Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Chimpy

macrumors 6502
Mar 9, 2007
257
0
Even though they're not my pictures, it's been great reading this thread to get a feel for how people critically examine photos. Thanks for the awesome read everyone.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
@compuwar, I know what you're saying so you don't need to tell me to remind me how I should read an image. I'm simply telling you that this has artistic merit.

You don't have to get all snippy about it. I was simply asking you to see how I drew the conclusions I drew. I'm not telling you how *you* should read an image, I'm telling you how *I* drew the conclusions I drew and why.

I understand that you see artistic merit in it, I'm simply pointing out why it's not as good a shot as it should be, and therefore doesn't have much merit in my eyes. Art is subjective, we're all going to connect differently with different images, but more people will connect more deeply with an image that has better overall elements than this one. I'm not saying art has to be popular- I'm saying the image doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could work if it were shot and lit differently.

You can *see* where the depth the OP was looking at is in the image, but the composition and lighting don't draw your eyes in the photograph like I imagine the OP was drawn to shoot the scene in real life in the first place. If the shot did, it'd have a lot more merit. That's the difference between poor, good and great photography- being able to portray the scene you *saw* as your vision, not the one you *shot* with your gear.

Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.

Some people see artistic merit in fecal matter flung against a canvass, some see it in the Mona Lisa's smile- I'm not trying tell either camp what they should or shouldn't find artistic, I'm explaining why *I* don't find merit in it, and what improvements would give it more merit.

I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,835
847
Location Location Location
Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.

.....I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.

Yep, and your points also made quite a lot of sense. I didn't go through the rest of the images because you did it so well. People are drawn to highlights, and that shot in the garage goes from the strong light, to nowhere exciting at all.

It is rather fake-looking, and over-done HDR cartoons are not my thing, but that's not why I dislike the photo. I dislike it because it doesn't lead you anywhere. If you like that sort of cartoony over-processed look, then you'll like how that photo looks, but it's probably a more superficial attraction rather than because the image is interesting.

How about taking an architecture class, and telling the teacher that you like a particular building because the swimming pool is awesome!
 

CrackedButter

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2003
3,221
0
51st State of America
You don't have to get all snippy about it. I was simply asking you to see how I drew the conclusions I drew. I'm not telling you how *you* should read an image, I'm telling you how *I* drew the conclusions I drew and why.

I understand that you see artistic merit in it, I'm simply pointing out why it's not as good a shot as it should be, and therefore doesn't have much merit in my eyes. Art is subjective, we're all going to connect differently with different images, but more people will connect more deeply with an image that has better overall elements than this one. I'm not saying art has to be popular- I'm saying the image doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could work if it were shot and lit differently.

You can *see* where the depth the OP was looking at is in the image, but the composition and lighting don't draw your eyes in the photograph like I imagine the OP was drawn to shoot the scene in real life in the first place. If the shot did, it'd have a lot more merit. That's the difference between poor, good and great photography- being able to portray the scene you *saw* as your vision, not the one you *shot* with your gear.

Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.

Some people see artistic merit in fecal matter flung against a canvass, some see it in the Mona Lisa's smile- I'm not trying tell either camp what they should or shouldn't find artistic, I'm explaining why *I* don't find merit in it, and what improvements would give it more merit.

I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.

I wasn't being snippy.
 

Phrasikleia

macrumors 601
Feb 24, 2008
4,082
403
Over there------->
You don't have to get all snippy about it. I was simply asking you to see how I drew the conclusions I drew. I'm not telling you how *you* should read an image, I'm telling you how *I* drew the conclusions I drew and why.

I understand that you see artistic merit in it, I'm simply pointing out why it's not as good a shot as it should be, and therefore doesn't have much merit in my eyes. Art is subjective, we're all going to connect differently with different images, but more people will connect more deeply with an image that has better overall elements than this one. I'm not saying art has to be popular- I'm saying the image doesn't work anywhere near as well as it could work if it were shot and lit differently.

You can *see* where the depth the OP was looking at is in the image, but the composition and lighting don't draw your eyes in the photograph like I imagine the OP was drawn to shoot the scene in real life in the first place. If the shot did, it'd have a lot more merit. That's the difference between poor, good and great photography- being able to portray the scene you *saw* as your vision, not the one you *shot* with your gear.

Being snippy and negatively trying to negatively reduce someone's elements of style to "tick boxes" isn't going to help the OP produce better images.

Some people see artistic merit in fecal matter flung against a canvass, some see it in the Mona Lisa's smile- I'm not trying tell either camp what they should or shouldn't find artistic, I'm explaining why *I* don't find merit in it, and what improvements would give it more merit.

I gave a detailed run-down of how those "tick box" elements affect this particular image in negative ways. The fact that you continue to cling to the fact that you like it as shot is fine- but you've yet to rebut any of those "tick box" points that you seem to disagree with, so your responses to my posts have less merit than they could.

Decaf.
 

Everythingisnt

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 16, 2008
743
0
Vancouver
Er..

I don't think you need to argue, I think that all of your criticism is really helpful. While different opinions sometimes are confusing, ultimately they help me build a better understanding of peoples opinions about my photos.


Also, I just got back from re-taking the dumpsters... I will post my new shots soon. :)
 

Everythingisnt

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 16, 2008
743
0
Vancouver
Here are my retakes of the 'dumpster' area..


#1 - retake of the original, although in this one I tried to make the foreground more interesting..

20080501-rhwcg8tyqn4h4wjefsxqjyxdsn.jpg


#2 - Same as above, except a higher angle which cuts out the foreground, leaving a big sky as the dominant factor. It doesn't take much looking to see the visible lens distortion around the edges, though...

20080501-fks23mpge29cftpc81yrynam5i.jpg


#3 - The 'non-HDR' version of #2, so that you can decide how well I'm doing the HDR treatment...

20080501-kjhqb57dr62umtabh1gx7b2cg8.jpg


#4 - A more creative angle, still keeping the ground, dumpsters, AND sky in the shot though. I thought about what you all said and tried to make the juxtaposition of nature and machine the main topic of this photo, by comparing the small tree budding through the broken concrete to the bright blue dumpsters..

20080501-qc1niqgjhmb4dgat9reh82t84j.jpg


#5 - Same theme as #4, but a different angle.. Pretty much giving over half of the frame to the 'nature' side of the juxtaposition...

20080501-1dg15re8fgga19nw5f6b99i16e.jpg
 

Everythingisnt

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 16, 2008
743
0
Vancouver
I also shot a large amount of 'detail' shots of this area, which I am considering adding to the portfolio.. I will probably add them later though, after I have some time to sort through them :).
 

Phrasikleia

macrumors 601
Feb 24, 2008
4,082
403
Over there------->
Here are my retakes of the 'dumpster' area..

I applaud your effort to go out and have another go at the same site. However, I have to ask if you know about the "rule of thirds" and are trying consciously to reject it, or if it's not something you've learned yet. It's clear that you are struggling with the basics of composition, so I would recommend spending a day trying to shoot images with a "subject" or visual pay-off located at one of the intersections of the thirds. I think it might be a very useful exercise for you and could produce a portfolio shot.

That's my advice, for what it's worth.
 

Adrien Baker

macrumors regular
Jan 23, 2008
148
0
Bakersfield, Ca.
A reminder here: if you're interested in studying PHOTOGRAPHY, then it might behoove you to have some photographs in your portfolio which are relatively unaltered, at best only gently altered.... HDR and other techniques show more about how proficient you are at Photoshop and other software, how skillful you are at editing/retouching/manipulating images than they do in showing how good a basic photograph you can take. Forget the fancy retouching and tricks: just go out there and concentrate on taking some really good photographs which require little editing to demonstrate the quality of your work.....

Very good advice. I'm definitely a fan of vivid colours, but there's more to be said for being able to capture a moment in time and display it accurately. Granted, HDR is neat, but it's not that that serious. What was it, dragonizing or whatever--that was a trend last year or something. *shrug*

I tend to shoot sports and people anyway, what do I know. ;)

Adrien
 

liveexpo

macrumors member
Aug 19, 2006
61
0
I applaud your effort to go out and have another go at the same site. However, I have to ask if you know about the "rule of thirds" and are trying consciously to reject it, or if it's not something you've learned yet. It's clear that you are struggling with the basics of composition, so I would recommend spending a day trying to shoot images with a "subject" or visual pay-off located at one of the intersections of the thirds. I think it might be a very useful exercise for you and could produce a portfolio shot.

That's my advice, for what it's worth.

Follow this advice at your peril. This rule of thirds thing is one of the most annoying pieces of advice that can be given. If you have ever spent time analysing some of the worlds most famous imagery, you'll note that much fails to fall into this mythical 'rule of thirds'.
 

liveexpo

macrumors member
Aug 19, 2006
61
0
I also shot a large amount of 'detail' shots of this area, which I am considering adding to the portfolio.. I will probably add them later though, after I have some time to sort through them :).

I love the final reshot picture. The blue just smacks you between the eyes!
 

CrackedButter

macrumors 68040
Jan 15, 2003
3,221
0
51st State of America
You weren't?

It always interests me how people can determine a person's state of mind through some online text because it can fit easily into a recognisable emotional state that you can see when in a face to face situation.

I agree with liveexpo, but I would go on to say that that rules are made to be broken if you're aware of them. Are you aware of them?

I also don't think any of these images are any improvement, I think you should find a more interesting subject and maybe you will be more successful. I didn't like your original dumpster image to begin with and I don't see much scope with the subject matter for improvement.

Besides them looking nice through the colours you tinkered with, what are you trying to say?
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
Follow this advice at your peril. This rule of thirds thing is one of the most annoying pieces of advice that can be given. If you have ever spent time analysing some of the worlds most famous imagery, you'll note that much fails to fall into this mythical 'rule of thirds'.

There is no mythical rule of thirds, its practiced in every form of image creation there is. There are those that don't follow it to yield wonderful images but those shooters do it great risk and with great skill.

The photog needs to practice this because they are starting out, and most schools (I would say all but can't be too sure) will be looking for him/her to display knowledge of the basic rules of imagery.... and they will be learning about them in school.

There is no myth, it's still a much upheld standard.

I agree with Cracked Butter, the images aren't an improvement, but I think it's because the dumpsters just aren't interesting. When you make the subject of your image a bad one, then the rest of your image fails. I agree about breaking the rules as well, but like I said before you have to learn them first. And remember that 9/10 of the images you make/you see/that will be rewarded will follow the rule of thirds.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
If you have ever spent time analysing some of the worlds most famous imagery, you'll note that much fails to fall into this mythical 'rule of thirds'.

Actually, quite a lot of the world's most famous imagery follows the golden ratio and its bastard stepchild, the "rule of thirds." Most of the rest follows one of the other main compositional elements- in fact it's rare to see a famous image that doesn't have one of the main compositional elements as it's core.

http://www.cybercollege.com/comp_ex.htm
http://www.cybercollege.com/comp_ex2.htm
http://makingamark.blogspot.com/2008/01/composition-thinking-in-threes.html
http://www.photographyicon.com/goldenratio/index.html

From Da Vinci's Mona Lisa and Last Supper to the Laughing Cavalier to Turner's tall ships, to Cartier-Bresson's photography artists have been using the principles consciously for hundreds of years and subconsciously for longer.

Call it the rule of thirds, golden ratio, golden mean, divine proportion, or golden section- add in positive and negative space, leading lines and tension-release, odd numbers, the golden rectangle, brightness/contrast and you're pretty-much there in terms of composition.

Ignoring those elements can still work, but it's so much less likely- especially if you're not consciously dealing with another compositional element of your own.

If you truly analyze good art, you'll see at least one, if not two or three of the elements of composition. The first two links above aren't a bad rundown of the bulk of them.

Obviously, the "rule of thirds" isn't really a rule and is quite simplified- but that's what makes it easy to use as a base compositional element- which is why lots of art and photography teachers use it as a basis for composition for beginning artists and photographers. Using it certainly doesn't hurt, as it's based on quite sound principles.

One final composition link which explains the derivation of the rule of thirds from the golden mean and some great mouse-over photographs that show the relationship to the elements of good composition.

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/classroom.php?lesson=1

It's certainly not a mythical beast- as all of the above links show.
 

liveexpo

macrumors member
Aug 19, 2006
61
0
'You must not shoot very much'.

How wrong you are.

But anyways. I've always found the thirds thing to be fairly interesting to observe. If you divide a frame up into the nine areas, chances are, that some aspect of the image will follow some particular pattern or route for the reader to decode. I can remember first being taught this, and several students stated the same - the teacher agreed, but simply stated - thats how it is. Now don't get me wrong - I've spent much time analysing and writing about how images are read and decoded, and I know how important it is to create a dynamic piece, but the most important thing is (imo) not the rule of thirds - its geometry. The two are not the same.
 

liveexpo

macrumors member
Aug 19, 2006
61
0
Despite all this - i think to be too critical on certain aspects, such as whether the golden rule or thirds is followed, is to miss the point and the power of photography. Sure use your knowledge where ever you can, but don't lose sight of what your images are trying to say. My point being - a crappy, uninspiring picture may follow the rule of thirds - but will still be a crappy uninspiring picture. The reverse is true also.
 

Digital Skunk

macrumors G3
Dec 23, 2006
8,096
916
In my imagination
'You must not shoot very much'.

How wrong you are.

But anyways. I've always found the thirds thing to be fairly interesting to observe. If you divide a frame up into the nine areas, chances are, that some aspect of the image will follow some particular pattern or route for the reader to decode. I can remember first being taught this, and several students stated the same - the teacher agreed, but simply stated - thats how it is. Now don't get me wrong - I've spent much time analysing and writing about how images are read and decoded, and I know how important it is to create a dynamic piece, but the most important thing is (imo) not the rule of thirds - its geometry. The two are not the same.

Despite all this - i think to be too critical on certain aspects, such as whether the golden rule or thirds is followed, is to miss the point and the power of photography. Sure use your knowledge where ever you can, but don't lose sight of what your images are trying to say. My point being - a crappy, uninspiring picture may follow the rule of thirds - but will still be a crappy uninspiring picture. The reverse is true also.

Sorry, thought I took that part out as it was an obvious insult. I apologize for that comment.

You are correct, but as compuwar stated all of the rules of composition work to give great images. When students learn how to crop images they do so based on those rules.... and the rules are based on where the eye will lead the viewer in the image.

To toss out the rules will lead to bad composition, needless to say where many student photographers are when they start shooting in college level because they just don't want to follow direction.

The same goes for media students of every kind, web design, graphic design, broadcast, journalism, etc.
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
My point being - a crappy, uninspiring picture may follow the rule of thirds - but will still be a crappy uninspiring picture. The reverse is true also.

Sure, but it's all about chances of success. The compositional elements weren't grasped out of thin air, they are the result of the study of what has "worked" over time for hundreds of years. Artists and scholars have spent quite a bit of time analyzing proportions, composition and seeing what did and didn't work. We're lucky that we don't have to work it all out from the beginning.

You can jump in a lake to try to catch a fish, or you can take the distillation of what's worked for fishermen for centuries and use that- doesn't matter if it's poles, spears, gill nets, or tickling them with your bare hands- you *could* catch a fish either way, but your chances of catching a fish the first way are disproportionately smaller. Same thing here, you chances of getting a visually appealing image if you ignore precedent are significantly smaller than if you don't. You're still not guaranteed the fish every time, but you're more likely to eat regularly if you follow them. That's especially important if this is your first day eating outside a restaurant- when you begin you really don't know which process is going to give you the most success- so following the footsteps of others is more important at the start than after you've learned to break your own trail.
 

liveexpo

macrumors member
Aug 19, 2006
61
0
Short on time, but one thing I would add is that your comparison to fishing isn't really appropriate. Fishing, is totally objective (in the sense you used), whereas Photography like all artistic mediums is subjective - with no rights or wrongs....
 

compuwar

macrumors 601
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
Short on time, but one thing I would add is that your comparison to fishing isn't really appropriate. Fishing, is totally objective (in the sense you used), whereas Photography like all artistic mediums is subjective - with no rights or wrongs....

While it's subjective on an individual basis, you can certainly objectively measure how many people like an image, how well a particular image sells, and what particular compositional elements are in the most well-regarded images of a particular genre. Once again, it doesn't have to be popular to be art, but to be popular art it needs to follow at least some of the rules or have a darned good reason for breaking them.

If we apply objective measurements to portraits, for instance- you'll find that most portraits that "work" for most people have the subject staring into the frame, not out of it. Can you break that "rule?" Sure! Is an image breaking that rule _likely_ to be a well-regarded image? Not according to more than 600 years of precedent. You may even be able to get a short novelty "bump" by doing portraits that don't work that way- but in the longer term, your portraits aren't likely to be well regarded if you put the negative space behind the subject instead of in their line of vision.

You could make the argument that a shot of the back of a person's head was representative enough to be a portrait. You could even create a body of work in that style. Don't think for a minute though that you'd be considered a good example of a portrait photographer in the annals of time.

The point remains, you can either follow the established methods for a field and do relatively well, or you can ignore them and likely do not so well. As a photographer, you have a choice. It's much easier to be Constable or Turner than it is to be Picasso. Even Picasso _started_ with eight years of formal training, he didn't ignore that step and jump right to breaking all the rules.
 

Phrasikleia

macrumors 601
Feb 24, 2008
4,082
403
Over there------->
To the person who dismissed my suggestion that the OP do some practice shooting with the rule-of-thirds in mind: What particular exercise would you recommend for a beginner who is struggling with composition in his photos? I'm curious to know.

While I agree that it is possible to produce a successful image that rejects a "rule" or two, it most often occurs when the image-maker departed from those rules with complete knowledge of them.

Beginners need to learn to walk before they can run.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,834
16,455
quae tangit perit Trump
Even though they're not my pictures, it's been great reading this thread to get a feel for how people critically examine photos. Thanks for the awesome read everyone.

I have to agree. The comments have been very interesting.


While it's subjective on an individual basis, you can certainly objectively measure how many people like an image, how well a particular image sells, and what particular compositional elements are in the most well-regarded images of a particular genre. Once again, it doesn't have to be popular to be art, but to be popular art it needs to follow at least some of the rules or have a darned good reason for breaking them.

If we apply objective measurements to portraits, for instance- you'll find that most portraits that "work" for most people have the subject staring into the frame, not out of it. Can you break that "rule?" Sure! Is an image breaking that rule _likely_ to be a well-regarded image? Not according to more than 600 years of precedent. You may even be able to get a short novelty "bump" by doing portraits that don't work that way- but in the longer term, your portraits aren't likely to be well regarded if you put the negative space behind the subject instead of in their line of vision.

You could make the argument that a shot of the back of a person's head was representative enough to be a portrait. You could even create a body of work in that style. Don't think for a minute though that you'd be considered a good example of a portrait photographer in the annals of time.

The point remains, you can either follow the established methods for a field and do relatively well, or you can ignore them and likely do not so well. As a photographer, you have a choice. It's much easier to be Constable or Turner than it is to be Picasso. Even Picasso _started_ with eight years of formal training, he didn't ignore that step and jump right to breaking all the rules.

I have to agree with this also. I always drill this into my composition students, you have to know the rules before you can intentionally break them. Once you understand how everything works only than can you make decisions that lead to art, all else is haphazard.
 

Everythingisnt

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 16, 2008
743
0
Vancouver
Hmm, lots of discussion going on..


#1): my educational background being in cinematography and film, I've had the rule of thirds drilled into my head deeper than most. However, having said that, what I've learned from my experience in video has shown that striking geometry often yields more pleasing results then the rule of thirds, as the rule of thirds feels more like a forced expression of symmetry/patterns then naturally occurring ones are.

However, I am guessing that that doesn't exactly carry over to still images, where so much depends on the composition of one single frame (whereas in video the image slowly changes over time, allowing for larger and more subtle composition choices). .

#2): I think that I will try to take more images using the rule of thirds, and limiting my HDR treatments. Alot of what I have learned from this thread suggests that my images are too precocious, or at least, too ambitious for what I am trying to express.



Finally, I suppose I will discard my set of images from the dumpsters. It's a shame though, because the actual location just seemed to vibrant and atmospheric to me at the time.

Does anyone have ANY ideas on how I might wrangle a useable image out of the local? I would gladly go back to try it again, because I am seriously interested in trying to improve my compositional skills.


In response to one person who asked me what I was trying to say through the dumpster photos, it is this: That mankind has created their own environment of technological waste, which degrades and inevitably becomes part of the environment. Perhaps this statement is too ambiguous/muddled. It's always been my belief that the meaning in photos lies more in the eyes of the beholder then those of the artist, though.



Finally, any C&C for this image? I took it this weekend near the site with the dumpsters..


20080501-g5kax4jqmnheikwx2y1jgm8rtw.jpg
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.