sea

[vic vic]

mp 50 fp4

[jmr]

Victor,

I like the images and the feel they create when viewed together - a happy set.

[azzo]

Nice and timeless feel to them.

Azzo

[LichMD]

Vic Vic,

good story telling here, good eye.
Cheers

[semrich]

Vic,

Very beach side recreational feeling with these and I especially lke the hands and action in backgammon and dominos game shots.

[kld]

Good collection of impressions. As John said, a happy set.
--
Klaus

[vic vic]

thanks everybody )

[Stefan R.]

it is always difficult to make vertical composition work, it does in 3, to me it does not in the other vertical pictures, the information inside the frame is very limited. best

[vic vic]

wait stefan.. you like 3 or you like others as vertical ???

ya, agree with you.. some bit is missing in this presentation here...
im not complitly agree about vertical, generally talking... it is a different framing from the horizontal.. just like the squire is different framing. the leica horizontal format is very interesting, not too wide, but keeps some "cinematique" motion potential.. vertical is a bit contrary to it. so it can be used in aesthetic way too....

concider this along the wall with 30x40 prints..
and remove one horizontal pic with domino players and instead add the following pics bellow....

feels better ???

[Stefan R.]

Vic, since saturday I think that horizontal pictures show us "more" if we have a good composition. at a portfolio review I realized it. a very good "street" photographer showed us his work, he had really great street shots in his portfolio, I took my hat of! he showed about 40 pictures I think about 30% of them had been vertical, vertical often you are too close, limited in space. from this 30% we selected maybe only 3-5%. his horizontal images worked better in composition and information. more to see if we do it well.

[vic vic]

ok man.. i perfectly understand what you say.. wait and i will answer you about that...
i agree with, but partly not agree..

say now.. ??

[Stefan R.]

the composition in your vertical one is more harmonic ans in the horizontal one not, but... the horizontal one you could compose better.

[telewatt]

very good job.. ...I like the unsharp form and framing of the pictures..there is a idea behind the doing...

regards,
Jan

did you saw some pictures of Rodtschenko last time..?....

[steve kessel]

Originally Posted by Stefan R.

Vic, since saturday I think that horizontal pictures show us "more" if we have a good composition. at a portfolio review I realized it. a very good "street" photographer showed us his work, he had really great street shots in his portfolio, I took my hat of! he showed about 40 pictures I think about 30% of them had been vertical, vertical often you are too close, limited in space. from this 30% we selected maybe only 3-5%. his horizontal images worked better in composition and information. more to see if we do it well.

Vertical compositions of people may be easier when the photographer is above the action, and/or when one figure (vertical) is the main subject. When the camera is amongst the action it may be more difficult but there are always exceptions. Perhaps the placing of a figure group at the top of a vertical composition with an "interesting" foreground might be considered mannered, but that is a matter of opinion.

My initial preference was for the vertical pictures in Vic's post but I can see Stefan's point and I would like to see the pictures he refers to.

Steve Kessel

[azzo]

I understand what Stefan's trying to say but IMO and normally, shooting vertical or horizontal come automatically with the subject/scene or whatever you're shooting.
The shape/pattern of what you're capturing determins this.

Azzo

[vic vic]

hi everybody...
ok .. we go a little bit off from the pics, but no problems of course..
some important general questions about frmaing/composition... and indeed, when i was doing those particular pics.. the issue was in my mind...

jan.. you mean the russian photographer a.m. rodschenko rite? of course i know him and im mad about his works.. no, i had nothing of him in my mind when photographing this set... but say why it comes to your mind now.... )

stefan... the set was photographed exactly two years ago.. i was just having some little time out from small format, and meanwhile, in this time out, i had time to rethink the format and the style of works and attitudes i wanted to develop..
actually, at that point of my "thought about reportage style dynamic photo", i was more concerened about the contrast between the j.joudleka and r.gibson expositions of their themes in content and aesthetic..
i think here it is also the answer to what you talk about.. i think that you limits the view into the koudleka school, which is great of course.... more information.. dynamic cinematique wide rendering of scenes.. natural mental condition of visual perception that is represented in koudlekas wide frames... im mad about koudleka.. and i think in many of my photos my love to him can be eassily found..
gibson on contrary differs from koudleka in thematic choices, but even more importantly - by aesthtics.. gbsons photos are less concerned about the "episod" as a documentary content.. his photos transcend and literaly outline the the visual elemnts of the scene or objects he photographs... and the point is that they are limited into those visual elements - on prupose of course - in the name of his "formalistic style/genre"....
psychologically.. i think that the effect of cognitive process is somewhat equivalent to the differance between the prose and the poem.. while prosa can discribe the event in its realm (be it in simple or creative way), the poem outlines the elements that are more interesting to the author and recreates the sensetion in the "whole" of the poem.

azo ... one way to think about the framing is to concider the way that the object/scene fits into the format in better way...... this is "physical" concidiration - one depends on the physical objects he/she photographs.. it is the same as calling portrait only the images that show the head+shoulder.. physically that is true.. but portrait, in some context, can be called even hand of person, or even tiolet in his house, and that depends on the articulation of the artists and the viewer of course.... but that also can represent the person and FUNCTIONALITY as the head+shoulder portrait...
so physical concidiration is not the only one.. there are more mental aspects..
to say it simply.. i think that the horizontal 2/3 format has totaly different perceptual influence from the vertical.. koudelka and gibson differance is nice example.... the horizontal is more natural way we percive things (visually) - as for - this format has "episodic" nature usually, and especially in documentary style and street photo..

steve... the vertical is more like a canvas that the painter uses (the method that painter prapers his working space).... eliminating the natural perseption paralelness, the vertical puts abit more drama of visual elemnts... now, one can say that in horizontal, one may get interesting agles etc.. that is true.. but still, the frame has episodic feeling to it. the vertical is more like a "hint" regarding the episod, and it leaves the concentration on visual elemnts very differently because of the unique tension it creates within the frame... and i think this is also more or less what u mean, the way the things are placed in the vertical fframe in my pics here ?

generally about composition.. what do you understand under the word composition - in photographic context ? difficult question.. controverssive.. think about what you do, especially when doing "reportage" style.. think about how you evaluate those photos later on on light table or print or monitor of computer...
so what is it - composed? composition? better composition?

ah by the way stefan..
i had some big dilema just recently.. students from art school wanted some recomendation in develooping a theme and implimenting it.. the idea more or less was war actualia scenes re-staged in more like location almost studio like photography... anyway.. the presentation format of final work required only several photographs.. and guess what.. while i thought that the vertical compositions they made were more powerful, i recomended them to go in those several horizontal variants they had.. simply because of the way that in particular context, the information, as you say, supposed to be more engaging to the viewer..... the vertical frames they had looked for a moment like a more "sofisticated short talks"...

and now concider this....... now it is back about my pics posted here...
if i want to eliminate the full wide episodic exposition (like it could have been in the case of horizontal) i have two ways :
1. to get close.. and that eliminates the surrounding and no more room for the sense of episode .. with the strong concentration the sense of space is a bit lost...
2. to do vertical... and then to limit into the composition to the visual elemnts that interest me for that matter.... to transcend the scene more on the "textural" and "conceptual" level....
so two ways.. but complitly different..
one still leaves the paralelness to the natural visual perseption even if i remove the space a little bit.. still - the episodic frame is there - it is just a bit more concentrated into the dominant aspects of that episode..
the second frame - the vertical.. does not concentrate on episide as that, but on contrary - eliminates it, while one still can maintain a compositional freedom within the visual elements that can be outlined ....

well.. i dont have any intention to make here rough dichotomy between this method or another..
but as a guidline.. this is how i see it and feel it in my works and others works... generally of course......