* Wednesday C&C "No Theme" Thread #862 / Revived #082 on 2024 10 23 *

This is an interesting conversation. It really doesn't matter whether you were thinking about any of these things or not. It doesn't matter whether you'd never picked up a camera before or never read a book on composition or visual fluency. Mike explained what is in that picture of the gull. I saw the same things.

In practicing this craft over time, we may develop certain instincts that help us react to and capture good designs without consciously considering those things. Some of us come into photography with art-related training that gave us a strong foundation for this. Maybe some of us are born with a better sense of visual design than others. But regardless of whether we consciously consider design, or subsconciously react to it, or accidentally stumble on it, a good design is still there, and can be recognized by others.

That is all well and good but it wasn't a designed composition. It was a snapshot.

Even I can apply visual lines to an image after the fact to support whatever view I have of it.

That doesn't mean any visual lines I apply to an image must also be applicable or valid to everyone else. They might or might not be.

The lines and shapes Mike mentioned can very realistically not be applicable or have any meaning to many people.

For Mike, you and probably some other people they do.

As Minniev has said, it's an interesting conversation.
I'm responding to what I see in the image and I'm explaining what there is in the image that supports the interpretation. I accept that it might have been a snapshot but that doesn't negate the factors that exist in the image. As I have said elsewhere, by some definitions, Cartier Bresson was a snapshooter. As I understand it, he had no involvement in the processing/printing of his images and that, it could be argued, makes him a snapshooter. I don't regard "snapshooting" as a derogatory term. It then becomes a question of how often the shooter gets lucky. It doesn't matter, what is in the image, it is in the image.
I think we are talking about something else here and it is something that is important to forum discussions in general. I reckon that what is being talked about is previous experience in art. Images are images and they can be looked at as part of a photographic process or as images or as both. In C&C the emphasis is more on the image than the photographic process. "More" but not exclusively. There is an extensive history, multi hundreds of years, of discussion about art and how images are perceived. I suggest that photographers who are familiar with art will respond to photographic images through the lens of that experience.
I also suggest (and I know that many already do it and that it's important in most professional photography courses) should spend some serious time exploring art and art discussion. I'd suggest it can improve everyone's photos and more importantly, the enjoyment they get from looking at photos.
An example. Recent discussions on dprevived about "reality" in images. It's a topic that has been examined intensively over a hundred years ago in the art world. It's a discussion about images and perception and just as relevant to photography.

That's pretty much the same as what you posted earlier but much more verbose and again I thank you for your thoughts.

I just call things as I see them.

Thank you Chris.

Depends on how you define abstract in art or photography.

An abstract image should not have any connection to any object in the real world.

Given lhphoto titled the image "Lighthouse" I doubt he intended it to be abstract, especially since the lighthouse and cranes are clearly identifiable objects.

You always recommend what I should remove or replace in a photo.
Why didn't you come up with this simple idea:

Excellent photo...
Makes me wish I could have been there with you.

Go back and read the thread if you are genuinely interested because that suggestion was already put forward by someone else and answered 😀

Thanks Dan, Roel, Chris and minniev.
When I took the shot I was very aware of manga. The district is full of shops with all the gear. I didn’t see the critter as benign or caught in a web. It looked like one of the techno monsters created accidentally, or by the inevitable mad scientist. Naturally, it has been unleashed to destroy the world. Again. You know the story. Probably it feeds off our power lines. I noted the stinger at the back.
I was trying to get something of the above into the image and so I tried to get ”the city” and “tech” in the image. I wanted all the power lines and electrical supply thingies in the shot.
Was what I wanted coming across? I didn’t know so I cheated somewhat with prompts in the text and by leaving it for anyone to try edits to see what they made of it.
Dan’s edits prodded me in a direction I should have seen first up. Rather than correct the perspectives, I should have gone further down the graphic novel track.IMNHO, this latest version is better than the original post.

A line of inverted Vs from side to side (including the on end boat) hold the image together. The glowing orange of the peeling paint wall gives a focal point but it isn't the subject. The scene radiates out from here. Just enough cloud in the sky to break up the blue and complement the snowy peaks.
Peaks, grasses, weathered timber and a lake. There's a spot almost exactly opposite on the other side of the globe with a much photographed old boat shed. The places feel similar. Cradle Mountain in Tasmania.

Agreed Chris. And I like the parallel white lines from foreground to background and the echo of them in the white lines of the flags.
Looking at it again I further picked up on the white refeletion on the top of the closest ballard. It's almost not noticed but very important. It lifts the bollard from being a featureless black shape but more importantly picks up the white lines to the left and the flags at the rear. It unifies the elements of the photo into a harmonious whole.

I prefer the original version as well. It makes more of the parallel white lines and these fit well with the portrait mode. Number one also includes the chalk markings on the pavement which gives extra character to the location.

OK. Nice to see some harmony between the cultures.

Surely it is the juxtaposition of the cranes and the lighthouse that's the point of the image? The lighthouse is a stone structure from a different era. It shares an elongated cylindrical shape with the modern structures. The crown like splaying out of the cranes frames the lighthouse in an unexpected way. The rich dark red of the lighthouse easily helps it emerge from the gantries.
Further, I like the balance provided by the dark band across the sky at the top to the base structure.

Hmmmmm.......I assume then that you decide what the photo should be from the words, not the image itself?

I have a lovely photo of a sunset that I was going to post, but I made the classic error of puttijng the subject in the background. Oh well...

Putting a subject in the background might be ok if it isn't obscured by the foreground.

Another shot where I'm saying much the same as Chris. Size, colour, stance. The exotic and the everyday.
Another "Well seen."

Try to look at it this way:
We see a photo of a woman's face behind a veil.
Is the woman the subject, or the veil?
Could be either, I guess.

Agree.
Like a photo of two supermodels taking a nap on a bench between lots of housewives chattering and going about their daily business.
(With all due respect to housewives, of course. Just making an analogy.)

It depends on the nature of the veil and whether it is physically on the woman or separate from the woman and some distance in front of her.

Lhphoto titled his image "Lighthouse", making it the subject, according to my interpretation of his post hence my question asking why is the lighthouse in the background.

Well, from the title one can suppose that Lou wanted the viewer to look at the lighthouse (permanent) through the "veil" of nautical ship cranes (temporary).

I don't know his intention and the cranes are a distraction and detract from the image for me, as I posted.

Maybe if the "veil" had been something more interesting then it might have had a different impact on me.

I am visualising the scene at night with light from the lighthouse passing through the cranes to some extent. I suspect that could be a more interesting veil.