Lesley and Louise Brown – Madonna and child for the ages

Ever since seeing the Kennedy to Kent State Exhibit at the Worcester Art Museum, I have been haunted by images from the sixties and seventies: war, prejudice, assassination …  This past weekend I came across another image from that era, a Madonna and child and one that I have not, in fact, seen before.  It is a picture taken on Oct. 9,  1978 by Brian Bould of the London Daily Mail, of Lesley and Louise Brown, documenting the first successful in vitro fertilization by English scientists Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.

The picture is simple and shows simple joy.  It could be of any mother and any infant child.  It is all of us, and therein lies its power.  Lesley Brown died this past June at age 65.  Let us celebrate her courage and take her life and that of her daughter as symbols that we can, in fact, “dream better dreams.”

 

 

The golden rule of thirds

So let’s talk about one of these important “mind tricks,” “the golden rule of thirds.”  As we shall see in a subsequent blog the “the golden rule of thirds.” is actually an approximation of the “golden proportion,” which is where our true aesthetic hard-wiring (whatever that means) lies.  But the “the golden rule of thirds.” is a very useful and practical compositional tool to use when taking and creating photographs.

The basic concept is that a photograph will be aesthetically pleasing if its elements are laid out on a basic grid that equally divides the image in thirds.  According to Wikipedia, “the golden rule of thirds” was first articulated and by John Thomas Smith in his book Remarks on Rural Scenery (1797).

Presentation1

Figure 1 – Ann Brigman’s “The Bubble, 1909,” overlaid with a three by three grid to demonstrate the “Golden Rule of Thirds.” Original photograph from Wikicommons and in the public domain.

Let’s consider an image,  that we’ve seen before, Anne Brigman’s “The Bubble, 1909” to see how it’s done.  I’ve divided the horizontal and vertical axes in thirds and overlaid the grid on the image.  Vertically, you can see that the image is divided into: the ceiling, the middle ground where the figure is, and the pool.  Horizontally, the division is: the lit area to the left, the middle ground, and the dark background area to the right.  Indeed, the body of the figure is

Presentation2

Figure 2 – Ann Brigman’s “The Bubble, 1909,” overlaid with the arrow of directionality.  Original photograph from Wikicommons and in the public domain.almost completely confined to the middle zone.

As an aside there are some additional “mind tricks” or suppositions going on in “The Bubble, 1909” as shown in Figure 2.  An additional, and very well defined, diagonal line divides the subject again into roughly 1/3 and a 2/3 portions.  I’ve drawn it as an arrow to indicate the direction of the motion.  Why do I assume that the woman is launching rather than retrieving the bubble?  Why does my mind tell me that?  Well first of all the arrow goes from darkness to light.  Second, the woman expresses an outward gesture with palm up as if she were releasing the orb, not palm down as if she were stretching her fingertips out to retrieve it.  The final cue is most interesting of all.  In countries where one reads left to right, the eye/mind interprets the left-right motion as inwards.  If, in so moving our eye, we encounter an animate object, here the woman, we interpret that she is passing us in the opposite direction, that is moving outward.*

Returning to the issue of the “golden rule of thirds, let’s consider another old friend, Edward Weston’s, ” Nude in the Dunes, 1930.”  The picture is vertically divided into thirds and the nude is in the lower third.  As I’ve said, this placement and the sand dune above it gives the image a dynamic sense of motion.  You feel that the nude is slowly slipping out of the picture.  A very different and much more stable effect would be accomplished if the nude were at the center of the image. In fact the effect can be seen in Weston’s, “Nude in the Sand, 1936

Finally, let’s consider again Ansel Adams, “Moonrise, Hernandez, NM, 1941”  Adams made a very conscious decision here to emphasize sky over Earth.  The pictures is very neatly divided vertically in thirds (top to bottom): darkness, bright sky, and Earth.  The moon in the center region and very near the dead center of the image is clearly a very important focal point, and we need to move our eye outward from there to encounter the town going down or the dark sky going up..

It has to be said, that “rules are made to be broken,” and violating the “golden rule of thirds” can have dramatic effect.  It remains, however, a very easy compositional tool that can be readily implemented on the fly while taking pictures and then fine tuned in the light room.

*For a further discussion of this directionality issue see Lootens on Photographic Enlarging and Print Quality, The Camera, Baltimore, MD 1945.

 

Physiological vs. physical optics

In my last blog I talked about the resolution of the human eye.  That is all fine and dandy, but it is very important to remember that the eye does not function like a CCD or CMOS-based digital camera.  It does not snap pictures that it then stores intact in the brain.  The eye is part, an important extension, of the brain, and the brain is an image processing device that stores images in its own peculiar way, connects and combines them with other images, and connects them all with emotions.  When looking at a scene or photograph the eye doesn’t even stand still.  Rather it scans the scene picking out important recognition points.

Now I’m not an expert on this topic.  So I’m not going to dig myself in more deeply for risk of being inaccurate.  I just want to emphasize a few significant points.

  • First, when talking about the eye and brain, it’s important to recognize that you’re dealing with physiological and ultimately psychological optics, not just plain vanilla physical optics.  There’s even different set of units to describe physical and physiological optics.
  • Second, the brain connects an images and ultimately evokes emotion.  In a very real sense we feel an image.
  • Third, all of the aesthetic tricks of photography, the golden rule of thirds, the dynamicsm within an image, foreground/background flip, etc. are the result of what’s going on in the brain during image perception.

Of course, the eye, the brain, and all of the rules of physiological and psychological optics are ultimately determined by the physics and chemistry of the eye and brain.  But, and perhaps most importantly, without the brain and the way it processes there could be no photography, since it is the brain that accepts a flat image of a three dimensional world, even  images devoid of color, and enables it to evoke the same emotions as the original scene.*  It is the eye/brain that enables us to look at a photograph and say: “How beautiful!” – not just to say but to feel it.

*At the recommendation of a reader, I have been reading Timothy Egan’s biography of Edward Curtis, “Short Nights of the Shadow Catcher.  Egan records that in “December of 1904 Curtis rented out a large hall in Seattle and mesmerized the audience with hand-colored lantern slides and moving pictures of Indians of the Southwest.  The film prompted members of the audience to jump from their seats in fear.”

 

 

The resolution of the human eye

In our discussion of camera resolution we never asked what the resolution of the human eye is?  This is an important question, since ultimately, when we look at a photograph, regardless of how it is presented to us, we are looking at it with the human eye.

Doing the same kind of analysis that we have done to determine the diffraction limit of a camera lens, it can be shown. The human eye has an angular resolution for green visible light of about 1.2 arc minutes.  An arc minute is 1/60th of a degree.  Those pesky Babylonians, with their base 60. are at it again! Physicists prefer a different unit of measure, called the radian.  There are 2 π radians in 360 degrees; so 1.2 arc minutes is about 2.1 milliradians.  The value of using radians is that the spatial resolution is just the distance away from what you are looking at times the angular resolution in radians.

So say you are reading a book or looking at a photograph 12 inches in front of your face, then you resolution is going to be 12 inches X 2.1/1000 = 0.0252 inches.  Remember that this is in line pairs.  There are about 40 line pairs per inch – or 80 lines (or dots) per inch.  This is kissing close to the 72 dots per inch standard that Adobe Photoshop and historically topography use.

Similarly, as I write this, I’m looking from about 18 inches at a 15 inch laptop screen.  So in that case my eye’s resolution is going to be 18 inches X 2.1/1000 = 0.0378 inches or 26.5 line pairs per inch which is 53 dots per inch.  Across my 15 inch screen that’s 794 dots.  If I decide that I’m going to peer in, putting my nose to the screen at about nine inches, I’m going to need twice as many dots per inch or 1,588.  That’s pretty close to the 1366 that my screen is set at.

We’ve seen these numbers before.  But now we realize that the requirements in dots per inch for computer displays and digital prints of various sizes ultimately are defined by the resolution of the human eye.  And hidden in all of this is another important point that the print or display resolution required is defined by how far away you are viewing it.

Still more on robotic eyes – the seeing mannequin comes to a mall near you

OK, I’m going a bit off topic again today. We’ve talked about robotic eyes and now according to Bloomberg News and NBC News, it’s gone a step further.  Italian mannequin manufacturer Almax SpA is now selling the EyeSee mannequin.  Units go for just over $5000 and have digital cameras built into one of their eyes.  That is their eyes have eyes.

As you might imagine, a significant purpose of this is to augment store security.  OK, so maybe not the Mars Rover, but it does serve a purpose.  But then we learn that the mannequins are analyzing us and profiling us, collecting data, determining gender and race.  People report that it’s more than a bit spooky, being watched at eye level, by something anthropomorphic but not quite human.

I am reminded of a “Sunday Showcase, November 8, 1959 entitled “Murder and the Android,” where the android sheds tears.  OK, so maybe I’m the only one that remembers this Hugo award winning story.  And then coincidentally a week later, November 13, 1959 we have, or rather had, the famous “Twilight Zone” episode, “The Lonely,” where a man is imprisoned on an asteroid and out of compassion the police give him a female android companion, whom he falls in love with – has the usual Rod Serling twist ending.  And, as an aside, Android Alicia is played by Jean Marsh of “Upstairs Downstairs,” fame.

A hundred years from now the EyeSee will be judged primitive.  So where is all this taking us?  Is it just another example of an invasion of our ever waning privacy?  Or is it the dawn of new ways of seeing, connecting, and interacting?  Is it bad that a robotic eye can take data and analyze us as shoppers, but good if it observes our gate to determine if we have suffered brain trauma?  One point is certain.  We are going to have to deal with these issues as we enter a Kurzwelian age.

Some Photographic Resolutions for the New Year

Gnarl2

Figure 2 – “Gnarl” (c) DEWolf 2013

It seems a good time to make some photographic resolutions for the New Year.  So here goes:

  1. Focus on seeing.  Isn’t this what it’s all about?
  2. Spend more time taking photographs.  If you love doing it, you should do more of it.
  3. Slow down, concentrate on composing the image, on setting and checking the light.
  4. Learn to photograph trees.  They are worthy subjects, but can be difficult to compose, difficult to get the light right, difficult to isolate, and difficult to disentangle from power and telephone lines.

 

Favorite Photographs for 2012 – What I learned about photography and “awe”

I found the exercise of coming up with my ten favorite photographs for 2012 curious for what it tells me I personally like in a photograph.  And also for what it teaches me about the meaning of photography.

Let’s start with some statistics.

There were four nudes:

  1. Edward Weston, Nude in the Dunes, 1930
  2. Annie Leibovitz, Portrait of Keith Haring, 1987
  3. Judy Dater, Imogen and Twinka, Yosemite, 1974
  4. Anne Brigman, The Bubble, 1909

There were four portraits:

  1. Annie Leibovitz, Portrait of Keith Haring, 1987
  2. Judy Dater, Imogen and Twinka, Yosemite, 1974
  3. Julia Margaret Cameron Portrait of Sir John Herschel with Cap, 1867
  4. Yousuf Karsh, Audrey Hepburn,1956

And four landscapes:

  1. Ansel Adams, Moonrise, Hernandez, NM, 1941
  2. Abelardo Morell, Umbrian Landscape Over Bed, Umbertide, Italy, 2000
  3. Edward Steichen, The Flatiron Building at Night, 1904
  4. Beth Moon, Kapok

Also, all of the images chosen were in black and white except, arguably, “The Flatiron Building at Night, 1904,” which is really only toned in color, albeit quite effectively.  I truly prefer black and whit photography both in the seeing and in the taking.  I find that color can easily take over, even to the point that the whole exercise becomes trivial.  Although, I will freely admit that in certain photographs the color demands itself.

I do not know, indeed I would like to understand whether this is merely photographic tradition or whether there is a aesthetic psychology that defines the power of black and white.  But for me, it is always about good light, good contrast, good composition, and good dynamic range

As for landscape photography, its appeal is two fold.  First, it is part of an artistic tradition and through the greats, like Adams, a photographic tradition.  Second, and more profoundly, we stand in awe of nature and things man-made that emulate nature, such as the beauty of the Flatiron building at night, colored with the amazing artistry of the master’s hand.  The meaning of the word “awe” was expressed so wonderfully by the great theologian and philosopher Abraham Joshua Heschel in his book “Who is Man?”

Awe is more than an emotion; it is a way of understanding, insight into a meaning greater than ourselves. The beginning of awe is wonder, and the beginning of wisdom is awe.
Awe is an intuition for the dignity of all things, a realization that things not only are what they are but also stand, however remotely, for something supreme. Awe is a sense for transcendence, for the reference everywhere to mystery beyond all things. It enables us to perceive in the world intimations of the divine, to sense in small things the beginning of infinite significance, to sense the ultimate in the common and the simple: to feel in the rush of the passing the stillness of the eternal. What we cannot comprehend by analysis, we become aware of in awe.

As for nudes, as we have discussed there is certainly a wonder of abstraction as well as a beauty in the sensuous.  But ultimately they connect so directly with “awe” in landscape, so much so that they define the same sense.  I was reading an article in the September/October 2012 issue of View Camera by Ian Leake who specializes in photographing nudes.  He expressed the connection so wonderfully and concisely:

I work primarily with female nudes because the human body is a universal language of life – and arguably, anything that is worth saying about life can be said with the human body.”

And finally, we have to recognize that portraiture attempts to capture the meaning of a person’s life.  Keith Haring becomes his art.  We look into John Herschel’s eyes and in the classic sense are given admission to his soul.

The awe is in all three of these photographic forms.  Therin, lies their wonderful connection!

 

 

 

 

Happy New Year from Hati and Skoll Gallery

Mark_Twain_and_Dorothy_Quick

Figure 1 – Mark Twain with Dorothy Quick c. 1907. From the Wikicommons in the public domain.

Call me crazy, but I am optimistic about 2013.  We all need to be optimistic.  Despite all the terrible events that are happening, we all need to imagine and to dream of a better world.  We all need to work together to make it better.

I have been looking for an excuse to insert a photograph of Mark Twain (1835-1910) into my blog.  So here it is.  I have chosen an image of Twain taken around 1907, with eleven year old Dorothy Quick (1896-1962) – an unlikely friendship?  Dorothy spotted and recognized Twain on a transatlantic crossing.  She slowly circled his chair multiple times, until he introduced himself.  They went on to be great friends until Twain’s death in 1910.  Ms. Quick went on to become a writer herself.

In his darkest moments, Mark Twain wrote one of his finest works, “The Mysterious Stranger.”  Here he revealed his worst pessimism, his most dreaded thoughts.  It is an awesome existential work, which ends in the vision that everything in the world is nothing but a dream.  We are the dreamers.  We have chosen to have bad dreams and nightmares. Twain challenges us to “Dream other dreams, and better!”  It is an admonition worth restating on January 1, 2013. Let’s work together to dream better dreams.