P3D Re: What did I learn last night...

["Oleg Vorobyoff" <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George Themelis wrote in answer to David Lee's suggestion to "frame the scene
until it appears to be as organized as possible":

>How about "as pleasing as possible?"

Either way, it strikes me as a recipe for mediocre pictures.  I would advocate
looking/waiting for better material so one is not forced to compromise.  When
the material is right, the composition seems to pop into being.  Of course,
every picture is a compromise at some level, but why not set the bar up high?

>One basic rule says that there should not be two items
>of interest, competing for the viewer's attention.

Why not?  It might be irritating at first glance, but if the two items have an
underlying complementarity, the picture might grow on you.  I'll take an
irritating composition any day over a bland one.

>I think it is impossible to critique pictures or make
>suggestions from improvement without any reference to
>"composition rules" or to ways to organize the information
>better

If the purpose of the photograph is to impart information, an organized
presentation makes sense, and an objective critique is in order.  If the purpose
of the photograph is (dare I say) art, I think it ought to be critiqued on a
more subjective level.  I'm not sure what the language and protocol of such a
critique might be.  Maybe a language like wine critics use, where they recount
their taste experience using various analogies.  That can get silly, though.  As
for the protocol, perhaps after an initial raw critique, the photographer should
explain his purposes, and the critique refined in that light.

Oleg Vorobyoff