Re: Balance

[Don Roberts <droberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rehotshots@xxxxxxx wrote:

> In a message dated 1/2/00 7:21:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> droberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>
>  Balance in photographs is something else indeed to discuss. What is your idea
>  of balance.  Is it only compositional forms or dark and light or something
>  else?  Is it symmetry?  You have good ideas keep sharing them.
>
>  Rehotshots@xxxxxxx wrote:

>  Off topic?  not really, balance in a photograph is very important.
> If
>  > the balance is too formal it's just not that interesting.
>

> .  So, tell us about composition.
>

I can't tell anyone about composition.  We all know about the Golden Mean and the
Rule of Thirds etc.  We also, I suspect, find it very hard to apply those rules
in panoramic photography with it's extreme aspect ratio.  The normal rules apply
infrequently here.  I have seen photos that violate these conventions that people
rave about and the next photo that does the same thing is reviled and dismissed.
For instance, in his Bodie series, Jan Faul has many panoramic images.  In many
cases he has chosen to put the horizon right in the middle and have a heavy form
on one side and vacant space on the other, not normally accepted practices.
These photos seem to earn universal approval.  I think if you do the same thing
in a more conventional format you would get crucified.
So there are different rules for panoramic photography I assume.

The bottom line is, as with all photo work,  does it elicit a response in the
viewer?  If it touches a chord, melodic or dissonant, then we assume the photo is
successful?

--
====================================================================
      Don Roberts   *  Bittersweet Productions  *  Iowa City, IA
                      *                                    *
Of course, that's just my opinion.  I could be wrong. -- Dennis MIller
====================================================================