Critiques, how do you look at a photograph??

[LaFoto]

This makes me think of an old Italian pop song that went "parole-parole-parole" ("words-words-words") ... actually we all say the same, and whether we speak of "rules" (just because the term "rules of third" is so ingrained in our memories) or of "conventions", which is more correct (!), or whether we say we "perceive" a photo in "our own way" or we say "our emotional reactions to what we perceive is different and unique since we are all individuals" all means the very same in the end. And true fact is that at the end of the day we all agree.

What I added in my previous post is that I think - just think - that we can actually SCHOOL our own way of reacting to things ... perceiving things if I were to speak with Charlie's words ... that we see in visual arts. Even our reactions can be modified. The more we know a) about the "rules" (concrete ones of exposure, focus and composition), b) other additional "rules" (or the conventions that actually drive our reactions) AND about ourselves and our own likings and tastes and preferences and whatnot, the better we can abstract ourselves from an image and sort of "look from afar". We will STILL be controlled by our own experiences, emotions, associations, past and present life situations. But we may have learned to detach ourselves from that just a little and look? Or not? Never?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The rule of thirds exists because, MOST of the time, a shot looks better when the photograph follows the form of the thirds in the picture.

The Rule of Thirds is talked about so much in Photography because it is so simple and for this reason it's the only compositional approach most people have ever heard of.
In truth it is only a very minor compositional ploy - but because if you divide a picture up into nine equal rectangles at least one of the main elements will be either near an intersection or near a line by the law of averages people think it is some kind of photographic Holy Grail. It's a bit like ley lines

I repeat: there are only two rules in Photography. Everything else is just convention. Like grammar is in relation to English.

As to what you are trying to 'capture' in a picture...
First you have to be clear as to why you are taking the picture.
If it's for money then your prime concern is pleasing the client.
If it's a snapshot then you are trying to capture 'the moment'. Technical considerations are relatively unimportant.
Other reasons are somewhat more complicated so it's important not to lie to yourself.
But for pictures that you take for yourself I would say that it is important to try and capture what you feel. That is to say, when you see something (a view, a car, a nude, whatever) that evokes a strong enough response in you to make you want to photograph it you need to understand what it is that gives you this urge.
What is it about what you are photographing that makes you want to photograph it?
It could be that you think it is what you are supposed to do in that situation (see Susan Sontag On Photography for more details). Just as often it is because what you see triggers a memory response in you (the basis of emotion). It doesn't have to be the object as such - it could be the lighting or some other subtelty.
What should then happen is that you look at the image, realise it doesn't quite get what you saw, try to identify where it works and where it doesn't, try and take the picture again - and try to work out why you felt you had to photograph it in the first place.
It's a long and difficult process - which is why there are a lot of mediocre wannabes and so few 'good' photographers (bitter pill to swallow but you know I'm right). But nothing worthwhile comes easy.
Photography is about self-exploration. Finding out what makes you tick. What blows your skirt up. And it's only when you start to see the first glimmerings in this direction that you start to take pictures that have something going for them.
Photography is about self-expression. Once you start to understand why you are taking the picture you can do the little tricks that enhance it so that the viewer gets something of the feeling you got when you took the picture.
Photography should be about communication.

 

[nomade]

Yeah parole that of Dalida & Joe Dassin..eh?

But if you can take a picture that does what you want and viewers like whilst going outside the coneventions - then it is probably Art ;-)

That's it, couldn't agree more.

Terms, definitions, using the correct language is something I am trying to do in order to be well understood, but this is another proof we could be different, the way we use words could be bent or twisted a little bit.
English is my third language, and it's not easy to get deep in it, in terms of usage, I can understand more words than those I can write.

we see more in one of our images than someone else would who was not there when the picture was taken.

That is true, adding to this, some photos you see awakes some memories inside of you, this would mean more to you, this would give you more feel than probably the photographer himself.
Yes it depends on many things including your personal experiences.

If I look at a photograph only to see if the rules and conventions that I learned (the actual rules I possibly don't know of), this is flat, and then photography is not art, you said it.

Like I said before having rules and conventions to set some guide to those who find in them the will to try, is important to make what you produce acceptable to a certain matter, but not necessarily what makes it the best.
Like in Photography, architecture, painting, sculpture, cinema... (some rules cannot be broken though, if you wanna keep the building for example steady).

But we cannot limit creativity to certain rules...

Again critique in general isn't limited by one's capability to make photographs or whatever his craft is. You don't have to be a director to judge a director's work...But if you lack education about this matter, you are only limited with what you know you can do, to understand there's something beyond this limit you need to see more and then probably you won't be able to produce something like that, but you can still feel and understand if you are good or just below par.

It's not simple to make a serious critique to be read and understood covering a single photograph. But when you take a serious look, you already have something in your mind, you would simply express that you appreciate it, and mention one of those things in mind, or reject it, and give a simple opinion too...

But leaving everything and pointing out something technical that has no effect at all on whether this photograph is good or not, is not a critique, is not a feed back, and is not something I can use. We are reducing photographs to flat images.

I love pictures of tree, but I won't appreciate anyone of them, cause I've seen a lot, and I've seen many that are similar, and begin to look like average to me, I could produce that average and understand it's average.
If someone begins with average, and it's nice, why not tell him it's nice, give him the push to do more. If this person is trying to do things right.

It's about others too, if someone is trying to learn, why not help him. Not all are geniuses and talents are developed with time. But this is only me.

I'm not a teacher like some of you, but each has his own ways.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I prefer to say what is the shot going to be used for rather than why I took it. I took it for money but its a portrait not a landscape therefore it is different.

I hate the rule of thirds and I hate even more when some idiot calls it the golden rule. The only rule in composition I use and believe in is balance period. You learn balance by shooting photographs and sitting in bed on a sunday morning with bad coffee and good donuts while someone you love picks them apart......if you are damn lucky...

 

[Hertz van Rental]

The only rule in composition I use and believe in is balance period.

Again, there are no real rules in composition - only conventions and approaches.
Composition is how you resolve the internal dialogue between picture elements and organise the pictures visual dynamics.
In translations - how do you want the picture to 'feel'?
Get it right and the picture works.


I feel a Composition Primer coming on :mrgreen:

 

[mysteryscribe]

Prime all you want, it's still about balance for me. That is what works for me off balance does not, even thought I have seen off balance that was appealing.

 

[skieur]

To draw an analogy for newbies, when I first learned typing way back in the last century, I concentrated more on the process, location of keys, technique, format etc. Now all that is totally transparent and I concentrate solely on the content of what I am typing, not the process.

The same is true for photography. Technique is part of the process and it is important. Bad technique distracts the eye of the viewer from the centre of interest and reduces the emotional and visual impact of the photo. Busy backgrounds, loss of detail, poor focus, too slow a shutter speed, too shallow a depth of field, and other approaches that demonstrate lack of attention to detail in the technical area prevent the composition elements from working together to create an effective photo.
Technique must be good enough to be transparent to what the photographer wishes to communicate about the centre of interest.

Composition and the "rules" can't be ignored either. They are based on how the eye views and travels through an image and what elements bring about the attention of the viewer and elicit a response. There are images that are effective despite breaking a rule or two, but if you look at them carefully, they would have been even more effective if they had followed them.

Instead of parroting the cliché that rules are made to be broken, the real bottom line is:

Does breaking the rule of composition contribute to the effectiveness of the photo?

If your honest answer is NO, then you should follow the rule and try and see how doing so contributes to the photo.

Photography is attention to detail and all the details in both technique and composition are important to the effectiveness of the photo.

Emotion for an artist is useless if he\she cannot use the tools of his/her art to express him/herself in a manner that communicates to most viewers. This is equally true for photography. Emotion without technique and composition skills is the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. No one is interested in viewing your works of "self-expression" until you learn to control the manner of that expression.

skieur

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Technique must be good enough to be transparent to what the photographer wishes to communicate about the centre of interest.

Absolutely - and I think Avis already said that in a different way.

But there are no 'rules' for composition - only conventions. True they are based on how the eye/mind sees but once you have some understanding of that then you can play with them. And you also realise that there are a great many ways of constructing an image that 'works'.
This is what artists - particularly painters - have struggled with over the Centuries. How do you arrange the elements in a picture so that it works and does what you want?
Every picture poses a problem and it is the photographer's job to solve these problems as best he can. Good photographers are just better at solving the problems than most.
The main damage that photography has done to art is in being instantaneous. Instead of taking time and solving the problem before you make the picture people shoot first and try to 'improve' the shot in retrospect.
There are times when you don't have the time to do this but have to do it by instinct. That is where you sort out people who have an 'eye' from those who don't.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I come down in this camp.

To try to apply rules of composition, as if they were a one size fits all sweat shirt, is to me just plain ridiculous. I do believe when viewing an image one has to take into consideration how it was shot, and for what purpose the image will be used, then apply composition standards accordingly. Not all images are meant for museum walls, or even home bathroom walls. Some just go into a shoebox, and I don't think a snapshot keeper need perfect balance. Or wedding pictures to be the perfect crop if shot on the fly so they can not be corrected without damaging the intent of the images. Some things are just going to be what they are.

But I also come down with Hertz. A photographer should take all his tools when he goes out to work. A good photographer's meatball shots will be better than a poor photographers set shots. At least that is my opinion.

I also think there are a lot more snapshots of people being called portraits than qualify. I also believe in the designated hitter.

 

[RMThompson]

To draw an analogy for newbies, when I first learned typing way back in the last century, I concentrated more on the process, location of keys, technique, format etc. Now all that is totally transparent and I concentrate solely on the content of what I am typing, not the process.

The same is true for photography. Technique is part of the process and it is important. Bad technique distracts the eye of the viewer from the centre of interest and reduces the emotional and visual impact of the photo. Busy backgrounds, loss of detail, poor focus, too slow a shutter speed, too shallow a depth of field, and other approaches that demonstrate lack of attention to detail in the technical area prevent the composition elements from working together to create an effective photo.
Technique must be good enough to be transparent to what the photographer wishes to communicate about the centre of interest.

Composition and the "rules" can't be ignored either. They are based on how the eye views and travels through an image and what elements bring about the attention of the viewer and elicit a response. There are images that are effective despite breaking a rule or two, but if you look at them carefully, they would have been even more effective if they had followed them.

Instead of parroting the cliché that rules are made to be broken, the real bottom line is:

Does breaking the rule of composition contribute to the effectiveness of the photo?

If your honest answer is NO, then you should follow the rule and try and see how doing so contributes to the photo.

Photography is attention to detail and all the details in both technique and composition are important to the effectiveness of the photo.

Emotion for an artist is useless if he\she cannot use the tools of his/her art to express him/herself in a manner that communicates to most viewers. This is equally true for photography. Emotion without technique and composition skills is the equivalent of throwing a temper tantrum. No one is interested in viewing your works of "self-expression" until you learn to control the manner of that expression.

skieur

:hail:

perfect.

 

[nomade]

Why do I get the feel that this has turned into a rules and technique Vs emotions discussion, the point is why people ignore everything for minor details that would lead us to vicious circles of not understanding the purpose of what we are doing in the end.

The point is what personal conditions do you set for a photograph to be successful in your eyes?? If you can set a limit at all...

 

[deanimator]

Skier´s comment above is spot on. I couldn´t agree more.

This is absolutely critical to what makes an effective, and therefore, successful photograph.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

Why do I get the feel that this has turned into a rules and technique Vs emotions discussion

I don't know because it doesn't look like it has to me.
What it appears is being said is that if you bind yourself to a rigid set of 'rules' in Photography you end up producing formula pictures. And if every one is the same you are not being creative. You also shut yourself off from new ideas because you only accept as 'good' images which conform to your formula.
From that it is suggested that if you see the 'rules' as mere guidlines - to be followed, bent, broken or ignored as the situation dictates - then you can start being creative and become receptive to new ideas.
Whether you put emotion into your pictures is up to you but you will find it almost impossible if you just work to a formula. But you will find it equally hard if you don't have any technique*.
If this thread is against anything it is against extremism. There is a lot of common ground between the two poles you mention and that is the area we should be exploring. Instead of being one or the other, be a little bit of both.

The point is what personal conditions do you set for a photograph to be successful in your eyes?? If you can set a limit at all...

It depends on why I am taking the picture.
If it's for money then it is successful if the client likes it and pays for it.
If I'm doing it for myself then no picture is truly successful - they all have a flaw somewhere.

* Rules and Technique are not quite the same thing - you can have technique without conforming to a rigid set of rules.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Yeah Hertz...

I can agree with every word of that and it isnt often I do. I wish I had a dollar for every image I made for art (whoever the hell he is) that wound up in the trash can. Hell I'd take just the cost of the film and paper back.

 

[aimeefriedland]

mmm this is all very interesting. please, do go on!:heart: