Composition in photography

[Ziaphra]

Originally Posted by LonK

I never really got interested in macro photography, crazyfly. However, I think your frost photo has a rather strong composition as is. The heavy diagonal is very dynamic and the repetition of the branches provides nice symmetry. The texture is intriguing.

I did take it upon myself to enhance the photo a bit -- a very slight crop, adding a suggestive background to improve the feeling of depth and blending a slight blue tint to emphasize how cold it must have been.

Love your touch on this.

[crazyfly1]

Originally Posted by Ziaphra

Here we go...lovely photo.

Thank you.
I really like that crop. The longer path really works, and it does lead me right down it. Makes me want to know what's down there.

[One4UAll]

I really like what Zaphira has done with this photo; I'd never have thought of blue toning it. What she has done in her cropping is what I've been emphasizing in earlier posts: People want their photos do too much. (Sorry, crazyfly1)

Zaphira has shown this was two photos in one, with the left side an excellent composition. (Again, mess around between vertical & horizontal orientations when composing a photo.) crazyfly1's original composition was fairly good, except for the sign. On the other hand, he has the path disappearing into the near-center of the photo.

The point of the Rule of Thirds is to avoid symmetry, unless the pattern you want to convey is symmetrical. In most cases, you want asymmetry, the point of the Rule. Someone mentioned balance as an element. That's ok, but there has to be a dominant element or direction (perspective) that's off-center, that teases the eye.

Zaphira's crop does that; I'm not a Rule fascist, but if I were, I'd say that the central clump of trees comes pretty close as a focal point, placed according to the Rule.

I cropped Zaphira's rendition by eliminating some of the sky, which I don't think adds any more to what's already there. I'm a "fill the frame" guy.

David

[LonK]

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

I'm not sure what qualifies as a macro, these were shot rather close but not with a macro lens.

Originally macro meant that the image on the film itself was the same size as the object. Specially designed (macro) lenses were produced and utilized that maximized sharpness at 1:1 magnification. That definition has since been diluted to mean simply any sort of close-up photography.

[Janet Petty]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

I'm a "fill the frame" guy.
David

Too funny. I'm not a "fill the frame" kind of person. I actually like the negative space.

My weaknesses are 1. to shoot with the bull's eye vision and, 2. to forget to move the horizon above or below the middle--even after all these years, I still fight those two.

The picture we are working on cropping would have been better shot vertical rather than landscape. It just works better that way (as seen by the crops). However, without the color or nuances thereof, the picture itself is not as interesting. Ziaphra's first crop is to be the best, as are the colors. I happen to think that the coloring in this photo contributes as much as space. If the colors are off, then the picture doesn't draw a person's eye even with great lines. BRrrrrrrrrrr!!

Janet

[LonK]

It would seem that we are all in agreement in our opinion of what would be the best composition of your winter scene, crazyfly.

I thought it would make a great painterly. To that end, I also took some liberties with the perspective to amplify the existing compositional strengths. Don't ya just love the flexibility that digital imaging affords us?

[Janet Petty]

Macro: What Lonnie said. Although I have to admit that the 1:1 thing throws me a little. How does one tell if something is life size? If it fills the frame? Then when it is printed, what happens then?

I know this off subject. But.

Anyway, to explain macro visually at least, I shot the picture below with a 1:1 macro lens from a focal distance of about 2-3 inches at best. Now, I'm looking for a macro lens that will put me at least 10 inches away from my subject.

Macro is a whole other world. Composition in macro is easier for me because the subject fills the frame, the background is blurred out (or mostly). That is called bokeh, by the way. And, in macro because of the loss of depth-of-field, there is no questioning what the subject really is.

Janet

[crazyfly1]

Lonnie, thank you for the brief leson in macro. I f that's the case then that picture of the branches with ice is macro as it's about 1:1.
I love the painting yo made, that is sooo cool. I'll have to send a copy to my sister I think she'd like it too.
As for the flexability of digital...sometimes yes sometimes no. I'll be posting in the critique section soon and that is one of my questions/problems. How do I find the right "look" in a portrait shot? cropped close, cropped reallly close (just eyes and lips) change the perspective by turning the image in the crop. Those are all questions that this thread is helping with. Then of course, there is the question of antique bw. color, enhanced oversat color, tinted, duo, quadtone, high or low contrast, on and on and on and usually at the end of two hours I'm still not happy and just scrap it to start another day. Choices are not my strong point.

[Elkhornsun]

Composition reflects the 3-dimensional world and how we perceive it when it is represented in 2 dimensions and need cues to provide perspective. Relative size and relative position all help with the mental interpolation required to "see" a picture in 3-dimensions.

With images that have people the dynamics of composition are different than for static subjects. Simple example is having a person face into the frame from one edge versus looking toward the edge of the frame that is on the same side as the person. A person running "into" the frame usually works better than having them on one side and running "out" of the frame.

In general I find that novice photographers in this era of zoom lenses will over crop people in their pictures and not provide "breathing space" and in doing so remove the context in terms of what is going on around the person and influencing them at that moment in time. The best way I know of to illustrate the difference is to study the images of Henri Cartier-Bresson. He was trained as a painter and had a thorough understanding of traditional composition. When he spoke about capturing the "moment" many people misunderstood the full import of what he meant.

If you examine his pictures you will find many where the composition is perfect and a key element is a person who is in motion. Henri saw the composition in his mind and waited until the exact moment the person moved into the perfect position for his pre-conceived composition and then he released the shutter and captured the moment and his composition. As a painter he could put a subject anywhere he choose. As a photographer he had to take a different approach to achieve the same result. His approach takes more knowledge of composition and patience and the technical skill to put it all together but the results show the benefit in the images he created.

There is a natural basis for the rules of composition. The golden ratio is found expressed in mathematics, the Parthenon, and the nautilus' shell. It is not an abstraction generated by academia. In many ways composition is the visual gramer of photography which at it heart is about communicating with others.

[TreesOfMyTime]

[B]In general I find that novice photographers in this era of zoom lenses will over crop people in their pictures and not provide "breathing space" and in doing so remove the context in terms of what is going on around the person and influencing them at that moment in time.[/B

I don' think that ultra close portrait shots fall into the category you describe and are therefor properly composed.

"C-B" also had the control of a painter inasmuch as he could scout a viewpoint into which he new a person would walk/jump/rin etc.

Just my thoughts!

[sirespen]

Just finsihed to read this (long) thread. It takes me a while, but it was worth I hope we will see new ecamples soon

[palms]

How have i done on this example with composition ?
I am trying to take on board what has been advised and i think i may be making small but sure steps

I Know the photo has a few other problems but it was took as a quick snap to show someone that this path existed using my compact p&s and has served its purpose and is due for the recylce bin so thought i would practice

Palms

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by palms1

How have i done on this example with composition ?
I am trying to take on board what has been advised and i think i may be making small but sure steps
Palms

Palms, I think your crop really improved the composition - especially at the top of the image by removing the bit of sky that didn't add anything important to the subject.

Let's see what others think?

[swarbees]

I do like the crop but I tried leaving the little patch of grassland at the top---if you do that I felt that the round building should be cloned out. I also eliminated the trunk to the lower left. I'm not convinced you need to keep the patch of grassland --I just wanted to see how it looked. I also did a levels adjustment and I reduced the blue color cast-- It looked kind of like everything was the same shade of green in your second image so I didn't reduce the blue as much as yours. I ran unsharp mask and this is what I came up with.

[palms]

Nice take swarbees and some food for thought

Palms

[AFrazier]

I wouldn't recycle that one. It just needs a little TLC to be a spectacular image. I took swarbees levels a few steps further. I fine tuned the white balance and temperature, added highlights and shadows, and a few other minor things.
It really is a beautiful shot.

[palms]

Originally Posted by AFrazier

I wouldn't recycle that one. It just needs a little TLC to be a spectacular image. I took swarbees levels a few steps further. I fine tuned the white balance and temperature, added highlights and shadows, and a few other minor things.
It really is a beautiful shot.

Thank you Alex for your work and inspiration i love seeing how people have different takes, will look at the photo now with new eyes

Palms

[MiningArt]

Really great thread, a big thanks for all the input of knowledge. Here are my crops from the examples. I used a 16x9 ratio crop for all. The first I went after the most depth, the water leading off into the distance. The second I put their eyes on a golden ratio line, but made the focal point the figure way back in the alley. The third I felt the fruit stand was the main point so put it's main opening on the golden ratio line. The fourth follows the road ending with the trees on the golden ratio line.

[Janet Petty]

The link below clarifies what the "golden ratio line" is as mentioned by Mining Art above. The whole article is worth reading. This ratio Mining Art talks about is widely used in architecture, art, photography, etc. The mathematician who is credited for bringing it to the forefront of society is Fibonacci. I've attached a very brief note about the formula. Try it. It works!

http://www.photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/...lden_Ratio.htm

Janet

[Algarve Images]

What a really interesting thread, just finished reading this from the beginning.
I'm trying to think just how many of these guidlines / rules etc my brain computes just before the shutter is pressed and it's not that many lol..
May be i can train myself to combine the guidlines with instinct and react quick enough not to miss the shot, easy enough with a landscape thats not going anywhere, more difficult when it's past paced with differing lighting conditions and moving subjects..
Somebody mentioned photoshop earlier on being referred to as a one stop solution for everything, it's useful for enhancing an image beyond what a raw converter can do, but it can't repair a bad composition or change a wrong angle when cropping etc..
A very high percentage of the success of a good image is the lighting, composition, angle etc etc... stuff that needs thought, feeling, emotion, passion and raw artistic talent... i do admire these people, for us mere mortals it means practice and more of the same.
I have seen incredible shots done with a point and shoot, so although it's helpful to have the camera setup properly, the resulting image is more to do with making the picture than "taking it",
regards,
Gary..

[0lBaldy]

Point N Shot N crop

[Algarve Images]

This is one of a few i took a couple of weeks ago, the first one is straight from raw without any correction, as usual i used the bullseye technique to nail the shot quickly thinking i could crop later.. i was going to crop as a landscape with kids to the right then thought portrait would work better... am still undecided, but there are many more things to worry about for the rest of the day lol
regards,
Gary..

[AFrazier]

I would have cropped it a little differently.

What do you think of this crop?

It follows the "rule of thirds" a little more closely, gives a point of interest and orientation with the rope/post barrier things on the beach, and gives a point of interest in the upper segment as well with the floats.
Since the children are moving to the right, positioning them on the left also gives them "somewhere to go" as they say, whereas the vertical crop was a little less obvious in that respect.

[Algarve Images]

Hi Afrazier,
yes it works, i did actually mean kids to the left, not to the right..
I see what you mean about the barrier being a point of interest, but decided i needed clutter free sand so went the other way..

[AFrazier]

I hear ya. All art is subjective. It's what works on a person by person, case by case basis.

[pumpkincat210]

I really haven't had a good chance at taking some photography using the rule of thirds. The scenery around here is really trashy unfortunately.
Although not a photographer or photoshop artist, Claudine Hellmuth is one of my favorite artists. More of a mixed media artist, she focuses alot on composition and it shows great in her work. Her works aren't "centered", but you are drawn to the subject as easily as if they were. http://www.claudinehellmuth.com/book.htm