Randy's Wikipedia reference in fact is strong support to my claim that he and a few others are critiquing the image on purely formal grounds based on theoretical graphic design. There is no need to talk about talking any longer.
-yoram
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Who is discussing rigid terms. There aren't rigid rules but when an image FAILS because the work fails to use any design what so ever then its wrong or you are attempting desconstuctionism and thats fairly tricky. There are reasons some people on this list have professional careers as image makers and some don't. Yorman is trying to be a deconstructionist by being OVERLY literal to what I say them implying false meaning to it. Thusly deconstructing a falsehood he has created in his own head to create a false public argument. Boy this talking in the 2nd person stuff is just fun. :-/ The fact of the matter is Unless you have a specific reason to break the principles of design no matter how much you like a shot it will never make it a strong image. Also might I suggest taking a class instead of quoting a single google page. You might find there is more to what I am saying the that. Unless you think a single google page is all there is to know about design? This seems to be a better definition then your singular definition that you don't seem to understand anyway.On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:31 PM, YGelmanPhoto <ygelmanphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:I think I'm beginning to see something here. (No pun intended.) Responding to the prompt, I googled "principles of human visual perception" and found http://www.ias-iss.org/ojs/IAS/article/view/830 .If you read the abstract, the last line of it begins to define the problem some of us are having with some critiques here. What comes out of this is, I think, a purely formal definition that some members insist on applying to photographs.And by googling "design principle of visual hierarchy" I got http://tinyurl.com/qc94brv which was an examination for a course in design formalism.Yes, I believe there are principles. . . but they must also be flexibly applied. I think there is a lot of human interest in this photograph. . . humor is only a part of it. But to discuss it with rigid criteria -- including whether or not the woman's exact line of sight includes the shoe ad? That's beyond the pale. And to say that there is not even one design principle used in this shot?? Well then, so what? People can read their own books.As they say, "your milage may vary".On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 4:50 PM, visfxsup <visfxsup@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
viewed it.Ok draw a line. Its about actual design. Which is why schools make photography students take design. When im designing shots for movies we dont even think about anything but design in pre vis stage. In stills its even more controlled. There is not even one design priciple being followed in this shot. Zero. Look up the design principle of visual hierarchy let alone all the other priciples of human visual perception.Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message --------
From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
Date: 09/09/2013 12:33 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PF members exhibit Sept 07, 2013
On 2013-09-09 13:22, visfxsup wrote:
> Her eyeline is not to the ad.
Her head is definitely tipped up. I can't see enough to judge eye
position in the sockets. I read it as looking at the ad when I first
