Thursday
May102007
8x10 Provia ~ Doyle Thomas
Thursday, May 10, 2007 at 08:34AM 
click any photo to embiggen
While working in the pristine landscape the intent of these images is to remove the normal "rules of composition" and leave it to the viewer to find their own way around (hence the round aspect ratio (no pun intended).
Doyle also wrote; "I hope you can see your way to posting these as I would very much enjoy to read what more open minded people might think about them."
All right people, you read what Doyle called you. Now get on with it and tell him what you think.
I think that by ignoring 'the rules of cropping' he has altered considerably the way I perceive and relate to these pictures.
Reader Comments (6)
I opened a few of the KU's on this page and tried to pay attention to where my eye went and for how long it traveled. For the most part my eye found the largest object first then wandered around to highlights and then shadows (I think, it was pretty split second)...
Not only are these unconventionally cropped, but they also (except for maybe the top left image) lack a definitive "object/subject". At first my eye didn't settle anywhere...it almost went "batty" and unfocused...then after taking my anti-seizure medicine, I enjoyed the lack of a fixed focus and just wandered all over the images at will, yet at the same time I felt more confined than I would on a non-circular image...definitely worth looking at later and see if it effects me the same way.
(they also remind me of those circular tests that check for color blindness)
Why not? The "Holy family" by Michael Angelo has a round shape and a round frame.
It all depends on the composition inside the frame.
I have a different experience when viewing the images here. I find I lock on to a definite area when I first look. Only then I am allowed to wander.
In each of these I feel there is a definite object/subject.
I like the idea (concept...) but I think I would have preferred it if the circle were less defined - here it still remains a very definite "frame", just a round one.
Using the natural fall-off and circle that would have occurred by using a lens with too small an image circle would have possibly done this more effectively - and blurred the boundary between picture and frame?
(and all the above is a much more technical response than normal for me...)
It's a sort of trying to break out of one aspect of the imposed persectivism of the camera - an apparatus that inherently tries to impose a theory on the picture...
Even before I read Tim's response - that's exactly the reaction I had. The hard frame edge measn these are pictures crying out for a subject, A soft frame would have hinted at a part of something larger.
I like the concept of working with non-traditional crops. It could help the viewer avoid a "standard" response to the scene, and look at it more consciously. This may let the image content speak more for itself. In this case the circular crop, as with a square one, doesn't hint about any particular emphasis due to a linear bias that channels the eye up-down, left-right or diagonally. The circularity may imply different things to the viewer, e.g. that some form of flow or completeness is important to the scene.
One question for me on viewing these images after awhile is, would I eventually conclude that the circular crop is more artifice than enhancement? In the vein of Tim & Martin's comments, I find the bright white corners of the square outer frame compete with the image within the visual space, possibly because we're used to rectangular formats. A neutral color & tone instead of white in those corners might help take down the emphasis of the technique and let the image content step forward more.