jonathancharlesphoto

IMHO this is part of a bigger question - about the semiotic significance of a range of design patterns which includes various forms of symmetry, not just mirrored-type horizontal and vertical symmetry but rotational, repeating and scaled symmetry. The eye/brain naturally looks for patterns in natural images as a way of understanding them and composed images that are rich in patterns are more engaging. The specific patterns can add powerful abstract and emotional messages to a picture.

 

Although there are "rules of composition" that try to describe these relations they are only a very rough guide and it's one of the interesting challenges for the artist to explore new ways of using them in your work.

I think we have to accept the concept of shared authorship of images like Adam's first pic - he could not have taken it without the work of the sculptor and it is quite possible that the sculptor was considering this view of it when designing it.

 

I have spent some time photographing modern dance performances and I would always credit the dance company implicitly including the performers, the choreographer, set designer, lighting, costume and props designers - as I feel that their contributions are rather more than mine, though I hope that my representation also has a significant contribution from me (happily my photos were evidently appreciated by the others).

 

I think the shared credit especially applies to performance and 3-d work like sculpture and architecture but photos of 2-d images are either just records or derivations (unless using a design for an entirely different purpose, eg the Campbell's soup label).

Philosophy comes in 2 parts - conscious and intuitive. IMHO interesting photographs depend <u>entirely</u> on the philosophy of the photographer and people who say they just point and shoot are in fact using their intuitive philosophy to guide them, based on a lifetime of developing thier world-view. <p>The more complex / sophisticated / sympathetic / original this view is, and the more ambitiously and skillfully it is presented in the image, the better the photograph.

IMHO the "greatness" of a photo lies in its ability to make a strong connection with the viewer (obviously not ALL viewers) and this connection has several components. An emotional link is an important one requiring first (as has already been said) an emotional involvement of the artist - otherwise it's phoney - and second a receptive viewer - and this depends on a whole range of cultural factors. But there are other important links: a shared interest in the subject matter, a shared vision of real and abstract beauty, a shared mythology and sense of dread or yearning. In different pictures these other factors may be more important.

 

Ideally we should try to connect in every way possible.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

As Fred says, you don't need faith in what's provable. Religion is like logic - you use it all the time without necessarily being conscious of it. You believe in it because few conscious thoughts have any meaning without it. Every time you make a value judgment or moral decision you are expressing your faith. It may not coincide with the teachings of any of the religious organisations but more likely it will be along the same lines as all of them - they are not so very different.

 

Art is also part of human nature but its language is not logical or ethical IMHO. It speaks of all those complex drives and experiences that make up our personalities. We all want greater understanding of ourselves and others and art gives us a window into the deeper mental world - "through a glass darkly", but it's the best we've got.

Well Vincent, that's a good defense of professionalism and in terms of commercial use of photographs there's no doubt that someone with your approach will score over a typical amateur.

 

To put a counter argument...

 

I have been seriously involved in photography for nearly 40 years, starting with a 35mm rangefinder (Leica copy) and home processed B&W film, moving via medium format to Olympus SLR and colour slide. I now also use Nikon zoom lenses with my Fuji S3. I think good "amateur" gear, when used properly, can produce equivalent quality images to "professional" though maybe not under all circumstances.

 

The real issue is creativity - if a professional is necessarily looking to the marketing potential of a shot there is a strong pressure to come up with a better-than-average picture postcard landscape composition, sparklingly clean but standard product shot, a typical set of well lit, detailed and conventionally erotic glamour photos etc. By contrast amateurs have no such constraints and can concentrate purely on what their artistic impulses suggest. This may result in a lot of apparently pointless or amateurishly conventional shots but buried amongst them will be some real masterpieces. Obviously this can also happen with professionals but my contention is that with the lack of external direction it is rather more likely with an amateur. Certainly I see more artistically interesting photos from amateurs on photo.net than in the vast numbers of professional photos published in the media every week.

 

PS: if you are thinking of going digital have a look at the new Fuji S5

You raise the question of whether art can be used as a technique for bad purposes. I believe it can, as none of us are all good and so art can make contact at a deep level with our negative instincts. Often this can be used to make these known to us in a valuable way, such as in the ancient Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays. But it can be used in a negative way such as in political propaganda. In fact this is in common with other human activities - science, social organisation, commerce, religion, even love can all lead to bad things as well as good.

 

My artistic attempts are all aimed at positive ideas of beauty and communion with nature - but that's just my personal choice and not IMHO intrinsic to art in general.

One approach to your question is to see, eg browsing photo.net, which photos really grab you. This will give you some indication of what kind of photography you would find rewarding. Don't be put off by some subjects being more difficult - that's just a matter of working at it.

 

Best wishes in your journey of discovery.

When I started photography at the age of about 16 it was a school friend inherited a wonderful Leitz Focomat enlarger and my home had an unused windowless room we could set up as a darkroom. We both became quite proficient in taking landscapes and printing in B&W and went on to university studying science subjects while developing our artistic ideas in different directions (<i>eg</i> see <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=122229" target=blank>here</a>). He suddenly decided to change career, took his portfolio to the Royal college of Art and was immediately accepted onto a prestigious MA course in photography and went on to become a college lecturer in the subject (which still makes him in a way a professional photographer). We have since lost contact, but I have never seen any of his photos published despite a fairly thorough search recently.<p>I feel that in this case at least, "going pro" killed his enthusiasm in the subject while I, after 35 years struggling with my "day job" still have a passion for it. <p>"Amateur" literally means you love the activity. Some people manage to combine this with being a pro but in my experience not many, after a few years.

Marios said "Life is Art" but if the concept of art is no more specific then the word becomes a useless synonym.

<p>

For me art is an attempt to get to the "self" <i>ie</i> the inner subconscious being of Carl Jung's psychology and make some kind of communication with others at that level. It is of little interest to me whether it is new or old - this is the concern of art critics and historians - it only matters how well it succeeds. So when someone says a photo of mine "really stirs something inside" I feel I am on the right lines.

Don, I think you have made a very important point: that the aesthetics of composition are not consciously constructed, even if they may be consciously analysed - essentially the role of the art critic.

 

Almost all of my photos are taken within seconds of picking up the camera - with the automatic exposure nowadays so good the only factor requiring conscious thought is depth of field, and even this is usually non-critical. OTOH composing pictures in my mind is a constant activity (almost) whatever my situation. So my intuitive composition when I do pick up the camera is based on all those hours spent looking at pictures and considering the options to capture real scenes.

 

I think the subconscious has both more creative power and faster analytical ability when the need arises so I don't even try to think consciously about composition at the taking moment, though I may do some fine-tuning or even radical revision (also mostly intuitively - I just play with PS until it looks "right") later. This may be the reason for your experience of the shots taken mid-stride turning out well.

 

I also think that, just as in other skilled activities like driving a car or cooking, your intuitive abilities get better and more sophisticated the more you use them and critically assess the results. In photography you are getting to know your own (and probably others') graphical language. As you say, your personal style, which you hope will also affect your viewers positively.

Don said "I have to wonder how that impacts the photographer composing the shot, although I can understand how it might affect the spectator of the print"

 

I think firstly we intuitively compose the shot how we would like to see it, secondly an important part of any artistic activity (IMHO) is to transmit an idea of the subject to the viewer/audience so it's crucial to try to understand what effect different compositions are likely to have.

 

Maybe your cacti are nice rounded cuddly ones (with just a few small spikes)...

I take little note of ratings since they can so easily be manipulated. I think the number of positive comments is a better guide - in your examples 2 <i>versus</i> 24.<p>But this is moving away from the original subject...

Marios, you raised an obviously complex question - or questions, if you include the meaning of art and of reality. As to these things the discussion so far has been covered and considerably exceeded 250 years ago by Immanuel Kant - I can strongly recommend you read even a brief introduction to his work if you are not familiar with it. A very minimal summary is that reality only exists in the <u>combination</u> of sensation and understanding. Likewise the artistic power of a picture depends on a combination of the abstract properties of the 2-dimensional image and the emotional impact it has on the viewer, which may either be because of a perceived "back story" or a direct, probably subconscious, effect of the design which maybe resonates with an inner story.

<p>

The more immediate question of why don't people make more effort to look deeply into intentions behind photographs is, I think, a problem of too wide a choice of images, plus the fact that not much effort is put into most of the pictures by the photographers (eg "a nice shot of my cat / cute kid", "a pretty flower", "a sexy-looking model", "yet another sunset", "an old building I saw on my travels", "some random people walking in the street - in B&W, of course"). If the viewers could be assured that some serious thought had gone into the composition they <i>may</i> take the trouble to think about it. But it is quite unlikely unless the shot has some immediate appeal that grabs their attention.

<p>

Some people say that the image should tell its own story but if it isn't obvious there is no harm writing a few sentences to get them started.

<p>

I think we have to accept that most people are basically lazy and just looking for a quick fix of "eye candy" but there are also many potentially interested viewers who might miss some good work because of a lack of initial impact.

Don, you are right that much can change with fashion and evolution but there are clearly some abstract properties of composition which are psychologically built-in such as the rather obvious comfort of rounded shapes and the tension produced by the spikey silhouette reminiscent of predatory birds. The "classical" rule of thirds is probably due to the human visual field being approximately 1/3 above and 2/3 below the horizon with a level gaze and the motion effect of slanting lines probably relates to the fact that things generally move faster downhill.

 

The more subtle and complex the semiotic, the more it is culturally and historically determined - but we are not independent of our artistic heritage and so IMHO it is still valuable to be conscious of these effects in our photography.

The rules of composition are not an arbitrary set of instructions you should follow but represent a loose definition of cultural semiotics relating mainly to the european artistic tradition.

 

Semiotics is (approximately) a study of the symbolic or emotional effect of graphic elements - eg red for danger - and there are some remarkably reliable relationships between features of composition and most people's responses (well known to advertising designers). For the non-commercial art photographer the effects are still worthwhile understanding and keeping in mind (and experimenting with) to generate the response in the viewer that you experienced in the taking situation or wanted to represent in your image.

 

So, to put it simply, the rules are not "you should do this" but "if you do this the effect is likely to be ..."

IMHO the "cheesy bedroom shots of some guy's girlfriend" are not the main problem - at least they may be a genuine expression of personal appreciation. They often have a naive emotional power which outweighs technical failings and lack of originality.

 

The nudes which seem to irritate women most are the blatantly pseudo-erotic shots, usually taken in a studio or some very unpleasant derelict building, of a model (or worse, models) who look at best trying-to-please and more often bored or downright dubious of the whole enterprise. In an attempt to show the maximum they are typically posed in obviously uncomfortable positions, wearing the mandatory high-heeled shoes, and flood-lit so that the effect is far from flattering.

 

As always the impact of the resulting photo is very personal but it is clear from the comments that a proportion of male viewers will be very impressed with the artistic frankness, excellent lighting and (amazingly) the emotional contact with the model - and of course her beauty - whereas the female viewers ... don't comment at all.

 

I, along with most art photographers, obviously hope our work does not come into this category and although nudes are important in many of my pictures they are usually there for the viewer (male or female) to identify with, in appreciating the situation or scene. I have been encouraged by the high proportion of comments from women photographers which suggests they find the images empathic rather than exploitative, and the fact that all my models are "volunteers" who have seen my work and are pleased to join in the creative process.

 

I think most women like to be represented by pictures of feminine beauty and sometimes eroticism but not in a way that diminishes their personal humanity.

Yep, I've been going through a similar process with a new Nikon LS5000 + autofeed which takes them in batches of 50. The project was started by the need to give a "father of thr bride" speech which I wanted to do with a photographic backdrop. Luckily my younger daughter wanted a holiday job so she got through a good chunk of them. The problem, as you found, is the temptation to "optimise" the photos. This is especially as the double-depth (16 bit / colour) scan often initially looks too dark or light until the "gamma" curve has been adjusted. My solution has been to save the original scans onto DVD (twice) so I can go back and play with them when I have more time.

 

Unfortunately you don't have the original slides to go back to long-term as even Kodachromes from 35 years ago are beginning to fade and other faster emulsions are seriously losing shadow and highlight detail.

 

I agree there IS a philosophy angle to this - the value of returning to old photos and sometimes re-working them. I have found many that at the time I had practically discarded because of technical problems or subject matter which seemed at the time unimportant are now much more valuable because of Photoshop and the different perspective of now. The creative impulse at the time of taking the shot is only now finally coming to fruition with a contribution from the retrospective artist.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>