The Tower

[madcrow]

Maurice,

Please read my post again and notice, if nothing else, the emoticon. Notice also that the only complaint in my post has to do with my monitor, not your photograph. Most important, when you mention that I called your photo a dirty spot, you're just plain wrong; instead, I mentioned that I have a dirty spot on my monitor that was not there when I viewed your first photo. In fact, this holiday week has been busy enough for me that I still haven't cleaned that darned spot.

Mike, if I misread your post I do apologize but why in the name of God did you mention my image and in the same breath the dirty spot. I took it that dirty spot was my image. Your comments have always been fair but I have to say I was a little taken a back this time. Thanks for coming back and putting things right. Again my apologies.
Maurice.

[madcrow]

Maurice, for me your second version is a clear improvement on the original.



I agree, John, as perhaps might be implied by my comment in Post #6, "If it is to remain a colour shot,". I think the mono works quite well (but without the halo! ).

Cheers.
Philip

Philip, thanks again for your comments.
Maurice.

[JBW]

Way out of my expertise but would you consider a black and white version?

[madcrow]

Brian, I am afraid black and white outside mine expertise as well.
Comments very much appreciated.
Thanks, Maurice.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Maurice,

I do hope you find my thoughts helpful, that is my intention.

When I first saw this, I immediately recognised that the biggest problem (for me) was that the subject is overwhelmed, compositionally, by the surroundings.

I'm definitely not wishing to sound clever, just that I've been here before myself and now (usually) think these things through and (given time), capture something that doesn't have the issues I'm going to mention below.

Given the title, the image should be about the tower, so that really implies it needs to be dominant in the frame.

While the grasses are a nice foreground element, due to the camera position close to them and focal length used, they are too big and over power the tower.

When the initial shot was viewed through the V/F, or on the rear LCD, it would have been fairly evident that the large diagonal leaning 'post' should not be there - so either shoot anyway and accept that it must be cloned in PP, or try to find a better angle to exclude it - if possible.

The same goes for the other 'posts' (or are they all gravestones edge on?) between us and the subject, they are a distraction, because we're wondering what they are (well I am) and while they're the same hard texture as the tower, but they're clearly not part of the tower.


I see two possibilities at time of capture, neither of which might have been practical in the time you had Maurice.

If you could have moved backwards along the optical axis you have here and used a longer focal length (or cropped significantly), this would have reduced the size of the grasses relative to the tower.

Ideally, a viewpoint to left or right that excludes the posts too, would have been better.

John's cloning solves many of the issues and gives a more balanced composition than the simple crop you tried

HTH, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Given the title, the image should be about the tower, so that really implies it needs to be dominant in the frame.

While that is the safe way and certainly the most common way of composing a scene, there are just too many widely recognized examples in the history of photography of more creative compositions such as this one to think that the job can't be done just as effectively without making the subject dominant in the frame.

[MrB]

While that is the safe way and certainly the most common way of composing a scene, there are just too many widely recognized examples in the history of photography of more creative compositions such as this one to think that the job can't be done just as effectively without making the subject dominant in the frame.

Although you are probably correct, Mike, and I'm not aware that we know of Maurice's level of skill, isn't it usually the best advice to keep things simple?

Cheers.
Philip

[Mike Buckley]

isn't it usually the best advice to keep things simple?

All of us learn and process information differently. Unless we know how a particular person does so, rather than think about what is usually the best advice, I think it's best to consider what is always the best advice. In that context, I think the best advice is for each of us to learn what has proven to be effective and to decide for ourselves which of those directions including any unproven directions we want to go.

Photography is a creative process. So, I'm not in favor of limiting one's creativity by, as examples, thinking the subject of a photograph implies that it needs to dominate the frame or that we should keep things simple.

[MrB]

Is this advice:

Considering that the tower is the primary subject, I strongly recommend that you present it straight rather than tilted.

compatible with the principle:

Photography is a creative process. So, I'm not in favour of limiting one's creativity by, as examples, thinking the subject of a photograph implies that it needs to dominate the frame or that we should keep things simple.

?

Cheers.
Philip

[Mike Buckley]

Yes, Philip, I believe those two statements are compatible. The first statement was offered because it seemed that the tower was tilted so little that it seemed to be an accident rather than an outcome of creativity. If it had been tilted more obviously by intent, that perhaps would have been a good example of the second statement, as that feature might have then seemed to be an interesting characteristic born of creativity.

[madcrow]

Hi Maurice,

I do hope you find my thoughts helpful, that is my intention.

When I first saw this, I immediately recognised that the biggest problem (for me) was that the subject is overwhelmed, compositionally, by the surroundings.

I'm definitely not wishing to sound clever, just that I've been here before myself and now (usually) think these things through and (given time), capture something that doesn't have the issues I'm going to mention below.

Given the title, the image should be about the tower, so that really implies it needs to be dominant in the frame.

While the grasses are a nice foreground element, due to the camera position close to them and focal length used, they are too big and over power the tower.

When the initial shot was viewed through the V/F, or on the rear LCD, it would have been fairly evident that the large diagonal leaning 'post' should not be there - so either shoot anyway and accept that it must be cloned in PP, or try to find a better angle to exclude it - if possible.

The same goes for the other 'posts' (or are they all gravestones edge on?) between us and the subject, they are a distraction, because we're wondering what they are (well I am) and while they're the same hard texture as the tower, but they're clearly not part of the tower.


I see two possibilities at time of capture, neither of which might have been practical in the time you had Maurice.

If you could have moved backwards along the optical axis you have here and used a longer focal length (or cropped significantly), this would have reduced the size of the grasses relative to the tower.

Ideally, a viewpoint to left or right that excludes the posts too, would have been better.

John's cloning solves many of the issues and gives a more balanced composition than the simple crop you tried

HTH, Dave

Dave, thanks for your comments, I can see what your saying but I am finding it very hard to get beyond where I am at the moment. I thought my image wasn't bad but when replys start coming in explaining how I could do better it's only then I can see me errors. Please don't get me wrong I do appreciate all comments good or bad, that's the only way I will ever improve. But on a happier note, I love going out with my camara and taking photos.
Thanks, Maurice.

[madcrow]

While that is the safe way and certainly the most common way of composing a scene, there are just too many widely recognized examples in the history of photography of more creative compositions such as this one to think that the job can't be done just as effectively without making the subject dominant in the frame.

Mike, I don't seem to have that creative flare or eye for good composition but it will not stop me trying. I just love going out with my camara. Hope to improve in time. With your comments and those of others, it just might happen.
Your comments are very much appreciated.
Thanks, Maurice.

[madcrow]

Although you are probably correct, Mike, and I'm not aware that we know of Maurice's level of skill, isn't it usually the best advice to keep things simple?

Cheers.
Philip

Philip, skill levels not very high but hope to get better.
Thanks, Maurice.

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, I don't seem to have that creative flare

The interesting composition in your photo is good evidence that you underestimate yourself.

I am finding it very hard to get beyond where I am at the moment.

I wonder if that's because you so strongly envision an image that it's difficult to change that vision. If so, be glad about it, as envisioning the image before releasing the shutter is a key development in any photographer's progress.

[John 2]

Dave, thanks for your comments, I can see what your saying but I am finding it very hard to get beyond where I am at the moment. I thought my image wasn't bad but when replys start coming in explaining how I could do better it's only then I can see me errors. Please don't get me wrong I do appreciate all comments good or bad, that's the only way I will ever improve. But on a happier note, I love going out with my camara and taking photos.
Thanks, Maurice.

Maurice, you are being too hard on yourself. There are perhaps two aspects to consider and let me say immediately that these views are personal and may not be universally accepted.

I read with interest recent posts that resulted from an individual raging against the blind adherence to the "Rule of Thirds" together with the resultant protests over whether it was indeed a rule and the much quoted belief that "breaking" the rules also produced good images. Quite true of course but in my personal opinion, this misses the point.

The human brain is a curious organism. When it views the world through a pair of eyes, it is free to roam and satisfy itself. As soon as you put a frame around a scene, it is not but it becomes curious about what it cannot see. The art of composition is not a knowledge of and applying a set of rules but in focussing , by whatever means, the viewers attention on whatever it is you want the viewer to see. That also means avoiding enhancing the viewers curiosity over what it can't see e.g. peripheral characters looking out of the frame at something not in view or highlights taking your eye away from the main subject. Rather than rules, the Rule of Thirds, the Golden triangle, the Fibonacci Spiral and their like are merely easily understood examples of how that might be achieved. They are not rules in the strictest sense, more techniques that might be better described as "Rules of Thumb". Moreover, they are not exhaustive which is why we often see excellent images that don't conform to any of them but never the less retain the viewers interest where it is intended it should be. The intent as to the viewers interest then leads on to a parallel consideration. If the intent is to focus on say the Tower (using your image as an example) then removing the clutter and simplifying the scene helps. If however, the intent is to show how a subject exists in a busy environment, then what otherwise might be seen as clutter becomes a necessary component of the composition and it should be retained. So having achieved a retained interest within the frame, the included content needs to be appropriate as well.

Spouting theory is all very well but I guess the real question is how to put it into practice. It's my view that it has to start with being able to determine in your own mind what you want your photographs to convey, that is, what you want the viewer to focus on. It's been described as developing a "seeing eye". It comes more naturally to some than others. My other half has no interest in photography but can spot compositional flaws quite readily. It can be learned however, and for me the best way has been to look at lots of good photography. Not to copy or analyse (life is too short) but just to absorb what appeals to you. In that way you will learn to recognise subjects and compositions that appeal to you in the real world. In parallel, get out and use your camera. This forum, compared to many that I've viewed, is a particularly good place to be for all of that because it hosts a high standard of photography and has a tradition of presenting and accepting critique without aggression creeping in.

It seems to me that you are already on that journey. You saw the Tower and that particular viewpoint when many would have passed by and you saw it creatively as a silhouette. Moreover, you admit ".... I love going out with my camera and taking photos". That's why I say you are being too hard on yourself. Remember, comments aren't always critique. Sometimes they are just alternative views. However, both are opportunities for learning no matter where we are in our photography. I have learned a great deal being here and being a member of a club than I ever have from books.

Hope this helps and as I said it's a personal view.

[JBW]

Maurice, if you want a good laugh go take a look at my first 2 or 3 thousand posts. I was horrible. We all learn and we all hit plateaus. You and I have one common point. One we share with every one here. We love seeing the world through our camera.

If you keep clicking, posting, feeling and thinking you will get to where you want to be.

[John 2]

......................If you keep clicking, posting, feeling and thinking you will get to where you want to be.

There you go Maurice, Brian has said in one sentence what I needed a book to get across.

[mknittle]

Mike, I don't seem to have that creative flare or eye for good composition but it will not stop me trying. I just love going out with my camara. Hope to improve in time. With your comments and those of others, it just might happen.
Your comments are very much appreciated.
Thanks, Maurice.

I like the image Maurice. I do think it is creative but a couple details would improve it's appeal to a wider range of viewers. It just takes a while to see the little things that work best. just have fun shooting and do a lot of experimenting. Cheers Mark,

[mknittle]

Maurice, you are being too hard on yourself. There re perhaps two aspects to consider and let me say immediately that these views are personal and may not be universally accepted.

I read with interest recent posts that resulted from an individual raging against the blind adherence to the "Rule of Thirds" together with the resultant protests over whether it was indeed a rule and the much quoted belief that "breaking" the rules also produced good images. Quite true of course but in my personal opinion, this misses the point. The human brain is a curious organism. When it views the world through a pair of eyes, it is free to roam and satisfy itself. As soon as you put a frame around a scene, it is not but it become curious about what it cannot see. The art of composition is not a knowledge of a set of rules but in focussing , by whatever means, the viewers attention on whatever it is you want the viewer to see. That also means avoiding enhancing the viewers curiosity over what it can't see e.g. peripheral characters looking out of the frame at something not in view or highlights taking your eye away from the main subject. Rather than rules, the Rule of Thirds, the Golden triangle, the Fibonacci Spiral and their like are merely easily understood examples of how that might be achieved. They are not rules in the strictest sense, more techniques that might be better described as "Rules of Thumb". Moreover, they are not exhaustive which is why we often see excellent images that don't conform to any of them but never the less retain the viewers interest where it is intended it should be. The intent as to the viewers interest then leads on to a parallel consideration. If the intent is to focus on say the Tower (using your image as an example) then removing the clutter and simplifying the scene helps. If however, the intent is to show how a subject exists in a busy environment, then what otherwise might be seen as clutter becomes a necessary component of the composition and it should be retained. So having achieved a retained interest within the frame, the included content needs to be appropriate as well.

Spouting theory is all very well but I guess the real question how to put it into practice. It's my view that it has to start with being able to determine in your own mind what you want your photographs to present, that is, what you want the viewer to focus on. It's been described as developing a "seeing eye". It comes more naturally to some than others. My other half has no interest in photography but can spot compositional flaws quite readily. It can be learned however, and for me the best way has been to look at lots of good photography. Not to copy or analyse (life is too short) but just to absorb what appeals to you. In that way you will learn to recognise subjects and compositions that appeal to you in the real world. In parallel, get out and use your camera. This forum, compared to many that I've viewed, is a particularly good place to be for all of that because it hosts a high standard of photography and has a tradition of presenting and accepting critique without aggression creeping in.

It seems to me that you are already on that journey. You saw the Tower and that particular viewpoint when many would have passed by and you saw creatively it as a silhouette. That's why I say you are being too hard on yourself. Remember, comments aren't always critique. Sometimes they are just alternative views. However, all are opportunities for learning no matter where we are in our photography. I have learned a great deal being here and being a member of a club than I ever have from books.

Hope this helps and as I said it's a personal view.

^^^^ this^^^^

[bnnrcn]

Hi Maurice. I just want to say that Mike never wants to hurt anyone in this forum and he has always been very helpful in his comments. Though , he is the reason why I have an avatar now, because he called me 'he' when I was new in the forum. And he blushed and apologised when I said was a woman

Besides, when I read his comment , I looked for a dust spot on your image but I never thought that he was calling your image dirty spot. Apparently he was talking about the dirty spot on his monitor

I find your second edit much better and John2's conversion is also nice, take care

Mike, if I misread your post I do apologize but why in the name of God did you mention my image and in the same breath the dirty spot. I took it that dirty spot was my image. Your comments have always been fair but I have to say I was a little taken a back this time. Thanks for coming back and putting things right. Again my apologies.
Maurice.