Early morning

There is really nothing complicated here. The image presents a dynamic diagonal

composition

that is reliant on the basic horizontal-vertical reference point. The axis is in regards to the

frame of the picture , not the actual scene. The exact center of the frame refers to an

actual

intersection of the 2 most dynamic elements (the bridge and its support). At that point we

go

out with the horizontal and vertical lines and quarter the frame. We will then realize

that ,by

far, most of the compositional and interest weight is on the right side.The angle of the

support on the far right is also the largest black mass, which pulls us more right. Add to

that the diagonals all rising to the upper right save the one on the lower left rising to the

left which is acting like a stake anchoring a tent in a wind. In my humble opinion, the left

side does not provide the counterbalance needed. The fact that so many feel the pull to

the right provides evidence that our human biology demands levelness. Humans always

have horizontal and vertical reference needs. The Artist plays off this with the diagonal. So

much of why we are drawn to diagonal compositions is that they free us to think outside

our square and level box. We still need balance though, and that is what slightly misses

making this a more fullfilling image. However, the Artist could have achieved this by

taking multiple frames as the jogger moved through the composition. As the jogger would

go to the left the composition would find its balance, I think.

An interesting conversation here about getting straight! Marc does come closest to what

you have to look for, but in a photo like this, with no horizon, limited, if any, true straight

(vertical) lines and shot at an angle to everything, except the runner, I think you really

need to just visualize what looks right, although the runner might be the true clue to the

straight vertical--not too many people run on a slant to one side or another--on that

basis, we are talking maybe a hair off.

 

What I had noticed earlier, when I was determining how I felt about the left side was that

the posted orientation did not bother me much as it is presented here, but as I cut in, it

did start to feel tilted more. So I do think it becomes an aesthetic decision based on the

presentation and some will have more tolerance than others.

Just a note, if you use the runner and his reflection on the wet pavement, which would be a

perfect vertical to the camera, and bisect them-mirrored weight of runner and reflection, a

correction of -0.2 degrees is about what looked right, even when cropping way in on the

photo-but let's not get technical!?!

August,

 

It took me while to understand this new post of yours, but unless I'm misunderstanding it, we are in fact saying exactly the same thing, just in different ways - yours more mathematical, and probably in better English, mine in a more empirical or more practical way.

 

I wrote: "the axis between the 2 converging lines is then the vertical that should be used as a guide"

 

I explained also that I meant the symetry axis BETWEEN THE 2 POLES - no matter where they are or how slanted -, and NOT the median axis of the picture. When I wrote "used as a guide", I wasn't very clear perhaps: I meant that this median axis should be the one that's vertical in the straightened picture.

 

You wrote: "Still not quite right. The correct method would be to extend the converging lines to the vanishing point and then rotate the pic so that the vanishing point is dead center above the frame."

 

I suppose you mean "above the dead center of the frame". If that's the case, then you are correct.

 

"If the verticals are both left of center as in this photo, then perspective looking upward will give them a "/" slant in a level photo and the axis between them would also have this slant."

 

Yes, of course the symmetry axis between the poles will have a slant. But how would you determine mathematically the median symmetry axis between these 2 poles which are both slanted ? Answer: By extending both poles till the point where they intersect, in exactly the way you describe. This isn't practical for a photographer, who will "imagine" a roughly correct axis without actually extending the lines with a pen above his camera. :-))

 

But then, you are here talking about vanishing point for verticals, whereas you should be talking about an intersection point, I believe. The vanishing point is a term, as far as I know, used primarily in "perspective cavalière" (not sure how it's called in English); it is the point, where all horizontal lines meet - and NOT verticals, precisely. But that's only a minor terminology argument, I guess... all else is agreed. IF I understood you properly...

"I think we now all seem to agree that the "ultimate decision is aesthetic, not technical, in a photo of this kind" - so why touch the original."

 

Well, yes and no... If you shoot architecture for a client who's an architect, he will almost invariably prefer PC lenses or a view camera to prevent distortions (whether he can explain this to you in technical photographic terms or in architectural terms) and he will basically wish for as little distortions as possible. I already had the case of shooting industrial buildings for a client who was an industrial client, and he, on the opposite, asked for MORE distortions for some of the images. So yes, it's a matter of "artistic" decision or a matter of "purpose" and "intent" at least. But to provide any of these 2 clients with what they are looking for, you'll need to understand them and to find the appropriate technical solution.

 

In practice, I have rarely seen images of tall constructions that are very mildly slanted and very mildly distorted. I may well be wrong, but to my eye, and based on my own experience, I feel that major distortions can SOMETIMES go well with a tilt (even a fairly severe one at times), whereas minor distortions or corrected perspectives will be better matched with perfectly straight (non-tilted) images.

 

Which would be some sort of an artistic opinion, I suppose... This would be an interesting second discussion, by the way. Curious to read what some of you think of this very last paragraph...

Marc, I'm sure that you are right about your reference to clients of photos of architecture although I would believe that DxO can deliver what is needed with most objectives and cameras (extraordinary miraculous software).

 

However , as you so rightly write "it's a matter of "artistic" decision or a matter of "purpose" and "intent" .

 

When you give the example of one building or a reproduction of any building complex for a client you are in my mind referring to another photographical reality than the one we are discussing here. Our POW does not try to sell the bridge or to please the engineers that build it. He tries, at least I see it like that, to produce an artistic expression that go beyond the reproduction of things and persons in front of our eyes. That is why, still in my view, the movement in the composition, that we all have remarked, are no a fault, but the very essence of the composition. If we "corrected" some of these imperfections, the photo would become deadly heavy and strongly inharmonious. It is the movements that make it interesting and worthwhile. Iﾒm somewhat sure you agree with me on this because, after all, it is a question of finding the right balance between correcting imperfections and keeping the dynamic movements of the composition ﾖ which is an artistic choice. None of us would have taken that photo in the same way.

 

Anders

This discussion has become overly technical and ridiculously picky. Once again, Andy Warhol: " The more we look at something the more it ceases to exist". The aesthethic,artistic, creative decisions that were made or could have been made are what need to be discussed. Not geometry and computor fine tuning. Lets talk about what the photographer was actually aware of at the time of capture not machinations built up over a week of consideration.

C.R. you might disagree with what you read here, but please don't fall back on vulgar language. Arguments would be welcome.

 

You are on the right track however, because "the aesthethic, artistic, creative decisions that were made or could have been made" is what is being discussed.

 

If you have other and better ways of discussing this, it would be welcome.

 

Anders

CR, I think the aesthetics have been beat to death, in a good way, but after a week, I think we

have heard it all. The whole geometry thing is worthy of discussion, especially at the end of

this thread. By the way, how's the weather in Venice?

But what bothers me has been stated, the tilt and the balance. The 'corrected' version went too far, but that artist admitted that.

 

Surprised no one thought to crop the piece, but then again, not really. The heaviness on the upper right is very bothersome, and the blank upper left sky is a very weak part of the image. Also mentioned, the verticals point upward, taking the eye out. How to fix it, cut off the weak area, save the strong area, as usual. Losing the top of the bridge does not kill me, and for many it will, only because they saw that rendition first, oh well. One of the benefits, you now notice how interesting the undercarriage of the bridge is as you are no longer being shot up and out of the piece.

 

I tilted the piece until the horizon line on the far base looked horizontal, and the guy still looks fine. It was 2%, if anyone cares.

 

Nice piece Mr. Monteiro. I love your boat launching series, and have been to Portugal twice to make art and have worked some of those beaches myself. Great country- love Porto, Gerez N.P., etc.. Blessings, MS

The Seewald crop loses all the elegance of the original, IMO.

Julie, I would have to agree. It just seems like another one of those crops that has no

sensitivity to what the creator intended. It creates a totally different photo, one for a running

(shoes or whatever) company rather than a study in architecture or form.

I would agree with Mona that much (everything ?) has been covered throughout this week. It is good to see that it can be done without the violence of words we have seen recently and without, as far as I have detected, without the interventions of our beloved moderators. On this good basis I'm looking forward for the next POW.

 

Anders

" If we "corrected" some of these imperfections, the photo would become deadly heavy and strongly inharmonious."

 

Yes, Anders, I agree. As I said, I think the composition works fine here - but the little tilt can (and should) still be corrected. It doesn't add to the picture, and seems too mild to be justified by an intent. Regards.

Michael Seewald's crop goes imo against the essence of the subject presented in this POW: I strongly believe that this picture is an architectural mood shoot, and that the architecture is still the main subject. So why crop its most beautiful part - i.e. the way the 2 main poles rise towards the absent sky...?

I think Michael makes a good point. The original looks exactly like what the photographer intended - an architectural shot that just happened to find a runner. If you're a street shooter and you decided to wait there until some pedestrians or a runners showed up, then you're more likely to end up with what Michael shot. It would have been hand held and you probably would have fired off several shots instead of just one in order to get the best placement of the runner against the background.

 

Let's face it - this shot was a happy accident and in some respects, looks like it.

Carl, I would rather admit that most exeptional photos are indeed happy accidents even for the best photographers - but some very few among us (my modesty would say "among you") have the skills and eye to fall on such accidents more often than others.

 

That does however not take anything away from the quality of this weeks POW of F. Monteiro.

 

Anders

The trick is to get all the accidents to look intentional. That's done by being prepared and paying attention to details. In this case, you could say that the placement of the runner is more detrimental to the success of the image than the slight tilt. All I'm saying is that if this shot had been anticipated rather than accidental, it would probably have been even better.

Well said Carl. I agree completely.

Carl and C.R., I can only agree in principle that intentional accidents are better than accidential ones, in the case of photography.

 

My viewpoint on the placement of the runner in the composition is however different from yours Carl, as you might have seen in my first comments.

 

Anders

Hi

very very GOod.

Marc, yes, I think you and I are in complete agreement on the straightening after all, just using different vocabularies to espress it. And I think the Seewald version corrects the tilt perfectly, although I agree with others that the cropping is not good.

That guy might want to get that giant growth checked out at the doctor!

Great bridge!

 

I'm just responding to the straightening issues.

 

I think the safe way to straighten images like this is to plumb them. The two sides of the towers are parallel at the top -- forming a rectangle of negative space. Since they are parallel, a verticle line bisecting this space should be parallel to the image's long sides.

 

In this image, as in real life, there is very little perspective distortion on the verticle. Better to use that than any horizontal means of guaging straight.

 

This method works in bridge construction (as well as deconstruction).

 

:-)

The runner should appear with a slight tilt to the left (direction of movement), since runners run leaning in the direction they are moving. It is slight, but our bodies do pick up a lot of subtle info (visual cues) that we aren't always aware of to the point of articulation.

 

Runner is moving toward viewer at an angle right to left so we do detect a slight tilt for him to appear natural.