How important are straight horizons and missing ears ?

[John Peri]

There exists an area where I may possibly differ significantly in

opinion with several other participants on the site, and that is in

the importance given to straight horizons, missing ears and other

organs, burned out areas and other such like considerations which

have little to do, in my view, with the impact that an image can

have.

As I see it, through the work produced by many of the more

successful professionals and also by the pictures published by the

leading photographic magazines and fashion journals around the

world, �attention� is what an image should strive for and not praise

for technicality. This may be particularly, though not exclusively

so in the area that I have chosen to share with my friends on PN and

which, incidentally, is just one among several other subjects that I

photograph.

PHOTO claims to have the widest circulation of any photographic

magazine produced. It may be of interest to some to browse through

the images that are selected for publication every month of January

among the fifty thousand entries received every year for their

annual competition. They are often far from what one would imagine

by reading through the pages of PN.

[matt_borengasser]

"This may be particularly, though not exclusively so in the area that I have chosen to share with my friends on PN and which, incidentally, is just one among several other subjects that I photograph."

 

I don't understand this very crucial sentence. And I think its important that I understand this sentence. That said, I'll just say that with regard to photography magazines, we have to remember that a magazine is a magazine, and if it doesn't SELL WELL then it will FAIL. I think that those photography magazines are for learners who are looking for a resource to study from. They are also written for people who don't have a lot of time to actually take photographs, and lastly they are written for consumers who buy magazines on a whim because 1) they were bored at the moment and 2) they are cheaper than books and 3) they are meant to be thrown away after reading (looking in most cases--oh, all those ads). Magazines by their very nature are crappy, and so I wouldn't get worked up over a magazine's failure to produce anything worth looking at for very long.

 

My wife writes for a woman's magazine. She does travel stories. Every time she submits an article the magazine cuts out the interesting stuff, and sometimes the editor even asks here to write something funny into her stories. Travel not being the mainstay of this rag, you might expect such behavior, but additionally, I would say that reducing content into easily digestible material that is light, interesting and not too stressing on the old noggin might be a strategy which a lot of editors use. It works for George.

 

I guess this months magazine has a lot of stratight horizons and missing ears? I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[John Peri]

Thank you for your interesting reply Matt. My chosen area for presentation on PN incidentally is glamour, which I acknowledge is possibly less influenced by variations in what are said to be the rules. Nevertheless, are not the sales that you refer to above a measure of success? If one is prepared to put one�s money where one�s heart lies, I believe so. Admittedly, I do not buy PHOTO on a whim either and have kept each issue for over twenty years! My premise therefore is that to be successful, a photographer must cultivate the impact factor of his images and not try only to satisfy what he believes should be so but will have little influence on the outcome alone if it is. I don�t think that photography is a secretive activity to be shared only by a few connoisseurs. It is a medium of communication and in order to communicate one must attract attention. Straight horizons and ears will not necessarily do that, but they will not impede the image either if they are at fault.

[beeman458]

"There exists an area where I may possibly differ significantly in opinion with several other participants on the site, and that is in the importance given to straight horizons, missing ears and other organs, burned out areas and other such like considerations which have little to do, in my view, with the impact that an image can have."

 

You have to already know the answer to this question so I wonder as to the integrity/purpose of your question.

 

The simple version, if you're gonna present straight lines, do so. If straight lines don't matter to you, then what I think doesn't matter either.

 

Now the real question, as long as you've been photographically chopping off body parts, what now worry as in who rained on your parade? :)

[beeman458]

Something kept popping up, being noticed; attention. That's a commercial aspect of photography as opposed to the pure of heart artistic sharing your vision side of photography.

 

You decide, on what day you'll serve which and go with it.

 

If it's commercial, go with it and good luck.

[rdkirk]

>>As I see it, through the work produced by many of the more successful professionals and also by the pictures published by the leading photographic magazines and fashion journals around the world, ?attention? is what an image should strive for and not praise for technicality.<<

 

Is this true of architecture magazines? Medical magazines? Obviously it depends on the purpose of the magazines. Fashion magazines are all about "the new" and thus seek whatever gains "attention."

[ivan_dzo]

John, the technical competence of a photo is just one small part of what makes it worthy of attention. Of more importance is its subject matter and whether it has caught that subject in a thought provoking way. A great picture may transcend its technical faults.

 

Most don't however. So on their own with a great picture, a sloping horizon doesn't matter. But often with a merely good picture these technical faults catch your eye and detract from the overall enjoyment. Motto - If you're going to make a mistake, make it a big one so it looks deliberate.

[robert x]

Hi john - I will try and put a photo of mine up here with a very unstraight horizon where I think it isn't an issue [it may not work] - or even <i>helps</i> the photo because it gives a real sense of how choppy it was on the boat. Other times it is crucially important - again, one of my photos <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3945134"> link to seascape [cue reaching for 1000 set squares ;o]</A>. Now you may not like this, but you can see that a dead straight horizon is important in such a photo. <p>I think I can see what you are getting at though. Often criticisms on p.net are of the "horizon not straight/ear chopped off" variety when applied to photos where that is notreally an issue. Personally I agree with you - jumping on a perceived "technical fault" often misses the entire point of a photo. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3819287">This pic (not mine, apols to SAJ)</a>, for example, has been criticised for having the ear slightly cropped, when I think it makes no difference to the impact and it is a very good example of a kind of David Bailey close cropped style.<p>I am not aware of PHOTO, apart from the <a href=http://www.photo.fr/">French magazine</a> which is an often stunning publication and certainly doesn't come close to Matt's description. I must say, matt, I find your summation of Photo magazines to be pretty strange, and almost saying that we at photo.net are all amazing photogrpahers who should not be mentioned in teh sae breath as "magazine browsers". I suppose, to be fair to you, you are referring to the kind of titles like <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.com/">"Amateur Photographer"</a> (or as my mate likes to call it "Amateur Pornographer") that we have here in the UK, and not magazines like the French PHOTO or magazines like 125 or similar.<p>For my money, if it's a good picture then technical "problems" cease to be problems.<p>robert

[ivan_dzo]

Robert, why do you find it appopriate to abuse Amateur Photographer? Far from being a pornographic magazine, it (unlike most of the uk monthly magazines) virtually never carries nude shots, and discontinued its annual glamour edition several years ago because of poor feedback. Perhaps Roger Hicks (a columnist in AP and) a regular contributor to the b+w forum here will defend it better than me, but it seems highly out of place.

[robert x]

Ivan - terribly sorry - I was lightheardtedly quoting a friend. I have never looked at it properly in the past five years and am unlikely to in the next five. As far as I am aware it fits pretty well with Matt's description - lots of ads, gear reviews etc. Full apologies to all at AP. I hope that their subscription rate will survive my thoughtless attack.

[John Peri]

It is a sad offspring of the net, and unfortunately even of this site occasionally, that one can rarely start a conversation without it strangely somehow turning personal. It is possible that I am over sensitive or misinterpret, but I do admit to so much enjoy being spoken to with the same esteem and respect with which I address others. Maybe it is my age which has rendered me so. I do not understand what my integrity and motives that Mark alludes to have to do with this thread. I will nevertheless respond by explaining that my motive for posting the question on this page is that I continue to receive comments frequently under my photos regarding parts of the body that are missing in my pictures, blown out spots and other similar criteria. I do not question the right of a viewer to critique what he wants, and I enjoy the comments or I wouldn't post, but I am seriously faced with the challenge of whether I believe they are right or not in their appreciation of the artwork, and whether this should be put right, albeit at the risk of loss of spontaneity. Given that I probably have twice the age of the average contributor, I feel that I have had the time to look around and see what others do whose work I admire. Somehow, I am not convinced that the success of their endeavours is based very frequently on such considerations as the examples that I give, as I have equally come to the conclusion that the only thing that really counts is managing to draw the viewers' attention, after all photography is a visual art and not an exercise in mathematics. My referral to the (French) PHOTO which is a magnificent journal is a fair reference, since 50 000 photos are submitted every year by persons like ourselves, in an attempt to see their work in print in the January issue. Once again, having scrutinized this year's issue, I believe that almost none of the above considerations played any essential role in the pictures chosen. My reference to fashion magazines (take as an example VOGUE), in which today's top fashion/glamour photographers publish their photos is not hurried work, as someone implied further up, but very careful chosen images by professional photographic editors in an extremely tightly run, competitive and costly field. We are talking of thousands of dollars for a successful portfolio. Nobody, with such considerations at stake, is going to let up on horizons or missing fingers if they were to play a role. My conclusion is that we are wrong to constantly refer anyone but the beginner to the textbook. Let's promote the visual art instead. .... Robert X., thank you for your comment. I very much agree in the way in which you express your thought. It is not that the straight horizon per se is not necessary, it is that there are times when it does not come into play. It's rather like not seeing the forest because you are staring at the trees.

[robert x]

"My conclusion is that we are wrong to constantly refer anyone but the beginner to the textbook."

 

John - I agree with this all the way and back again.

 

You say you worry about whether you should try to correct these things in your pictures. If you know how (and *you know how), then you don't need to. Someone getting cropped feet or blown out highlights because they don't know what they are about is a far far different proposition from someone achieving the same effect who does know what they are doing.

[KenPapai]

Slanted horizons are typically the work of lazy photographers or newbies. I've certainly been guilty of that is the past (slanted towards the side of laziness). Know the rules and then know when to break them. Other than that I cannot understand the worry expressed in your OP question (as you, John, are an *excellent* photographer).

[John Peri]

Ken, thank you, but I truly was not looking for praise. I wanted reassurance that I am not just being stubborn in constantly refuting those that tell me to get my act together!

[j.w.]

I believe it was Gary Winogrand who stated that he felt straight verticals were more important to his street photography than straight horizontals.

 

I didn't get a chance to see what he meant until recent, when I studied a series of his street images. He's right, at least for his particular genre. Handholding a camera that's aimed at an oblique angle to a sidewalk, you're never gonna get the curb horizontal. But the lightpoles and edges of buildings seem to demand that they had best be vertical!

 

As for your comment about Photo magazine, one of the tenets of post-modernism is to deconstruct the past. In photography, this would imply, among many other things, deconstructing the popularly predefined rules of composition.

 

Personally, I'm not sure where I fall in on this. I've seen some intriguing new work that seems to break the molds of convention. And then I've seen other works that seem to be "trying" to be post-modern, but just fail as poor imitations that are not truly original.

Kind of like lots of fashion magazine photography, where you can sense the intention of the art director, but in practice the image comes off as mere cliche stylistic fad.

 

Yet, for 5 minutes at least, some of it appears fresh.

[rich_ullsmith1]

I don't mean to blow wind up your skirt, but a photographer of your caliber

should not waste time or energy refuting what others say.

 

I think some really great photos get ripped on this site simply because subject

and compositional choices are all that can be assessed on a video monitor.

[roger_hicks1]

By the time one is ready to ask this question, one is usually beyond the 'rules'. Either that, or one is not yet good enough to comply with them reliably.

 

I use the cumbersome 'one' because it's true of everyone: you, me, the guy behind the tree.

 

For me, more pictures 'work' with straight horizons, no burned out areas and indeed the usual complement of ears, but if they're good enough, they will work at least as well, maybe better, without. What is 'good enough'? You know it when you see it...

 

As for AP, maybe you should look at it again. Lots of reader portfolios, many of which are excellent; some critique columns; Geoffrey Crawley, possibly the most technically knowledgeable columnist today; and of course Your Humble Servant, doing his best to annoy people but surprisingly often finding agreement.

 

Of course there's a lot of hardware/tecchie stuff: consider who pays for the ads and keeps the price down... Under Garry's editorship the 'Amateur Pornographer' label is totally undeserved as he only publishes good (i.e. virtually no) nudes.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[sef1664877429]

John, I remember commenting on a photo of yours a while back, one of <a href="/photo/3941209">this</a> girl, I think, guess you deleted the actual photo. You were complaining about people seeing the photo as too sexual, given the age of the model. I seem to remember her arms going out of frame, and at the time I thought that if her arms were fully visible, they would have acted as a strong frame for her breasts, drawing more attention to them. Having them go out of frame seemed to make the girl less sexual and fit with the image you were trying to present.<p>

<p>

I guess lobing off the occasional body part can have an actual purpose composition wise, and at other times its just plain irrelevant, as the photo doesn't require that bit of elbow to work. Just one thought on one half-remembered photo, and I don't shoot portraits, so take it for what its worth.

[thomas_sullivan]

whatever works for the image is fine by me

[John Peri]

Thank you Stephen, now that's memory indeed! I did remove the photo for the reason that you say. I just checked it in my file, and the arm and foot are lobbed off in my usual style! She was perfectly innocent as every child should be, but my photo made her appear more sensual than her age allows and I was wrong to post it in the first place. It was unintentional and naive on my part, apologies.

I am very grateful to all who contributed to this post and for the largely tolerant attitudes expressed. I shall refer to it in future when the remark on missing fingers comes up again.

[davidmccracken]

I find all this interesting but perhaps the answer is more simple than the question. <br><br>If a person is comments on a straight horizon or missing ear etc, maybe, just maybe that is the way they want to see it. I will admit that if the picture is strong enough it might be possible that none of this matters. I remember uploading <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/2892907><b>this</b></a> which was a image I liked. It was about a year before anyone mentioned the missing knee which was something that bugged me from the start.<br><br>Your comments about photo journals and fashion magazines are interesting. Rarely in fashion journals do you see missing limbs or unlevel horizons. At least if the horizons are unlevel they are of sufficient 'unlevelness' to make them look deiberate. Photo journals are a different matter. I don't look at them too often but I honestly don't remember too many sloping horizons or missing limbs.<br><br>Irrespective of any arguements put forward here, having a photograph published in a magazine may seem more rewarding than anything we see here. Perhaps though and I repeat perhaps, that the contributers to P.N are genuinely interested in feedback. As you say yourself, 50,000 photos are submitted to 'PHOTO' for their annual competition. Those contributers are not looking for feedback, they are looking for something altogether different.

[John Peri]

Hello David. I chose VOGUE as an example actually (American version), precisely because the arms, feet and hands always seem to be chopped out in it. I'll have to dig it up again and write to you privately, but it struck me in a recent issue that there were a majority of such so called failings in the first ten pages published.

[beeman458]

"I wanted reassurance that I am not just being stubborn in constantly refuting those that tell me to get my act together!"

 

If it helps, there is no such thing as a valid critique.

 

Don't ask for critiques unless you're fishing for compliments or promoting your efforts and if you're fishing for compliments don't be surprised if folks comment contrary to your needs.

 

Lay your pics out for folks to see and go about blindly doing what it is that you do. Whistle while you work and grow more images in your picture garden as you have the time to do so.

 

Wishing you well with your concerns.

[Spearhead]

There's this Japanese photographer - Narahashi Asako - who shoots these amazing half underwater, half above water, scenes with completely tilted horizons. His stuff is amazing and works incredibly well.

 

Having "rules" about these things is just plain silly - either the photo works or it doesn't, for you or for someone else, but it isn't about the "rule," it's about the photograph.

[davidmccracken]

Point taken John. However the main part of my posting still stands. If people comment in missing limbs or non horizontal horizons it is probably because they think the image would be better if the limbs were not cut off or the horizons were horizontal.