Composition and a Lighthouse by Dan Winters

I like the photo – it conveys its message in a minimalist, graphical way. I especially like the way the subtle shading gives the tower volume and shape.

I find most interesting what was not done to the photo in post: there is keystone distortion, the flag is backwards, and the sky is a weird gray. Often, the price of technical perfection is sterile images.

1 Like

This was a super interesting post, thanks for that @patdavid !

I also have a Dan Winters book on my shelf, I like his photographs. The point you’re making and the appreciation I have for this photo stands on his own even in isolation, but I’ve enjoyed the further investigation you’ve made and the comparison with the other takes of the same lighthouse.

It really shows how the little rules that are shared among “normal” photographers (look for interesting skies… only shoot at sunrise/sunset… never place an object bang in the middle… the stupid rule of thirds…) are really conducive to boring and insipid photographs.

And that also ties in nicely with Anna’s observation about the empty sky to the right; that’s really unimportant, I certainly don’t examine photos on the basis of a checklist, and I’d argue nobody should do that. The photo is excellent and stimulating, with a certain meaning given by the waving flag, it makes me realize that yes, you can indeed make photos of objects that have weight and interestingness (I wanted to say this because the usual feeling is that photos of people, portraits or street photos, are inherently more significant/important/dense than others, and that bothers me).

5 Likes

Dan Winters has once said: “Regardless of the assignment, there’s always a great picture to be made. Always look for that picture.” I think this image elegantly proves his point.

2 Likes

Yes. Those rules are only a guide for forgettable photos. They may help beginners but today people are often so image sawy that it’s to basic even for beginners.

I like how abstract it is. Without previous explanation that it was a lighthouse, I would never have reached that conclusion. But the flag itself looks huge, so it gives a feeling that the structure is big.

Is the sky question because it is empty, or because it is out of balance with the flag? Here in Portugal it’s common for skies to be completely clear and uniform throughout the day, specially in spring and summer. I guess some meaning could be derived from the lack of balance, specially with everything the flag signifies, if we wanted to look at it that way.

No, I think the “rules” are okay and tell you what is aesthetically pleasing. So, it is good to follow them. The important point is to know, when not to follow them on purpose to make a great photo.

2 Likes

Interesting photo but I can’t say that I like it, I mean, without the title description this picture could be anything.

Like this

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bl%C3%A4ist%C3%ABft.jpg#/media/File:Bl%C3%A4ist%C3%ABft.jpg

If you can’t see the difference in accomplishment between the photo you link and the one posted in op I have to say you’re in trouble as a photographer.

3 Likes

Ahaha yes, but could you say that the subject in the photo is a lighthouse without the title?

Are titles suddenly unimportant?

Ok ok , beautiful photo.

If you send your image to any half respectable critique and leave your title blank or worse, have it be DCM_184737.jpg, that’s the first thing you’ll get called out on.

I actually think it’s overrated to be able to identify the subject. Only commercial images such as advertising sometimes really need to have a clear subject. For more ambitious imagemaking it’s often advantageous to have ambiguous or shifting subjects.

Consider written poetry, even when concrete the poetry happens between or outside the words.

2 Likes

I have the same opinion as @nosle and would like to add that sometimes some culture and context is needed to fully appreciate an artwork.
For example in cinema there are sometimes subtle references to other films or histories or pop culture facts that make the film more enjoyable when you know about those references. In the case of this picture I think it’s something similar.

Sometimes people appreciate something only because the artist is popular

That is also true :slight_smile:

Or because most the other works of an artist are really great

1 Like

I really don’t like Dan Winters. I find the work over cooked and over done in almost all respects. This lighthouse image was rather nice though. The light and colours are very good.

So it is possible to just look at what you’re seeing and think about it .

1 Like

try and have a look at the book I was mentioning above, the one on NYC. Very different from the “over cooked” portraits that you’re probably referring to!

2 Likes

– so that you can change it to untitled

Images and their relation to captions and context is quite an intriguing and interesting subject. We risk here, of course, to stray somewhat from the original topic of this thread, but it should be quite fitting, then, to quote a statement from exactly Dan Winters:

A photograph does not require any information beyond the confines of the frame. … Viewers may want to peer beyond the edges in search of context, but it is the nature of the photograph to deprive them of this experience. If the photographer does not provide a backstory, the viewers may find themselves creating their own; however the stories are the product of their thoughts and not related to the actual story contained within the photograph.

Much can be said about captions, and for e.g. documentary photography it’s been argued that “a photograph” is the association of an image and a caption – and that it’s first when these two elements meet that one can determine whether a photograph is fake or not. But also a photograph of this kind, may of course possibly be judged solely on more artistic aspects as for form, light etc.

For my own part I’ve been considering some of these issues because I have e.g. an image that judged on its general artistic aspects are nothing much to shout hurray for. However, if one know the context (and some history of modern art) there is quite an element of humor in it. So I’ve made a version of the image where the image file contains both the image and underneath it a field with the caption clearly visible in plain text.

What do you think about forcing upon the viewer an awareness of the context of the capture in such a “brutal” manner?

1 Like