H2OJunkie wrote:
gnarly1 wrote:
The biggest sin in photography is not being decisive. Not close enough, too much in the photo, too many elements, lacking compositional dominance and subordination. In a photograph one element should dominate, by color, size, position, focus, placement in the frame, etc. See if you can find that in work you see, and try to do it yourself. Take a look at some of mine to see what I mean. I have been using basically the same approach for decades.
The biggest sin in photography is rules made that don't need to be made. The great thing about digital photography is you can experiment at minimal cost. The only loss is time. By being stuck in reviewing and emulating what others are doing you will forever be doomed to be a follower. Although you can use others work as a guideline, emulating will only result in copy cat work. Techniques change with time. Do you change with it or stick to the "...same approach for decades"? Find your edge. That will take you to the next level.
'Not being indecisive' is not a 'rule'. Why do you think that's what I meant? I don't follow simple-minded 'rules' or suggest that others do. It's much more sophisticated than a 'rule': there is within me a set of 'instructions' or guidelines or patterns that I refer to
unconsciously. If you play golf or tennis or any sport you know what I mean.
I see a lot of work by beginners (and even some pros) that lacks
organization or
structure. Too much 'content', no stress. No hierarchy. No organizing principle. No center of interest. 'Busy'. Tentative. Compositionally
indecisive.
There's nothing 'wrong' with them, they're just not
strong photographs with 'eye appeal'.
You tend to see this a lot with beginners, but it is especially disconcerting to see it among the large-format view-camera B&W crowd who are so fond of vistas. It's easy for such photos to lack a clear organizational principle. Just because a valley or tree or white church is 'charming' doesn't make your photo a good one.
When I mentioned that I have used the same approach for decades, I meant that I matured early and have stuck with basically the same approach ever since: tight compositions, clear organization, decisiveness, etc. Anyone who gets good at anything goes through the same process, whether it's playing the piano, tennis, or writing novels. Once you establish your style, your technique, your method, you basically just refine it. If you look through my photos you'll see that. The rugby photos are less than 5 years old and yet they could have been taken 30 years ago. Rugby hasn't changed, so why should one's approach to it change? Once you understand the game and what are the better possibilities for photographs, you concentrate your efforts on those things. There are only so many chances for photos in a sport of that kind, played on a large field.
You need a big lens and patience and a knowledge of the game. The beginner who hasn't learned what's what will waste a lot of film on things that have little potential. That's how you learn. But I did that already.
Rugby is one of the hardest sports to photograph, because the ball is being tossed around so much. A scrum is a good chance for a clear shot because a number of players are crowded together and locked together. One of the halfbacks is going to get the ball and pitch it away from the scrum. If the halfback on the
other side gets the ball, I don't have a clear shot. If the one on
my side of the scrum gets the ball, I have a chance to get a nice shot, as happened here. So, I focus on him and hope that he gets the ball.
I don't approach a subject like a beginner anymore. I know
in general what works and what doesn't. I try to work with the situation so that the sun gives a good cross-light whenever I can, but you have no control over the weather.
I have had the same equipment for a long time; the significance of that is that I have gotten to know it like the back of my hand. I don't have to think about what I am doing. My equipment is also sort of 'hard-wired' into my subconsciousness. When I have a given lens in my hand, certain responses follow.
In the image included with this post, there is
dynamic tension brought about by the composition. The activity on the left side of the photo (the halfback pitching the ball away, the frustration of the opponents behind him showing on their faces) contrasts with the pushing and showing going on diagonally opposite, on the right. This creates a nice contrast and simultaneously a kind of balance. One can draw an imaginary line from the ball and extended arms of the halfback in the lower left to the faces and arms in the upper right. At the same time the right leg and body of the halfback begin another diagonal pattern near the right bottom, which continues toward the upper left, with the bodies of the men who are standing leaning to the left. The two diagonals are basically at right angles to one another, and this is what I mean by 'dynamic tension' referred to above. Diagonal arrangements of compositional elements create visual interest (though there are many other ways to create visual interest, even for the viewer who neither knows nor cares about the subject matter).
Now of course I didn't
plan this, it just sort of 'happens' in certain situations. The key is to be able to see it when it does happen.
Anyway, I hope this answers your question.
