civilized ku # 763 ~ a clarification - on seeing

Barren tree in the rain ~ Montreal, CA • click to embiggenIt is almost always assumed by the Zedēophiles (see the Follow Up entry on civilized ku # 762) in the crowd that, when discussing the idea of "god-given" talents / gifts, there are only 2 sides to that coin - one either has it or one doesn't. There is no in-between.

While that reaction / opinion is often the result of someone's low self-worth or lack of self-confidence, nothing could be further from the truth. There are, of course, a zillion shades of grey between those who have it and those who don't. Although, in my experience, the more that the in-between shades of grey slide toward the don't have-it end of the spectrum, the more those in the picture making world tend to rely upon the rules when it comes to composition.

Now, it should noted - and I can not emphasis this enough - that relying upon the so-called rules of composition is not a fatal picture making flaw. There are many in the picture making world who, with a modicum of talent / "god-given" gifts are rather successful at making reasonably good / interesting pictures by following "the rules" (such as they perceive them to be).

And, let reiterate in slightly different words - I do not mean that as damning with faint praise.

If one has risen, through whatever effort and means necessary, to being the best that they can be, they have, IMO, accomplished much. That does not necessarily mean that I or anyone else will like and/or appreciate their picture making results but - once again, I am sincere is stating this - whether or not I and/or anyone else like and appreciate their pictures, they should be very happy and very satisfied with what they have produced, although ...

... IMO, no one should ever be satisfied to the point that they don't continue to strive to learn more and improve upon what they have accomplished.

That also doesn't mean that, if they present their work to the court of informed public opinion that, in fact, their work might be (figuratively speaking, of course) ripped to shreds, public opinion-wise.

And, let state expressly for the Zedēophiles in the crowd, that I include the results of my picture making endeavors as subject to that same court of informed public opinion. However, when it comes to picture making, as it does to so many of life's endeavors, if you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen.

Comments

[Don]

That tree looks possessed.

[Sven W]

I'm not sure why you seem to take a dim view of applying "the rules of composition". Perhaps there are different notions of what this phrase actually means?

IMO, there are the so-called rules of composition which include the [infamous] "Rule of Thirds". To my mind, this is more a technique for achieving a formally balanced image ... but behind this rule are more basic principles regarding "centres of interest"and "visual weight".

My idea of the "rules of composition" are more about these underlying principles. And most (all?) of these principles stem from human physiology i.e how our brains interprets visual input.

For example, the eye (brain) is attracted to brighter areas before dim areas and in-focus areas before out-of-focus areas. Knowing this, if you want to draw the attention of the viewer then a good starting point is to put the main referent in-focus.

There are dozens of these "rules". A gifted photographer would figure most of them out by themself and apply 10 rules in the one image in the drop of a hat. An ordinary photographer would need explaining for each rule and be only able to apply a handful at any one time, But like any other pursuit, the ordinary practioner can become good with practice [but never great].