I have to say WHAT? Looking for nice compositional studies isn't a
challenge? I think it's one of the greatest challenges. It's why so
many of the pictures submitted to the gallery each week fall short.
The author didn't present a good composition and we are left to try
and figure out how we might improve what we're seeing because the
photographer didn't worry. Or maybe it's that they didn't know what
to worry about. I admire David for requesting assistance in improving
his work. Many of the Gallery submitters seem put off by a bit of
honesty, and that won't help their work get better. I know that all
praise never helped me improve much of anything.
One of the best exercises in training my own eye was working as a lab
tech for a newspaper and having to deal with other people's photos.
Some of them made by professionals and many submitted by amateurs. I
guess you could say I was one of those tasked with adding my values to
the work, because much was unusable as submitted, often requiring
cropping out 50% or more of the image to get anything resembling a
decent composition, or wishing there was 50% more in the picture with
which to work.
I agree that many published images are heavily edited, but that's
often because they have to conform to a specific inflexible space such
as a magazine cover, or they're slated to be covered with type.
Speaking of which, David's blacksmithing picture would have been good
for illustrating an article where type could have been dropped in to
the large dark area in the background. Something like this: http://img.skitch.com/20090912-td1uwgwg2pdicu7cb9fw3wjbdm.jpg
(apologies for crapping up your image, David)
Not sure what you mean by galleries editing work. If you mean they
edit out whole works to present a cohesive whole, I would agree with
you. But I don't think I've ever heard of a gallery editing
individual pieces, have you? I'd think the artist would be
responsible for presenting what they want shown in a final form,
hopefully all with good composition.
Anyway, the best way to get an answer is to ask a question. A good
way to improve is to recognize what needs improvement, otherwise
you'll likely keep on doing the same thing, getting the same results.
I respect David for requesting opinions.
Rich
On Sep 12, 2009, at 10:23 AM, lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
David,
I agree with those who say don't worry. I say look at raw, messy
images
to get the eye going. I don't think looking for nice compositional
studies is much of a challenge.
Formal issues are just a last tidy-up process once you have seen the
picture. With digicams and zoom lenses one can shoot a half-dozen
formal
tweaks. I have found this very helpful to my "eye". The seeing in the
first instance is the hard part. For various obvious reasons gallery
and
published images most often are the results of heavy editing
emphasizing
formalist values by people other than the artist. This bias sticks in
every one's brain and gets in the way of really seeing.
AZ
LOOKAROUND - Since 1978
Build a 120/35mm Lookaround!
The Lookaround E-Book 5ed.
http://www.panoramacamera.us
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [SPAM] Working on your "eye"
From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 2:17 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
So how does one work on one's "eye", by which I think I mean one's
instinctive grasp of composition? Or for that matter, how does one
improve one's sense of composition at any level? I'm reasonably sure
that's the weakest point in my photography, and at least one
commenter
this week seems to agree.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
