toystory Untitled

It is a shame with all of those millions of people whom coming here to learn and improve their skill and they find some people telling them, “Just Point and Shoot – And that’s Photography”,

I believe those people whom trying to learn, been fooled and drifted away from the real media.

Yes, some here did say that in many ways and many forms, rules are not important, what are those rules? , handling of camera, the theory of light, the relationship between the volume of light exposing the film and the durition of permitting that light to expose the film, composition and so on, are now not important to some people here, that’s how it sound ?

People talking about the zone lighting for Ansel Adam and at the same time those people telling others we do not care for rules, the basic rules became even not important to those people --- I do not think so at all, this is not the truth here, the truth is: those people are only miss guiding others and fooling them, while if we look at their own work, we will find all of the rules been applied!

If there is no rules and there is no much to learn here ( please forgive my English ), I would request those big mouths to remain shut, there is no need for them anymore, when there is nothing to learn, me and others whom we are trying to learn and improve our skill, we have to find some other methods to do so.

Remember as I have said, there many who need to learn and there fore we have to be careful and pricise with our statments, other wise it will be easily miss interparated by some people whom not having the knowldage and the the experinces in this media, and if it is so, then there are rules, may be basic ones, but they are conditions and rules, evey one must learn.

I am so suprized when some one say , no rules and why we need rules and then turning his face the other way around and says " I am teaching photography in UV and Collages", well such person must be there in a UV. or collages, just for teaching NO RULES and making fools of this whole world.

People like those n my opinion they are not doing any good to photo.net and or to its members, photo.net do not look like being a site for point and shoot, there are much more in this site where we all need to learn, they are Rules.

I am sorry this is my English; I hope none of the words I wrote here is bad words, please.

mystical photo...lets break the rules.. :)

Go for it Rashed!. You tell them. Your grasp of the english language is sufficient for those who talk garbage to get the message. As a dinky di Aussie I could have said it differently but no better.
We are all here to learn. If we restrict ourselves to only learning what we want then we narrow our minds to that which can be offered. I'm approaching the end of my time on this place but, as Frank McChord and my mother both said: 'I am inspired by the little time I have left to learn everything there is to know'.
Maybe we should distinguish between rules and guidelines. Driving on the right (or left) side of the road is a rule. Disobey it and you suffer the consequences. In art, like most human endeavours, there are guidelines; things that help us understand what will achieve a particular result. If we wish to understand, we need to know the guidelines as well as the technical stuff. Once we have achieved some level of understanding we can deviate from the guidelines: thats creativity.
My young students had no idea of the guidelines and would happily snap away recording anything in their path. But eventually they would cme to be and say: "how do I achieve that?' and I would give them the guidelines. They would play with it and find out how the guidelines work for them. The they would experiment; sometimes disasterously, other times with success. The disasters fell to the floor like leaves from a tree but they were important in the process of learning what each student could do; what worked for them. The successes would spir them on and they would learn from each other. And most of all, I would learn from them. They are my teachers and I am their student. I will die a happy man.
So maybe, we can start a forum where we can discuss on guideline each week and see where it gets us. We could view images that demonstrate it, take pictures, set assignments, be a little creative and above all, encourage each other to keep going. And for those who don't like rules; they can keep away and leave us alone to learn and learn and learn and never be inhibited by what others think.
Three cheers for Rashed.

I also found the image had an immediate power and invoked sadness and a sense of loss. A combination of inviting me to think about the fact that I am a parent and if anything ever happened to my children then I can't imagine ever being the same again. About the loss of my own childhood, and about abandonment. Let's just say that it is much more effective than the interminable repeats of Puff the magic dragon that I am currently being subjected to!
To me the whole structure of the current photo emphasises departure. The nature, positioning, orientation, and isolation of the tricycle, and the indistinct track and background building and trees all complement each other.
I am seeing a confected arguement about rules here...the comment I read said that the so called rules are often used as crutches and applied with little understanding. I would have said that was undoubtedly true and Tom has in fact been reinforcing that point in his last couple of posts. That won't be altered by changing their name to guidelines. Language matters and the words rules or guidelines are barriers to understanding. The key point is there are compositional tools for invoking somewhat predictable behaviours and emotions in viewers, but whether any particular outcome is good or bad depends upon artistic intent. If I want to block my viewer and make them uncomfortable then I can do it simply by placing barriers to entry into the photograph, but I better have a good reason for doing it or I wont hold their attention for long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AShBoF1FPSE&feature=related

John, too true.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A half formed memory - a distant childhood recollection. The photo feels like it is in the process of becoming material as if there is more of the scene yet to be recollected.
I find the blur, which does feel imposed, as well as the vertical and horizontal patchwork of tones add to this half formed sensation. Pieces of the puzzle slowly achieving clarity as the mind searches out and dredges up. Much in the same vein of materializing, the banding and blur give me the impression that I am viewing a print in the developer tray with the developer sloshing back and forth from agitating the tray.
As bookends to that particular folder of Christipher's, the other photo with the tricycle and doll seems the more fully realized image and as such I would have preferred to see it as the last image in the series rather than the first.


I disagree with the idea that we need the photographer to wade into this discussion and clarify anything. We have his photo and much more importantly we have access to his portfolio to put his photo in context. The images are strong enough to speak for themselves.

If we only had this one photo on which to speculate , all this discussion about rules would seem more relevant. As stands, we only have to spend time wondering among Christopher's photos ( an absolute joy which I would highly recommend ) for it to be abundantly clear that if any "rules " have been broken this did not arise from a lack of understanding of technique or composition, but rather from an acute understanding of both. I have always maintained that first one should understand ones chosen medium and then one should push the boundaries and observe the effects in order to develop a personal voice.

Some of Christopher's work hints at that predictable and somewhat trite East European approach to compositing which always makes me feel like everyone from that area read the same textbook on compositing in Photoshop, however by and large he has developed a wonderfully individual and powerful voice. I am grateful to the elves for this week's choice as I have marked Christopher's portfolio to follow in future and I still have many hours of pleasure in store , rummaging within the pages I had previously missed.

very nice and artistic shot, congratulations

I was reading back over an interview I did recently on another photo site regarding the art of the critique and came across something that might clarify my stand on rules and what I was ACTUALLY referring to, as Mr Watts seemed to understand. This is an excerpt from one of my responses in that interview:

"When one learns to critique in the right way and can start to analyze images in terms of line, shape, color, texture, space and how these affect balance, rhythm, emphasis, movement and such you really are reinforcing these things within yourself. These are the building blocks from whence come the “rules” of composition photographers seem to know but rarely understand. The rules are just short hand for an understanding of the elements of art and the principles of design. When we understand these basics we will start creating images that serve our purpose rather than a rule. And in time, with practice shooting, critiquing and viewing a multitude of images, we won’t even need to think about them as they will be just part of us and our visual understanding and will be applied as a matter of course."

Essentially, blindly following rules makes no sense. Rules are generally the summation of a rich history that supports their intent, knowing the history and subtext is much more beneficial than blindly following a rule. We all know what the latter can lead to....

In the future, it might work better to inquire as to meaning rather than to react from personal agenda or misinterpretation.

After a good nights sleep I am refreshed, with my old perspectives sharpened. After 60 years of photographing I realised what its all about: taking pictures and having fun. I've always enjoyed taking pictures and the purpose has been varied as has the quality; but its always been fun. And I have never had to analise (and it's not a spelling mistake) my images to such an extent. So, enjoy your chats, exchange your opinions, agree and disagree, stare at your navels until the cows come home: I'm going to take some more pictures while you agonise over one silly little picture of a toy bike.
Bye

I like the general idea of this photo but I must say I find it distracting. I can't get past the dark reverse L band and the front tricycle tire being out of focus.

I actually like precisely those things about the photo. To me they make it appear that the photo was made through a window, not in a literal sense, but in the metaphorical sense of a window to the past.

I doubt that a single thing in this photo is accidental or a result of sloppy work in Photoshop. A look at Christopher's other photos shows that he is very careful and deliberate in his work. Only he can give us the final answer as to why this or that technique was used--and I hope that he does. In the meantime I can only say that I like it very much, that I do feel the sense of loss of the distant past, perhaps abandonment as well, as some have mentioned. For me this is a great piece of work.

--Lannie

I do not like this photo, it do not stares any sort of feelings inside my heart, and the over exaggerated manipulation work makes it loose its value, if it was a pinhole camera result, I would have then given it another consideration.

A viewer can look at each element of a photograph in a literal sense for preciseness in photographic technique and talk about skills, or one can look at a photograph as a whole in a metaphorical sense and talk about feelings and interpretations. We have both going on in this discussion, although people don't make a distinction between the two equally valid approaches. i sense that Christopher was going after the latter approach. If so, I'm interested in what he has to say about his own photograph, but I'm even more interested in what the photograph means to me. There can be many layers to a photograph or any piece of art if one cares to look. It's there. But if you don't want to look, you don't have to and can instead just go have fun snapping pictures.

I thank all for comments. Discussion is needless about manipulation as I have checked off in information for photo that it is not manipulated. It from negative scan. Here I have used old camera expediently in order to get natural vintage effect without necessity of manipulation. I photograph long sufficiently in order to to have full control over DOF. Interpretation of content of photo and artistic value I leave observing .

I liked this part of a comment I read here : "The choice of subject matter is intended to convey a sense of....??? If it were a real tricycle, I would say loss of a child, or loss of childhood, or passage of time. Does this photo represent loss of a doll? Maybe I'm too concrete, but it's not speaking to me."
This picture does speak to me, nevertheless : but only to a certain extent. I find it perhaps a bit "too clean", too "well-planned". This is the kind of picture I thought Emil Schildt - see his portfolio on photo.net - would have given a special twist, I think...
Somebody also commented that the byicycle was perhaps facing the wrong way/direction... Imo, that can't be the case, because there's no "right way/direction" in real life : just the direction we take. The time axis goes from left to right, but even that's just a principle we have accepted to communicate... Here the toy is turned to the right - assuming "to the future"...
Most interesting for me was to read this discussion here about art and comments on photos. As for this particular photo, I see it as an open door for any viewer to imagine his own story line. The picture itself is not a statement about this or that and says nothing about time, but just evokes the past and our childwood. I think that's ok, but personally, I'd rather like a statement in such a picture, not just an open door to enter and make my own statement or project my own childwood story onto the picture. Simply because I can make my own stories even without this picture. I like art that makes a think in a new way, or a different way, or in the way the photographer was thinking. I think this POW is just too realistic and empty, with too little content to take me far elsewhere... although it is nice and tastefully done. I'd like to hear the photographer's eye a little more, here, for such a subject matter : just personnal taste, of course... Best regards.

I think single images are a poor relation to diptychs, tripychs and multiples in sets and series. Your website and work with film is exceptional in itself. The image pulled for comment here and the series is not your best. The portraits and landscapes are better by far and best of all is that digital set of four images with the same figure foregounded then left sat corned in a blur of pulled focus. Conceptually any play of assumptions about individuals and societies is fecund ground to plough.

Well, obviously it is a miniature.But being into nature's environment it takes a substance of reality, the weather looks cloudy so any lack of shade is quite logical.As it seems, must be a 10-15cm focus distance and the tricycle submerges from the grey softness.I am a bicyclist myself, so i loved this pretty photo.Regards

Very good bw shot ! Congratulations !

Best regards, Mircea

love love the simplicity here,top shot:)