happy with that.

Chuck
Logged
Chuck Hurich

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Primitive
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2013, 04:59:03 pm »

Just to clarify my position: I like the image.

For the same reason I enjoyed seeing medium format prints in the film days (let alone large format): even with the most mundane subject and even with a so-so composition, I could always find a lot of detail and tonal nuances to explore, kind of a picture within picture.

There is a beauty and elegance in simplicity, but there is a beauty in complexity and chaos just as well. Judging one by the criteria meant for the other does not make sense.

brandtb

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 972
    • http://www.brandtbolding.com
Re: Primitive
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2013, 06:53:16 pm »

The suggestion was that playing the "what's in my picture plane?"... is one tool (out of many) that might be used to examine, critique, self-critique an image. It is a tool I frequently use, but not soley... there wasn't a suggestion that it was the sole criterion either or the only tool for every situation...or that it was the only way to valuate a photograph or any image...that's why I used the word "sometimes". But again, it is one I would use for this photograph.  /B
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 07:43:25 pm by brandtb »
Logged
Brandt Bolding
www.brandtbolding.com

fike

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1413
  • Hiker Photographer
    • trailpixie.net
Re: Primitive
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2013, 03:43:35 pm »

In this medium (online viewing) I am not really feeling this shot.  I think there isn't a coherent subject.  The bramble of trees and branches and leaves are a bit indistinct, making it hard for me to define shapes and subjects.  The image may work fabulously as a wall-sized print, but on a computer monitor, it isn't inspiring me.
Logged
Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer

churly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Primitive
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2013, 06:26:00 pm »

Marc - you clearly are not the only one for which this image doesn't connect.  I understand why.  I knew that it wouldn't be of interest to everyone when I posted it.  I was looking for some feedback and appreciate all of the comments.  I expect that I will continue experimenting and hit some and miss some.  I'm not trying to make my living at it so I can afford to do so.   Thanks for your comments.
Chuck
Logged
Chuck Hurich

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
Re: Primitive
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2013, 06:30:53 pm »

What and where is it? Thanks!

churly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Primitive
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2013, 07:17:56 pm »

Scott,   Nothing exotic.  The undergrowth is larch and the dark trees are black spruce.  They are in the Avalon Barrens on the Avalon Penninsula of Newfoundland.  The winter wind dwarfs all of the trees on the barrens.  A bonus - the bog cranberries were abundant and ripe.
Chuck
 
Logged
Chuck Hurich

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
Re: Primitive
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2013, 10:43:11 pm »

Nothing exotic.
 

Sez you!  :D All depends on where we come from.

I find these sorts of treed landscapes attractive but really challenging to capture effectively.
Pages: [1]   Go Up