| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2006 06:59:47 AM · #1 |
 This is one of my all-time favorite pics on DPC. A wonderful photo entry by JEAN. I would never have been confident enough to crop like this- seems to go against "the norm". Would really like to understand why this photo is so appealing. (Do the tones and colors rise above a bad crop, or does the crop add to the overall success of the photo?) Thoughts?
--jrjr |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 07:08:02 AM · #2 |
I don't find the composition unusual at all, really. the light is noticeably stronger in the mid-section and rear tire of the bike, which alone makes the composition necessary. but you'll also notice a perfect execution of the oft mentioned rule of thirds. the sprocket and the bag of starch/wall lie dead center on thos intersections, something which wouldn't occur with a different composition.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 07:12:55. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 07:08:36 AM · #3 |
| Don't see anything too 'out there' about the crop myself. I assume you believe it is a 'bad crop' because the front of the bike is chopped off, but I don't think this is important as the pic is not really about the bike per se. I think it works well and provides balance to the pic with the red at the right of the shot occupying a nice amount of the scene. I agree with you about this being a terrific image. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 07:12:45 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by photoheathen:
I don't find the composition unusual at all, really. the light is noticeably stronger in the mid-section and rear tire of the bike, which alone makes the composition necessary. but you'll also notice a perfect execution of the oft mentioned rule of thirds. the sprocket and the bag of starch lie dead center on thos intersections, something which wouldn't occur with a different composition. |
OK But isn't you eye drawn to the white bag before the red bag? Does this really follow ROT?
(Sorry wrong quote the first time) |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 07:14:12 AM · #5 |
I once took a dance class with a Lindyhop master from the 1930's called Frankie Manning.
One of the things he taught us that I hope to never forget is that music all revolves around beat. Beat is the standard, the measure around which you can build emotion and mood.
If you 'lead the beat' with the music, you give a sense of energy and speed. If you play 'behind the beat' with the music, you get a feeling of slowness.
The beat is central and you can play beautiful music by keeping to the beat strictly, but Art is made when you learn to play around the music.
The same follows with dance, both in communication with your partner as well as in displaying for others as a couple. As such, an artful dance can be made even from sterile music. I think that sums up why I've never had any interest in strict form ballroom dancing and competition dancing.
The 'rule of thirds' is a great standard for photography. But Art is never restricted to being exact to the standard.
By placing objects on the third, you can get a common visual response. Something that plays to our basic ways of thinking.
By working around these rules, it becomes possible to convey mood and feeling.
I see strong colors and simple shapes in this picture with variance in texture well captured, but I don't think that this is the end of the matter.
There is a strong use of a rhythm in the colors and the shapes as well as some fine decentering.
The placement of the bags off thirds, the bicycle, seems shifted slightly to the left of a typical 'thirds placement, with the front wheel creating an expectation on the left of the image that almost extends the frame in the mind's eye, playing with the perception of where these 'ROT' lines actually reside.
The eye responds to this slight deviation from balance and moves throughout the picture, always being drawn first to the bright white bag and the red of the curtain, but also wanting to explore the left of the image both from anticipation and from the tendency to move to an area of contrast.
It's a pretty fun picture indeed and loaded with story and mystery too...
I'm not an expert, but these are my impressions.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 07:17:40. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 07:16:32 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
Originally posted by photoheathen:
I don't find the composition unusual at all, really. the light is noticeably stronger in the mid-section and rear tire of the bike, which alone makes the composition necessary. but you'll also notice a perfect execution of the oft mentioned rule of thirds. the sprocket and the bag of starch lie dead center on thos intersections, something which wouldn't occur with a different composition. |
OK But isn't you eye drawn to the white bag before the red bag? Does this really follow ROT?
(Sorry wrong quote the first time) |
my eye is indeed drawn to the white bag before anything else, but not because of its orientation within the frame, but rather because it is most significantly the brightest element within. that's just me though, as my eye always singles out the bright right away.
this sort of discussion, however, is exactly why it's a wonderful shot.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 07:18:14. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 08:35:51 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by jrjr:
Originally posted by jrjr:
This is one of my all-time favorite pics on DPC. A wonderful photo entry by JEAN. I would never have been confident enough to crop like this- seems to go against "the norm". Would really like to understand why this photo is so appealing. (Do the tones and colors rise above a bad crop, or does the crop add to the overall success of the photo?) Thoughts?
--jrjr |
OK But isn't you eye drawn to the white bag before the red bag? Does this really follow ROT? WRONG QUOTE! SEE BELOW |
My eye is actually drawn first to the red then to the white. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:10:03 PM · #8 |
I have been thinking about this all day. I think that the bicycle crop is unsettling to me because it is going out of the frame(?) Perhaps I would not find it unusual if the pic was composed exactly as we see it but with the bicycle coming into the frame. Any thoughts?
--jrjr
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 16:11:45. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:31:14 PM · #9 |
The crop reveals the artist's secret: a photo is not about the subject. The left crop completes the large square shape that takes up most of the picture. The bottom crop is right on the circle shapes of the wheels. The right crop is just big enough to create a competing red rectangle. It's all about shapes of color. When you realize there is a bicycle, that understanding competes with the shapes. It is in this tension that Art rises up and begins to burn your village.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2006 04:52:04 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The crop reveals the artist's secret: a photo is not about the subject. The left crop completes the large square shape that takes up most of the picture. The bottom crop is right on the circle shapes of the wheels. The right crop is just big enough to create a competing red rectangle. It's all about shapes of color. When you realize there is a bicycle, that understanding competes with the shapes. It is in this tension that Art rises up and begins to burn your village. |
You know what I just realized from your interpretaion is how the wheels touch the bottom of the frame- No Foreground! It just hit me. This is something else that is a foreign concept for me. But it raises even more questions as to why this is such a great photo.
--jrjr |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 06:11:04 PM · #11 |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 06:26:16 PM · #12 |
| The photo doesn't hold my interest. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 06:36:49 PM · #13 |
| I have had this in my favorites since the original challenge. I don't know TECHNICALLY why it works I just know how it makes me feel. It is a calming image and I don't know if even that is the right word for it but since I have no technical training I'll go with it. When I first clicked on it I remember saying "wow" and just staring at it for a while. It seems misleading, at first I was drawn to the color, the rich red, yellow and blue (primary colors) but then I noticed the part of the bicycle and that completed it for me. I love the red in this, just enough but not overpowering or overdone which is easy to do with reds. The processing almost makes it look like a painting AT FIRST but once I had a minute to look at it I didn't notice the processing at all (does that make sense?) Well, those are my thoughts if they make any sense. Sometimes it's hard to put into words why you like a shots, but for me this was an emotional instant response type thing. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 08:05:36 PM · #14 |
Yeah, this shot totally rocks. I thought it was already on my short list of favorites, but apparently is wasn't. It is now.
First of all, it's a great subject with an even greater crop. I, too, don't know exactly what it is about the crop/composition that is so appealing. I don't buy the "rule of thirds" thing. That's too simple. It's more complicated than that. And yet even simpler...
I do agree that this image has great geometry and great colors. The arrangement of circles and squares are so dominant and so pleasing, as are the colors.
I think that one of the things that elevates this image is the post processing. I wish I knew how to do this, but I don't. There's something painterly about it. I suspect there's a lot of dodge and burn going on here (I could be wrong). Dodge and burn done effectively, not just dodge and burn for the sake of dodge and burn.
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 20:13:03. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 10:00:15 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 10:20:50 PM · #16 |
It IS divided into thirds. The bicycle, despite the title, is a secondary object. The right third is basically occupied by the red sacks and the wood draws a line between that and the rest of the picture. The lower third is divided by the bicycle wheel with the left side being basically the white portion of the wall. The colorful bags occupy the middle third with the white bag near the right thirds line of the middle section. The upper two thirds to the left is made up of the grey wall and the top of the bicycle and the top of the bags marks the line of the upper thirds horizontal line. The colors are somewhat muted and that combined with the soft light gives it a relaxing, pleasing tone. Without being able to explain why, the light and dark and colors are balanced so one side does not outweigh the other, although the primary focus is on the white bag at the middle of the right thirds line. The white under the bicycle in the lower left third is important to balance the red in the upper right third. My opinon anyways.
[/url] |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 10:24:15 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
I, too, don't know exactly what it is about the crop/composition that is so appealing. |
I'd hazard a guess it has a whole lot to do with the 'grunge' processing look which does very, very well on dpc. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 10:49:41 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
It IS divided into thirds. The bicycle, despite the title, is a secondary object. The right third is basically occupied by the red sacks and the wood draws a line between that and the rest of the picture. The lower third is divided by the bicycle wheel with the left side being basically the white portion of the wall. The colorful bags occupy the middle third with the white bag near the right thirds line of the middle section. The upper two thirds to the left is made up of the grey wall and the top of the bicycle and the top of the bags marks the line of the upper thirds horizontal line. |
Hmmm... maybe you're right, I don't know. There's just something about reducing a beautiful composition to a geometric analysis of fractions that is unsettling to me.
discuss...
Message edited by author 2006-10-05 22:50:58. |
|
|
|
10/05/2006 11:58:52 PM · #19 |
For me the bike isolated does have significance, but ignoring the colour work is not possible. The cool metal of the bicycle and warm of the soft woven elements complement & interact to each other - A fine old fairly well preserved men's Schwinn, 3 speed. Oxidation brushed on the worn metal probably accentuated from the salt air of Mauritius. The chain looks oiled and tight, no broken or saggy spokes, they appear tuned. Even though it is an ancient bike, the owner takes care of it. It is depicted as shockingly unfamiliar to me, where in my area bright Specialized, Treks, Cannondales are normal. I might find this bike in garages, seldom or never ridden, in storage, rubbish heaps, or dumps. On a street it might belong to a homeless person who might use this model to carry aluminum cans around. Jean shows this as a respected primary form of transportation in an alien world parked at the market.
Even though the bike is interesting, and is a significant pictorial element, it is only part of the composition - as many have noted and I agree the composition and colour are what it is about. At a glance - a comfortable, quaint image, rustic, traditional and pleasingly old fashioned. In some way the subject uncharacteristic when compared to some of her other images, but completely logical. No matter how one slices it - what makes it her own is her remarkable use of colour.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2006 12:55:41 AM · #20 |
haha.....oh boy. i really just laughed at you all. wow.
look folks you don't undertand it and so you are drawn to it. it breaks your "stock photo" eye glasses in bits off dust. its strong because it moves the viewer. its deeper than crop or framing. it goes far beyond those things. this site over looks art far to offten it dwels upon the pointless parts of photography...people here get slamed for things being out of focus or in focus or over the river and through the focus.....the point of photography is to be. to capture what you are in the object you are photographing thats why you all don't get it.....its jean 100% you might not do something that she did because you arn't her.....your not that brave....give me a break you don't need to be brave to look into the world through your eyes...you just need to be you....and a strong image is produced by a strong photographer a person of vision.
its simple the only time the term brave should come into the wold of photography is if you are afraid of being unexcepted. if you think that your work is flawed than it is. cause you yourself are degrading it in your head to fit the opinions of the world.
the image is strong cause as a photographer she made it strong she didn't allow just anyone to take it she allowed herself to take it and crop it how she wanted. based on how she felt about it....its all her. the image gains so much striength cause we can't judge it, it happens to fit just fine and so if it isn't uniform but can't be cast out...it is different....and that is what her image is simply a different more artistic look at photography where you throw away the rules relax and let others wax on, and on, and on about it and you smile inside cause you sparked intrust in an everyday object and an otherwise overlooked wall.
your all thinking about it too much go out take your own pictures express yourselves how ever you feel and crop however you feel...do what you want and forget the rules...an image is strong in your eyes if you say it is...and its that photographer, its that image, that will change the world not some gimmic built on shoulds and shouldn'ts....
Jeans image makes you think.
that is why her image is so suductivly simple, and strong.
_bran(see the wold through my eyes and i will show you how i see the world)do_
edit- check out this image also, the 1st version  i can almost say positivly that she used a simple action to prossess it...umm that would be midnight sepia... the colors are more dull yet the image speaks just as strong...if not stronger...i came acrossed the image ages ago and marked it as an early fav. you see now. no gimic just the will to tell a story in a moment.
2nd edit...i do trulythink the 1st verson the above posted is the better of the 2. and it is not as "clean" an image. techiniquly.
oh yes and i can't spell...tired as i am..but i had to type a post and do it fast so forgive me but i need my sleep and have been sloppy in my wording and spelling.
Message edited by author 2006-10-06 01:12:41.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2006 09:26:10 AM · #21 |
art is not the pure expression of emotion. that would be standing in the street screaming, that sort of thing. I am the first to agree that DPCers tend to cling too tightly to rules... but the artist does not throw away rules. The artist makes new rules for each piece, or breaks them. The artist does not throw away technique. The artist uses technique at the service of this expression you mention. And indeed it can be talked about and studied. Do not fear analysis. If your work is good, it will survive analysis.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2006 11:11:22 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
art is not the pure expression of emotion. that would be standing in the street screaming, that sort of thing. I am the first to agree that DPCers tend to cling too tightly to rules... but the artist does not throw away rules. The artist makes new rules for each piece, or breaks them. The artist does not throw away technique. The artist uses technique at the service of this expression you mention. And indeed it can be talked about and studied. Do not fear analysis. If your work is good, it will survive analysis. |
I'd go further than that. Analysis is extremely useful in trying to pinpoint WHY something affects people the way it does. ESPECIALLY when that "something" may seem to "break the rules" in one way or another. Analysis is not primarily a tool to determine if something has followed the rules, with an eye towards downgrading it if it has not, which is unfortunately the way most people seem to use it.
If I could use poetry as an example, consider those who write and study metrical verse. There's an aspect of poetic criticism/analysis called "scansion", where we determine how metrically regular/irregular a piece of verse is. Many modern poets scorn scansion altogether, feeling that it's an attempt to force them to adhere to "rules" that are not valid. They say they just write what "sounds right" to them, and don't need to "validate" their work by scanning it to see if it has followed the metrical "rules", but that's missing the point.
Scansion, or any other form of overlaying technical rules on completed work, is not primarily a means of determining the work's orthodoxy but, rather, a descriptive tool that gives us a common language we can use to pinpoint what elements of a poem (or an image) are working to create the effect we have observed, be it negative or positive.
So, in the case of Jean's wonderful bicycle picture, our question is "what is it about this image that works so well compositionally?" And by overlaying a conceptual grid on the image and studying the way it comes together, we can perhaps learn something useful that will help us in our own work, just as we can determine by scansion that a particular line of poetry works exceptionally well because such-and-son metrical variation within the line has worked to produce such-and-so of an emotional effect.
Robt. |
|
|
|
10/06/2006 11:22:35 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by posthumous:
art is not the pure expression of emotion. that would be standing in the street screaming, that sort of thing. I am the first to agree that DPCers tend to cling too tightly to rules... but the artist does not throw away rules. The artist makes new rules for each piece, or breaks them. The artist does not throw away technique. The artist uses technique at the service of this expression you mention. And indeed it can be talked about and studied. Do not fear analysis. If your work is good, it will survive analysis. |
I'd go further than that. Analysis is extremely useful in trying to pinpoint WHY something affects people the way it does. ESPECIALLY when that "something" may seem to "break the rules" in one way or another. Analysis is not primarily a tool to determine if something has followed the rules, with an eye towards downgrading it if it has not, which is unfortunately the way most people seem to use it.
If I could use poetry as an example, consider those who write and study metrical verse. There's an aspect of poetic criticism/analysis called "scansion", where we determine how metrically regular/irregular a piece of verse is. Many modern poets scorn scansion altogether, feeling that it's an attempt to force them to adhere to "rules" that are not valid. They say they just write what "sounds right" to them, and don't need to "validate" their work by scanning it to see if it has followed the metrical "rules", but that's missing the point.
Scansion, or any other form of overlaying technical rules on completed work, is not primarily a means of determining the work's orthodoxy but, rather, a descriptive tool that gives us a common language we can use to pinpoint what elements of a poem (or an image) are working to create the effect we have observed, be it negative or positive.
So, in the case of Jean's wonderful bicycle picture, our question is "what is it about this image that works so well compositionally?" And by overlaying a conceptual grid on the image and studying the way it comes together, we can perhaps learn something useful that will help us in our own work, just as we can determine by scansion that a particular line of poetry works exceptionally well because such-and-son metrical variation within the line has worked to produce such-and-so of an emotional effect.
Robt. |
Ever since you enter this scene, I have nothing left to post. :-(
|
|
|
|
10/12/2006 01:31:39 PM · #24 |
Since this was pointed out, I like the original better than the challenge entry. It's softer, more subtle, painterly.
- original posted to portfolio
- challenge entry |
|
