I have come across a very interesting article written by Neil Turner about the job perpect for photography student. The article can be viewed in this link:
http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/989/what-price-your-dream
Anyway, time has changed. In the past there are only few people going into university. If you have the talent and effort to get it, the chance is you will be standing above the crowd in getting a job. Now anyone can get into university, get a degree, and they expect the same thing. I wonder if somebody bother to explain to young people that while university is a good life experience, they have better chance to get into debt than getting a job? It is great that young people want to spend three years for something they fascinated about, but does that worth getting £30k debt with no job perspective? What is the point of higher education for students from poorer background if all it only gets you overdraft and headache further down the line? In that perspective, isn't getting higher education the same doing drugs? It does give you pleasure for a moment then trouble later on.
It is true that I did this course as a hobby, but I have never forgot about my fellow students who hope/dream/wish they can one day go into this field as a professional. It is funny to note that layman/women called me and my fellow students a "professional photographer" because I have a DSLR and a telezoom, while all of them expect this "professional" works for free. So by the word "professional", it is actually volunteer. As always, I am spoiled and totally uninterested in behave professionally given that I don't think I want to be a pro. In fact, I feel insulted to be called a pro, given what those people are expecting from me.
In reality, I really don't have to photograph anyone or anything I don't like, regardless you pay me or not. This is totally unprofessional, but I am not a professional photographer from start to finish. I am not sure if one compensate their artistic vision by accepting money. One cannot survive in this world without money, but will your work skew toward how to please a client, instead of something that truly inspired?
Anyway, there is a quote from an article I have seen somewhere. I think I will use it as a yard stick for my work going future.
"Either your work is good enough to command a proper fee, or it’s not worth publishing."
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Monday, 27 February 2012
Comment: Essay from Linde Waidhofer: On The Color Landscape
As I am looking around for ideas for photographing colour, I come across an essay written by an American photographer Linde Waidhofer. The link of the essay is here:
http://www.westerneye.com/writing/essay3_color_landscape.html
Only recently, it occurs to me that it is difficult to look at colour. I am not colour blind or that sort, but when I pick up the camera, colour was never my subject. My subjects can be movement, shapes, lines, or family members/friends, but colour was never the main subject. When my assignment is asking for a particular combination of colour, I suddenly find it difficult to look at the world that way.
Living in the city of London, and with the gloomy British weather, most of the things are in grey colour (sky, road, modern building). There are orange/red bricks houses and tiles on the suburban side. There are green grass. However, as I walk in the city centre, grey is still dominate my slight. Colour exists. How to make them stand out is one issue. How to look at the world so that colour comes first while I am not dismissing the details of design is another issue.
I was looking at several photograph galleries and I was surprised to find that people are photographing in black and white (or, convert photograph in black and white in post process). Maybe I can say to any of the pictures I have taken, that if the colour is not dominating the screen, I may as well convert it to B&W to emphasize the line and shape. In Linde Waidhofer's essay, she mentioned that loading her camera with black and white film is a big step away from reality: since the world is not in black and white. I think, maybe the lack of attention of strong colour make it easier to omit it from the shot altogether. Say, it is easier to shoot B&W to cover up the weak colour in the image.
There are something she mentioned at the end of the essay that I think it worth noting for my coming assignment on colour.
"A weak landscape photograph at best only reinforces the way we already look at the land. Whereas a strong landscape photo challenges the way we look at nature. But a great landscape photo can actually change the way we perceive the world around us, and our place in it."
http://www.westerneye.com/writing/essay3_color_landscape.html
Only recently, it occurs to me that it is difficult to look at colour. I am not colour blind or that sort, but when I pick up the camera, colour was never my subject. My subjects can be movement, shapes, lines, or family members/friends, but colour was never the main subject. When my assignment is asking for a particular combination of colour, I suddenly find it difficult to look at the world that way.
Living in the city of London, and with the gloomy British weather, most of the things are in grey colour (sky, road, modern building). There are orange/red bricks houses and tiles on the suburban side. There are green grass. However, as I walk in the city centre, grey is still dominate my slight. Colour exists. How to make them stand out is one issue. How to look at the world so that colour comes first while I am not dismissing the details of design is another issue.
I was looking at several photograph galleries and I was surprised to find that people are photographing in black and white (or, convert photograph in black and white in post process). Maybe I can say to any of the pictures I have taken, that if the colour is not dominating the screen, I may as well convert it to B&W to emphasize the line and shape. In Linde Waidhofer's essay, she mentioned that loading her camera with black and white film is a big step away from reality: since the world is not in black and white. I think, maybe the lack of attention of strong colour make it easier to omit it from the shot altogether. Say, it is easier to shoot B&W to cover up the weak colour in the image.
There are something she mentioned at the end of the essay that I think it worth noting for my coming assignment on colour.
"A weak landscape photograph at best only reinforces the way we already look at the land. Whereas a strong landscape photo challenges the way we look at nature. But a great landscape photo can actually change the way we perceive the world around us, and our place in it."
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Comment: Marie Colvin
This is not meant to be a journalism blog, but for press photograph, the line between journalist and photographer often mixed. In fact, in the 21st century, it is easier to sell a photograph if you are willing to write a story to go with it. It applies to travels photography (now travel or tourism recommendation), food, press, etc.
There is an article I would like to share but it doesn't quite related to photography. Marie Colvin, a war journalist, was killed in Syria today. There are many news articles coming out on her past accomplishments and dedication in report stories from the war zone. There is an article on Guardian on a speech she gave on war reporting in 2010. Part of the speech can be used for reference for reportage photography, regardless it is on war, conflict, or social problems.
"Our mission is to report these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice. We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?"
"Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that first rough draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians."
"We do have that faith because we believe we do make a difference."
It might be wishful thinking at this stage. However, apart from learning how to create technically perfect photographs, I wonder if I can also create photographs that make a difference. It is not necessary on a national level, even at personal level. Does my work one day will also provide an inspiration?
The full text of the speech is in this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/22/marie-colvin-our-mission-is-to-speak-truth
There is an article I would like to share but it doesn't quite related to photography. Marie Colvin, a war journalist, was killed in Syria today. There are many news articles coming out on her past accomplishments and dedication in report stories from the war zone. There is an article on Guardian on a speech she gave on war reporting in 2010. Part of the speech can be used for reference for reportage photography, regardless it is on war, conflict, or social problems.
"Our mission is to report these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice. We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?"
"Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that first rough draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians."
"We do have that faith because we believe we do make a difference."
It might be wishful thinking at this stage. However, apart from learning how to create technically perfect photographs, I wonder if I can also create photographs that make a difference. It is not necessary on a national level, even at personal level. Does my work one day will also provide an inspiration?
The full text of the speech is in this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/22/marie-colvin-our-mission-is-to-speak-truth
Comment: Work by Natasha Caruana
I happen to come across the work by Natasha Caruana by accident. She did a series of work on bride selling their wedding dress after the wedding (Fairytale for Sale), married man looking for affairs (The Married Man), and women who have affairs with married men (The other women). Her website can be found here:
The topics are very interesting, however, the photographs are not so. If I would skip the description/text/insert to find the background of the story and just look at the photographs, it will make very little sense to me. Of course, in description note on “Married Men”, the artist was using a cheap deposable camera to avoid the “date” to find out her intention. As a result, the images are all grainy and with weird composition. Very often I was looking at the images and wonder why it shows cash with a bill. Then the explanation is the “married man” paid in cash to avoid his wife to find out anything on the credit card bill.
In my photography class we talked about composition, light, and colour. Very often we were taught to compose a visually strong image that show a concept or a colour combination, but I never come across a tutorial of composing something that makes little sense and have the audience to find it in the description page. Natasha Caruana’s work is not the only one. Zarina Bhimji’s work from the OCA study day last time is very similar: many of her photographic work are not visually strong, one has to rely on reading the background of the story, watching the short film and see everything connect together. No doubt both of them was presenting a very interesting subject. However, for most of us as a student, how likely to have someone to spend time looking through our work and reflect on it? Compare it to press photography, in which you might have only one image that make it to the front page (if you are lucky), and that image has to obviously point to a story all by itself, visually I prefer the press photo style of work.
Last but not the least, it begs another interesting question: if you have an idea that worth exploring photographically, but it might not meet the mainstream commercial sense. For amateur, we can do it for fun. For professional, who is going to fund your work?
Friday, 17 February 2012
Exercise ?: Food Photography
I took a look at the exercise on section 3 on colour, and I conclude that the easiest way to get colourful images is do still life shot with fruits. However, I wonder if it makes the exercises too trivial.
There are plenty of colour in the street, but to isolate it to just that couple or that one colour is very difficult. Not to mention you want a (somewhat) strong image by the end of the day. I was thinking if there is a way to do something half way. Say still life but not raw vegetable? How about cooked food?
I was cooking green peas and wonder if I can get the cooked dish to have "green" as dominant colour. To be honest, it is harder than I though, given that my background (table) is brown, and the dish has chicken as well.
Then I have to do with arrangement. For landscape short, I prefer a lower angle,
than a higher angle. It makes the food looks flat.
But still, I much prefer portrait shot. It is just how I look at the world usually. I prefer to have the rice as blur as possible because it is not the main subject.
I think to have the food nicely presented on the place is better than trying to shoot on the stove when the smoke are coming out. The smoke makes it hard to frame and reduces contrast.
For now I think I will stick with the idea with raw vegetable instead of dealing with cook food. It is hard to make the colour dominates the screen.
There are plenty of colour in the street, but to isolate it to just that couple or that one colour is very difficult. Not to mention you want a (somewhat) strong image by the end of the day. I was thinking if there is a way to do something half way. Say still life but not raw vegetable? How about cooked food?
I was cooking green peas and wonder if I can get the cooked dish to have "green" as dominant colour. To be honest, it is harder than I though, given that my background (table) is brown, and the dish has chicken as well.
Then I have to do with arrangement. For landscape short, I prefer a lower angle,
than a higher angle. It makes the food looks flat.
But still, I much prefer portrait shot. It is just how I look at the world usually. I prefer to have the rice as blur as possible because it is not the main subject.
I think to have the food nicely presented on the place is better than trying to shoot on the stove when the smoke are coming out. The smoke makes it hard to frame and reduces contrast.
For now I think I will stick with the idea with raw vegetable instead of dealing with cook food. It is hard to make the colour dominates the screen.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Exercise 24: Control the Strength of Colour
This exercise require me to take five images on the same screen with different exposure. The exercise ask me to change the aperture, but changing aperture may change depth of field, so I much prefer changing shutter speed so that I can actually compare the colour. Anyway, this is just an exercise. I will do what I want in the assignment later on.
I did this exercise with some existing food I have at home. To make sure that I see the effect, I did more than moving the aperture by just half a stop. So from darkest to the brightest, I have the five below:
I notice that I prefer the image to be slightly overexposed than under-exposed. I am rather used to orange being being bright than dark, so an under-exposed, or even correctly exposed according to the meter image look less natural. Just to check this, I casually take three more shots at the supermarket.
So from the last post, colour can be classified by three parameter: Hue, Saturation and Brightness. One would expect if you only increases brightness by changing the amount of incoming light (by making shutter speed longer or by a wider aperture), but visually the colour looks more vivid in the progress. In theory it should not be changing the pure-ness of the colour, which is the saturation.
I wonder if when I comment on the colour saturation, I was actually looking at brightness instead. I think the actual theory of colour is more complicated and it is probably a good idea to go look at other resources on this subject.
I did this exercise with some existing food I have at home. To make sure that I see the effect, I did more than moving the aperture by just half a stop. So from darkest to the brightest, I have the five below:
Somehow, bright yellow just look more pleasing to the eye. Dull/darker yellow looks weird.
So from the last post, colour can be classified by three parameter: Hue, Saturation and Brightness. One would expect if you only increases brightness by changing the amount of incoming light (by making shutter speed longer or by a wider aperture), but visually the colour looks more vivid in the progress. In theory it should not be changing the pure-ness of the colour, which is the saturation.
I wonder if when I comment on the colour saturation, I was actually looking at brightness instead. I think the actual theory of colour is more complicated and it is probably a good idea to go look at other resources on this subject.
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Comment: OCA Study Day at White Chapel Gallery
Yesterday I have been to the OCA study day in White Chapel Gallery. The exhibition is on the work of Zarina Bhimji.
The gathering time was the same as the gallery opening time, so some students and I stood in front of the gallery and start chatting about our recent assignment. One of the student told me that she wishes that her tutor can give her more feedback on the exercise (not only the assignment), since it will help her to improve faster. I told her that I have a feeling that my tutor won't criticise how I do the exercise (or not doing them), so I want to spend more time on the assignment instead, which I will definitely get feedback on. Then I will keep nagging until I get more detail on the feedback :)
I had this conversation with another lady when we have the half time break in the cafe. We conclude that it is easy to get shots that satisfied the exercise but it won't be something visually strong. It is less easy to get something visually strong but it doesn't fit the assignment (at least it is pleasing to look at). It is very hard to have the assignment in mind while getting a visually strong image.
Anyway, back to the exhibition itself. Personally I enjoy the two short films more than the photographs. The first short films "Out of the blue" put together a sequence of images that lead my eye to focus on the final image, which lead to a strong feeling of (places, and probably people) being abandoned. Then it get back to the origin of the artist exiled from Uganda to India. It makes better sense than just watch the photographs. There are couple very good photographs that illustrate the mood, but some of which I think is too distracting.
The other short file "The yellow patch" has also take place of the abandoned location but it is not as strong as the "Out of the blue". Probably there is less zoom out screen that I cannot feel the departure element. However, the photographs are visually stronger on this part of the exhibition. The one I like the best has very strong blue corridor.
Another highlight of the day is a discussion from the lady sat next to me in the coffee table talking about her experience that the artists she encountered seem to be offended when she mentioned about money and their work. Once upon a time some biochemists said that they can do independent research on new drugs and their opinions are unbiased. Then another research shows the strong correlation between a biochemist who got funded by drug company, and the positive recommendation he would give to new drugs from this company.
Who says that money won't influence your work? Why does one has to pretend that they don't care about money and need to self-justified that they are unmotivated by cash? Does being dishonest to yourself means that you are a better artist, a better person?
Look, getting money to pay for food and rent is a fact of life. It will affects your work when you are doing it for someone, some organization that will use your work to fit theirs, but not your purpose. If you want to commission, you have to decide to give up some inspiration or motivation so that you produce something they like. There is nothing new about it. Why there is people who have courage to take money and not to face up to the fact that they do something for money?
It just reminds me the quote from Phillip Halesman that I quote last week.
"I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for money."
The gathering time was the same as the gallery opening time, so some students and I stood in front of the gallery and start chatting about our recent assignment. One of the student told me that she wishes that her tutor can give her more feedback on the exercise (not only the assignment), since it will help her to improve faster. I told her that I have a feeling that my tutor won't criticise how I do the exercise (or not doing them), so I want to spend more time on the assignment instead, which I will definitely get feedback on. Then I will keep nagging until I get more detail on the feedback :)
I had this conversation with another lady when we have the half time break in the cafe. We conclude that it is easy to get shots that satisfied the exercise but it won't be something visually strong. It is less easy to get something visually strong but it doesn't fit the assignment (at least it is pleasing to look at). It is very hard to have the assignment in mind while getting a visually strong image.
Anyway, back to the exhibition itself. Personally I enjoy the two short films more than the photographs. The first short films "Out of the blue" put together a sequence of images that lead my eye to focus on the final image, which lead to a strong feeling of (places, and probably people) being abandoned. Then it get back to the origin of the artist exiled from Uganda to India. It makes better sense than just watch the photographs. There are couple very good photographs that illustrate the mood, but some of which I think is too distracting.
The other short file "The yellow patch" has also take place of the abandoned location but it is not as strong as the "Out of the blue". Probably there is less zoom out screen that I cannot feel the departure element. However, the photographs are visually stronger on this part of the exhibition. The one I like the best has very strong blue corridor.
Another highlight of the day is a discussion from the lady sat next to me in the coffee table talking about her experience that the artists she encountered seem to be offended when she mentioned about money and their work. Once upon a time some biochemists said that they can do independent research on new drugs and their opinions are unbiased. Then another research shows the strong correlation between a biochemist who got funded by drug company, and the positive recommendation he would give to new drugs from this company.
Who says that money won't influence your work? Why does one has to pretend that they don't care about money and need to self-justified that they are unmotivated by cash? Does being dishonest to yourself means that you are a better artist, a better person?
Look, getting money to pay for food and rent is a fact of life. It will affects your work when you are doing it for someone, some organization that will use your work to fit theirs, but not your purpose. If you want to commission, you have to decide to give up some inspiration or motivation so that you produce something they like. There is nothing new about it. Why there is people who have courage to take money and not to face up to the fact that they do something for money?
It just reminds me the quote from Phillip Halesman that I quote last week.
"I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for money."
Comment: For Christ Sake, What Do You Think You Pick Up That Camera For?
With the second assignment has been submitted, I can do a little bit of reflection and talk some nonsense before jumping into assignment 3.
I think I was rather lost about my own photographic goal. I mean if running around with gears give you pleasure, then by all means. The odd is you get pleasure but not improvement. I don't photograph purely for pleasure, but more for regerts. I missed the shot I wanted and I just have to go out there and try again.
Seriously, what is the purpose of picking up that camera? So that you can show your friends and family pictures and they think you are genius? Take some nude with your girl friend(s) and upload them on facebook when they threaten for a break up? Take picture of your children so that the dad (usually dad) of the kid next door feel shit about not having fancy equipments like yours? Or, you are an aspiring pro-photographer that you want to sell your photographs to pay mortgage, or buy a Porche?
There ought to be a purpose when you are spending as much money as a used car for photographic equipments, computers, printing device and education. Not to mention time spent on reading about the subject! I reckon it will be cheaper to be a drug addict than a photographer!
Lately because of a post I put on the OCA forum about free photograph, it occurs to me that getting ego boost from praise and recognition is great, especially from press or organization run by the people you don't know. However, eventually it is not the reason why I take photograph, and definitely not the reason why I live in this world for. I don't exactly fancy to spend the rest of my life to make money by producing "art" that some people like but I don't like, nor bend over backward so that some people will appreciate what I do. I do what I do because there is such an impulse coming from inside that this is the logical thing to do, regardless if anyone will agree or care. Eventually it leads me to conclude that I am the one who need to know what I am aiming at and why. It should also be me who come to conclusion on what to improve and how.
I have a very short life to live. I shouldn't have the spare time to worry about giving photograph away for free will destroy the untalented artists who fail to improve enough to get themselves back to the game. It also strikes me that it doesn't matter if other people call me a photographer or not, what I do is more or less the same, because I know why I am doing this.
By the way, I am still a camera user, not a photographer, and unlikely to become one any time soon unfortunately.
I think I was rather lost about my own photographic goal. I mean if running around with gears give you pleasure, then by all means. The odd is you get pleasure but not improvement. I don't photograph purely for pleasure, but more for regerts. I missed the shot I wanted and I just have to go out there and try again.
Seriously, what is the purpose of picking up that camera? So that you can show your friends and family pictures and they think you are genius? Take some nude with your girl friend(s) and upload them on facebook when they threaten for a break up? Take picture of your children so that the dad (usually dad) of the kid next door feel shit about not having fancy equipments like yours? Or, you are an aspiring pro-photographer that you want to sell your photographs to pay mortgage, or buy a Porche?
There ought to be a purpose when you are spending as much money as a used car for photographic equipments, computers, printing device and education. Not to mention time spent on reading about the subject! I reckon it will be cheaper to be a drug addict than a photographer!
Lately because of a post I put on the OCA forum about free photograph, it occurs to me that getting ego boost from praise and recognition is great, especially from press or organization run by the people you don't know. However, eventually it is not the reason why I take photograph, and definitely not the reason why I live in this world for. I don't exactly fancy to spend the rest of my life to make money by producing "art" that some people like but I don't like, nor bend over backward so that some people will appreciate what I do. I do what I do because there is such an impulse coming from inside that this is the logical thing to do, regardless if anyone will agree or care. Eventually it leads me to conclude that I am the one who need to know what I am aiming at and why. It should also be me who come to conclusion on what to improve and how.
I have a very short life to live. I shouldn't have the spare time to worry about giving photograph away for free will destroy the untalented artists who fail to improve enough to get themselves back to the game. It also strikes me that it doesn't matter if other people call me a photographer or not, what I do is more or less the same, because I know why I am doing this.
By the way, I am still a camera user, not a photographer, and unlikely to become one any time soon unfortunately.
Thursday, 9 February 2012
Comment: Hue What?
Before I start any exercise on the section 3, I want to take quick look of the vocabulary first. The description in the class note makes me feel more confused, so I wonder around looking for other explanations.
I find this page with examples:
http://www.colorcube.com/articles/theory/theory.htm
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205964
So from what I understand,
different Hue = different colour
High Chroma = Purer the colour with no mix of black and white; No Chroma = grey scale
High Value = Brighter the colour, the highest value will make everything white
In the colour cube, there are three axis. They can be span by Hue/Chroma/Brightness, or Hue/Saturation/Value. So I should look at Saturation the same as Chroma.
In the discussion that there are people dispute about Chroma and Saturation, but I think three axis should be enough to span the colour space and create most of the colour. Therefore, other naming will contain some sort of duplication in definition. I think there are just too many dials in photo editor these days.
I find this page with examples:
http://www.colorcube.com/articles/theory/theory.htm
http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205964
So from what I understand,
different Hue = different colour
High Chroma = Purer the colour with no mix of black and white; No Chroma = grey scale
High Value = Brighter the colour, the highest value will make everything white
In the colour cube, there are three axis. They can be span by Hue/Chroma/Brightness, or Hue/Saturation/Value. So I should look at Saturation the same as Chroma.
In the discussion that there are people dispute about Chroma and Saturation, but I think three axis should be enough to span the colour space and create most of the colour. Therefore, other naming will contain some sort of duplication in definition. I think there are just too many dials in photo editor these days.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Comment: Quote from Philippe Halsman
I came across a quote that I really like, from a photographer names Phillippe Halsman. It reminds me the discussion of the on-going (still?) discussion about photographer.
“I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for the money.”
Read more about his life here:
http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/Legends/Interviews/Philippe-Halsman-Profile
and here
http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/halsman/intro.htm
“I drifted into photography like one drifts into prostitution. First I did it to please myself, then I did it to please my friends, and eventually I did it for the money.”
Read more about his life here:
http://www.professionalphotographer.co.uk/Legends/Interviews/Philippe-Halsman-Profile
and here
http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/halsman/intro.htm
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
Assignment 2: Elements Of Design
So exhausted. Somehow I keep thinking that I will never be able to produce all the shots for submission.
The subject I have chosen for this assignment is "glass". It follows from the fact that the "transparent" shot is the weakest shot. Now I have the whole assignment to try to fix that.
Here are the shots that I submitted. There are totally 14 of them.
Rhythm
Diagonal
Two Points
Multiple Point in Deliberate Shape: Pentagon
Real Triangle
Curve:
Horizontal Line:
Single Point That Dominate the Composition:
Distinct, if Irregular Shapes: Trapezoid
The subject I have chosen for this assignment is "glass". It follows from the fact that the "transparent" shot is the weakest shot. Now I have the whole assignment to try to fix that.
Here are the shots that I submitted. There are totally 14 of them.
Rhythm
Pattern
Diagonal
Implied Triangle
Two Points
Multiple Point in Deliberate Shape: Pentagon
Real Triangle
Curve:
Horizontal Line:
Single Point That Dominate the Composition:
Distinct, if Irregular Shapes: Trapezoid
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Exercise 22: Real and Implied Triangles
I just found out that I have never upload this post when assignment 2 is only due in a week!
So I need to get three pictures that are real triangle, meaning that the subject can itself be a triangle, or look triangle by perspective. Then, another three that are implied triangle by arrangement.
Let's start with real triangle. I found that the one by perspective are quite easy if you have a wide angle lens.
I can get some actual triangle, but I still think it looks stronger with the perspective.
It is possible to shoot a triangle shape, but I find it uneasy unless it is balance off by something else.
By the way, I see it all the time in football. I wonder if people just get on that way naturally or I compose them that way myself naturally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)