Old habits and the ROT

[Tim Tucker]

On a recent thread in the Landscape forum an interesting, (though by no means new), idea came up which I would like to discuss further:

Just after sunset

My comment was:

...we sometime get too settled in the tools and habits we use in photography and miss what may be beyond it. By this I mean if you judge composition by the metrics that you understand then you fall into a pattern of seeing the image only in relationship to those metrics. You may tend to look at horizon lines and talk of thirds and may not see the pattern of dark/light/dark horizontal bands that give just enough asymmetric balance around a near central horizon and neatly divide the image into 3rds. Moving the horizon to the 'rule of thirds' (ROT) makes no sense as it totally destroys the rhythm of thirds that you have given the image. All it does is serve the metric that it is the horizon that is placed on the ROT because such is the habit that is formed.

To expand on this a little further, because we may form the habit of it being the horizon line on the ROT then are we specifically looking for the horizon line to determine it's placement in an image? And what do we achieve by doing this? Is it really composition or simply placing an order on an image which we recognise and understand as photographers?

Again with no disrespect to the talents of the photographers involved, there is no dead space in the sky of the image reference in the thread. It balances beautifully the dark areas at the bottom of the image. It only becomes dead space to support the habit of the placement of the horizon on the ROT and because of the habits we form we can become blind to the other possibilities.

This does not only apply to the ROT but it also, I think, to the whole range of tools at our disposal. When we post process an image we understand a logic attached to the sliders and functions of the programs. That logic of how we perceive these tools to function then becomes the framework by which we judge images. We tend to see images with reference to our understanding of the use of these tools, "I see and understand what you've done here..." But does a non-photographer with a different framework of understanding see the same? Some photographers I've seen, (on another site), tone map and sharpen the whole image into the same even micro-contrast, then boost the contrast and saturation to overcome the degraded colour, and thus strip out the last remaing pastels and variations in tint and shade. Black is then added in abundance, "to bring out the colour," because the only way to hide a relative lack of colour is by contrasting it with a complete lack of colour. So a flat, lifeless and relatively colourless (though vibrant) image gets likes because it's good or because it conforms to the metrics of other photographers who maybe can't see past their perceived logic of the tools they use?

Now I would still like to explore our perceptions of colour further with "Tomatoes Pt2" at a later date.

As I read in a book once:

"No education is authentic if it leaves such habit undisturbed."

So let's shake it up a bit, and one way I try to shake it up is to turn the subject on it's head and approach it from another angle. With composition we are effectively creating order, so let's consider the question, "how do we create randomness or disorder in our images?"

If we look at the landscape around us we see both organised structure and a randomness. But how many often see the shape of a human face in the random patterns around us? This is because our eye actively seeks recognisable patterns in the chaos around us. We seek to apply scale, logic, and understanding to what we see, how far away it is, what it is, and how it relates to it's surroundings.

Below is a seemingly random collection of shapes:

Now the trouble with photography is that we impose upon this randomness a rectangle, we supply a grid upon which the eye can judge distance and discern pattern. We can easily split the grid into halves, thirds, diagonals and many more patterns. To see just how powerful this rectangle is at providing an order to that contained within, and just how much it scuppers our plans to create randomness, scroll down to the image below, (I've deliberately put it at the bottom as I don't want you to see the two images together).

By imposing a grid on the random shapes we provide a framework for the eye to perceive order, some might even begin to discern scale and distance simply because of it's addition.

Now this really does work against us creating a random pattern within our rectangle because no matter how randomly you place the objects the eye will always seek to impose order. To see how artists have overcome this I'm going to switch to jazz for a while.

Imagine an old jazz favourite, say "Blueberry Hill." Now to many I'm guessing that the basic melody is so familiar it is akin to comfy slippers. In fact many are so familiar with it that a straight rendition, similar to when it was first heard and caused excitement, would now seem relatively boring and staid to us. Such is the development of our ear to new concepts and sounds over time. Now if you listened to a modern progressive jazz interpretation of the same tune you many get lost and hear a barely tuneful and rhythmic randomness. But try listening to the same tune while you hold the original melody in your head. This is what the jazz musicians are doing, they know the tune so well that they are no longer playing it. It is hidden and exists within their heads. What they are playing is the accented rhythms and the tension and release across the top of it.

This is what artists do. To create randomness they hide the basic structure (the tune) within the rectangle, they then play out the beats and accents set deliberately against this hidden rhythm. You can see this in one of it's masters, Degas. Have a look at his "The Absinthe Drinker":

L'Absinthe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may think it's random. But ask yourself why the tables have no legs. This is not neglect but the biggest hint that the image is highly and very deliberately structured. Degas deliberately sets out a hidden or latent rhythm against which he plays the very carefully placed accents or off-beats. Composition is not just about the absolute, the lines and logic you perceive, but can also be split into visible and latent structure. To gain full control over this requires a measure of understanding, but that does not exclude anybody achieving it by 'eye' alone.

What is interesting is that the impression of randomness needs to become highly structured simply by the addition of a rectangle around your image.

I do not expect you to fully agree (or even understand) the ramblings within my head, but I do hope that another's perspective might give some a different view and allow them to see around some of the habits we form.

 

[The_Traveler]

This is what artists do. To create randomness they hide the basic structure (the tune) within the rectangle, they then play out the beats and accents set deliberately against this hidden rhythm. You can see this in one of it's masters, Degas. Have a look at his "The Absinthe Drinker":

L'Absinthe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may think it's random. But ask yourself why the tables have no legs. This is not neglect but the biggest hint that the image is highly and very deliberately structured. Degas deliberately sets out a hidden or latent rhythm against which he plays the very carefully placed accents or off-beats. Composition is not just about the absolute, the lines and logic you perceive, but can also be split into visible and latent structure. To gain full control over this requires a measure of understanding, but that does not exclude anybody achieving it by 'eye' alone.

This no-leg idea is an ex post facto construct and is a bit suspicious. There is a brace under the visible table and it is plausible that the tables are constructed as 'shelves' to allow easy cleaning of the floor without moving tables. I was just in a small, very busy Dunkin Donuts where the tables were done that way

 

[weepete]

I agree Tim.

I think that the term composition is often thought of as where we (as photographers) choose to place things in the frame, where it makes more sense to me to think of it in terms of balance and flow of the final picture.

These kind of compositional tools can be used pretty effectively as long as there is no other compelling reason to avoid them. In particular with the first image of the sunset you are discussing the compelling reason to keep the horizon on the centre is because it would destroy the balance of the shot by loosing the mirroring of the tones as you rightly pointed out.

 

[Tim Tucker]

This no-leg idea is an ex post facto construct and is a bit suspicious. There is a brace under the visible table and it is plausible that the tables are constructed as 'shelves' to allow easy cleaning of the floor without moving tables. I was just in a small, very busy Dunkin Donuts where the tables were done that way

Is that really a table leg, or just the representation of the bench behind the sitter's leg? Did the contemporary design of Dunkin Donuts exist in Paris in 1876?

But most importantly does your interpretation of the scene as that area being a brace help you understand Degas use of composition or inhibit it?

Artists have always distorted reality to overcome the limitations of a 2D enclosed space. Arguing over definitions of details in an image so as to make it conform to a logic or reality that an individual holds can, and probably does stop one seeing the image as a whole. I ask myself why Degas presented the image as he did, and my answer must be that the table supports detract from what he was trying to achieve. Just in the same way backgrounds are blacked out and items cloned from photos.

But my main reason for including this particular image was to shake things up. Most photographers think of composition as being attached to the absolute, the things and lines that we see. It is a horizon line, and it is placed on the upper third.

Degas was very well aware that most would not notice the relative lack of support for the tables as he understood the nature of human vision. What he also shows us in the painting is that composition is not absolute, in the image he is playing the rhythm of accents against a composition that we are not supposed to see. It seems random but is very deliberate, the main composition is not absolute but is designed to be hidden.

Developing an artist's eye is in seeing beyond the logic you try and impose, and trying to see with an open mind and eye. If there are table supports does this mean that all Degas composition is in fact about the absolute, and that the picture is the painter's equivalent of a lucky snapshot?

 

[Tim Tucker]

I agree Tim.

I think that the term composition is often thought of as where we (as photographers) choose to place things in the frame, where it makes more sense to me to think of it in terms of balance and flow of the final picture.

These kind of compositional tools can be used pretty effectively as long as there is no other compelling reason to avoid them. In particular with the first image of the sunset you are discussing the compelling reason to keep the horizon on the centre is because it would destroy the balance of the shot by loosing the mirroring of the tones as you rightly pointed out.

Absolutely, don't think in absolute terms because its all about relationships between things and not the placement of things themselves.

Think of your mountain in a frame. Now there is no way your picture will ever contain a mountain of the same size as the one you photograph, yet that 10" representation on your screen can have the appearance of a towering giant. It's just a question of relative scale within a frame, and to understand it you have to loosen your grip on thinking in terms of absolute values and things.

In the image referenced the central horizon is just a coincidence of symmetrical reflection that, happily, usually re-inforces an already strong composition, so is it's placement primary or secondary coincidence?

Just some thoughts from a rambling mind.

 

[The_Traveler]

You are reading Degas' mind at far remove and implying that there are 'rules' or motives by which he did things purposefully.
That may be useful for BS discussions but is useless in forming one's own ideas of what is good or interesting or different.

And less than useless, even destuctive, to produce thoughtful work.

 

[Tim Tucker]

You are reading Degas' mind at far remove and implying that there are 'rules' or motives by which he did things purposefully.
That may be useful for BS discussions but is useless in forming one's own ideas of what is good or interesting or different.

And less than useless, even destuctive, to produce thoughtful work.

Eh? Nobody's reading anybody's mind, simply looking freely at the images he freely published. And are you really inferring that the composition is without structure or purpose and that there is nothing you can learn from trying to understand how he created his images?

And destructive to what? Thoughtful work or your own beliefs?

EDIT: We are only looking at the devices that Degas use that are well understood and employed by different artists. It is just observation and not mind reading.

 

[Watchful]

The painting isn't intended as a 'how to build a table' reference image, it's art, and in art anything goes.
The intention of the artist may have been to focus the viewer on the postures and expressions of the subjects and not have clutter detracting from that.

 

[limr]

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I shoot the way I cook: by feel. I add the amount of salt or spice that "feels" right. I'll explore a shot until the composition "feels" right. Maybe it's because I don't remember actually learning these traditional rules (I do remember learning about the concept of Gestalt and how it made complete and total sense to me!) Sometimes that framing that feels "right" falls towards the more traditional "rule-driven" composition, and sometimes it's not. I also find that what feels right in the viewfinder of a 35mm camera is not the same thing that feels right when composing in a square, and that most of it goes out the window when I'm shooting a Holga.

I feel this has worked for me so far, but I also see how a deeper, more systematic understanding of composition can be helpful as well, and I do admire your ability, Tim, to thoughtfully break it down. Sometimes I wonder if I could do better were I to be a bit more deliberate, more conscious about my choices, because I am quite analytical about most things, so why not photography as well? But sometimes that gets in my way and I end up over-analyzing my way right into a crappy picture when I'm trying to do everything by the book. With photography, I do better when I give the analytical part of my brain a break.

Oh, and the part about seeing faces in the inanimate objects around us? Yeah, that's apparently a sign of neurosis
Neurotic People See Faces in Things

(And yes, I totally see faces everywhere!)

 

[Watchful]

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I shoot the way I cook: by feel. I add the amount of salt or spice that "feels" right. I'll explore a shot until the composition "feels" right. Maybe it's because I don't remember actually learning these traditional rules (I do remember learning about the concept of Gestalt and how it made complete and total sense to me!) Sometimes that framing that feels "right" falls towards the more traditional "rule-driven" composition, and sometimes it's not. I also find that what feels right in the viewfinder of a 35mm camera is not the same thing that feels right when composing in a square, and that most of it goes out the window when I'm shooting a Holga.

I feel this has worked for me so far, but I also see how a deeper, more systematic understanding of composition can be helpful as well, and I do admire your ability, Tim, to thoughtfully break it down. Sometimes I wonder if I could do better were I to be a bit more deliberate, more conscious about my choices, because I am quite analytical about most things, so why not photography as well? But sometimes that gets in my way and I end up over-analyzing my way right into a crappy picture when I'm trying to do everything by the book. With photography, I do better when I give the analytical part of my brain a break.

Oh, and the part about seeing faces in the inanimate objects around us? Yeah, that's apparently a sign of neurosis
Neurotic People See Faces in Things

(And yes, I totally see faces everywhere!)

I agree, art should be more right brain oriented activity, and save the left for mathematics.

Test your hemispheres

 

[Tim Tucker]

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but I shoot the way I cook: by feel. I add the amount of salt or spice that "feels" right. I'll explore a shot until the composition "feels" right. Maybe it's because I don't remember actually learning these traditional rules (I do remember learning about the concept of Gestalt and how it made complete and total sense to me!) Sometimes that framing that feels "right" falls towards the more traditional "rule-driven" composition, and sometimes it's not. I also find that what feels right in the viewfinder of a 35mm camera is not the same thing that feels right when composing in a square, and that most of it goes out the window when I'm shooting a Holga.

I feel this has worked for me so far, but I also see how a deeper, more systematic understanding of composition can be helpful as well, and I do admire your ability, Tim, to thoughtfully break it down. Sometimes I wonder if I could do better were I to be a bit more deliberate, more conscious about my choices, because I am quite analytical about most things, so why not photography as well? But sometimes that gets in my way and I end up over-analyzing my way right into a crappy picture when I'm trying to do everything by the book. With photography, I do better when I give the analytical part of my brain a break.

Oh, and the part about seeing faces in the inanimate objects around us? Yeah, that's apparently a sign of neurosis
Neurotic People See Faces in Things

(And yes, I totally see faces everywhere!)

That is a very valid and direct question, one which I ask myself almost on a daily basis and is incredibly relevant to the (my) discussion. There is a definite division between seeing and understanding a visual relationship and attaching a logical framework to it, making it conform to an understanding. What I'm trying to communicate is that it's the visual understanding and not the logical framework you may attach to it that's important. If it looks right then try and understand why it looks good rather that manipulate an image to conform to the logical framework you think is right. As I see it the 'rules' themselves are not rules at all only an understanding of how we see and react to visual stimuli, something that is fluid and changes with time and familiarity. You cannot constrain creative thought in convention, only refine your ability to communicate it (that is sometimes too stifled in convention). And though I believe this can be of benefit, I also understand that it is many, many years of backward steps before you can free your mind again. So the question is always in my mind of whether it's worth it or whether it's better to let your creativity run free. I think the question we must ask a ourselves is, can we see our images through another's eyes?

I like your take on cooking, it is very Indian (Asia) and a refreshing difference from the more formal western cooking!

 

[Tim Tucker]

The painting isn't intended as a 'how to build a table' reference image, it's art, and in art anything goes.
The intention of the artist may have been to focus the viewer on the postures and expressions of the subjects and not have clutter detracting from that.

That's complete rubbish. If you think 'anything goes' in art then you're no graphic designer. Graphic design is all about understanding how to communicate visual ideas, and generally to the mass public.

Who's talking about "build a table"? I'm not, as I remember it I was showing you an example of how not to build them, so your comment seems to me to be pure diversion. And really look at the posture of the subjects, really look. Degas cuts people in half at the edges of his images and still manages to present beautifully balanced and complete images. Read the comments on this very site when others do the same to see how difficult this is. Ever wondered how Degas was so good at it?

I do.

 

[Watchful]

Art and graphic design are two different fields of expertise. To compare them is like apples and oranges imo.

Look up 'avant garde' or 'abstract'
then compare that to Advertising layout and construction.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Art and graphic design are two different fields of expertise. To compare them is like apples and oranges imo.

Look up 'avant garde' or 'abstract'
then compare that to Advertising layout and construction.

I'm sorry, but from now on you're going to have to indicate in your posts whether I'm talking to the graphic designer side of you that understands these things or the avant garde side of you that has no idea...

 

[Watchful]

Art and graphic design are two different fields of expertise. To compare them is like apples and oranges imo.

Look up 'avant garde' or 'abstract'
then compare that to Advertising layout and construction.

I'm sorry, but from now on you're going to have to indicate in your posts whether I'm talking to the graphic designer side of you that understands these things or the avant garde side of you that has no idea...

Don't be sorry, I hope we all have both inside us and a lot more, being single minded is such a bore. I do both and a lot of other types of art, I like to be open minded. That's just me, not everyone agrees, if they did, that would bore me too and I might have to change my mind.