“Take two or three photographs in which a single point is placed in different parts of the frame. …evaluate your composition according to the logic of the point.”
This was more interesting than I expected it to be. It was good to reduce a photograph to such basic constructs. I did struggle with using Auto mode though, I missed the control over exposure for indoor images. I used live view and a tripod for these images, and they have been auto-toned. No other changes or cropping so you can also see the dust on my sensor. Please double-click on the first image of each set to open full-size.
It’s very hard not to see the first set as a sequence, which implies movement as the tablet moves down through consecutive frames then back up again. The first one, in the centre looks fairly static, stable and not very interesting. The second looks as it’s an accident, my favourites are the two last images as they suggest a bit of unbalance and almost look as if the tablet is bouncing from one frame to the next. I have a longing to photograph a point out of frame, which I think could be done by moving the point out of frame for an image, then moving it back in. I think the viewer would “fill in the gap” by deciding where they thought the point would be relative to the empty frame, rather like those old Spot the Ball competitions in the papers.
Out of interest, I did another set using the intersections on the rule of thirds grid. These look rather more balanced, but also as if they could be interesting. I don’t know why the rule of thirds works so well, but it obviously does. The tablets each look as if they’re meant to be there.
Take a number of images in which a point is placed in relationship to the frame. Can you find any place where the point is not in relationship to the frame?
I took these images at the park, they show a steel cup that a child can sit in and spin. It has three small holes, I like that you can see through them and that they are points, but negative points defined by the absence of steel rather than positive points of something. These images are more abstract than actually of something. One has the point “bitten” out of the frame, I think this is probably a place where the point isn’t in relationship to the frame, but it still works for me because my eye tracks the darker grey curve and continues past the “bite”.
I think there’s a sense of movement here, as mentioned in the course-notes from placing a point close to the edge, but also there’s a sense of direction from the lines. The point almost becomes a rolling, bouncing ball.
I have marked up one of these with the path that my eye took, also a screen grab of the image from the course notes. I have to say I always worry (probably stupidly) that these types of exercise will reveal that I am looking at images wrong. It seem very un-intuitive to analyse how I look at an image.