CSand Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia

Hit reply rather than quote reply. Really like your work James R.

blackest Loc: Ireland

I thought I could Google the answer, I couldn't but this from Ansel Adams WebSite makes interesting reading.

------
From Alan Ross, Ansel’s technical assistant from 1974 to 1979.
He [Ansel] was acutely aware of his surroundings and how different scenes would likely look their best in different seasons or at different times of day, and he would often PLAN to be in the right place at the right time. Luck, of course, offers up many magic moments and Ansel dealt with these through his conviction that “chance favors the prepared mind!” Consequently he had PLANS for how he would handle a stroke of luck—both visually and technically.

A good case in point is the famed “Moonrise” event, which popularly paints a picture of Ansel careening down a road in New Mexico and suddenly coming across a mystical scene. The car screeches to a halt in a cloud of dust and flying pieces of photo equipment and with only seconds to spare, the Image is made. Well, I think the second part of the story is likely pretty close to the reality, but the “sudden discovery” part has been dramatized somewhat over the years. Having driven what is now Highway 84/285 southward along the Chama River valley many times, it is obvious that Ansel couldn’t have missed seeing the early moon rising through the clouds above the distant Sangre de Cristo mountains, perhaps from as far north as Abiquiu, and watched it for miles and miles before he came around the bend into Hernandez. He most certainly saw the potential of these elements as part of something greater and had to have been evaluating every feature on the east side of the road as he drove along for its possibility as THE winning foreground which would put all the elements together. Knowing Ansel’s fondness for cemeteries as subject matter, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he remembered that there was a nice little one near a church just around the next corner, and that maybe THAT would work.

-----

So that doesn't seem to be about a subject but a composition.

Does that give a filter?

subject

composition

Subject and Composition

Snapshot ~ no clear subject or order to the image.

jsharp Loc: Ballwin MO.

I take many photos just to record a place I have visited at a time, Not because I think the subject great but I want to record my/our trip ect. To provide memories not entries for a contest or a means to make extra money.

revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson

Exactly my point

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

What Adams noticed was the light on the cemetery particularly the crosses. He didn't make a second exposure because the light had left the crosses.

A couple of years ago I had the fortunate opportunity to study with Alan Ross for four days. I got to see several original Adams prints and a negative because Alan still prints the Yosemite edition photographs in his darkroom in Santa Fe. After I left Santa Fe, I traveled around northern New Mexico. Alan told me the exact spot where Adams took Moonrise Over Hernandez. It has changed quite a bit. The church has changed and is harder to see from the road. The funny thing is that it was middle afternoon and the moon was visible but was of course much higher in the sky.

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

These are some spectacular images. Excellent work, amfoto1.

Photocraig

Hi Gene,
I was thinking the same thing. With an abstract or a texture study like the famous waves on the beach by Ansel Adams and others, or Edward Weston's veggies, some of which look absolutely sensual, the subject becomes more of a focal point that draws the viewer's vision to a location or feature. That location could explores/examine, for examples, shape and form, the light/dark. light/bright. texture in the light, fields of flowers or tight arrangements of flowers. But an abstract (painted, drawn, sculpted or photographed) that just strives to be a scene or 'presentation of vision" without a quality graphical element to me, fails as an image, no matter the quality of the workmanship. To be a successful image, it needs to include a quality (avoiding strong or weak here) graphic representation. It MUST include, for example, a focal point or subject. It must use graphic elements such a lines, shapes, pairs/triplets/etc., contrast, texture, balance, asymmetry, color and complementary framing, just to suggest a few.

Out on a limb here, Gene, but conceptually, Sharpie's Great Wall image could actually be viewed as an abstract by someone who didn't recognize it as an iconic subject, but just a representation of a very long and large scale line element spanning the entire vertical of the image. While a difficult case to defend for long, I use it to illustrate that even without it being a Wonder of the World, it is a fascinating almost abstract line study with excellent texture surrounding it. And it is a pleasing balanced image. Thus yielding a successful image that happens, also, to be a wonderfully executed photograph.

It gives us something to create when we're short of attractive models, the flowers aren't in bloom and the snow is already shoveled--or messed up. Or more likely, when the sun is overhead creating all that harshness.

Another thought, that pertains to all graphic representations and relates to the story idea is: The subject (or focal point) is (hopefully) clear. The story part can be (as opposed to documenting a man sawing wood), WHY the artist chose to represent it in a "work." And, what specifically was it about the subject or form/focal point that the artist found to be interesting enough to make an image of it? Was it discernible or was it an engaging enigma? And, with a stretch, WHY the artist thought somebody else might be interested in seeing it, too? Going even further, whyy did THIS artist choose to represent THIS image in THIS medium? Or what made say, a sculptor, choose this object as the subject of a sculpture.

Many mature objects for example the Eiffel Tower, have have been the subject of many works across all media, especially including abstracts.

I'm really glad you brought it up, Gene. I've got something to think about today! Thanks!

C

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This one's for you:

http://seeingfresh.com/

G_Manos Loc: Bala Cynwyd, PA

Terrific link. Right on point.

canon Lee

Hi and thank you for the topic... I am an artist as well as a commercial photographer.. Composition is most important. There should be only one FOCAL POINT of interest. Backgrounds enhance the subject without distracting. A piece of artwork including photos, tells a story. If there is no story or provoking ideas then the composition has failed.. I use in my photography shallow DOF. I also like to create in the composition an air of mystery... This allows the viewer to compose the meaning that is in their imagination... The use of fog or perspective is another interesting addition to the photo. When I am creating a composition to paint on canvas, I take lots of photos and use Photoshop for added effects. The warping enhances the flow of sound.. The shadows in the second piece adds mystery...

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I agree so much with Wanda. From what I see, according to what my photo club has studied a tiny bit of lately, your first photo does have 2 subjects, but it does have dark against light/light against dark, has something RED, other colors are nice, has texture, sharpness, movement and space...most of the elements that make it a photo as instead of a snapshot or a picture.

Second photo has leading lines, texture, color, light against dark/dark against light, sharpness and good composition, the last element being JMHO, because I am neither a photographer nor a qualified critic.

As I see it, again JMHO, the last photo has color, sharpness, lots of texture, nice composition, RED, which I will forever wonder why red is something that someone along the way thought photos NEED... light against dark/dark against light and it leads..."somewhere". The somewhere is what creates a little mystery, as in "the bear goes over the mountain"...and why. (Some here will be too young to know about the bear)

I have no idea why I felt the urge to give my HO, but I saw them, they are all very nice and each has more than 3 nice elements, sooooo, I just wanted to!

At this point, I should add that the only way I could ever know for sure if I am right or wrong would be to try to SELL some photos. That would tell me how much or how little I have learned. If they never sold, I'd just stick to painting pictures. They do sell and even have made magazines, including the cover of one in Australia...shouldn't that tell me something??? LOL.

tmlakshmi

beautiful composition

aldurtschi

I know nothing hardly about composition so maybe I should keep my mouth shut but I personally see a possibility for multiple subjects in #3. In one book I recently read, it stated that a good picture keeps a person's attention for a longer time. One could even hang around for a spell just figuring what the subject is for them. #3's little red flowers jump right off the picture for me. Then I discover the rest of the image. #2 grabbed my attention for a spell but not longer than #3. Linda, your Mt Ranier is captivating to me. Amazing pic. The darkness of the forest, the foreboding cloud in the center then the light of the mountain makes me feel like Goodness Will Triumph in the end. Isn't it spectacular when we happen on a sight such as this and have our camera? But then, perhaps you sat there for hours or even days to get this.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Boy, I have a little catching up to do here! LoL
Here is what im starting to get out of this so far. There IS a pattern starting to develope.
A strong subject is easy to see and we are fast to attach ourselves to it. That's the graphic portion of an image.
What seems a much harder to define notion is when those single strong elements are not as graphic, as in a subtle landscape.
It seems that in a subtle landscape, the strength is much more intrinsic. It has to be there but it's just not as obvious to define.
If our work was hanging in a gallery, we cannot depend on a narrative to draw in the casual viewer. Our work hanging in a gallery is like a fish hook hanging on a wall and we depend on the strength of the composition to hook someone and stop them dead in their tracks and then examine our work more closely.
SOOO, if we were to teach a friend to become a better landscape photographer, what would we tell them?
We can't just tell them to FEEL THE ESSANCE OF THE SCENE!! LoL
We need to give them much more tangible advice.
Do we tell them to look for interesting light?
Do we tell them to look for sharp contrast in color and tell them that red is the most powerful primary color and to just shoot anything with red in it?
Or do we tell them about texture an how it plays into shapes both organic(like leaves) and inorganic(rocks, dirt, sand) and how they interplay to one another?
Abstracts may not have an actual identifiable subjects but often have very graphic colors and shapes to draw our interest.
How often are we getting short on time in a gallery and we are walking quickly past many works when suddenly we screech to a halt and are mesmerized by a particular work. What stopped us?? Is that not the characteristic we'd like in our own work?
If we had to instruct that friend in the art of making stronger landscape images, what would we tell them?
We often read here, " I've been aske to teach a class, or a person....., photography". WHAT are we gonna teach them? Only what an f-stop is and the rule of thirds? They can get THAT out of any book, they don't need us. What they really need is someone to teach them what is a GREAT landscape image and how to make one! What would we tell them?
Can it be taught, or only stumbled upon individually by trial and error by each of us?
What would Ansel, or Sherman or Weston have told them?
Can we help a photographer to become better when the subject is not so in your face, such as is the case in a more subtle but beautiful landscape?
Isn't it just like a giant still-life???
Can it be articulated into words? What words?
SS

cameranut Loc: North Carolina

You probably won't get around to reading this since there are so many responses before mine. For someone who is not and may never be able to travel to beautiful, wide open spaces, as in you third photo, any place without power lines and double wide homes, and people IS a subject well worth viewing. I can only sit back and envy those who can visit such natural beauty. What is ho hum to some might be a gorgeous subject to another.