Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Doug wrote: >> But I have found certain "rules" to be impediments to my compositional >> growth. Maybe preconceptions is a better term ... maybe not ... >> anyway, the worst one for me has been the preconception that the frame >> should (usually) include the entire subject, with none cut off at the >> edges of the frame (viewfinder). I've been trying to break it for two >> years now, and it's gonna take more time still. > >One thing that might work for you would be to take X number of weeks and X >number of rolls of film, and force yourself to take _nothing_ but details, >part of objects, parts of bodies, secondary aspects of the main subject, no >matter what it is. <snip> >I had to do this with tilted horizons. Many years ago I found I was getting >really anal about level horizons. So I just forced myself to shoot at crazy >Winogrand-like angles for an extended period. I hated it, but it "broke the >hold" of the idea of the level horizon.
This is interesting because I once had the same difficulty Doug describes (not wanting anyththing in the photo to be "cut off" at the edge of the frame) and I cured myself just the way Mike describes. I deliberately took lots of shots in which I had no choice but to cut off parts of the subjects. The way I did this was by taking photos of (you're gonne love this, Mike) flowers - in large batches, close up. After a few rolls of doing that I found it much easer to shoot regular landscapes with things cut off at the edge of the frame, although it stil takes deliberate effort at times. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
