Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: LesPalenik on April 22, 2015, 09:37:04 am
-
Fine article and great photographs. Thanks, Allain!
However, Google folks may cause you to rework one of your arguments:
However, your camera cannot compose a photograph anymore than your car can drive itself
-
While the remarks themselves are fine, the listicle format is not. Substituting randomly ordered bullet points for an organizing principle will be the death of our civilization.
-
First, as a blogger myself I have debated the use to listicles. My conclusion is that what is an essay but an unordered listicle without headers?
Second, for the article, #3 had the most impact for me. When I approach a scene to photograph I've always been thinking: How do I compose this? and then struggling.
I never made the connection between the feeling which made me stop to take the picture and what the end result of the picture will be. Sure, I wanted to "capture" the scene, but I was composing because that's the difference between taking a photograph and a snapshot. Now I realize I should compose the picture to look like how I saw the scene in the moment when it caught my eye.
-
Thanks for this essay. I have missed this type of content. Please keep up the good work :).
I totally buy the message(s) about making a personal statements, so a great composition comes from the photographer. If I were to state this I would say "what are you trying to tell, whats your message?"
-
The author says,"In a way composition is unforgiving because once the photograph is taken the composition cannot be changed."
This is not entirely true. For many photographers, cropping an image on the computer screen is an important part of creating the final composition. Some photographers pride themselves on "not cropping" their images; but this is a personal choice, not a sacred requirement.
-
While the remarks themselves are fine, the listicle format is not. Substituting randomly ordered bullet points for an organizing principle will be the death of our civilization.
Now my hate has a name!
-
Slobodan, may I assume that you think that PowerPoint is the "tool of the devil"?
I use PowerPoint for lectures, but I don't try to make more than one or two points per slide. No listicles for my students! It helps to be getting into the reading-glasses age and automatically using bigger fonts.
However, Alain's points are valid. And I would like to thank him for his effort, whether in listicles or in paragraphs.
-
Slobodan, may I assume that you think that PowerPoint is the "tool of the devil"?...
Nothing against PowerPoint. Just against the ever increasing cliche titles and articles like "Top 10 This," "15 That," "7 Secrets of...," "17 Things You Didn't Know About...," "12 Blah, Blah, Blah." Didn't know that despicable practice got its own name though.
-
Fine article and great photographs. Thanks, Allain!
However, Google folks may cause you to rework one of your arguments:
Quote from Alain:
However, your camera cannot compose a photograph anymore than your car can drive itself.
I get your point, Les, that Google has invented a driverless, robotic car. However, as far as I know, no-one has invented a functioning robotic camera in relation to composition choice, although I did outline the design for such a camera several years ago on this site. ;)
I took my inspiration from the Mars Rover. It occurred to me that a similar, portable device could be designed purely for photography. It could be easily transported in the boot of the car when travelling to scenic locations one wanted to photograph.
The device would essentially be a small and very lightweight all-terrain vehicle, made of strong carbon-fibre plastic, housing sophisticated computer programs and literally hundreds of thousands of images of all the great art works of the past.
The integrated camera with zoom lens would be attached to a flexible arm which would automatically rise, fall and turn in any direction as the small vehicle negotiated the rough terrain in search of any scene which resembled the composition of one or more of the images of the great masterpieces stored in its computer.
One could program the rover to make a trip of a certain duration whilst one enjoyed lunch at the scenic location. One could examine the shots taken by the robot on its return to the starting point, and if not satisfied with the results, one could reprogram the device to set out again on a different route to take some more shots whilst one enjoyed one's dessert. ;D
-
This is the best piece on composition I've ever read. One reason it's so effective is its style of presentation: simple, informative, and not laden with artsy-intangibles.
Thank you Alain Briot.
-
… a functioning robotic camera in relation to composition choice … and if not satisfied with the results, one could reprogram the device to set out again on a different route to take some more shots…
http://www.google.com/maps/about/behind-the-scenes/streetview/
-
This is the best piece on composition I've ever read. One reason it's so effective is its style of presentation: simple, informative, and not laden with artsy-intangibles.
Thank you Alain Briot.
I don't know that this is "best piece on composition I've ever read" - though it is an excellent one and, IMHO, one of Alain's better articles.
I completely agree that its very "effective is its style of presentation: simple, informative, and not laden with artsy-intangibles".
For me, his writing crystallizes in words some things that I felt intuitively inside, thus strengthening them in my mind - and adds a few things I hadn't thought of as well.
I think its worth bookmarking this article and re-reading it every once in a while.
-
I'm with those who hate the 'List' format in general. But I have to say the article was interesting and worthwhile to me, so in this case the list served it's purpose. Many thanks Alan.
Jim
By the way I am in the process of compiling an article on the 1000 most pointless lists of all time......
-
Quote from Alain:
I get your point, Les, that Google has invented a driverless, robotic car. However, as far as I know, no-one has invented a functioning robotic camera in relation to composition choice, although I did outline the design for such a camera several years ago on this site. ;)
I took my inspiration from the Mars Rover. It occurred to me that a similar, portable device could be designed purely for photography. It could be easily transported in the boot of the car when travelling to scenic locations one wanted to photograph.
The device would essentially be a small and very lightweight all-terrain vehicle, made of strong carbon-fibre plastic, housing sophisticated computer programs and literally hundreds of thousands of images of all the great art works of the past.
The integrated camera with zoom lens would be attached to a flexible arm which would automatically rise, fall and turn in any direction as the small vehicle negotiated the rough terrain in search of any scene which resembled the composition of one or more of the images of the great masterpieces stored in its computer.
One could program the rover to make a trip of a certain duration whilst one enjoyed lunch at the scenic location. One could examine the shots taken by the robot on its return to the starting point, and if not satisfied with the results, one could reprogram the device to set out again on a different route to take some more shots whilst one enjoyed one's dessert. ;D
Ray,
you took it in a different direction than I originally intended, but you made an excellent point of exploring new angles and compositions.
I've been also longing after a possibility where I could instruct the camera to scout out certain terrain and let me see various compositions. It seems that our prayers have been answered. Instead of a land based rover with a fkexible arm, light quadcopter / camera combos with an ability to program a fixed route are available now. We can now program the flight route, get the first-pass pictures, review the pictures and send out the camera out again on a modified route with altered positional adjustments. I'm looking forward to try it this summer.
-
Thank you very much for this article, helpful as always. Maybe "the strongest way of seeing" also sees that life is fluid, provisional and full of rough edges. Some compositions can be just too perfect, too smooth, for me at least, and so lack life and bite to my eye. I like something in an image that's a teeny bit off, just not quite right. Call it the Stitch of Allah, perhaps, but it makes the whole thing feel more authentic than Photoshop perfection.
-
Ray,
you took it in a different direction than I originally intended, but you made an excellent point of exploring new angles and compositions.
I've been also longing after a possibility where I could instruct the camera to scout out certain terrain and let me see various compositions. It seems that our prayers have been answered. Instead of a land based rover with a fkexible arm, light quadcopter / camera combos with an ability to program a fixed route are available now. We can now program the flight route, get the first-pass pictures, review the pictures and send out the camera out again on a modified route with altered positional adjustments. I'm looking forward to try it this summer.
Les,
The chief innovation in my idea is not so much the flexible, lightweight all-terrain mini vehicle which can be programmed to take a particular route and return to a particular base, but a sophisticated computer program which can analyse in real time each of the many scenes that the robot camera 'sees' as the vehicle trundles up and down slopes, zooming the lens in and out, and swinging it around at all angles.
If software can be written to enable a camera to recognise a human face for autofocus purposes, I imagine that software could be written to recognise a number of sets and combinations of compositional rules similar to those mentioned by Alain, such as a striking contrast of colour and light, a juxtaposition of a dominant foreground against a large background, a moving object against a static background, a variety of different sizes and shapes, converging lines, and of course the 'rule of thirds'.
At each position where the vehicle momentarily stops to examine the surrounding scene from a number of different angles, using different focal lengths, different apertures and different focus points, a shot would be taken only when the composition of the scene matches, to a predefined approximation, one of the numerous sets of compositional rules stored in the camera's computer. ;)
-
Not usually a fan of "Listicles", but in this case I was pleasantly surprised.
This is probably my favorite AB article so far! Worthwhile advice on composition, well organized, terse, and cheerfully presented.
-
If software can be written to enable a camera to recognise a human face for autofocus purposes, I imagine that software could be written to recognise a number of sets and combinations of compositional rules similar to those mentioned by Alain…
Sony Auto Object Framing (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/sony-adds-new-auto-frame-and-auto-focus-features-to-alpha-a58-and-nex-3n-advanced-cameras/index.htm) since 2012.
-
How does the act of sifting through thousands of semi random images to select the good ones differ fundamentally, from photography as we know it today?
Related: http://photothunk.blogspot.com/2012/08/pre-vs-post.html
-
I prefer to sift before, not after, taking the photo. I want the experience of being in the environment.
-
"15 … Creating a brand new composition, one you have never seen before, is difficult
This is because doing so requires transforming the natural chaos into an organized image
It involves creating order out of chaos, as Elliott Porter said."
Transforming "the natural chaos into an organized image" is the fundamental achievement of a creature's visual system.
Noticing that the organized image matches those we customarily regard as artistic is different.
-
I prefer to sift before, not after, taking the photo. I want the experience of being in the environment.
Precisely. The point is that when you postulate picture-taking robots, you're not postulating a solution, you're really just postulating a system in which the fundamental act of selecting a frame is conducted entirely after the exposure(s) is/are made rather than before. Photography remains, essentially, the same. It's just done more indoors.
-
If software can be written to enable a camera to recognise a human face for autofocus purposes, I imagine that software could be written to recognise a number of sets and combinations of compositional rules similar to those mentioned by Alain, such as a striking contrast of colour and light, a juxtaposition of a dominant foreground against a large background, a moving object against a static background, a variety of different sizes and shapes, converging lines, and of course the 'rule of thirds'.
At each position where the vehicle momentarily stops to examine the surrounding scene from a number of different angles, using different focal lengths, different apertures and different focus points, a shot would be taken only when the composition of the scene matches, to a predefined approximation, one of the numerous sets of compositional rules stored in the camera's computer.
Such an approach should yield a lot of promising images. But that would be only the starting point. A second program would ingest all the images, run them through Lightroom, and pass them to a Photoshop action set that would replace the sky with some dramatic clouds, remove ugly trees, warp the boulders, stretch some other elements, add some fog and lightnings, convert any running liquids into silky looking substances, and where appropriate, add vignettes and ragged borders.
Using parallel processing concepts, one could let loose in a given shooting location a whole fleet of rovers that would be sending their harvest directly to a state-of-the-art factory in a faraway land equipped with image editing robots that would churn out millions of art prints. Exciting possibilities!
-
…selecting a frame is conducted entirely after the exposure(s) is/are made…
Which act of selecting?
"…worked all day, into the night, shooting around 500 pictures. Within a week, I received a check for the entire amount called for in my contract. But when the proofs were returned, the customer wanted (https://books.google.com/books?id=oVdjUblefBcC&lpg=PP1&dq=steve%20sint&pg=PA24#v=snippet&q=%22the%20customer%20wanted%22&f=false) only three 8x10 portaits."
-
While the remarks themselves are fine, the listicle format is not. Substituting randomly ordered bullet points for an organizing principle will be the death of our civilization.
The list is not bulleted but rather numbered. I hate Bullets unless they're part of a sales brochure. Do you ever get those executive summaries or list of issues about some subject with 15 bulleted points? Then when you want to address one or more of them in response, you have to count the bullets down from the top. The reasons bullets should be banned are:
- Confusing to the reader
- Confusing to the person answering
- Confusing to observers
-
Very funny, Alan!
-
Such an approach should yield a lot of promising images. But that would be only the starting point. A second program would ingest all the images, run them through Lightroom, and pass them to a Photoshop action set that would replace the sky with some dramatic clouds, remove ugly trees, warp the boulders, stretch some other elements, add some fog and lightnings, convert any running liquids into silky looking substances, and where appropriate, add vignettes and ragged borders.
Using parallel processing concepts, one could let loose in a given shooting location a whole fleet of rovers that would be sending their harvest directly to a state-of-the-art factory in a faraway land equipped with image editing robots that would churn out millions of art prints. Exciting possibilities!
Ha! Ha! Ha! That scenario seems quite likely to me, Les. If it can be done, then why not do it. I'm reminded here of some of the issues raised in the recent thread, 'Why Photoshop is not Ruining Landscape Photography.'
For centuries painters and sculptors have struggled to accurately portray what the eye sees. Some of the Renaissance painters appeared to have used mirrors to project reflected images onto the canvas to assist in their creation of a realistic effect.
Along comes the camera, and skilled painters become dismayed at the ease with which a photographer can more accurately portray what the painter might struggle for days or weeks to produce. The painters, realising that they cannot compete with the camera, understandably turn to abstract or semi-abstract forms of painting such as Impressionism, Cubism, Pointillism, Minimalism etc.
Perhaps at some point in the future, the automatic manipulation of photographic imagery will become so sophisticated and commonplace that photographers who wish to be creative will have to return to abstract painting.
However, if software becomes so sophisticated in its automatic simulation of appealing natural effects, I imagine it would also be able to automate appealing abstract effects. Dear me!
Perhaps in the final analysis we'll just have to accept that the only issue that counts, with regards to 'art', is the degree of meaningfulness and the emotional impact that an image has on the viewer, regardless of the nature of the automated processes that produced the image and regardless of the degree of manipulation involved.
-
Once, I asked a lady friend why she buys this very expensive wool and spends weeks knitting a sweater, when she could buy a perfectly knitted finished garment for half the price. She said, she liked knitting. So, despite all the advances in automation, I suspect that in my life time the hard-code shooters will still enjoy lugging their cameras over the most difficult terrain and make their own compositions, even at a risk of getting frostbitten, mauled by a bear, or occasionally forgetting to reset the ISO and shutter speed (which, of course would never happen with a camera on a rover).
On the other hand, addressing Allain's point of giving automated cameras same chances of success as self-driving cars, Elon Musk of Tesla recently stated that in not so distant future, human driving could be outlawed. So it is not inconceivable, that in a few years any documentary photography by tripod-wielding bipods will be banned, too. Now, that I think of it, some places have already started to impose ban on photographers. So, get that old Provia film out of the freezer and start shooting while you can.
-
Quote from Alain:
I get your point, Les, that Google has invented a driverless, robotic car. However, as far as I know, no-one has invented a functioning robotic camera in relation to composition choice, although I did outline the design for such a camera several years ago on this site. ;)
I took my inspiration from the Mars Rover. It occurred to me that a similar, portable device could be designed purely for photography. It could be easily transported in the boot of the car when travelling to scenic locations one wanted to photograph.
The device would essentially be a small and very lightweight all-terrain vehicle, made of strong carbon-fibre plastic, housing sophisticated computer programs and literally hundreds of thousands of images of all the great art works of the past.
The integrated camera with zoom lens would be attached to a flexible arm which would automatically rise, fall and turn in any direction as the small vehicle negotiated the rough terrain in search of any scene which resembled the composition of one or more of the images of the great masterpieces stored in its computer.
One could program the rover to make a trip of a certain duration whilst one enjoyed lunch at the scenic location. One could examine the shots taken by the robot on its return to the starting point, and if not satisfied with the results, one could reprogram the device to set out again on a different route to take some more shots whilst one enjoyed one's dessert. ;D
But the car would own the copyright and if you tried to use one of the photos a robotic lawyer would come after you :D.
-
But the car would own the copyright and if you tried to use one of the photos a robotic lawyer would come after you :D.
Not a problem. If I own the car, I own its wheels, its camera, its computer and all its copyrights. Robots are our slaves. ;)
-
Robots are our slaves. ;)
For the time being... :D
-
For the time being... :D
Science Fiction nonsense, Eric. ;D
-
Science Fiction nonsense, Eric. ;D
Bill Gates and Elon Musk must know something what we don't, since they have real concerns
http://www.cnet.com/news/bill-gates-says-robots-represent-a-twin-threat/
-
If you have seen a flash crash in the stock market you start to wonder, are we really in charge?...
-
"The goal of composition is to express your vision and your emotional response to the scene"
This may be a goal, but the primary goal of composition it to get a viewer to appreciate your vision and emotional response to a scene. Without a viewer, the whole photographic enterprise is meaningless.
-
golfzilla,
...the primary goal of composition it to get a viewer to appreciate your vision and emotional response to a scene.
Perhaps Alain Briot subscribes to the view that a photographer should always shoot for him/herself.
-
You can have both. First you have to be able to express in a photograph your feelings, vision and beauty about a scene. If your photo expresses these well, others will appreciate viewing the picture.
When I compose and edit, I try to satisfy my own feelings about the shot. I can't get into other people's head of what they like. I'm not a pro so I don;t have to satisfy their requirements. But if I'm happy about what I've done for myself, others will probably like it too. So the answer is shoot and edit for yourself.
-
Alan,
...if I'm happy about what I've done for myself, others will probably like it too.
Please explain how you can extrapolate the latter from the former.
-
You can have both. First you have to be able to express in a photograph your feelings, vision and beauty about a scene. If your photo expresses these well, others will appreciate viewing the picture.
When I compose and edit, I try to satisfy my own feelings about the shot. I can't get into other people's head of what they like. I'm not a pro so I don;t have to satisfy their requirements. But if I'm happy about what I've done for myself, others will probably like it too. So the answer is shoot and edit for yourself.
Well said. I fully concur.
-
…but the primary goal of composition is…
Perhaps Alain Briot subscribes to a different art philosophy.
-
Alan,
Quote
...if I'm happy about what I've done for myself, others will probably like it too.
Please explain how you can extrapolate the latter from the former.
It seems that when I find a girl pretty, others find her pretty as well. Not everyone, but a lot. Photos are like that too. In both cases it really doesn't matter what others think. Would I pick a girl I didn't think pretty just because others felt she was? No. I have to be true to myself. Making photos is the same thing.
-
I can't get into other people's head of what they like. I'm not a pro so I don;t have to satisfy their requirements. But if I'm happy about what I've done for myself, others will probably like it too.
Maybe they will, maybe they won't.
Perhaps someone who is actually interested in making pictures that others will like, does in fact do better at making pictures that others will like.
-
how do you go about making a picture that satisfies others?
-
Making pictures to please others is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but that activity overlaps only rarely with the modern conception of "making art".
"Making art" begins with pleasing the artist. These days.
-
Nice article - pretty pix!
I don't do landscapes. Here are some of my thoughts on people compositions in the area of street photography and shooting from behind a subject.
nsfw
https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/category/composition/
-
how do you go about making a picture that satisfies others?
I never do. that is for commercial photogs. They shoot for others.
-
I never do. that is for commercial photogs. They shoot for others.
Even when I am on a commercial assignment, shooting for others, I do it my way. Actually, "my way" is precisely the reason they hired me. I do take into account their needs, of course, and incorporate it in "my way." Because we do not live in a binary world, i.e., either "for others" or "for myself"... there are at least 256 shades of gray in between.
-
how do you go about making a picture that satisfies others?
These days it seems like "Very extensive PP, often including HDR and high saturation" might be one way.
-
how do you go about making a picture that satisfies others?
Empathy.
-
how do you go about making a picture that satisfies others?
Empathy.
??? ??? ::)
-
Hi,
I read the article as well as all the postings here and I came for me to the conclusion that
" If I like my photographs, I achieved composition and if not, I did not achieve composition "
" If others like my photographs, I achieved composition and if they do not like them, I did not achieve composition "
¿ So ?
Now another thing is the so called " Rules for Composition " and what if my photographs do not comply with any of those so called " Rules " and people still like them ... ?
... but then I guess, somebody calling himself a Photography Guru, will then always find a rule in the composition
;D
Just wandering around with the keyboard ...
-
Cropping does not change really the composition.
Cropping can not make an image taken with a 40mm lens to look as if it was taken with a 15mm lens.
Cropping can not make an image taken at eye level look as if it was taken close to the ground.
Cropping can not make an image shot through the branches of a tree look as if it was taken with the tree in the right half of the picture.
Cropping can not make an image taken with the light behind the camera look as if was taken with the light coming from the side.
etc.
-
Cropping does not change really the composition.
Cropping can not make an image taken with a 40mm lens to look as if it was taken with a 15mm lens.
Cropping can not make an image taken at eye level look as if it was taken close to the ground.
Cropping can not make an image shot through the branches of a tree look as if it was taken with the tree in the right half of the picture.
Cropping can not make an image taken with the light behind the camera look as if was taken with the light coming from the side.
etc.
Cropping can not make a Full English Breakfast. What's your point? (Cropping really does change the composition.)
-
1. Cropping DOES change the composition, but doesn't change the viewing direction.
2. Cropping DOES make an image taken with a 15 mm lens look like it was taken with a 40 mm lens, assuming that you have made the necessary correction to barrel distortion and vignetting. Photoshop context-sensitive fill may make an image taken with a 40mm lens look as if it were taken with a 15 mm lens - as long as it is high noon and a clear sky. :D
-
Cropping can not make a Full English Breakfast.
I was disappointed to learn this. When will LR or PS include a Kippers module or a Steak-and-Kidney-Pie module? :(
-
My point? Except for changing the aspect ratio of an image, cropping is is at the bottom of the list of what makes a creative picture.
-
So few posts, yet so many insightful observations. Can't wait for further contributions!
-
Udo007,
Except for changing the aspect ratio of an image...
Not necessarily.