CCC Forum

I included this photo in my most recent panel for the monthly print competition. While it is far from the best shot I have ever taken, I did think that it was worthy of inclusion in my entry and that it might fare a bit better than it did (8 marks, Advanced Class). We all view images differently and image assessment is inevitably subjective, so as far as I am concerned the judge's critique and scoring is as valid as any.

The rigging concerned is on the Cutty Sark, a sailing ship that was designed to be fast when bringing the latest tea crop from China, with the cargo of the first vessel home commanding a premium price. Consequently the boat has a huge sail area with a correspondingly large and intricate amount of rigging. One of the attendants I spoke to told me that it took 3-4 months to install during the recent restoration. It was this complexity which I wished to convey and I used a 16 mm wide-angle lens on a full frame sensor camera to emphasise this.

In terms of composition, the Gestalt Law of Simplicity applies so an image such as this with a lot of detail does have problems to overcome. I also acknowledge that in terms of vision it not particularly original and that the Cutty Sark is a well known subject. All are legitimate reasons which prevent it from achieving a top mark. The judge did remark adversely on how much was included and in particular did not like the addition of the smaller mast at bottom right.

What was not mentioned was the very feature which I trying to convey in my "story", just how much is involved to control the sails on such a ship. My preference is to use simple titles wherever possible and let the viewer make up their own mind. When it comes to judges, though, I am surprised at just how many fail to spot what seems obvious to others or cannot recognise elements in an image and have to be told by the audience. Would something along the lines of "Complex rigging on a fast 19th Century Sailboat" have been better, even at the cost of pedantry?

So, what do others think? I have deliberately omitted all but the most essential technical details as I am more concerned about aesthetics. If you really want to know, this information was given when I posted this shot on the Photo Sharing forum last year as part of my photo a day project.

Well Mike, what do I think?

I have never heard of the Gestalt Law of Simplicity, but I think there is too much going on here. Whilst the judge commented on inclusion of the second mast I don't think that has any bearing on it. The eye is confused by too many lines. That's what I think anyway, as simple as that.

Thanks for the feedback, Nina. It is genuinely useful.

I do have a bit more to say about this image, but it would be helpful to me if others could add their comments before I do so.

Mike I thought when I actually handled it that it was quite effective it was delightfully sharp, not overly sharpened, and the detail was absolutely clear.
To me, as you mention in your blurb, it needed all that rigging. Maybe I wouldn't have given it ten or more but I did enjoy it. To me it wasn't too busy
Wally

I agree with Nina and her observation about the rigging.

The problem with "Cutty Sark" is that the mast carries more yardarms than earlier ships. The result is that all the yardarms are controlled by ropes and the more there are the more ropes are needed. HMS Victory, has at most four yardarms and considerably less ropes to hold it all together. I think my picture "Main Top" is a better picture (but then I am biased!). Incidently, I've only just noticed that my picture has a small part of the mizzen mast showing.

I concur with Nina and think that for both images there is such a thing as too many diagonals

davidc wrote:I concur with Nina and think that for both images there is such a thing as too many diagonals

Good to know someone agrees with me.

Both shots have the same issue in that a complex three dimensional structure has been rendered in just two and the effect tends to overwhelm. There is too much going on for the eye to take in, which is where principle of prägnanz comes into effect. Prägnanz (German for pithiness) states that the mind prefers order, simplicity and symmetry. With these shots, there's just too much going on for this to happen.

That does not stop me liking my own image, but I accept that this is a personal thing and in all probability my perception is swayed by having been at the scene. It has definitely been useful to get feedback from others.

It also reminds me that when my wife and I were in holiday in Dorset recently the biennial Art Weeks event was on. People were putting their work on display at various venues, including their own homes and studios. We saw a lot of good work and met some interesting and creative people. One of the few photographers we encountered had a mass of mediocre images which he was a bit too keen to tell us about. Most of what he said was guff and eluded me, but I did pick him up on one photo where he had done something similar with a different subject. At least the rigging shots have the benefit of leading lines, but his did not even have that and was confusing.

It seems we're going to have to agree to disagree!

davidb wrote:It seems we're going to have to agree to disagree!

I agree.