Shutterbug Strasse

A photographer's haven for the lastest in digital or traditional film cameras.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

What great masters?

Posted by Practical Pete on May 21, 2004 at 07:18:49:
You mean painters? Yeah, that's real applicable to photographs. Look very carefully at DaVinci's "Last Supper" some time. How many vanishing points does it have? How do you do THAT with a photograph where the vanishing point is geometrically generated from the optical center of the lens? Oh, and check out the distorted perspective. How do you do that with a photograph.
See that's the problem. These western rules of composition were developed over a period of time by painters who used all sorts of compositional "tricks" (forced perspective, multiple perspectives, multiple vanishing points, etc.) to generate the final image. Photography (as a single exposure image) doesn't have all that latitude to force a composition to work. So while your admiring the "triangular compositions" within the "Last Supper" that "make it work," you're missing the other more subtle compositional elements used within the image that reinforce the main compositional rule elements that you can identify.
Then if you study something like Chinese art history, you'll find out that their "rules of composition" are totally different than western (European) rules of composition. So, now just which rules are we to follow?
"The more you become familar with the cpompositional guides (not rules, ok) handed down from the Great Masters of the past through out Art history. The more successful your creation becomes. This may ensure your hard work, will be admired by more viewers."
Oh, give me a break. You don't really believe that do you? You mean, let's make rule bound photos because that's what the majority of people can relate to? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun and a sure-fire road to interesting photos.
Sorry, can't buy into that one. There are only two types of photographs: the interesting kind and the boring kind. Slavish adherance to rules WON'T move a boring photo in the interesting category just because it follows a rule of composition. It will still be a boring photo composed according to a rule of composition.
Also, don't have the faintest idead what your attempted "children / adult" metaphor has to do with photographs.