Gravity of the center

<p>Our overall vision is a fairly round field of view. Our accurate vision (of good resolution) is of a very small angle of incidence, probably like a 1000mm telephoto lens. We scan and center on subject matter whether that is for very brief or of more extended periods. Framing our view or an image to a rectangle of proportions varying from, say, 6:7 to 6:18 is in some aspects arbitrary or at best related to past convention or styles of presentation or in some cases favoring the apparent symbolisms associated with so-called portrait or landscape aspects ratios. While I personally dislike circular framing of images, and am glad that they are rarely used, I am attracted at times to the 1:1 (or 6:6 in the above example) square aspect ratio, perhaps in part because we see in a rather symmetrical field of view and our tendency is to center on a subject of an image, whether that "center of interest" be in the middle or off the central axis of a frame.</p>

<p>Why do we not use the centre of the frame more often for the main subject of our photograph? Throughout the history of art and design the center has occupied an important place in images. The centered subject is often shown in tension or equilibrium with other elements of the picture, disposed off axis and of different shape or volume or tone, establishing some kind of connection to the central subject. In some cases I find that centering the image confers a more analytical or reflective view of the subject that would be different if placed off axis. Some books have been written on composition and the power of the center. I find their ideas are appealing (I hesitate to call them theories or hypotheses, as I generally don't believe in very structured or stiff rules and prefer to do things compositionally that I feel are related to my take on the subject matter). </p>

<p>Does the center of an image hold any importance in how you photograph? Does it have any emotional or artistic appeal for you? Can you relate it to how you perceive some subject matter? These few linked examples are indeed humble ones, but are attached to illustrate the use of the center. In addition to your thoughts on the power of the center or not, if you have examples (yours or others) to show where you think this approach has worked, please do not hesitate to show one or two. </p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17410780</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17410692<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Any composition can be used for emphasis and/or direction in the statement or story being conveyed by the image creator. Each style whether used in juxtaposition to other elements in the scene or placed obviously in the center don't necessarily always produce emphasis or cause attention to be drawn to itself.</p>

<p>I center a subject mainly for emphasis in order to tell the viewer basically..."Wow! Look at this! Isn't it xxxx?".</p>

<p>The other way to use centering is as juxtaposition to emphasize all other elements not centered.</p>

<p>For example a crowd of ten or so people dressed in business attire with their backs to the viewer looking up to an object above and out of frame, with a giant exotic bird in the center in front of the crowd maybe looking up in the same direction or looking at the viewer or off to the side. That may invoke humor or a comment on modern society.</p>

<p>I never happen upon those type of scenes. Most likely that type of editorially driven composing would have to be setup by the photographer much like Norman Rockwell did for his Saturday Evening Post covers.</p>

<p>Below is typical of the only type of scenes I've happened upon (not orchestrated) where centering was the only option to make the image compelling and interesting to look at.</p><div></div>

<p>In photography (in contrast to non-photographic arts), putting the object of greatest interest on dead-center exposes the presence of the photographer. It announces, in the reverse line of the gaze, "Here I am (was)!"</p>

<p>If the photographer doesn't want his location to participate in a composition, he will craftily off-center the lines of his composition so that they don't 'point' backward/outward at him.</p>

<p>Aside from that, if I stick to Arnheim's explorations (which I enjoy along with Arthur) I would claim that *not* putting anything on center is what makes the center apparent. It is the tension of ignoring it or resisting it that makes its power explicit. When major content is exactly on center, it nullifies that tension and leaves the "power" of the center unfelt (not in tension; at rest, therefore not "felt").</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Aside from that, if I stick to Arnheim's explorations (which I enjoy along with Arthur) I would claim that *not* putting anything on center is what makes the center apparent. It is the tension of ignoring it or resisting it that makes its power explicit. When major content is exactly on center, it nullifies that tension and leaves the "power" of the center unfelt (not in tension; at rest, therefore not "felt").</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aspect ratio of the frame can change that perception quite easily. It acts as a viewing directive because we view images as a culmination of lights and darks confined within a frame the placement of these luminous elements aids in changing the story as well and can not be dissected and separated in order to determine which has more affect on the overall image. </p>

<p>I think the actual viewing of an image regardless if the subject is centered or not (photographic or painted) already tells the viewer "Here I am" only the internal dialog I perceive is more along the lines of "Here I am to show you something I find interesting and I am going to place within this frame that is shaped to create negative & positive space to emphasize what I find interesting". </p>

<p>I've done a lot of portraits over the last 40 years (see folders!) Even though all my portraits are done rather informally and often in a documentary manner, I quite intentionally have placed my subjects in the middle of the frame most of the time. For me it is about the subject, his or her gaze/expression and nothing else. I want the viewer to "meet" my subject, "face to face" with direct gaze, which I believe has a certain emotional impact. I don't often do candid portraits with the subject looking elsewhere either: I want an relationship with them for at least 1/30 second which the viewer can experience as well.</p>

<p> In picture taking, you have a hard frame, an edge so the brain tries to balance what's in it.</p>

<p>If you have a single object with little else around like a portrait, then it goes in the middle for balance. If you have other objects then they're moved around by the shooter to get overall balance so nothing then winds up in the middle. </p>

<p>It's pretty much that simple I believe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you have other objects then they're moved around by the shooter to get overall balance so nothing then winds up in the middle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan, that may often happen and it may also be encouraged by our desire to divide space into thirds or to follow the "Golden Rule" of composition, but putting something in the center does not restrict the placement of secondary objects that might also be desirable to complete the image, which then necessarily fall off center.</p>

<p>You might find Rudolf Arnheim's book on composition, "The Power of the Center", an interesting read (University of California Press, 1988).</p>

<p>My initial response to this question is to think of purposeful, Western, pre-renaissance art. It was all message. It illustrated scripture for a largely illiterate world. The pictures are symbolic tableau of precise meaning. The carry-over to now is that graphic art needs a familiar, simple narrative for advertising and reportage.</p>

<p>Then, being a devote of panoramas I see Asian scrolls as a source of an aesthetic sensibility. They haven't <em>crossed over</em> to modern adaptations. Popular prints globally became cross-cultural however. The chopped up scroll made nice rectangular vignettes notoriously imitated compositionally by western artists.</p>

<p>I like both a square and very wide format. With one ,the expectation is a tight formal narrative. In the other the idea is to free the eye to explore. A third variable is to ignore the <em>frame</em> entirely and let formal elements and narrative leave the space or come and go. This can present an anxious, unresolved feeling. Post-processing and retro-creative "arting" then becomes the challenge. <br /> Who, 150 year ago, would have accepted most of the compositional devices we use to great effect today? Most anything, like any mix of colors, can be made to work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Alan, that may often happen and it may also be encouraged by our desire to divide space into thirds or to follow the "Golden Rule" of composition, but putting something in the center does not restrict the placement of secondary objects that might also be desirable to complete the image, which then necessarily fall off center.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur: I agree that nothing is 100%. But for the most part, balance rules the day. Check you own pictures. I have. They're good and they have balance in one way or the other. Having one heavy object in the middle and then a smaller object off to one side gives a negative space and balance on the other side. Chances are you would shift the heavy object slightly over into the negative space and not leave it in the middle.</p>

<p>Of course there are times to do things differently. This shot places the main subject up in the corner. <br>

<a href="

Some balance is lost against the rocks although balance of the kid remains against the tree on the right. But I was attempting to show height so placing the kid at the top gave that effect. If I placed him in the middle, no one would see that he was on top. So we do have to think about what we want in the end. Maybe I would have been better off leaving the tree out of the picture. It would still give the height appearance but with more tension. What do you think?</p>

<p>Nicely composed shot, Alan K, but I got a different take on it than your original intent you outlined. I don't see the figure as the main subject that draws the most focus.</p>

<p>In fact it is your positioning of the figure in relation to the rocks that combine as one into a centralized grouped element that creates a narrative as the main focus of attention and that narrative being that this person is about to be faced with walking down some precariously descending, craggy rock formations in what looks like some rugged territory with a lot of old growth trees.</p>

<p>You've actually amplified the element of danger and tension with your chosen composition which still performs as a centered type layout within the frame except the actual story it creates described above is the center.</p>

<p>I'm not looking anywhere else but the figure and the rocks and they are technically grouped together as a central element.</p>

<p>Yes, it all revolves around the center, notwithstanding the off center main or secondary subject. If your otherwise good looking young guy was doing something special to make him more interesting, or was otherwise more obstrusive, the subject that attracts us may not have been the interesting central rock and rocks, but him.</p>

<p>It is fairly easy to make subject off-center compositions, but perhaps less easy to succeed very effectively with centered subjects. Like the use of the diagonal, off-center subjects create a sort of tension. To do so with centered subjects requires other considerations and picture elements. Portraits of humans or animals often occupy central positions, but that alone does not make them highly effective.</p>

<p>Arthur's work always has such a clear overall mood or feeling to it. He knows when the light is great for one thing. Could these scenes also succeed from another point of view? As Julie pointed out, the awareness of the photographer is strongly felt. You would lose that aspect to ponder. In fact though, you often have that in one way or another compositionally. Having it centered risks being static - too much of a <em>dead</em> certainty. The foot prints affirmed the deliberateness of it all, which has to be respected. In the other, it was the women at the right that made it for me.</p>

<p>Love the opportunity to comment on Tim's bird. Woulda' been awsome in 3-D! <br /> But seriously, each of the elements provide an harmoniously pleasant visual interest. Soft curvilinear contours and the grey negative space holds on to the simple composition nicely. The orange draws you in to some interesting detail. The white has beautiful lighting. The bird has a personable, curious? look about itself. A hard to beat picture. It works on all counts.</p>

<p>However skillfully composed with the same kind of strong formal elements maybe a picture would not succeed without some sort of <em>wow</em> factor. I'm thinking of the tight compositions of Weston's Pepper series and Georgia O'Keeffe paintings. The palpable eroticism and sensuousness.</p>

<p>Alan K.<br /> The guy on the rocks is ,at the very least for me, a strong and beautiful metaphorical statement. It might work a number of ways compositionally, but still the statement is there. If it were too tight some of the entourage forms might not be as interesting -- the illumination on the trees and the little patch of dressed rocks. The guy is in a dynamic stance, engaged with the world. The neat thing about a portrait or any people picture is that the smallest gesture has to be there that nails it down.</p>

<p>My painterly compositional style I like a lot lately:<br /> <a href="http://www.panoramacamera.us/PAN_1613.html">http://www.panoramacamera.us/PAN_1613.html</a> <br /> 6 thru 10 are composed with strong, clear forms <em>walking</em> all over the canvas but with a more <em>frontal</em> surface -- doesn't advance or recede much or remain centered. I look for a consistent mood that speaks of the urban as an art-filled environment.</p>

<p>Interesting series, Alan. I don't know where it leads us (which itself is part of the fun) and I love the original framing of some of the images, the texture of the fence one, and the last photograph is for me the best.</p>

<p>We are, of course, not speaking about the gravity of the center, or the center of gravity, but that's OK, and thanks for the showing.</p>

<p>In regard to my examples, you are right. A certain element of dead certainty was intended.</p>

<p>Another example (sorry that it is miniscule print, I was adhering to the 500 pixel wide PNet rule for forum postings which I needn't have done for the personal portfolio):</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11472850</p>

<p>Here is a set <em>about</em> centeredness or obvious directionality -- "Modernist" style pictures. I haven't thought much about whether centrality is a notable characteristic there. <em>Strong </em>attention to composition and simplicity is. ( a.k.a. "croposis")) Over-riding attention to formal structure, without other substantial content has made Modernist, for some, an "Oh Hum." pejorative. <br>

See 1-5:<br>

http://www.panoramacamera.us/Sketchbook1113.html</p>

 

<p>Of course people put things in the center. It happens all the time. Perhaps one source of that gravity is is that it is a signifier of paying attention/ being mentally focused? The pretentious abhor the center and go to great pains to dodge it. I don't know that I've ever not been aware of the presence of the photographer. I often use the square format (specially for my instagram-destined pix), just as I did during la age du film.<br>

For me, the entire area within the frame, and yes, conceptually outside of it, is game/usable. About the only time I focus on the center is when I am deliberately working in the "snapshot style" (and many other things go along with that). <br>

For me, other gravities are far stronger than the center.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00bpUf"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5767925">Alan Zinn</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 15, 2013; 11:16 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Here is a set <em>about</em> centeredness or obvious directionality -- "Modernist" style pictures. I haven't thought much about whether centrality is a notable characteristic there. <em>Strong </em>attention to composition and simplicity is. ( a.k.a. "croposis")) Over-riding attention to formal structure, without other substantial content has made Modernist, for some, an "Oh Hum." pejorative. See 1-5: <a href="http://www.panoramacamera.us/Sketchbook1113.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.panoramacamera.us/Sketchbook1113.html</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alan Z: None of your pictures in all the sets are in the center. The most balanced one was the very first one that pops up when you click the link. The top picture in set #1 where the crashing wave is placed on the "third". But it's balanced by the surf in the background on the right top side. The front rocks with the crack lead the eye right to the main crashing surf. The tones particularly the black background highlight the wave and that contrast adds dynamism and subsequently interest. A really nice shot. Aesthetically pleasing. Calming.</p>

<p> The second and third shots on Set #1 don't work in my viewpoiint. The surf crashing is stuck on the left side leading my eyes out of the frames. I feel like I lost something. The balance is gone. They're edgy. Unless you were looking for that for some editorial reason, as the viewer, I prefer the aforementioned top picture. Who needs edgy when I'm looking for pleasing photos?</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In photography (in contrast to non-photographic arts), putting the object of greatest interest on dead-center exposes the presence of the photographer. It announces, in the reverse line of the gaze, "Here I am (was)!"</p>

<p>If the photographer doesn't want his location to participate in a composition, he will craftily off-center the lines of his composition so that they don't 'point' backward/outward at him.</p>

<p>Aside from that, if I stick to Arnheim's explorations (which I enjoy along with Arthur) I would claim that *not* putting anything on center is what makes the center apparent. It is the tension of ignoring it or resisting it that makes its power explicit. When major content is exactly on center, it nullifies that tension and leaves the "power" of the center unfelt (not in tension; at rest, therefore not "felt").</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you've read <em>"The Power of the Center"</em> - then you didn't understand Arnheim's thesis as it has very little to do with "putting things in the center," and everything to do with understanding that compositions are not necessarily made up of geometric relationships, vectors, and shapes. That there are centers of interest, and centers of balance within shapes, shadows, and highlights. It is the interrelationship of these various centers to each other that make up the composition.</p>

<p>When you allow yourself to be limited by your own preconceptions and biases in composing an image, you are missing the opportunity to see the subject for what it is and not for what you want it to be. Placing something off-center specifically so it will not be on-center is not composition. It is merely fiddling with geometry.</p>

<p>The center is seemingly a difficult compositional concept for humans, yet so easy for nature. The petals of a rose, the seeds of a sunflower, the leaves of an agave, the spiral of a nautilus shell, the earth spinning on its axis, the moon revolving around the earth, the planets orbiting the sun, the slow spin of the galaxies; and finally, the rotation of the universe itself. All rely on one concept – the center – and all of the centers are part of, and related to, each other.</p>

<p>As explained by Arnheim, the power of the center comes from being aware of the center(s). To use the center, one must be conscious of all of the centers: the internal centers, external centers, and how the multiple centers interrelate. </p>

<p>To ignore the center is to ignore all that is natural in favor of the easily implemented, formulaic reliance on contrived geometric conventions. Put the subject in the lower left corner at the intersection of thirds and forget it. A process that is merely compositional Shake ‘N Bake. If the composition fulfills the expected convention then, simply by definition, it must be successful. With this approach to composition, whether the final result is a fully realized composition showing the subject to the greatest effect or not is immaterial as long as the final result meets a predetermined metric for success.</p>

<p>When one understands the subject being photographed, and the composition feels balanced with the subject existing at the only place it can be within the constraints of the frame lines – then one no longer has to rely on compositional constructs to create the photograph. Every subject has only one place inside the frame where it can exist with all of the elements and their centers, both within the frame and outside of it, balanced with each other. That involves finding the centers of balance for all of what you're seeing and placing the centers so that they relate to each other in a way that fits within the boundary of the frame. </p>

<p> Finding that place is seeing a wholly realized image without forcing it to conform to a preconceived geometric relationship. This involves understanding the centers of balance within the subject and also within related objects, spaces, highlights, shadows, lines, forms, etc. This means you cannot force fit the composition upon the subject. You need to allow the subject and the entirety of the milieu surrounding it to find equilibrium within the frame. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"It is comforting for teachers and writers to know that there are persons who profit greatly from misunderstanding what others say to them. By taking something they hear to mean something that fits their own thinking in some fashion, they find themselves enriched, confirmed, contradicted, or merely stimulated and thus draw genuine enlightenment from a communication that was never sent out." — <em>Rudolf Arnheim</em> (1962)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I find that I do not give nature credit for geraniums and hydrangeas. They have so much geometry that I treat them as products of man and therefore as easy to make and of dubious taste. They do not count as a part of the garden." — <em>Rudolf Arnheim</em> (1962)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Have I have made a note of the three stones that lie always on my desk while I write during the summer? Found on our beach, they are a phallus of grey granite, symbolizing creativity; an egg with white and blue streaks, also of granite, for fertility; and a tetrahedron of black basalt, for rationality. They keep my papers from flying off the desk when they are tempted by the wind." — <em>Rudolf Arnheim</em> (1986)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p><strong>Steve Swineheart: "</strong>The center is seemingly a difficult compositional concept for humans..."</p>

<p>I can't agree with that, having processed zillions of snapshots at a 1 hr lab years ago. I would say that it is the ur-composition of the huge majority of photographers, myself included. </p>

<p>Steve S said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Finding that place is seeing a wholly realized image without forcing it to conform to a preconceived geometric relationship. This involves understanding the centers of balance within the subject and also within related objects, spaces, highlights, shadows, lines, forms, etc. This means you cannot force fit the composition upon the subject. You need to allow the subject and the entirety of the milieu surrounding it to find equilibrium within the frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I couldn't agree more, but I would add this all goes on instantaneously and without "thinking" about it, which would take way too long. Its one thing to analyze images after the fact, but during the process of creation of an image its more a process of "feeling it," at least that's my experience. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"</strong>The center is seemingly a difficult compositional concept for humans..."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I think that the point here is not whether the center is used as some sort of natural or default position by a great number of snapshooters and more advanced photographers, but instead that to use the center in a compositionally interesting way is a challenge process and most of us have little idea of how to do that. I want to call the attention of fellow readers to that question and not just whether they historically place their subjects in the center of the frame.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>This means you cannot force fit the composition upon the subject. You need to allow the subject and the entirety of the milieu surrounding it to find equilibrium within the frame.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I have trouble with this, as the writer (Steve S) precedes this statement by one in which he acknowledges that the photographer understands the effect of different centers of interest, of balance, of space, textures or other compositional elements. The subject does not find its own equilibrium within the frame, rather it is the photographer who chooses angles, framing, light, the exclusion and inclusion of subject matter, that make the composition. To my mind that is not force fitting the composition upon the subject, but creating a composition (the photographer creates) that represents what the photographer wants to show of the subject and its environment. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't agree with that, having processed zillions of snapshots at a 1 hr lab years ago. I would say that it is the ur-composition of the huge majority of photographers, myself included.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> The use of the center of the frame itself for successful composition is part of the subject, and the amount of failures by other people to use it effectively is immaterial and proves nothing. All that illustrates is exactly what I've stated - humans seem to have a hard time with the center and your "zillions of photographs" prove that point exactly. Thanks for reinforcing my point. However, my point has little to do with putting subjects in the center of the frame. It has to do with balancing centers of interest within the subject field with each other. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't agree more, but I would add this all goes on instantaneously and without "thinking" about it, which would take way too long. Its one thing to analyze images after the fact, but during the process of creation of an image its more a process of "feeling it," at least that's my experience.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you for helping clarify the thoughts that I'm trying to convey. That is exactly what I had in mind. This is one of those things that is hard to elucidate in a way that is clear, and understood by all readers.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The subject does not find its own equilibrium within the frame, rather it is the photographer who chooses angles, framing, light, the exclusion and inclusion of subject matter, that make the composition. To my mind that is not force fitting the composition upon the subject, but creating a composition (the photographer creates) that represents what the photographer wants to show of the subject and its environment.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fine - let me rephrase that thought. The photographer recognizes when the image has reached equilibrium within the frame. Does that make more sense to you?</p>

<p>However, I would also say that, to some extent, I do not agree with you completely. In a spontaneous photographic situation (found photograph), I think that if the photographer is sensitive to the subject - that the photographer chooses very little. The subject dictates the correct place, lens angle of view, framing, etc. as there will be only one point where there is a confluence of time and space for a single moment that may be captured with a camera. You cannot dictate that, you cannot force it to fit into the frame, you can only be sensitive to the river of events flowing around you and try to be at the place required for the brief moment everything comes together - and stop that instant permanently with a camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In a <strong>spontaneous photographic situation (found photograph)</strong>, I think that if the photographer is sensitive to the subject - <strong>that the photographer chooses very little</strong>. <strong>The subject dictates the correct place, lens angle of view, framing, etc.</strong> as there will be only one point where there is a confluence of time and space for a single moment that may be captured with a camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When was "spontaneous photographic situation?" introduced in regard to the effect of the center in creating compositions in photography? You seem to feel that this is how everyone photographs. Perhaps as photographer you choose very little. Fair enough. And perhaps in your case the subject dictates all. Fair enough. That is your particular choice and not that of all photographers and artists.</p>

<p>Others, for whom photography is a tool and a process to making art, are likely in considerable disagreement with you. I certainly am. Photography is firstly not always "spontaneous", but associated with a more methodical or intentional approach. There is a lot more sweat, trial and error, reformulation of ideas, and other approaches (invoking particular compositional or emotional elements by the photographer) involved in making a photograph. Ask any artist how many of his or her creations based upon the perception of specific subject matter are spontaneous. They also have to work hard at it, coupled with their individual creative impulses.</p>

<p>In other words, you are assuming an approach in photography that is simply yours. That it should apply to others is simply presumptuous.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer recognizes when the image has reached equilibrium within the frame. Does that make more sense to you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all. The photographer creates a situation of equilibrium or disequilibrium. The image follows upon that, but does not create it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I couldn't agree more, but I would add this all goes on instantaneously and without "thinking" about it, <strong>which would take way too long</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Steve M. You seem to adhere to the approach of Steve S's methodology and no doubt there is some sort of mystical way in which the subject creates the photograph rather than the photographer, most of the latter of whom I know seem instead to think quite a bit about the activity of representing their subject matter in the manner they perceive it to be and in their personal way. They are, to my mind, adopting a thinking, and possibly an artistic, approach to photography.</p>

<p>S. Swinehart wrote: " ... there will be only one point where there is a confluence of time and space for a single moment that may be captured with a camera. You cannot dictate that, you cannot force it to fit into the frame, you can only be sensitive to the river of events flowing around you and try to be at the place required for the brief moment everything comes together - and stop that instant permanently with a camera."</p>

<p>Really?? Just <em><strong>one</strong></em>? This is deep ... (There are really "points" in time? The river flows "around you"?)</p>

<p>I think you're off by about ... an infinity.</p>

<p>All photographers, good, bad and indifferent are "feeling it" when they shoot. Unless you would claim that there are people who get up in the morning and think to themselves, "Oh, I'll go out and shoot what feels really wrong."</p>

<p>What Arnheim tries to do in all of his books, like any good scientist, psychologist, philosopher, is take that amorphous word, "feel" and try to expose its sources. Why do we respond as we do to the center, etc.? I think that *everybody* shoots what "feels" right. That's the start, not the conclusion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When was "spontaneous photographic situation?" introduced in regard to the effect of the center in creating compositions in photography? You seem to feel that this is how everyone photographs. Perhaps as photographer you choose very little. Fair enough. And perhaps in your case the subject dictates all. Fair enough. That is your particular choice and not that of all photographers and artists.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have never said that all photographic situation are spontaneous. I put that qualifier in my response specifically because there are different types of photographic situations, and each needs to be treated as required. Personal photography can be many things. For me (not you and not anyone else) the most freedom I have is when I look for "found" photographs where nothing is pre-planned and the outcome is what I can find within that situation with the subject at hand. </p>

<p>I used to do a lot of architectural photography. I understand the "tool kit" approach to photography where you have to apply your own personal tool kit of techniques as well as equipment in order to come with the best rendition of the exterior or interior as you owe that to the client. I also understand the fully controlled photograph. To some extent, that is what you are working with in architectural interiors - you try and control every aspect from lighting to set dressing to dulling point reflection on shiny surfaces. </p>

<p>You started a discussion in which you wanted to talk about the center. I'm relating MY personal philosophies and working methods in relation to that subject and attempting to expand the discussion past the simplistic "put the object in the center" - since Arnheim was mentioned and I truly like and use his ideas of multiple centers that relate to each other. Specifically, I am not addressing what you do, what you think or should think, or anyone else.</p>

<p>I recognize not everyone works like I do, and everyone relates to making an image in their own unique way. However, you'll have to pardon me - I thought this was a forum where the free exchange of ideas was part of the reason it was created. Apparently, unless you're quoting someone else's ideas on a subject (which seems to be the popular method of discourse on this forum) - personal methods and ideas are not wanted.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not at all. The photographer creates a situation of equilibrium or disequilibrium. The image follows upon that, but does not create it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>And this is where we'll just have to agree to disagree as both of us are correct for our own methods of seeing and working. When I photograph within the method I enjoy most - a found photograph (spontaneous situation), I find that when I'm truly tuned into what I'm seeing - that the subject itself directs me to the final image. I have never said this is how it works for everyone in every situation - as I know that isn't true. But, again, this is a supposed to be a philosophical discussion where supposedly everyone's ideas are welcome.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Really?? Just <em><strong>one</strong></em>? This is deep ... (There are really "points" in time? The river flows "around you"?)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well Julie, it's certainly easy to criticize someone else's ideas and philosophies with how they work within photography while discussing none of your own. If you've read Minor White's thoughts on photography and working in the medium, you'll have to acknowledge that I'm a mere nimrod in the mystical method department compared to Minor. </p>

<p>And yes - that's what it feels like for me. There is a concept in physics called the event horizon, and to some extent that is what I find. I can see light, objects, the wind, clouds, birds, jet trails, - essentially all of the details in the entire scene flowing around me as they change in time, and suddenly come together as a singular event. I can see a collision of events for that instant - and then it all goes away as the instant has passed. I've even tried things like wearing amplified headphones to see if enhancing one of my other senses would influence what I see and / or how I perceive things. </p>

<p>I have waited for hours at one location for "something to happen" as I know there is a potential within where I am. Sometimes it happens and other times either I've missed it as I am not attuned well enough to what is going on and never make a photograph. Other times, I get out of the car or am walking somewhere and the whole thing happens so fast that when I'm finished I have to go over it in my head and sometimes write everything down to figure out what just occurred.</p>

<p>It's become more interesting with digital cameras as I can go back afterwards and see if what I think happened actually occurred. I had one situation where I got back into the car and said to my wife, "I'm not sure I made a photograph." The event was so intense that I couldn't remember using the camera.</p>

<p>Do you have any ideas and philosophies of your own that you can share? Or do you prefer to retreat to the paradigm-of-the-day using the "find a quote that fits my idea" method? It's unfortunate the on an alleged philosophy forum that so few people share their own unique thoughts through their own words, and instead feel they need to use things said by others for personal expression. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think you're off by about ... an infinity.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks, I appreciate that. Except I'd really prefer: infinity x infinity - it's far larger...</p>