Re: Art vs Composition vs Content vs Technique

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert Coe, Dec 5, 2012.

  1. Robert Coe

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:53:40 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : There have been recent discussions along the line of 'photographers
    : who concentrate on technique never produce a photograph worth a damn'.
    : The argument has almost been pushed as far as saying that 'good
    : photography is inherently flawed'. These arguments have been received
    : with the scorn they have deserved.
    :
    : The discussion wandered along from there and composition got a brief
    : mention but mainly along the line of the 'rule of thirds'.
    :
    : Something which nobody has mentioned up to now is the content of the
    : photograph. I think an important aspect of a good photograph is it's
    : content. Photographs should have subjects which are of interest
    : themselves. The photograph should be well composed, the technique
    : should be faultless (yeah, right) and the general standard of the
    : presentation should be a work of art. But can you do this if there is
    : no subject of interest? I don't really think so.
    :
    : I would go so far as to say that the content may help make up for
    : defects in the composition and the photographer's technique.
    :
    : What started me thinking along these lines was my encounter with
    : http://imgsrc.ru/andrew_r/30460732.html#bp The composition isn't
    : perfect and the image is technically lacking in a number of minor
    : respects but I find it's an image I keep coming back to, even to the
    : point of making it the subject of a new thread. :)
    :
    : Just look at the air holding up those steps!

    What is the vantage point from which the picture was taken? An adjoining
    tower? A nearby building? It's doubtful that a plane or helicopter would be
    allowed to get that close.

    I assume that almost everyone reading the newsgroup has a sufficient command
    of the Cyrillic alphabet to appreciate that the venue is (apparently) Milan.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Dec 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert Coe

    Rob Guest

    On 5/12/2012 2:25 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
    > On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:53:40 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    > wrote:
    > : There have been recent discussions along the line of 'photographers
    > : who concentrate on technique never produce a photograph worth a damn'.
    > : The argument has almost been pushed as far as saying that 'good
    > : photography is inherently flawed'. These arguments have been received
    > : with the scorn they have deserved.
    > :
    > : The discussion wandered along from there and composition got a brief
    > : mention but mainly along the line of the 'rule of thirds'.
    > :
    > : Something which nobody has mentioned up to now is the content of the
    > : photograph. I think an important aspect of a good photograph is it's
    > : content. Photographs should have subjects which are of interest
    > : themselves. The photograph should be well composed, the technique
    > : should be faultless (yeah, right) and the general standard of the
    > : presentation should be a work of art. But can you do this if there is
    > : no subject of interest? I don't really think so.
    > :
    > : I would go so far as to say that the content may help make up for
    > : defects in the composition and the photographer's technique.
    > :
    > : What started me thinking along these lines was my encounter with
    > : http://imgsrc.ru/andrew_r/30460732.html#bp The composition isn't
    > : perfect and the image is technically lacking in a number of minor
    > : respects but I find it's an image I keep coming back to, even to the
    > : point of making it the subject of a new thread. :)
    > :
    > : Just look at the air holding up those steps!
    >
    > What is the vantage point from which the picture was taken? An adjoining
    > tower? A nearby building? It's doubtful that a plane or helicopter would be
    > allowed to get that close.
    >
    > I assume that almost everyone reading the newsgroup has a sufficient command
    > of the Cyrillic alphabet to appreciate that the venue is (apparently) Milan.
    >
    > Bob
    >



    that's easy see ...741 as to where it was taken from.

    As mentioned this does intrigue me, almost to say it could be a
    reflection on glass windows. It certainly draws you in.
    Rob, Dec 5, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. arcade
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
    arcade
    Nov 30, 2006
  2. arcade
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    597
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 30, 2006
  3. Andrew Mowat
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    555
    Andrew Mowat
    Sep 14, 2004
  4. Anthony Polson

    Re: Art vs Composition vs Content vs Technique

    Anthony Polson, Dec 5, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    411
    Whisky-dave
    Dec 14, 2012
  5. Chris Malcolm

    Re: Art vs Composition vs Content vs Technique

    Chris Malcolm, Dec 17, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    204
    Chris Malcolm
    Dec 17, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page