Photography and Music

[m1469]

cont. from
https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7953.msg88468.html#msg88468




Okay, I want to try another one.  Maybe this photo is a mixture of the two before, the light is coming into contact a little more with the entire scene.  Yet, this also could be broken down into 5 categories.

Sky
Ocean
Reef
Pool of water
Wavey sand

Is this any more interesting?  While I am remembering the concept of photographing light, not things, does the varying textures within each category make for more visual interest than the vertical photo from before (as there is more happening in each category because the light is interacting more with them), or does that not really matter all that much? 

Okay, okay, here is what I am trying to articulate : What seems to me to be a possibility of more interest is the way the light interacts with the varying textures within each category of this particular photo.  Yes?

So I lied, sunsets are not boring to me, but photos of sunsets are not difficult to come by (so I was saving you the words in your own head when you would see more photos of sunsets).  I will say though that as I have been thinking about your words on pointing the camera toward something that moves a person, what moves me about the scenes I have photographed is the vastness of both the physical elements and the conceptual elements (I am forever in awe over the infinitude of textures, colors, tiny intricacies and monstrous-seeming aspects (etc) of life and the world we live in) - and this is a HUGE similarity for me with music. 

Here are some problems that I see within both photography and music, for me.  I am forever wanting to express this hugeness of life; my most expansive feelings and perceptions of the workings of life, those thoughts that somehow sit upon the moon toward the Earth and can reach beyond the stars... and I feel it to be difficult to bridle this into the framework of a single piece.  When I also know that every individual grain of sand is as representational of the totality of life as is the whole lot of them.  I am starting to get tangled now.  I am thinking too much of things?

Okay, maybe you (this includes anybody, btw) would give your thoughts on this photograph I have just posted.  I peeked at the website you provided a link to, perhaps I will go explore a bit.

Thanks,
m1469

[i_m_robot]

the sun is a little too close to the center

but besides that this is a great photo

[m1469]

Yes, this is a thing I wondered about looking at it now (I took these photos 5+ yrs ago).  The sun would be more fitting perhaps off to one side more.  Which one? The right or the Left?  Is this because of the Golden Mean?

m1469

[i_m_robot]

no idea what that is but

to the left makes the sun seem to cast more over the picture in self's head

to the right is like its hiding

to the center it become a single focus and all other things are overpowered by it

cept this one

center sun looky good in this one

[Torp]

Is this any more interesting?

It is definitely more interesting than the vertical picture from before.

While I am remembering the concept of photographing light, not things, does the varying textures within each category make for more visual interest than the vertical photo from before (as there is more happening in each category because the light is interacting more with them), or does that not really matter all that much?

This is essentially exactly what matters, creating visual interest throughout a photograph.  Don't get too caught up in concepts like "texture" though.  Most  concepts of photography, such as texture, contrast, tonality, etc., are simply ways to talk about photos.  This is much like music theory.  Theory allows us to discuss things in a meaningful fashion with concepts that can "generally" be agreed upon.  However, when it comes to composition, both in music and photography, we must dispense with the theory and "rules" and create in a fashion that expresses what we want to say.

What's the difference between photographing texture for texture's sake and utilizing texture in a photograph to express your point of view?

What seems to me to be a possibility of more interest is the way the light interacts with the varying textures within each category of this particular photo.  Yes?

Yes, however, visual interest can be created through more than just texture.  So, again, don't get too caught up in "elements of composition."

So I lied, sunsets are not boring to me, but photos of sunsets are not difficult to come by (so I was saving you the words in your own head when you would see more photos of sunsets).

Sunsets are amazing displays of nature.  So amazing to me, in fact, that I have yet to see even the best photograph of a sunset compare even marginally to the real thing.  Of course, this is true of most photographs of nature for me as well.  The key then, in photographing a sunset (or anything I guess), is not to "capture" the sunset, but to express to the best of your abilities the feelings you have while watching that sunset.  If you're successful in doing this, you will not only evoke the memories of that sunset in yourself when you view the photograph at a later date, but also evoke memories and feelings in other people who view the photograph.

I will say though that as I have been thinking about your words on pointing the camera toward something that moves a person, what moves me about the scenes I have photographed is the vastness of both the physical elements and the conceptual elements (I am forever in awe over the infinitude of textures, colors, tiny intricacies and monstrous-seeming aspects (etc) of life and the world we live in) - and this is a HUGE similarity for me with music.

Here are some problems that I see within both photography and music, for me.  I am forever wanting to express this hugeness of life; my most expansive feelings and perceptions of the workings of life, those thoughts that somehow sit upon the moon toward the Earth and can reach beyond the stars... and I feel it to be difficult to bridle this into the framework of a single piece.  When I also know that every individual grain of sand is as representational of the totality of life as is the whole lot of them.  I am starting to get tangled now.  I am thinking too much of things?

Here we have reached the crux of being an artist, at least for me.  How do we express ourselves?  You mention trying to capture all of the above in a single piece.  Why is it important to express it all in one piece?  Why not express it in a lifetime's work?  While I think it is a worthy goal to attempt to express all the hugeness of the universe in one piece, I strive for this all the time, I think it is vastly more important to have that expressive desire drive an overall body of work.  Think about it.  What would you do if you actually did make a photograph that expressed everything you ever wanted to say about life and the universe?  Would you be done?  What would you do next?

Forget the "rules" you have learned in photography.  If you photograph using a set of rules your photography will become formulaic and predictable.  There is nothing wrong with having the sun in the center, there is nothing wrong about having it off to the right or left.  Conversely, there is nothing inherently right about any of the placements either.  Robot is talking about how s/he feels given a certain placement of the sun:

Center - sun is overpowering
Right - sun is hiding
Left - creates some sort of picture in self's head (Not sure how to interpret this, sorry)

If your point in the picture was to show the Sun's powerful nature and it's ability to shed light on all its surroundings, then its position at the center of the photograph has helped achieve this feeling with one of your viewers.  Had you put the sun off to the right, because of the "rule of thirds" or some other ridiculous "rule," you would have undermined that point.  Now, I'm not saying that is what you wanted to convey in this photograph, I'm just using it as an example.  However, the placement of obects within a scene is critical to what the photograph will eventually communicate.  The placement of those objects should be driven by whether it helps or hinders your message, and not be some set of formulaic rules and regulations.

If you want to make truly personal photographs, free yourself from the ubiquitous "rules of composition" that you find in virtually every photography book written.  I have read somewhere that a person's eyes are the doorway to their soul.  This is usually a concept that is applied while your looking at that person's eyes, i.e to understand that person's soul.  However, I like to think of it in other terms.  Let your eyes be the connection to your soul when you're photographing.  When you look at something, what do you feel?  It is not necessary to be able to articulate it.  If you could, you should probably be a writer.  You must feel something though.  When you decide to point your camera at something it is usually because you want to capture that moment, that feeling.  The most difficult part of photography happens at this moment.  You must now look critically at what you're doing in order to determine if your composition helps or hinders the communication of these feelings.  This communication is the purpose of photography.

Good composition, then, is anything that helps your message come across.  Poor composition is the opposite.

Since this post is achieving Bernhardian length I'll leave it with a tribute, this is just the tip of the iceburg.....

Jef

[Torp]

I'd like to refer you this website that has some of my work on it.  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, DO NOT BUY ANYTHING FROM THIS SITE!!!!  I would hate to ruin the streak I have going of not selling anything.  And additionally, I'm posting this site as an effort to make a point, not to market this stuff.  I just don't have my own website yet.

There are two photographs I'd like you to review.  One is a sunset (second from left of top row of pictures) and the other is a waterfall (1st on left on bottom row of pictures).  Both of these photos have the "subject" in the middle.  My point for showing this is that it is OK to put the subject in the center of the photograph.  Of course, I will also make the point that defining the "subject" in some of these photographs would be a very debatable excercise.

https://www.bigtreeseditions.com/windows_torp/gallery_jt001.htm

Jef

[m1469]

Okay, well actually your posts are profound and I find I can't seem to respond other than this right now, sorry.  I have been letting what you have said sink in, and to this :

Here we have reached the crux of being an artist, at least for me.  How do we express ourselves?  You mention trying to capture all of the above in a single piece.  Why is it important to express it all in one piece?  Why not express it in a lifetime's work?  While I think it is a worthy goal to attempt to express all the hugeness of the universe in one piece, I strive for this all the time, I think it is vastly more important to have that expressive desire drive an overall body of work.  Think about it.  What would you do if you actually did make a photograph that expressed everything you ever wanted to say about life and the universe?  Would you be done?  What would you do next?

You're right.  I don't know what I would do and I suppose trying to encapsulate my universal thoughts and feelings into a single work is fairly ridiculous.  I just want it to be good  , d*** good, that's all.  And for that, in my mind, it must express a universal essence anyway.

Thank you very much for your thoughts.

m1469

[Jack Appleseed]

I don't think that "rules" regarding the sun in the center or on the side have any place.  The point is, the different compositions have a different effect.

I like photographs with nothing in the center and all the action on the edges.




ja