Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 12, 2008, 11:59 AM   #41
Senior Member
RodneyBlair's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966

While there are many styles of lighting and rules to achieve a particular style, the basic rules cannot be broken. The human eye is attracted to contrast and there is simply no way to change that. So, this means that the human eye will first be attracted to the area where the most contrast exists. We do not think about this because it is automatic and when asked, most people cannot even point out an area of high contrast when nearby areas are similar. This is where a photographer must learn to interpret what he is seeing and what path the eyes are taking. I am always met with opposition on this forum when I bring this up, because few if any have "trained their eyes" to recognize what their eyes are focusing on. I'll hear countless people say, his eyes stand out to me. The original image here everyones eyes will follow the same path. Sure they can force their eyes to his eyes, but it doesn't happen naturally.

Whether we are shooting a flower or a person, there will(should be) a center of interest (COI). In a low key scene(dark elements) the COI should be the brightest(most contrast) element in that scene. I really doesn't matter what Jane or John Doe likes or dislikes because the eye will always see the area of most contrast first and then will look around for other interesting elements, but will always be drawn back to the area of highest contrast. In the original post here, the area of highest contrast is the hand then the ear. The front of his face is just a supporting element to the eyes. It doesn't matter what we tell our brains we are seeing or what we want to focus on. Now, if the original poster wants the hand to be the COI then he has succeeded.

Because it is a candid shot is not an excuse to avoid getting the most effective picture that we can. Far too often we just use that as a crutch. Why the heck do we decide to sometimes use fill flash? It seems to me that is some forward thinking. Aladyforty posted some images of children and called the shots candids, but it looks like some prior planning was put into the shots.

It makes no difference to me...either the poster here wants to achieve more effective results or continue taking shots as he has here. My comments about lighting are not an opinion or preference. Ask any expert photographer you most admire and he/she will tell you the same.

Best regards,
Rodney Blair
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 5:08 PM   #42
Senior Member
bahadir's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Izmir, Turkey
Posts: 6,263

Regarding Tom's sentences about the rules; that's what I often speak of in many cases. After all, when it comes toviolating some rules, you must know what you're violating, if that's necessary! I say necessary since violation of a rule doesn't occur as a reason for itself but a consequence as Picassoput it'When we discovered Cubism, we did not have the aim of discovering Cubism. We only wanted to express what was in us.' That occurs inevitably when there arises a crisis in art in terms of recession when the ''masters'' haveexploited everything leaving others mere repetition. Our everyday experience, however, doesn't involve such a concern, of course.Especially the ones who are fortunate enough to make money out of an arthave to take thingsfrom the most practicalside! Perhaps that's why I am hearing the same song 'darken thehand,sincebrighthand distracts' over and over again reminding me a phrase in my native language: ' The rabbit hasten songs, nine of which are all about carrot'! What makes the things worst is that though I wrote replies in this thread all point to the subjectwith references toartist names, anectodes and techniques, containing no bashing, vulgar expressions, slang, etc, I read almost nothingrelevant! I wish I had heard something like the tecnique of chiaroscuro to be subtly applied here rather than commiting the crime of directly burning the hand like rock or wood! Anyway, if it were a sculpture, Bynx wouldattempt to smash the hand with a hammer like Rodin!! Coming back to the rules, which are bolts and nots to attain the composition, without which every effort would look aimless, boring and haphazard; again, we should not forget that everthing can be altered for a single reason...

bahadir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 12, 2008, 8:18 PM   #43
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6

There is a considerable amount of sense in what you say Bahadir. To limit ones perspective to a single line of reasoning whether it is an accepted "rule" or not, is as distinct as comparing an open mind to one slammed shut and closed to variable thinking. Any knowledgeable person will agree that many of todays laws in science were heresy at one time or another and our world became more sophisticated as known laws were rewritten or expanded. It is that line of thinking that can be applied to photography as well, for truly each capture is indeed unique. How can one rigid set of rules apply to such a diverse spectrum?
Lawquepicker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 13, 2008, 12:06 AM   #44
Senior Member
Bynx's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,748

Clearly put lawquepicker. Thank you.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:10 AM.