Stills

I like Winogrand's use of the notion of form playing off against content. I tend to the content end of the spectrum and don't hit form that frequently (although form is largely composition by another name and I like to think I get that pretty well right most of the time!). The obverse side of the coin is that I like content and am not that keen on a picture without content (surprise, surprise).

In fact the glasshouse in the National Botanical Gardens (NBG) of Wales is difficult to photograph in an original way and the building is beautiful but a challenge. Maybe it is difficult for me to be objective about form and content when I know the building well. It is also difficult with this picture to judge where form becomes content: for instance, the way the lines enclose ever-changing shapes. In some ways that works against the benefit of having the clouds in that they are not reflected in anything other than a piecemeal and relatively incoherent way. I also find the transition from opacity to transparent (seeing the interior at the bottom) induces a niggling tension: is the content about the interior or the way the exterior interacts with the landscape (in this case sky)?

Given that this is only about one tenth of the building, and those who do not know it would only be able to hazard a guess as to the shape of its totality, I would not rate it higher than about 60% for content: for the description of the premise of the building. As to form: I find it just a little too much of a conflict as I said above and the overall light toning wouldn't sustain my interest for too long, so 60% for form as well!

Maybe that is all a bit long-winded but you did ask!
 

John,

Maybe that is all a bit long-winded but you did ask!

Indeed I did.

You actually raise several questions as to what the content might be - which I'll pursue after the others have commented.
 

I feel that I am looking at an artificial satellite pondering through space. This is my kind of image as I am always looking for reflections and patterns.
 

I've been thinking about the "form and content" thing off and on since seeing the post about it in your blog, --an "intellectual challenge", as Doug puts it. I suspect I tend more to go for what we are calling "form" (beautiful photography, as it was described) and don't always apply myself enough toward content as I might define it.

Your image has great appeal to me thanks to its form -- I admire it for the beauty of the clouds, and the shapes and design, but would I still find it as appealing if it were to hang on my wall for a month? If the answer to that turned out to be "no", is that because of a lack of content? I'm not so sure I could say that -- I have some abstract, inlaid batiks on my walls that I never tire of, though they are just shapes and colors with no meaning. Do they interest me due to content, or am I just a sucker for colorful and complex form? (entirely possible). "Content" may well be different for different people. (a meteorologist might find this image to have much more content than an architect would)

Not sure I've gotten anywhere with your question -- just thinking aloud some -- but that it is going to have to be enough for now! Past time for bed.
 

Rex: if you think that the pic looks like a satellite, then this one shows the same satellite with the solar panels out:

http://www.auspiciousdragon.net/today/index.php?showimage=437

Trip to mars?

Christina: I wonder if nature photographers are freer to concentrate on form because the content is often quite obvious. The picture is *of* a greater spotted bug eater, so I can play with shape and colour to show it in the best way.
 

Okay, for me, content is always there in an image. It may be content we do or perhaps do not understand or it can be the meaning that we give what is seen in the image. Kinda of what it is, it is.

Form on the other hand, is a factor of what the content suggests. The photographer can heavily effect the potentially preceived form. That is the form in this image has two interacting regions. One region has what we would identify as being puffy clouds in the sky. That region is adjacent to another form that is harder to understand. Perhaps that form (region in the image) are glass panels, or perhaps the eye of a dragonfly. If we can not easily pervide symbols (identification) to the form region, we have ambugity. Or we identify it as "such and such", then get a lablel or additional information that tells us that we have assigned the wrong "label" for the form and we then identify is as really "the other such thing".
 

Hmm, I'd say it has more content than form. When I think of form photos, I think of something cleaner than this. To me this mostly seems like it's about texture (the clouds, the reflections etc) which I would consider content.

Apart from the form/content question, I'm curious as to why you went with such low contrast and this particular middle gray for this photo.
 

I'm curious as to why you went with such low contrast and this particular middle gray for this photo.

I'm doing a fair amount of low contrast stuff with film at the moment. Maybe a reaction to digital...

This shot was processed for paper rather than screen. It sort of floats off the surface.
 

"This shot was processed for paper rather than screen. It sort of floats off the surface."

That I'd believe. I've been spending a fair amount of time lately thinking about the differences between print and online presentation.
 

I have trouble when thoughts such as form and content need to be expressed in words as to their meanings to the viewer.

On the surface this is quite a flat image. The reflections in the glass add some depth but the clouds in this scene seem a little flat. What does work is the contrast between the designed and the formed. The clouds add a welcome softness to the harsh glass construction. I need to see much more of the glass for this to work more for me.
 

I have trouble when thoughts such as form and content need to be expressed in words as to their meanings to the viewer.

Aye, but it is useful in understanding ones own pictures in this way.
 

Maybe it is difficult for me to be objective about form and content when I know the building well.

John, I think one of the interesting parts of this question is how much the content varies with the viewer.

Despite being fully aware of what the subject matter was, I nonetheless see this much more in the way that Rex did (satellite). That is, for me, the content is the sky (space, emptiness etc). The building is a prop.
 

Yes, I thought that the satellite image was convincing - all those plants whirling through space: NBG Wales exits the solar system!