Composition in photography

[One4UAll]

Hawkeye,

This is my attempt at a crop. You may have considered a horizontal orientation before taking the picture & ruled it out, but I think a horizontal orientation would have been better than the vertical you did.

As someone has already pointed out, you have two pictures, here & it would have been better to have taken two separate photos. Many times I've been faced with how much I can get into a photo, yet have a pleasing composition. I've had to make painful choices.

I cropped the blue building at the bottom so that it gives some flavor of the local architecture, while adding a kind of frame at the bottom. That's as much of the blue building that should figure in this composition, in my opinion.

The sky was severely cropped, as it does not add to the info in the main part of the photo. Cropping the sky also raises the horizon level somewhat above center. If the tower is a focal point, it is not according to the Rule of Thirds, but sometimes the Rule can't always strictly apply, especially in this nice scene of a Moroccan seacoast.

As already pointed out, you have a nice curve from lower right toward the tower. As to comments re: the horizon line, I don't see a problem there. The top of the seawall in the background looks fairly level, as does the top of the wall leading to the tower. The only thing that bothers me is the slant of the blue building, due to the perspective from which you took the photo. I do like this photo, as I've cropped it.

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

Hawkeye,

This is my attempt at a crop. You may have considered a horizontal orientation before taking the picture & ruled it out, but I think a horizontal orientation would have been better than the vertical you did.

That was my first thought when I looked at this image as well!

[0lBaldy]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

It all starts with clicking the shutter. You can save a lot of time post-editing by getting it right in the first place. <Clip>
It gets to what you want: a landscape? a family or news event (composition doesn't matter)? a portrait? publication? art? personal collection? The more you decide the purpose in advance, the more or less composition applies.
David

I tend to agree with David,
When I took photo classes we learned how to crop a single picture for advertisement, art, jewelry and a bunch of other purposes that I forget.. anyway the single 8x10 head shot could be cropped into about 15 different compositions.. each of which was supposedly the correct way for its particular use.
A lot is said of practice, practice, practice but the vast majority of us practice on automatic settings which tends to force us to center things first.. then lock in the settings.. and then compose.. which is a far cry from, as my wife says, "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense!" We are an impatient society and those extra steps are not a part of the "I want it NOW!" generation.

A bit of my history:
Way back in the early 50's when I first got interested in photography my dad was quick to let me know how expensive film and processing was and if I was going to take pictures I had better get it right the first time and not waste film on bad pictures

After I took my first pictures of my dog, (all bad) I learned that what you saw in those little prisms (one for vertical and one for horizontal) on the little "Brownie 620" was not what was captured on film.. This resulted in lessons from dad on how to adjust and visualize what was actually going to be captured on the negative.. I had to adjust for parallax depending on distance from the subject plus take note of what would be missing or added to the shots. I think this learning process helped partially develop my feeble eye for composition and a very minimal "Photographers eye" because to get a good picture you had to compose it in your mind as well as on the negative in the camera by having to look at the foreground, background, top, bottom, and sides of where the image on the film should be and finalizing the photo before snapping the shutter.. then try to remember what you did on each pic while waiting what seemed like forever to see your results from the lab..

A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.

Then came a 35mm with in camera spot meter, what a blessing.. if your subject was right in the middle of the frame the meter, or you, could adjust the exposure... Then through the lens metering, focusing, and actually being able to see what the lens saw and was putting on the film.. another blessing! But again almost all the attributes were centered in the frame.. Does there seem to be a pattern of learning to center things evolving here?

After the picture was taken if you had your own darkroom you could make magic happen.... enlarge, crop (Compose), dodge, burn, combine photos/negatives, use different grades of paper or different textures.. the things you could manipulate seemed endless.. So, after learning to center everything and getting a good exposure of your subject you could once again get back into good composition and aesthetics in the darkroom!
Hmmm, sounds like present day except instead of darkroom it is "Photoshop" (and much easier, I might add!)

When we look at a beautiful sunset we look at the whole thing in awe.. a seasoned photographer with that "photographer's eye" is able to spot a portion of that sunset that will create a good composition that evokes those same deep feelings we had witnessed in person.

I feel that you can know all or most of the mechanics of photography/retouching/painting but if you do not have the ability to visualize the finished outcome in your mind you may have a much rougher row to hoe. I think a seasoned photographer/retoucher/painter etc., has insight and can see things that others struggle to see.. The skill comes in the ability to see what looks good and being able to capture it and or crop it for the most dramatic, pleasing, aesthetic, artistic look.. so that other people can see it the same way. I think it takes years to learn, and a lifetime to master.
I am still trying to learn because there are three things I see all the time but have yet to capture recognizably in an image.. the man, lion, and old lady in the moon.. At night I have seen em all on the moon... but they have eluded me on any photos that I have taken trying to capture them..

For the past few years my better half has taken most of her pictures using digital... The camera has trained her to keep things in the middle for best point and click results.. "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense" is what I hear a lot of.. although she has gotten a lot better at hitting the telephoto button a few times before she snaps that picture of whatever is right smack in the middle. My job has been to processed them into prints. Thus far she has been happy with the crops, enlargements and placement of her subject matter even though it is seldom as she shot it.

I talked to my Grandson about this discussion on Composition in camera and his reply was short and to the point, “It’s going into Photoshop anyway, so why bother, as long as you have a good image to start with, you can Photoshop it any way you want later!” He brought up Dave Hill doing his composites... “Get the shot.. Manipulate it later!” I asked, “what if you don’t have Photoshop and just let Wally World process the pictures?” His answer, “Then you get what you got.. Find a friend with Photoshop if you want to change things.”

Old School.............VS ............. New School

Adjust settings ......................... Shoot a lot,
compose in frame .................... Memory is cheap
check settings .......................... hope for at least
shoot picture ............................ one keeper

WOW, this is a lot longer than I thought it would be! I offer my apologies for the long rambling read..

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

I tend to agree with David,
When I took photo classes we learned how to crop a single picture for advertisement, art, jewelry and a bunch of other purposes that I forget.. anyway the single 8x10 head shot could be cropped into about 15 different compositions.. each of which was supposedly the correct way for its particular use.
A lot is said of practice, practice, practice but the vast majority of us practice on automatic settings which tends to force us to center things first.. then lock in the settings.. and then compose.. which is a far cry from, as my wife says, "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense!" We are an impatient society and those extra steps are not a part of the "I want it NOW!" generation.

A bit of my history:
Way back in the early 50's when I first got interested in photography my dad was quick to let me know how expensive film and processing was and if I was going to take pictures I had better get it right the first time and not waste film on bad pictures

After I took my first pictures of my dog, (all bad) I learned that what you saw in those little prisms (one for vertical and one for horizontal) on the little "Brownie 620" was not what was captured on film.. This resulted in lessons from dad on how to adjust and visualize what was actually going to be captured on the negative.. I had to adjust for parallax depending on distance from the subject plus take note of what would be missing or added to the shots. I think this learning process helped partially develop my feeble eye for composition and a very minimal "Photographers eye" because to get a good picture you had to compose it in your mind as well as on the negative in the camera by having to look at the foreground, background, top, bottom, and sides of where the image on the film should be and finalizing the photo before snapping the shutter.. then try to remember what you did on each pic while waiting what seemed like forever to see your results from the lab..

A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.

Then came a 35mm with in camera spot meter, what a blessing.. if your subject was right in the middle of the frame the meter, or you, could adjust the exposure... Then through the lens metering, focusing, and actually being able to see what the lens saw and was putting on the film.. another blessing! But again almost all the attributes were centered in the frame.. Does there seem to be a pattern of learning to center things evolving here?

After the picture was taken if you had your own darkroom you could make magic happen.... enlarge, crop (Compose), dodge, burn, combine photos/negatives, use different grades of paper or different textures.. the things you could manipulate seemed endless.. So, after learning to center everything and getting a good exposure of your subject you could once again get back into good composition and aesthetics in the darkroom!
Hmmm, sounds like present day except instead of darkroom it is "Photoshop" (and much easier, I might add!)

When we look at a beautiful sunset we look at the whole thing in awe.. a seasoned photographer with that "photographer's eye" is able to spot a portion of that sunset that will create a good composition that evokes those same deep feelings we had witnessed in person.

I feel that you can know all or most of the mechanics of photography/retouching/painting but if you do not have the ability to visualize the finished outcome in your mind you may have a much rougher row to hoe. I think a seasoned photographer/retoucher/painter etc., has insight and can see things that others struggle to see.. The skill comes in the ability to see what looks good and being able to capture it and or crop it for the most dramatic, pleasing, aesthetic, artistic look.. so that other people can see it the same way. I think it takes years to learn, and a lifetime to master.
I am still trying to learn because there are three things I see all the time but have yet to capture recognizably in an image.. the man, lion, and old lady in the moon.. At night I have seen em all on the moon... but they have eluded me on any photos that I have taken trying to capture them..

For the past few years my better half has taken most of her pictures using digital... The camera has trained her to keep things in the middle for best point and click results.. "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense" is what I hear a lot of.. although she has gotten a lot better at hitting the telephoto button a few times before she snaps that picture of whatever is right smack in the middle. My job has been to processed them into prints. Thus far she has been happy with the crops, enlargements and placement of her subject matter even though it is seldom as she shot it.

I talked to my Grandson about this discussion on Composition in camera and his reply was short and to the point, “It’s going into Photoshop anyway, so why bother, as long as you have a good image to start with, you can Photoshop it any way you want later!” He brought up Dave Hill doing his composites... “Get the shot.. Manipulate it later!” I asked, “what if you don’t have Photoshop and just let Wally World process the pictures?” His answer, “Then you get what you got.. Find a friend with Photoshop if you want to change things.”

Old School.............VS ............. New School

Adjust settings ......................... Shoot a lot,
compose in frame .................... Memory is cheap
check settings .......................... hope for at least
shoot picture ............................ one keeper

WOW, this is a lot longer than I thought it would be! I offer my apologies for the long rambling read..

I am glad that you are such a good typist, because much of your history, equipment, thoughts and apparent age closely parallel my own and I never learned the typists craft.

I have, however, experienced much of what you have, including the advice to Grandchildren (now great Grandchildren). In spite of frustrations, the future is in good hands!

[hawkeye60]

OlBaldy said: A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.



Sounds like my old Mamiya C33 twin lens. Prior to that I had a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder. I had a darkroom for more years than I care to remember. It always amazes me how hours in the darkroom have been replaced by a click of the mouse. Not always better but certainly faster.

Wow what memories, I can almost smell the stop bath...

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

OlBaldy said: A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.



Sounds like my old Mamiya C33 twin lens. Prior to that I had a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder. I had a darkroom for more years than I care to remember. It always amazes me how hours in the darkroom have been replaced by a click of the mouse. Not always better but certainly faster.

Wow what memories, I can almost smell the stop bath...

I actually miss that smell!

[hawkeye60]

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area, since the first got such good feedback. Except for correcting the perspective to straighten the building, this is right out of the camera too.

Any cropping suggestions on this one?

[cardmnal]

Janet, this has been a most interesting thread, thank you for starting it.

It is my belief that the reason so many people simply bullseye their shots is because it feels comfortable and balanced and that is the way we like to see things in our everyday lives. We tend to look at things directly, look people directly in the eye, stare straight at the television and we certainly don't watch our kids play in the park according to the rule of thirds.

______________________________________________________________

It is apparent from the responses to this thread, opinion of this subject vary as much as the people posting them.

I have seen mention of the rule of thirds, leading lines and even a mention of structure. All very important elements in composition and most successful works contain many of these elements as well as some others. I am a bit surprised, however, there has been no mention of balance.

Using Hawkeye's image as reference I will attempt an explanation. The original (1st image) Is striking at first glance. Upon closer inspection it becomes clear the tower is the intended focal point. The problem IMHO is the blue building and it's courtyard make the photo very bottom heavy detracting from it.

My first thought is to eliminate all the distractions so, using the approximate rule of thirds I move so the tower clearly became the most important part of the image (#2). Leaving a lot of sky makes it feel more balanced but the image is unspectactular at best.

Next (images 3 and 4) I changed to a horizontal format and eliminated the bottom weight and most of the sky. The white buildings near the middle are now the most weighted part of the photo creating tension and drawing the eye away from the tower. By placing the tower far to the left side of the image it acts as a counter weight and the image feels balanced (green). There is enough horizontal and vertical structure (yellow) for the image to seem solid and enough repetitive shapes (blue) to make it feel full and interesting. Finally the viewers eye is drawn to the tower by it's relative isolation and leading lines (red).


.......then again, I could be full of it


Alan

[palms1]

Just to let you all know i am still following along (Just)
Mike i agree with you ( thats me) it is easy to use the bullseye, and i am just starting to take the camera off auto occasionally

The other night there was a documentary on, and there i was looking at the composition and why it had been shot in a certain way Thanks (i think)

now how about with regards to people/groups any one have a photo ?

Palms

[Ziaphra]

Sorry if this has been posted before as I have not read through the whole thread but here are a couple of great links on composition:

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/cl...m.php?lesson=1
http://www.sxc.hu/blog/post/689

[Janet Petty]

OlBaldy, I hear what your grandson is telling you. Tell him he is full of it (figuratively speaking of course). He needs to know that Photoshop can only fix so much, that there are only so many pixels in a photo, and that taking too many pixels for a crop will often destroy a picture when it comes time to print, especially if he wants something larger than the 4x6 that Wally World will print.

Cardmnal, great addition to the discussion. And your examples really make the point.

Ziaphra, those additions are very well done. Thank you for sharing. I've bookmarked them both.

Now, someone asked about posting a bad example/good example of people. Believe me, I have lots of both. Feel free to pick these apart. One is a good example of slicing too many pixels. That would be the Union soldier. One is a straight out of the camera snapshot. The other is the black and white conversion and crop.

Janet

[One4UAll]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area, since the first got such good feedback. Except for correcting the perspective to straighten the building, this is right out of the camera too.

Any cropping suggestions on this one?

Unlike my comments on your earlier photo in which I thought a horizontal orientation was better, on this one, I think a vertical orientation would have been better. Why? Because I'm curious what that mural with the hands at the bottom looks like. Plus, it adds significant color, and could well be the focal point. You might have aimed your camera lower, reducing the sky & showing more of the mural.

Again, you should have taken two photos, or three: One horizontal for the buildings (your original), one vertical to get the mural in, & maybe one on the mural, itself. My crop eliminates the distraction of the mural & focuses on the shapes of the Moroccan dwellings as you probably intended.

In this crop, elements start standing out to give some organization to the composition. The architecture at upper left may be a primary focal point, now approximately positioned according to the Rule of Thirds, with the "chimney" on the right as a secondary focal point. Now you've got triangulation between those two focal points and the black square at the bottom. The lamp on the right adds a nice touch of opposition to the geometrics. Other details stand out, also.

I must add that this analysis is only after the fact; it's like revising in writing. You know, a first draft, etc.

In a link someone previously provided, here, on photo composition, the first principle is to "fill the frame." That's the first thing every photographer should think. Then, "how are you going to fill that frame?" That's when the Rule of Thirds, etc. kick in.

One example that drives me up the wall is when I see photos of, say, three people, standing for an informal portrait (you know, Mom, Dad, Sister, etc.). The photo is taken horizontally with distracting, uninformative details to left and right, while Mom, Dad, etc., are cut off at the waist. Get all they are in the photo with a vertical orientation and move in, because it is they & nothing else that are important.

The better you photograph, the less you have to photoshop. One cannot think of all the compositional details when taking a picture, unless one is a studio advertising photographer, with complete control. What I'm saying is think of two or three basics when you press the shutter, if you have time. The rest can, indeed, be worked out in Photoshop.

David

[LonK]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area.

Another very interesting shot hawkeye60.

Simplified.
Geometrics.

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area, since the first got such good feedback. Except for correcting the perspective to straighten the building, this is right out of the camera too.

Any cropping suggestions on this one?

Hawkeye60, your images have certainly helped expand the discussion! One aspect that interests me is that different people have posted different ideas about how the images could have been shot and what the photo subject appears to be. Different people standing in that same location would have been attracted to different aspects of that same scene and would have emphasized their chosen aspects. Composition begins with the choice of subject. Which aspects of this last image did you consider to be YOUR subject?

[hawkeye60]

Thanks to everyone for their informative input...I am leaving for a trip to Israel and then on to Egypt (my 2nd time there) next week. I'll definately be taking more photos, hopefully I'll be taking along a "better eye" as well.