PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 16, 2008 15:26:52 GMT -5
I'm sure many members who cut their photographic teeth on black and white film remember when the photographic mags used to talk about composition in a picture. It crops up fairly regularly in postings here, though often without qualification. Years ago, photo mags used to talk a lot about composition: viewpoints, golden means, lines of direction, tonal balance and so on. It was part of learning about photography. Back in the 1950s and 1960s Amateur Photographer used to carry a regular two-page feature of pictures sent in by readers for critique, and the replies by a chap who wrote under the pen-name of 'Ricardo', often with sketches showing why he thought the composition was good, or ways in which it could be improved. I used to absorb every word and try to put his wisdom into practice - often I must admit without all that much success, but I hope some of it rubbed off. Nowadays when I flip through a photo mag in the bookstore , all digital naturally, the features, apart from camera reviews and tests, all seem to be about how to create 'stunning' pictures using Photoshop or a similar image editing program by changing colours, adding dramatic skies, changing backgrounds and so on, some of it, I suspect, being technology for technology's sake. But not a word about composition. I see so many 'stunning' pictures I must walk out of the shop only half conscious. Here, with acknowledgement, is an example of pictorial critique of readers' pictures by 'Ricardo' in Amateur Photographer, February 1956. I often use PS to correct tone balance, or even remove an offending TV aerial on an old building, or maybe remove half a dog that wandered into the picture wihthout my noticing it. I also crop to improve, I hope, the composition. But I still try for good composition in the viewfinder. Isn't composition taught any more? Or doesn't it matter any more to younger photographers in these days of 'stunning' creations in a computer? PeterW
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2008 17:12:48 GMT -5
Still photography is getting more and more like motion picture. There are less and less scenes with real actors and real scenery. It's all created in the studio on computers. And I suspect it will get worse because it's cheaped to create images than to film humans.
Peter you are right there is very little talk anymore about composition. It's about the technology and the software. Just got myself in trouble on another forum because a poster went on a great length how, over a period of several days his camera's new battery lost lost 10 percent of its charge when he was playing with the menus. And the thread went on FOREVER with him posting the latest decline in battery power without ever shooting pictures. Finally I told him to quit worring and counting, shoot some photos and recharge the battery a few times. That was interpreted as rude behavior.
Seems like most of the photos that win contests nowadays are combinations of a number of different photos that have been distorted to some degree and color added or subtracted.
I think that's why black and which is sometimes so appealing. If you can get responses of admiration from a black and white image that is pretty much as you saw it in the viewfinder that means you know something about composition.
No offense to anyone else here but if you want to learn about composition--just look at any black and white picture taken by Gene. He can take an everyday subject -- something we may see every day, and turn it into something breathtaking that we never have seen before. Gene looks at every potential image with an open mind.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 16, 2008 19:31:15 GMT -5
The guy on that forum that moaned about running down batteries should have tried an early Canon EOS auto focus film SLR. My brother in law had one, and the focus motor took so much current he could run down the battery in a couple of days just looking through the viewfinder composing pictures let alone playing with the settings or taking a picture.
I agree, Wayne, about current movies being all computer technology and 'special effects'. I recently saw a re-run of the classic black and white film The Third Man. Many of the scenes, particularly the shot of the first time we see Orson Welles as Harry Lime, and the scenes where Orson Welles is being chased by Joseph Cotton and Trevor Howard through the storm drains under Vienna are masterpieces of composition and lighting. Yet the budget for making the film wasn't all that high by modern standards. The difference was that the director, cameramen and lighting engineers knew their jobs.
Another excellent example is the classic black and white 1956 French movie Touché pas au Grisby with Jean Gabin, made almost on a shoestring. If anyone gets a chance to find a video or DVD of these two classics, watch them twice - once for the story and the second time for the camera composition and lighting.
Truly they don't make 'em like that any more.
Also worth watching for composition, this time in colour, are many of the scenes in Clint Eastwood's Outlaw Jose Wales, Pale Rider and his 'Spaghetti Westerns'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2008 9:12:40 GMT -5
Watched Jimmy Stewart in "Harvey" the other day--made when there were real actors and actresses and no special effects.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jul 17, 2008 11:14:57 GMT -5
PeterW
I had a rare opportunity to hear a known Canadian photographer give a one day talk in our town. The majority of the time was spent on composition using examples of his work. It was an eye opener and there was more to composition than I had thought. I don't think he would have been popular on most forums as he did not emphasize gear very much other than to mention what he used in passing. He just used what he was comfortable with to gain his final end result. Again he would not be popular on forums as he did not use, at that time, any gear from Nikon, Canon or Leica to make fine images. He most definitely used compositional rules which in some forums seems to be thought of as cramping the artists style. All in all a very informative day and one I wish I could have understood more. Yea, I agree there is not much emphasis seemingly being placed on composition in forums these days. I don't see Photo Shop or any other image processing program hindrance either.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by renaldo on Jul 18, 2008 6:21:42 GMT -5
Not much info stressed in general about composition from a number of sources.
Last month I moderated 2 age specific discussin groups relating to the "basics of photography" etc.
In the age 20-45 group, 'nunya'...zip...zero. Big into post image taking in photoshop and in-computer making of an image. Most in this group were not even interested in being exposed to the basics of how to operate a camera and use basic skills.
The older group...up to age 75 was the oldest...reminesced and passed on valuable info to each other. Except for 3 out of 25 in this group, the rest were not yet into digital.
That group was full of ideas, skills and the real fun, IMHO, of taking up photography.
Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jul 18, 2008 12:05:16 GMT -5
When I get a chance to talk to beginning photographers, or any who asks how to improve pics, I refer them to Phil Douglis's pbase site called Expressive Travel Photography : communicating with pictures, an instructional cyberbook: www.pbase.com/pnd1Although he shoots exclusively in digital these days, I don't think he even uses a DSLR. All of his digicams have been high-end P&S models. He's worth studying, imo. He does a good job of explaining how to take better travel pics, which translates into better pics of any kind. Gene
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jul 18, 2008 12:09:42 GMT -5
renaldo
The attitude of your younger group appears to be the same here too. It seems that a lot of photographers who came in directly to digital have little conception of the technicalities of what goes on when actually taking the initial image. A case of, I just push this here button. Getting too into what goes on when taking a photo can be mind numbing but a solid basic knowledge of the process is called for. I think they are getting bogged down in the post processing bit because they haven't done it right in the first place. I have nothing against digital post processing, it is part of the workflow these days. Again if you get it close to being right when taking the photo you need not spend inordinate amounts of time and energy in the post processing stage.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2008 14:02:28 GMT -5
Bob:
There are also those who are fine shooting a 320-240 pixel snapshot with a phone camera. They don't care about composition OR quality. All they care about is having a vaguely recognizable image to prove they were somewhere or saw something. That's the group that is dooming film because they are the ones who would be using disposable cameras or cheap point and shoots if they didn't have camera phones. At that's the main film market. Now
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Jul 18, 2008 15:42:17 GMT -5
Wayne, They sound just like yesteryear's generation of Box Brownie Happy Snappers, or the millions who toted 110 Instamatics. Plus ca change ...
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jul 18, 2008 16:37:01 GMT -5
Wayne and PeterW
I agree on both points. I was thinking mostly about people who appear to be at least semi serious WRT taking photos and have invested in DSLRs.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jul 19, 2008 12:45:24 GMT -5
I posted a statement about this many months ago on this forum, and it generated a lot of comment. Many, many moons ago, while I was still in college, I had the chance to meet Alfred Eisenstadt, the famous "Life Magazine" photographer. One of the students in our group asked about equipment, wanting to know which camera and lenses he should carry -- and he had several around his neck as he asked his question (obviously not knowing AE's motto "Keep it Simple"). Eisenstadt told him, in effect, that he could take a better-composed picture with a box camera than the student could with all his cameras and lenses, because ... and he pointed to his own eye ... "this is the eye that matters." Any good photographer, film or digital, understands the elements of composition and the effects of light. No amount of digital snapshootery (is that a word?) will overcome deficiencies in understanding what you're doing ... painting that picture with light. Edit: I agree with Wayne's comment about Gene. He is one of our members who obviously has an outstanding eye for compostion and lighting.
|
|