Boundary Conditions, Real and Imagined

JimKasson

Community Leader
Forum Moderator
Messages
50,024
Solutions
52
Reaction score
59,070
Location
Monterey, CA, US
When I studied partial differential equations, one concept that stood out was the role of boundary conditions. These weren't optional. They shaped the very nature of the solution. The same differential equation could describe very different phenomena depending on how the boundaries were defined. It didn’t take long before I started seeing boundary conditions in other places. Not just in math problems, but in engineering decisions, in organizational behavior, and eventually, in photography.

The phrase "think outside the box" is really about boundary conditions. The "box" refers to a set of constraints we assume are part of the problem, even though they may not be. They're often defaults from past habits, inherited norms, or assumptions that no longer apply.

Photography, despite being a creative pursuit, is full of these imagined boundaries. Take the assumption that certain subjects should be photographed in certain ways: landscapes with wide-angle lenses, portraits with shallow depth of field, street photography in black and white. These are stylistic conventions. They’re not dictated by the subject or the tools. They’re boundaries that many of us accept without thinking.

There are also technical assumptions. That base ISO is always best. That sharpness is mandatory. That "good light" only happens at golden hour. Often these beliefs start as sensible rules of thumb, but over time they become fixed constraints.

Workflow brings its own boundaries. You might assume that editing must be done in a particular piece of software. Or that an image is only valid if it comes straight out of the camera. Or that a certain output medium is the only legitimate one. These limits are not imposed by the subject or the goal. They're adopted, sometimes unconsciously.

Questioning boundaries in photography can open up both new modes of expression and new ways of seeing. Shooting portraits with wide-angle lenses distorts space in interesting ways. Capturing landscapes in harsh midday sun might emphasize texture and abstraction. Printing with alternative processes can shift the mood of an image entirely.

This is not to say that all boundaries are artificial. Some are real. The laws of physics still apply. The point is to separate necessary constraints from those we have simply accepted without challenge.

In mathematics, changing the boundary conditions can produce an entirely different class of solutions. The same is true in photography. Change the assumptions, and new images become possible.
 
Last edited:
So very true, and what is true in life is also true in photography. I work as a programme manager delivering large scale organisational change and the biggest barriers I face are always those firmly held beliefs that 'This is the way we must do this' and when challenged oftentimes this equates to 'I've always done it this way and I've never questioned why'

Photography as you say has any number of rules which must be followed or you're deemed not to be a proper photographer

At it's heart, photography is an interpretation of a subject by the person who is observing that subject. How they choose to interpretate it is a choice. Some rules are immutable, others custom and practice, and when we all follow the same rules our interpretations all begin to look the same.
 
Chaos vs. order.

Freedom vs. constraints.

Real vs. imagined.

I’m no math person, but the brutal realities of the life and death career choice I made many years ago, and subsequently navigating and surviving in a political environment - leading my organization - pressed home the concept and reality and necessity and sometimes absurdity of boundary conditions.

One of my “sayings” was, and still is, “Don’t play the conversation.” People in my career field felt almost compelled to tell me “how it is.” I never bought that for a minute. Until I’d bloodied myself with harsh realities, I always pushed boundaries just to find out. As a result, much to my colleagues’ dismay, I advanced faster and farther than all of them. A good dose of stubborn helps.

On the other hand, when I was empowering others to use their creativity and expertise and experience in developing programs, or designing equipment, I quickly discovered that I “owed” them realistic constraints to their freedom to “go and do.” Every system will at some point impose boundary conditions, be they physical, financial, or political. Some of the most intractable boundaries were the most “lame” in terms of any relationship to reality.

Humans are taxonomists. We name things. Divide them up based on characteristics of some sort. Create categories. I think this tendency, in part, explains how false or arbitrary boundaries get created. It’s a double edged sword.

Rand
 
Last edited:
Great post!
Thanks.
Please make this thread sticky. :D
Sorry, but I don't know how to do that. I don't think that's a facility available to mods.
It was meant to be a laugh as I have seen your same remark in a different thread.
.
Questioning boundaries in photography can open up both new modes of expression and new ways of seeing.
+100
 
Last edited:
Humans are taxonomists. We name things. Divide them up based on characteristics of some sort. Create categories. I think this tendency, in part, explains how false or arbitrary boundaries get created.
I agree.

How many times do we see someone say “that’s comparing apples to oranges”. They use a taxonomic analogy to try to invalidate what might be a perfectly reasonable choice set.
 
Last edited:
When I studied partial differential equations, one concept that stood out was the role of boundary conditions. These weren't optional. They shaped the very nature of the solution. The same differential equation could describe very different phenomena depending on how the boundaries were defined. It didn’t take long before I started seeing boundary conditions in other places. Not just in math problems, but in engineering decisions, in organizational behavior, and eventually, in photography.

The phrase "think outside the box" is really about boundary conditions. The "box" refers to a set of constraints we assume are part of the problem, even though they may not be. They're often defaults from past habits, inherited norms, or assumptions that no longer apply.

Photography, despite being a creative pursuit, is full of these imagined boundaries. Take the assumption that certain subjects should be photographed in certain ways: landscapes with wide-angle lenses, portraits with shallow depth of field, street photography in black and white. These are stylistic conventions. They’re not dictated by the subject or the tools. They’re boundaries that many of us accept without thinking.

There are also technical assumptions. That base ISO is always best. That sharpness is mandatory. That "good light" only happens at golden hour. Often these beliefs start as sensible rules of thumb, but over time they become fixed constraints.

Workflow brings its own boundaries. You might assume that editing must be done in a particular piece of software. Or that an image is only valid if it comes straight out of the camera. Or that a certain output medium is the only legitimate one. These limits are not imposed by the subject or the goal. They're adopted, sometimes unconsciously.

Questioning boundaries in photography can open up both new modes of expression and new ways of seeing. Shooting portraits with wide-angle lenses distorts space in interesting ways. Capturing landscapes in harsh midday sun might emphasize texture and abstraction. Printing with alternative processes can shift the mood of an image entirely.

This is not to say that all boundaries are artificial. Some are real. The laws of physics still apply. The point is to separate necessary constraints from those we have simply accepted without challenge.

In mathematics, changing the boundary conditions can produce an entirely different class of solutions. The same is true in photography. Change the assumptions, and new images become possible.
 
...he says, as the GFX 100RF elicits a torrent of "you're not supposed to do it that way!" aimed at both its designers and its users.
 
Last edited:
Change the assumptions, and new images become possible.
"There are more than 100 different way to shoot any subject" - is something that my college professor taught me many years ago, when he asked each of us to pick a subject and then take 100 pictures of it by the end of the term.

One guy complained because he thought that was a stupid assignment, so the professor handed him a white cup and said that’s your subject.

100 different images or an ‘F’ - it's your call.

Over the years I have repeated that phase many times since - and even have this section on my website to let my clients see what I mean by that: Before & After - because like you say “change the assumptions, and new images become possible.

"One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his great surprises, is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn’t do." - Henry Ford.

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.
 
Last edited:
Have just tried to look at your website and the link in your profile will not work.

Considering the theme of this post, your before and after concept is in fact a control on the ambiance by yourself to alter ( improve ? ) the clients ambiance in the photograph.

As it becomes your manipulated ambiance, is that a true representation as visitors will see the hotel in the future, or a window to your world, set by your boundaries that are quite temporary ?
 
Last edited:
Have just tried to look at your website and the link in your profile will not work.
Try: http://www.ampimage.com/behind-1.htm
Considering the theme of this post, your before and after concept is in fact a control on the ambiance by yourself to alter ( improve ? ) the clients ambiance in the photograph.

As it becomes your manipulated ambiance, is that a true representation as visitors will see the hotel in the future, or a window to your world, set by your boundaries that are quite temporary ?
When it comes to producing images for others to use, especially in their advertising & marketing material, sometimes they will ask me to help them sell the Sizzle, other times they will ask me to help them sell the Steak.

Either way, there is usually quite a few people involved in the process...

d304e92e8b4f4849981b7b572b09c307.jpg


.. when it comes to creating an image like this...

2381c673b4364f93addb8ced46838517.jpg


.. which they may end up using in a number of differently ways and in multiple media too, like this...

55c4f7af1ce547da8a60ba4f8c725ed7.jpg


.. over the next 10 years or so.

But even when it’s not for someone to use in their advertising & marketing material, even if it was just for Editorial use, as you can see here: Before & After - I still wouldn't just take a picture of whatever happened to be there at the time...

(The first picture taken in the sitting room in Emma and Graham Cooper's 19th-century semi-detached house in east Belfast)

(The first picture taken in the sitting room in Emma and Graham Cooper's 19th-century semi-detached house in east Belfast)

.. and leave it at that, I would instead try to create an image that others would want to use, like so...

(Our work as seen on pages 90 to 93 in the October 2016 issue of 25 Beautiful Homes magazine)

(Our work as seen on pages 90 to 93 in the October 2016 issue of 25 Beautiful Homes magazine)

.. or like so...

(Our work as seen on the cover plus, on pages 82 to 93 in the October 2017 issue of Ireland's Homes Interiors and Living magazine)

(Our work as seen on the cover plus, on pages 82 to 93 in the October 2017 issue of Ireland's Homes Interiors and Living magazine)

.. because that’s what I do in an attempt to put food on the table and keep a roof over my family’s head.

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.
 
Last edited:
The boundaries are important; without them to constrain you, how do you break though to introduce new thoughts and ideas.
When I studied partial differential equations, one concept that stood out was the role of boundary conditions. These weren't optional. They shaped the very nature of the solution. The same differential equation could describe very different phenomena depending on how the boundaries were defined. It didn’t take long before I started seeing boundary conditions in other places. Not just in math problems, but in engineering decisions, in organizational behavior, and eventually, in photography.

The phrase "think outside the box" is really about boundary conditions. The "box" refers to a set of constraints we assume are part of the problem, even though they may not be. They're often defaults from past habits, inherited norms, or assumptions that no longer apply.

Photography, despite being a creative pursuit, is full of these imagined boundaries. Take the assumption that certain subjects should be photographed in certain ways: landscapes with wide-angle lenses, portraits with shallow depth of field, street photography in black and white. These are stylistic conventions. They’re not dictated by the subject or the tools. They’re boundaries that many of us accept without thinking.

There are also technical assumptions. That base ISO is always best. That sharpness is mandatory. That "good light" only happens at golden hour. Often these beliefs start as sensible rules of thumb, but over time they become fixed constraints.

Workflow brings its own boundaries. You might assume that editing must be done in a particular piece of software. Or that an image is only valid if it comes straight out of the camera. Or that a certain output medium is the only legitimate one. These limits are not imposed by the subject or the goal. They're adopted, sometimes unconsciously.

Questioning boundaries in photography can open up both new modes of expression and new ways of seeing. Shooting portraits with wide-angle lenses distorts space in interesting ways. Capturing landscapes in harsh midday sun might emphasize texture and abstraction. Printing with alternative processes can shift the mood of an image entirely.

This is not to say that all boundaries are artificial. Some are real. The laws of physics still apply. The point is to separate necessary constraints from those we have simply accepted without challenge.

In mathematics, changing the boundary conditions can produce an entirely different class of solutions. The same is true in photography. Change the assumptions, and new images become possible.
 
Hi,

The Box works this way in engineering as well. So often, a new kind of component comes along and most every engineer wants to use it in the same manner as the old kind. And that does work. But then someone, usually a competitor, thinks outside the old box and there we are. Mostly scrambling to play catch up.

Stan
 
In mathematics, changing the boundary conditions can produce an entirely different class of solutions. The same is true in photography. Change the assumptions, and new images become possible.
Hi Jim,

Reading your message brought me back to a dream I had — a real one, just a few days ago. It was about the relationship between numbers and photography, set in Japan, and so vivid that I had to write it down as soon as I woke. A kind of epiphany: the dream revealed a different way of seeing photography — not as aesthetics, but as structure. A system of invisible ratios, complex fractions, and equations. Photographs as formulas, where subject and background, emotion and geometry, compose a visual language made of numbers.

Maybe it was triggered by a heavy dinner… or maybe by a brain perpetually split between technical work and creative tension.

Here’s the blog post — no hidden agenda to drive web traffic, just the genuine wish to connect with your writing in some way:


Massimo
 
to understanding constraints and how they should be approached that I've ever seen on a photography forum. And it makes sense (or should) to the technically minded and the rest of us it equal measure. Kudos.

It's also a great jumping off point for a whole host of discussions about everything from aesthetics (a branch of philosophy) to personal preferences/needs in matters of art and the equipment we use to make it, be they 0000 brushes, various camera gear, or jackhammers, and all manner of stuff in between.

This is not to say there's no wrong way to do things. I'll never offer my father any of my good scotch ever again after I watched him pour about a cup of water into an incredibly good and very expensive scotch I poured him a dram of. Not that I mind a highball in the warm months, but there's stuff specifically designed for that .

I hope this great thread stimulates better discussions here!

And if you haven't already done so, hie on over to Jim's website and check out his photographic work. You already know his technical acumen from this forum.
 
In the early years of aviation, many European efforts, particularly in France, focused on inherent stability. The idea was that a flying machine should behave like a boat or a carriage: it should go where it was pointed and resist disturbances. The Wright Brothers, by contrast, approached flight as an inherently unstable process that required active control by the pilot at all times, more like balancing on a bicycle than steering a cart. Their breakthrough came not just from building an airframe or an engine, but from devising a system of three-axis control that let the pilot constantly correct the plane’s motion in pitch, roll, and yaw.

When the Wrights demonstrated their Flyer in Europe (notably at Le Mans in 1908), the flight world was stunned, not just by the duration and control of the flight, but by the apparent deliberate instability of the aircraft. What had once been assumed to be a requirement, that the machine must be inherently stable, was revealed to be a boundary condition of the problem that the Wrights had consciously rejected.

This is an illustration of how progress often comes not just from solving a problem within its perceived constraints, but from questioning whether those constraints are real or self-imposed.
 
In the early years of aviation, many European efforts, particularly in France, focused on inherent stability. The idea was that a flying machine should behave like a boat or a carriage: it should go where it was pointed and resist disturbances. The Wright Brothers, by contrast, approached flight as an inherently unstable process that required active control by the pilot at all times, more like balancing on a bicycle than steering a cart. Their breakthrough came not just from building an airframe or an engine, but from devising a system of three-axis control that let the pilot constantly correct the plane’s motion in pitch, roll, and yaw.

When the Wrights demonstrated their Flyer in Europe (notably at Le Mans in 1908), the flight world was stunned, not just by the duration and control of the flight, but by the apparent deliberate instability of the aircraft. What had once been assumed to be a requirement, that the machine must be inherently stable, was revealed to be a boundary condition of the problem that the Wrights had consciously rejected.

This is an illustration of how progress often comes not just from solving a problem within its perceived constraints, but from questioning whether those constraints are real or self-imposed.
And, here’s an example of a completely artificial boundary condition that cannot be overcome, or ignored, without consequences. Fire engines are red. There’s no particular reason for this. The first fire engine in the US was blue. But it’s become a boundary condition of sorts. The most visible color, ergo the safest for visibility while responding Code 3, is international lime yellow-green. Many “progressive” fire departments started buying equipment in this color. The public failed to yield right of way, and ran into them more often than red ones. The artificial boundary condition was/is that people expect fire equipment to be RED.

Rand
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top