My current project involves taking action pix of (among other things) tennis. I've got a few good ones, and had marked this for deletion but had a second thought: Although it breaks all the "rules", does it perhaps tell a story - was it me who missed the shot (though for this project the background detail is important too) or the player?
(http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10222/normal_KS2_3491Rs__tennis.jpg) (http://cameracraniums.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=20660&fullsize=1)
So should I bin it or display it with pride?
If I'm honest as a shot it doesn't work for me (Baring in mind I am not an "artist" and don't particularly like Ansel Adams work to give you some background!)
A couple of reasons.
Breaking the rules is fine but in general at least one rule is needed (IMHO). The lady is not in focus, is moving out of the frame and is not on one of the thirds.
I don't see it as moving out of the frame so much as providing a balancing line to act as a counterweight to the diagonal white line of the tennis court running across the bottom of the frame.
Additionally, I like the shadows at the feet which create the illusion (to me) of a bicycle (player must move faster and needs help...).
What doesn't work for me (and if mine, I'd clone it out) is the green stick attached to the player and projecting vertically up as if ready to lift the player off court.
The other player in the green shorts/skirt partially obscured is also a distraction.
N.B. The "rules" are a bit of a hobby horse with me, as they are invariably rationalisations after the fact, to explain why some compositions work. They rest on the psychology of seeing, which is far more basic.
I haven't answered your question, as it depends more on your intent than my appreciation (or otherwise) based on the image in isolation. With the two points I raised cleared up, I'd be happy with it as an individual image. Whether it fits into your scheme is another matter. I'd display it though.
Thanks guys. Two different views there. I've still not made up my mind so I'll leave it in for the professional artist (painter) who is in charge of the project to decide.
(Stephen - The "green stick" is supporting one of the floodlights so as it's really a record shot I'd better not remove it, though as a picture I do agree with all your comments).
Simon
Interesting views - I don't agree, but that is what this is all about. Well, I agree about the distractions, they should be removed, but if you want to talk about lines, they are not leading anywhere other than out of the frame.
If there was a bit more space to the ladies right, then it might improve, but for me, it should stay in the delete pile.
No it doesn`t work for me either. Given that it is a tennis match I`d expect to see the ball, the rackets and the prime player in focus and featuring strobly. For me none of the lines / positioning really works and it would be in my delete pile. Then again that`s just how I see the subject
Should a photograph conform to the viewer's expectations, or is it permissible to make them stop and think about their expectations and whether it's reasonable to see only one way of photographing something?
Back in 1965 I read a book by Aaron Sussman which contained an anecdote about an exhibition he'd attended and saw a really, really boring photo. As he was about to move on from this failure, he was arrested by the thought "what if that was exactly what the photographer intended - to depict boredom" (or whatever)? It's a lesson that has remained with me - if a photograph is an obvious failure, perhaps the only failure is my perception. It may be that the initial response is correct; but it's always worth exploring the alternatives to our being correct...
My thought is that if I have to have a label to say what something is, then it is a failure. If I can't work out what it is then it is a failure. There should be something (in the picture in this case) that tells you something, a story if you like.
But I can certainly appreciate that others have differing views.
So if you can't identify the objectphotograph, then the photograph is a failure? How easy is it to work out what Ansel Adams' Frozen Lake and Cliff or Edward Weston's Shell 1S (1927) is a photograph of?
Presumably Piet Mondrian was a failure as an artist?
Does a photograph have to say something - can't it just invoke an emotion without words?
An image can be ambiguous - most are, in fact. If it's important to the photographer to make his meaning clear, a title or description may be necessary.
OK, my views are diametrically opposite to yours.
Quote from: StephenBatey on May 09, 2017, 10:34:45 PM
So if you can't identify the objectphotograph, then the photograph is a failure? How easy is it to work out what Ansel Adams' Frozen Lake and Cliff or Edward Weston's Shell 1S (1927) is a photograph of?
Presumably Piet Mondrian was a failure as an artist?
Does a photograph have to say something - can't it just invoke an emotion without words?
An image can be ambiguous - most are, in fact. If it's important to the photographer to make his meaning clear, a title or description may be necessary.
OK, my views are diametrically opposite to yours.
As I previously said my perception are what i thought - which is all we can give. That said we all make assumptions about what we see. It is not hard to see what Adams is showing in the froze lake and Cliff, though for me that is one of his poorer efforts amongst a load of outstanding work and Weston`s Shell shots are fine studies that neither wow nor interest me. Mondrian was using line, form and colour to create striking art that I can appreciate many other artists / photographers do the same but we can not apply such thought / meaning to all shots. I perceive this shot to be a missed action shot and thus a fail. The fact that the photographer confirms this and asks a view compounds that aspect of the image to me and though i look for a definable means of meriting a *keep* by seeing something else in the image I cannot overcome that initial thought which i`d have had even without the photographer`s admission as I have taken many action shots and recognise a "miss " when I see one. If the photographer has a differing opinion or view about some aspect of the shot that makes it important to them then they keep it but I still have my view. I have shots of my new granddaughter that in days gone by would not have been kept for being slightly out of focus, too noisy etc and if I put them on here others would flag those issues up. I kept some because of that fleeting smile captured or some emotion within me it signified. I keep them because I want to and in this case the photographer should do the same if he wishes but put them out there for comment and the views would be different.
Quote from: StephenBatey on May 09, 2017, 10:34:45 PM
So if you can't identify the objectphotograph, then the photograph is a failure? How easy is it to work out what Ansel Adams' Frozen Lake and Cliff or Edward Weston's Shell 1S (1927) is a photograph of?
Presumably Piet Mondrian was a failure as an artist?
Does a photograph have to say something - can't it just invoke an emotion without words?
An image can be ambiguous - most are, in fact. If it's important to the photographer to make his meaning clear, a title or description may be necessary.
OK, my views are diametrically opposite to yours.
I've already said I'm not a big fan of Ansel Adams - actually I don't follow any photographers as such. I like what I like. As for names, they are just that. I have no idea who Mondrian or Weston are. Sorry.
If a photograph invokes an emotion, then it it has achieved something.
To be fair, I do sometimes give my photographs a title - more to avoid it being called 1Dx6394.jpg or whatever, but yes sometimes to give it an anchor in what it is.
Yes we have differing views, which is totally fine by me. :)
I've just googled Piet Mondrian - does absolutely nothing for me. So, I would say a failure. :)
For what it's worth, someone once posted on the (now defunct) PhotoAnswers forum that they only knew the names of two photographers - and were proud of the fact, it seems. I've come to the view over the years that a knowledge of how photography got to where it is - the movements, the people, the approaches and the dead ends - not only improves my understanding of photography in general but serves as a source of ideas.
The biggest influence on my photography was a book on art history :). But to take this further would open up a massive topic.
I'm not primarily a sports photographer, and I looked at the image as an image, on which terms except for the two points I noted it did actually work. The angle of the body and the court boundary marker line making the "V" was the major plus point to me.
Yes Stephen, I think I mentioned that for this shot the background was important too. The artist in charge wants to keep the shot because the left side "leading line" of the court boundary which might have taken you out of the frame actually takes you to the door of the clubhouse.
(This certainly provoked some discussion, which was really my intention in posting it, and I've found it very useful).
Simon
Via a Facebook link, came across this article. https://petapixel.com/2016/05/31/opinion-disturbing-trend-photography/
Makes interesting reading and much in line with my views I think.