PDA

View Full Version : Composition



Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 10:07
I have wondered if it wouldn't be helpful to some to post images depicting different aspects of composition. This could be the different types of balance or the different ways that perspective can be utilized. For those who post images, it would be nice if you would describe the compositional considerations that your image incorporates and what you are attempting to illustrate through your image.

I will begin this thread with an image that illustrates asymetrical balance.

For those that may not be aware, asymetrical balance utilizes a planned or constructed imbalance wherein a single seemingly disconnected aspect of the composition balances the remainder.

Alex Hawley
8-Jul-2008, 12:45
I, for one, think it would be helpful Don. I'm not eloquent at all when describing composition, nor one who thinks in eloquent terms about it when I'm doing it. So, I would like to read and learn from the thoughts and examples others may post.

Daniel_Buck
8-Jul-2008, 12:53
This one was tricky (for me) to do a 4x10 vertical composition. I managed to get layers (from bottom to top) of Rock, Plants, Hill, Sky in fairly even 4ths (instead of the usual 3rds)

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/las_virgenes_01.jpg

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 13:02
I, for one, think it would be helpful Don. I'm not eloquent at all when describing composition, nor one who thinks in eloquent terms about it when I'm doing it. So, I would like to read and learn from the thoughts and examples others may post.


Alex, That is would be O.K...perhaps it might be helpful if you posted one of your fine images and some of us might comment on what we observe compositionally.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 13:04
Daniel, A really fine image. Do you see anything more in the composition of your image that brings it all together? What engages one's eye and what is the effect?

john borrelli
8-Jul-2008, 14:23
Both excellent photos. Daniel your photo is more in my style of landscape photography, so I'll comment on yours.

Firstly, you get points for a vertical 4X10 landscape! Wow...The compositional qualities that hit me in this excellent photograph would have to do with the repetition of tonal values and textures.

The triangular shape, texture and tonal values of the foreground rocks echo those of the cliff. The moss in the water echoes the sky. The dark band of water, I think, is very strong and it splits the composition but echoes the tonal values of the background tree branches so I don't get stuck in this horizontal band.

The grass gets the viewer's eye going again, as it shares the tonal values of the tree branches in the distance as well as their texture: the top of the branches and the tops of the blades of grass. The grasses also are light at their base and there the grasses tie in the lighter values of the foreground rocks, cliff and sky. Scanning up from their base, the breeze in the grass tops gives off energy(similar to the sky) and gets my eye moving again.

I think the repetition of tones and textures in this composition helps the viewer to see something tall, thin and beautiful.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 15:19
This is an example of a second type of balance. This type is named symetrical balance and as one would expect it is symetrical in that if one drew a line down the center of the image it would be very nearly the same on both sides of the line.

In symetrical balance the line could be either vertical or horizontal.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 15:29
My thoughts on the image that Daniel posted are as follows. This image shows several of the considerations that one could evaluate in making an image of this type. Particularly apparent are the considerations involved with perspective. The first thing that I notice is that the stones in the lower left corner of the image give us the beginning of the classic Ansel Adams near/far relationship.

The triangular shape of the near shore directs our eyes into the image. The darkness of the water beyond the apex of the triangular shape noted provides a needed and beneficial break of tonality. This is then further interrupted by the vertical lines of the reeds. These transitions in either tonal value, texture, or form continue throughout the rest of the image and these transitions provide the needed visual clues to impart a sense of depth in the image. We can observe that each of these transitions are overlapping other aspects and in order for that to be true we know that they were nearer and further from the point of observation. All in all, a very nice and effectively composed image.

John Voss
8-Jul-2008, 16:52
I've recently discovered a book my wife has had for years entitled A Painter's Guide to Design and Composition by Margot Schulske. It can be utterly invaluable to the photographer as well as the painter who is a constructor of images. What I've done with it for the time being is to look back on the photographs I've made to see what I've done, or not done, or done correctly, or not correctly (and I mean that with the full force of its implied orthodoxy...I am not the trained professional artist she is, and have to start with the discipline somewhere.). I recommend it to the many of us who have not attended art school, but who would be far better photographers if we paid as much attention to the acquired wisdom of painters as we perhaps do to the technology of photography.

gbogatko
8-Jul-2008, 17:29
With nails firmly being chewed, I submit the enclosed. The bright vase and lily should be balanced by the dark maple leaves that take up the rest of the frame. There is also the curve that extends from the vase along the bottom of the assembled leaves and then zigs back upward like a check mark. Also, the lily is missing a pedal, which gives it the same 5 point shape as the maple leaves.

How much is on purpose? Certainly the lily and the sweep of the branch from left to right. The arch is "helped" with dodging.

Tear away.

George

Mike Castles
8-Jul-2008, 18:58
Interesting thread Donald, a pleasure as always.

Here is a symetrical balance (or one I feel worked well). The intent was to balance the light and form of the column. It was if the designer/builder intended for the structure to memic a flower - form and function working together.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 19:26
This image is an example of another of the types of balance. This one is named radial and as one would think it is determined by lines radiating from a single point.

Frank Petronio
8-Jul-2008, 19:30
Whoa I've been doing it wrong all these years!

Marv Thompson
8-Jul-2008, 19:35
If I had to name it I guess the compositional tool I utilized was leading lines.

There was a lot to see texture wise but no real focal point. I tried to lay the image out on the ground glass to guide the eye through the photo so you would have time to pick up the subtle nuances of tone and texture.

Abstracts can be hard and they can be easy. I must admit on the ground glass I see in abstraction a lot easier and it pays to have a few comp tricks in mind to capitalize on the scene in front of you (I'm hoping to steal a few of yours for my "library").....:)

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 19:47
With nails firmly being chewed, I submit the enclosed. The bright vase and lily should be balanced by the dark maple leaves that take up the rest of the frame. There is also the curve that extends from the vase along the bottom of the assembled leaves and then zigs back upward like a check mark. Also, the lily is missing a pedal, which gives it the same 5 point shape as the maple leaves.

How much is on purpose? Certainly the lily and the sweep of the branch from left to right. The arch is "helped" with dodging.

Tear away.

George

Why would you want to chew your nails? LOL This is all about everyone learning...that includes me.

I think that you have identified the primary aspects of your photograph. The placement of the white blossom in your composition is traditionally optimal. I really rather enjoy seeing a blossom that is not perfectly symetrical because it adds a degree of tension to the composition. Thanks for posting it.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 19:49
Interesting thread Donald, a pleasure as always.

Here is a symetrical balance (or one I feel worked well). The intent was to balance the light and form of the column. It was if the designer/builder intended for the structure to memic a flower - form and function working together.


Hi Mike, I like your photograph a lot. Very nice. I would be inclined to identify this as a composition utilizing radial balance since the lines emanate from one point and if the image were divided into two parts they would not be equal. Apart from the semantics it is a very nice image and I am glad that you posted it.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 19:53
If I had to name it I guess the compositional tool I utilized was leading lines.

There was a lot to see texture wise but no real focal point. I tried to lay the image out on the ground glass to guide the eye through the photo so you would have time to pick up the subtle nuances of tone and texture.

Abstracts can be hard and they can be easy. I must admit on the ground glass I see in abstraction a lot easier and it pays to have a few comp tricks in mind to capitalize on the scene in front of you (I'm hoping to steal a few of yours for my "library").....:)


Marv, This image has wonderful texture. The ice looks like ice and that can be tough at times. I would agree with your description being that you used leading lines.

I wonder how the image would have appeared if the darkness of the water did not intersect the print boundary on the right side. Thanks for posting your fine photograph.

Mike Castles
8-Jul-2008, 20:06
Hi Donald, point taken and I agree with the radial balance - I have often referenced it as floral. Thank you for your input.

phaedrus
8-Jul-2008, 20:41
Here are some examples:

Compositional elements pushed to the edges of the frame:

http://web.mac.com/chammann/iWeb/Mostly%20Black%26White/Photoblog/CE1339D9-E9EF-4313-8DAD-6C6D70CC7831_files/MP50H_031107_1_14_Quitten.jpg

Zig-zag line:

http://web.mac.com/chammann/iWeb/Mostly%20Black%26White/Photoblog/1F0BCC5A-CDE3-4F85-83A6-77EF7E70FB96_files/EB450_060507_4_Ilsetal11_ge.jpg

Triangle:

http://web.mac.com/chammann/iWeb/Mostly%20Black%26White/Photoblog/7ED647FE-4617-4935-BFD3-912585FB072F_files/CX80_160607_11_vue_PKIS_duo.jpg

Curving leading lines:

http://web.mac.com/chammann/iWeb/Mostly%20Black%26White/Photoblog/58D23EED-BF67-425A-A8AD-EDB88F65A64B_files/MP12_220906_3_11_vue_PKISCS.jpg


Best regards, Christoph

Richard M. Coda
8-Jul-2008, 21:19
I like to photograph things that have graphic tension in them. When I show these prints I get the usual... people with cropping squares. And these are intelligent, experienced large format photographers... some of whom were assistants to some very well known (now passed) photographers. Sometimes I agree, but more often than not, I don't. Sometimes I think I should not photograph anymore.

Donald Miller
8-Jul-2008, 21:50
I like to photograph things that have graphic tension in them. When I show these prints I get the usual... people with cropping squares. And these are intelligent, experienced large format photographers... some of whom were assistants to some very well known (now passed) photographers. Sometimes I agree, but more often than not, I don't. Sometimes I think I should not photograph anymore.

Richard,

I understand what you are saying. Gosh the only person that you have to please is yourself.

If you or I, for that matter, saw things exactly as someone else does than someone is not needed. I encourage you to follow your vision.

Merg Ross
8-Jul-2008, 21:55
This is an interesting thread, and may become one of the longest on record. Quite simply, there is no answer.

Over the years I have known photographers who have spoken on this subject, among them Wynn Bullock, Minor White, and Edward Weston. All of them had very different ideas and conclusions. I have a vivid memory of an afternoon with Wynn while he described his theory of composition and the fourth dimension to me.

However, in my opinion, Edward Weston gave the best definition: "Composition in photography is the strongest way of seeing". A simple concept.

There is some very fine work already on this thread, I look forward to seeing more.

Thanks,

mergross.com

Turner Reich
8-Jul-2008, 22:12
"Composition is the strongest way of seeing" I wonder who said that?

Merg Ross
8-Jul-2008, 22:14
I believe it was Edward Weston.

Daniel_Buck
8-Jul-2008, 22:31
I usually just look through the camera and move it around until I find shapes that are pleasing! They usually end up being something along the 'rule of thirds' or some other rule, but I have trouble composing when I'm trying to think of various criteria, so I just shoot what looks pleasing.

In retrospect, I can usually find a 'rule' that fits the photograph after I've shot it and am looking over it. So maybe the 'rules' are with me subconsciously, or the 'rules' are such that if you look at an image hard enough, you can find a 'rule' that comes close to fitting the image! I'm inclined to go with that last notion, that an image which is pleasing can probably be looked at in such a way that one of the 'rules' can be made to apply to it! So in that light, just shoot what pleases you, and let the 'rules' lay where they may :-D

However, I do enjoy hearing analysis of peoples images from other folks, it's interesting to see thought processes on images, even if those thoughts weren't active when the photograph was taken!

domenico Foschi
9-Jul-2008, 00:04
I have always enjoyed those compositions that let the eyes travel in circular motion endlessly, the prime example being "Satiric dancer" by Kertesz.
This is an image I shot this 4 th of july at friends house.
35 mm, sorry.
http://i33.tinypic.com/10wqykm.jpg

http://i35.tinypic.com/2efm0bc.jpg

domenico Foschi
9-Jul-2008, 00:18
http://i35.tinypic.com/2i1ct51.jpg

http://i38.tinypic.com/200b2ab.jpg

Greg Lockrey
9-Jul-2008, 00:58
I have always enjoyed those compositions that let the eyes travel in circular motion endlessly, the prime example being "Satiric dancer" by Kertesz.
This is an image I shot this 4 th of july at friends house.
35 mm, sorry.
http://i33.tinypic.com/10wqykm.jpg



This is a nice image, Domenico. ;) ;)

cjbroadbent
9-Jul-2008, 02:23
Here are my own stripped-down ideas on composition. (I joined LF recently and I feel a bit like a taxi-driver who turned up at a vintage sports-car rally.)
1. Get the viewer oriented by giving him a plane of reference - a surface, a horizon, whatever, (the lake in your shot was good).
2. Let the viewer know how close he is by showing some solid item that has it's own perspective, (a building, a box, a path or whatever)
3. That done, just let the light do the composing for you. Dark areas against light areas, light against dark as though you had to draw with pencil shading and no outlines.
3. Stay out of the shot. If you really want to intrude, add structure, exagerate with diagonals that converge somewhere interesting.
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm440/downstairs_2008/2a.jpg
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/mm440/downstairs_2008/3a.jpg

Turner Reich
9-Jul-2008, 03:45
Contrived scenes always bored me, Edward Weston pushed it to the limit. At least he knew what the limit was. Sometimes it's better to leave the guy behind the curtain unknown. When you look at the egg slicer of AA it shows what he is like when he is given some objects to arrange and photograph. He's no better than most on this thread. Get him out doors and it's a different matter all together.

Jim Galli
9-Jul-2008, 06:32
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Campbells/ScurveS.jpg

I have no formal training and simply rely on my own built in sense of balance. Sometimes I think I get it right. Many times, not. Per Volquartz in his workshops stresses looking for natural 'S' shapes.

Richard M. Coda
9-Jul-2008, 07:05
How about clouds? I love taking photos of clouds, but for me, the composition IS the cloud. It's relationship to the frame, and the tones, lines and shapes within the cloud. Every cloud photo I have ever taken has gotten the "you should have something at the bottom to anchor it..." BS. Maybe I don't want that house roof in the photo... or the top of that mountain or hill... maybe I just want a photo of a cloud.

butterflydream
9-Jul-2008, 07:32
I do like symmetric composition (like my self portrait avatar), but
I prefer the balance of empty space with the object at the corner.
Some kind of yin-yang, may be.

Sorry it's not LF but it's an example to explain what I mean.

Ken Lee
9-Jul-2008, 17:04
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img287.jpg
Sinar P 180mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar
5x7 TMY, PyroCat MC

After we've explored the formal approaches, it's often best to "forget" what we've learned, and let the subject dictate the composition, with a life of it's own.

Our effort is in learning to be open enough to sense it.

Marv Thompson
9-Jul-2008, 18:08
Speaking of "S" curves here are a few with a little chaos thrown in for good measure.

I like abstracts and I like ice, good thing because we get a good bit of ice in season. I got this shot and while changing perspective a bit the wind picked up. Not a big deal, it wasn't going to move the ice any........but it did dislodge the frost from the limbs above.....hmmmm, a frost blizzard ensued and the day was done.

Here is to captures made and chances missed.

Alex Hawley
9-Jul-2008, 19:16
Alex, That is would be O.K...perhaps it might be helpful if you posted one of your fine images and some of us might comment on what we observe compositionally.

OK, here goes. This is a recent one and its a Polaroid Type 52 print so no cropping or enlarging.

First constraint was physical, as it usually is for me. I set up across the road from the elevator. The road was banked up very high in this area so if I moved back any further, I would lose my lens elevation and be standing on a very steep bank. But, I thought the frame was filled nicely from this distance.

Second: I moved to the left of the main structure centerline. This put the roof peak of the scale house on the right edge. My thought was that another angled line drooping away from the main structure, would add unwanted complexity. I like the geometric arrangement better in this view than if I had been on center with the Gano logo. Also, the logo is full face, prominent, and undisturbed. That's important because the Gano name and logo is the sole reason this building still exists.

Third: Moving left of center placed the left edge of the main structure roof right on the edge of the frame. Now the whole frame width is bounded by the two roof lines, one left, and one right.

Fourth: This view also allowed some slight depth on the left faces of the building, so it doesn't come off as being entirely "flat". I thought it added depth and body.

That's it. Nothing very intellectual. How'd I do?

Donald Miller
9-Jul-2008, 20:04
I am sure that others will chime in and my observation on your image is a subjective thing. Having said that, I like the composition just as you presented it. There is one thing that I notice and think that is vitally important. That is the small portion of window in the lower right corner of the image. It really serves to anchor that corner. I like the slight left of center orientation of the camera because it adds a vanishing point on the lower right building roof edge. This vanishing point serves to give a reference providing depth in the image. The other vanishing point is on the small cupulo directly above the Gano sign.

What I would suggest, Alex, as a further exploration of the subject matter is isolating aspects of the grain elevator...making the photograph about geometric shapes without a reference to what the object is. There are a wealth of geometric shapes. Beyond that there is the exploration of shaded surfaces to lit surfaces. This will probably require a longer lens to really work on this but if you wish this might give you a lot more images from this one subject...just my thoughts.

Great image as it is. Thanks for posting it.

Donald Miller
9-Jul-2008, 20:10
How about clouds? I love taking photos of clouds, but for me, the composition IS the cloud. It's relationship to the frame, and the tones, lines and shapes within the cloud. Every cloud photo I have ever taken has gotten the "you should have something at the bottom to anchor it..." BS. Maybe I don't want that house roof in the photo... or the top of that mountain or hill... maybe I just want a photo of a cloud.

Well I think that you are in pretty good company when you want to only take a photograph of a cloud. Steiglitz made an image named "Equivalent" (among several of the same subject matter as I recall).

This is what has been written about that image.

"
Equivalent, 1926
Alfred Stieglitz (American, 1864–1946)
Gelatin silver print; 4 5/8 x 3 5/8 in. (11.8 x 9.2 cm)
Alfred Stieglitz Collection, 1949 (49.55.29)

By photographing clouds, Stieglitz meant to demonstrate how "to hold a moment, how to record something so completely, that all who see [the picture of it] will relive an equivalent of what has been expressed." Stieglitz's choice of intangible vapors as his ostensible subject was telling, for the vagueness of transcendental meaning is not easily sustained by material objects. Whether his equivalents achieved their goal is a question each viewer must answer for himself or herself; that they demonstrated the ineffable dimension of inspiration is without doubt."

So the next time someone critiques one of your cloud images with what you have heard to this point, you might direct them to this image.

Thanks for posing the question.

Donald Miller
9-Jul-2008, 20:13
http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img287.jpg
Sinar P 180mm Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar
5x7 TMY, PyroCat MC

After we've explored the formal approaches, it's often best to "forget" what we've learned, and let the subject dictate the composition, with a life of it's own.

Our effort is in learning to be open enough to sense it.

Ken, I agree...this is particularly true in photographs of nature or natural objects.

Donald Miller
9-Jul-2008, 20:14
http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Campbells/ScurveS.jpg

I have no formal training and simply rely on my own built in sense of balance. Sometimes I think I get it right. Many times, not. Per Volquartz in his workshops stresses looking for natural 'S' shapes.

Yes S shapes are particularly engaging. Thanks for posting Jim.

Donald Miller
9-Jul-2008, 20:15
Speaking of "S" curves here are a few with a little chaos thrown in for good measure.

I like abstracts and I like ice, good thing because we get a good bit of ice in season. I got this shot and while changing perspective a bit the wind picked up. Not a big deal, it wasn't going to move the ice any........but it did dislodge the frost from the limbs above.....hmmmm, a frost blizzard ensued and the day was done.

Here is to captures made and chances missed.

Marv, I am a sucker for abstracts too. This is very reminiscent of a Brett Weston image. Really nice. I can't add anything to what you have presented here. Thanks for posting.

Gary L. Quay
6-Nov-2010, 03:59
I thought it would be interesting to revive this old thread which asks for discussion of aspects of cpomposition.

My addition to the conversation is the diagonal line. Diagonal lines are dynamic. They add power and movement to composition.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/3542849014_54f80d7d7a.jpg

Camera: Calumet C-1 with 4x5 reducing back
Lens: 12" Goerz RD APO Artar
Film: Arista.edu 100 developed in Kodak HC110.

Sirius Glass
6-Nov-2010, 06:54
I am looking for a filter that automatically improves the composition as I take the photograph. I do not want one of those Photo$hop filters that does it after the photograph is taken.

Does someone have a spare?

Mark Stahlke
6-Nov-2010, 07:01
I am looking for a filter that automatically improves the composition as I take the photograph.
I find that putting a lens cap on the lens generally improves my compositions. :o

Sirius Glass
6-Nov-2010, 12:42
I am looking for a filter that automatically improves the composition as I take the photograph. I do not want one of those Photo$hop filters that does it after the photograph is taken.

Does someone have a spare?
I find that putting a lens cap on the lens generally improves my compositions. :o

My kinda photographer! :D

Steve

Jim Galli
6-Nov-2010, 13:03
Kidding aside, Gary, I like your picture very much, and the more for fighting a 22 pound camera in place to make a 4X5 negative!

Gary L. Quay
6-Nov-2010, 18:24
Kidding aside, Gary, I like your picture very much, and the more for fighting a 22 pound camera in place to make a 4X5 negative!

Mine is heavier due to some modifications made in the 1950s. It rarely leaves the studio now that I have a Deardorff. At the time, however, all that it had was a 4x5 back. I found an 8x10 back for it a few months after this was taken.

Thanks!

--Gary

Andrew Plume
7-Nov-2010, 05:10
Mine is heavier due to some modifications made in the 1950s. It rarely leaves the studio now that I have a Deardorff. At the time, however, all that it had was a 4x5 back. I found an 8x10 back for it a few months after this was taken.

Thanks!

--Gary


good stuff Gary - I've also enjoyed your photos of buildings in Portland too


andrew

Steve M Hostetter
7-Nov-2010, 11:44
I thought it would be interesting to revive this old thread which asks for discussion of aspects of cpomposition.

My addition to the conversation is the diagonal line. Diagonal lines are dynamic. They add power and movement to composition.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2270/3542849014_54f80d7d7a.jpg

Camera: Calumet C-1 with 4x5 reducing back
Lens: 12" Goerz RD APO Artar
Film: Arista.edu 100 developed in Kodak HC110.

Hello Gary,,,

Looks like the tree is part of the bridge.. very cool effect

bobwysiwyg
7-Nov-2010, 12:11
I like it very much myself. I saw it as a juxtaposition of chaos (tree branches) and the symmetry of of the bridge.

sun of sand
7-Nov-2010, 15:05
whether people say its a nice photo or whatever
has a spiral thing it conforms to

all i see is a bunch of people looking at a tub of dip or mashed potatoes and gravy

?

..is it because the guy has on a nice hat and there is an old person

what the hell is so interesting about that tub?
and not that i care one bit

jim kitchen
7-Nov-2010, 18:39
and not that i care one bit...

Dear SOS,

Surprise, surprise, that is what I normally think about your absurd thoughtless comments... :)

jim k

Jim Galli
7-Nov-2010, 18:56
Dear SOS,

Surprise, surprise, that is what I normally think about your absurd thoughtless comments... :)

jim k

Bravo! Thank you for saying what I was thinking!

Joe Forks
7-Nov-2010, 19:57
Bravo! Thank you for saying what I was thinking!

I hate to pile on, but what the hell, PLUS ONE!

Jay DeFehr
7-Nov-2010, 21:04
I just realized I didn't even notice what the subjects were doing; I was lost in the sense of light and depth. It reminds me of a painting, religious themed, I think, but I can't put my finger on it. Replace the tub with a baby Jesus, perhaps? Maybe I prefer the tub to the baby. My first impression was that I was looking at a beautiful image, and I'm afraid I didn't analyze it further. I don't think I even realized the tub was the focus of their attention; it certainly wasn't mine. Now that I've noticed, it seems the title should be, "Do you think this is still good?":D

sun of sand
7-Nov-2010, 22:09
is it thoughtless

i do care care why someone would like the photo and call it great even

i dont care about the tub
i dont care about the photo

there is a difference


there is a thread i just ran across on this site while looking for something else called

craft or meaning

im pretty sure that would have something to say on this
but im sure everyone in this thread would say those people replying in that thread are idiots
-absurd-
too


I see a guy in a nice hat -and yes, a bit of light
and an old person and two others one with a dumbfounded look on his face
and they're all looking at a tub of...

why
and who cares

i dont see beautiful at all
i see someone who neglected to find meaning in the photo and believes a bit of shining window light and some spiral composition is enough to hold it

it's like a good example textbook photo on how to see arrangements and maybe even light


does a photo that makes you think pretty much only
is this bean dip still good
a good photo

do you have 30 from the same day that somehow tells the story of the entire evening
or is this

sun of sand
7-Nov-2010, 22:20
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=30607&highlight=straight+thread

had to go find it for the fun of it


maybe we can crosscheck our answers and talk about any issues found in this one

or maybe im completely wrong and the tub of dip is interesting to most people


but this thread is about composition
but dont blame me
blame the guy who thought it necessary to say it was a nice image in a thread meant to speak of composition

sun of sand
7-Nov-2010, 22:33
http://msf.ca/blogs/photos/files/2009/11/20091112-25377.jpg

salgado i figured would have something good in this "manger" scene motif or whatever

i come away with something more meaningful and the light isnt even as pretty as the tub-0

jeroldharter
7-Nov-2010, 23:11
I think the OT is on composition. In that respect, I think it is a good composition. As a photo though, I don't think it would (or should) pass the PC police in most circles.

Jack Dahlgren
7-Nov-2010, 23:37
is it thoughtless

i do care care why someone would like the photo and call it great even

i dont care about the tub
i dont care about the photo

there is a difference


there is a thread i just ran across on this site while looking for something else called

craft or meaning

im pretty sure that would have something to say on this
but im sure everyone in this thread would say those people replying in that thread are idiots
-absurd-
too


I see a guy in a nice hat -and yes, a bit of light
and an old person and two others one with a dumbfounded look on his face
and they're all looking at a tub of...

why
and who cares

i dont see beautiful at all
i see someone who neglected to find meaning in the photo and believes a bit of shining window light and some spiral composition is enough to hold it

it's like a good example textbook photo on how to see arrangements and maybe even light


does a photo that makes you think pretty much only
is this bean dip still good
a good photo

do you have 30 from the same day that somehow tells the story of the entire evening
or is this

I find the spiral drawn on the composition to be a bit contrived, and, like sos, I don't find the sour cream revelatory.

The lady with appears to more of a swastika form rather than spiral.

This was a spiral, until the waves hit it.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4382923651_799e5817df_b.jpg
Now I think it is rather alphabetical, or at least where's waldonian.

CarstenW
7-Nov-2010, 23:58
I hate to pile on, but what the hell, PLUS ONE!

SoS has been on my ignore list ever since I realized that there was one. A more deserving applicant you could hardly ask for.

Cornelius
8-Nov-2010, 00:44
Yeah thanks for coming in and shitting on what was an interesting thread SOS.

Jack Dahlgren
8-Nov-2010, 01:41
Yeah thanks for coming in and shitting on what was an interesting thread SOS.

Don't let it get to you.

sun of sand
8-Nov-2010, 15:36
if someone shits on the rules of the forum ill challenge their valuation

it does say critique is not acceptable unless asked for
saying nice photograph is a critique whether its simple happy and kind and generous and pleasant or whatever

not only was the door opened
but i didn't find it to be nice
and on top of that with all the comments on this and other sites about content and meaning and whatever else in the art world
it belongs here for that reason as well

does this photo have meaning? or is it important? or

what makes a good photograph
compositional elements only?
meaning only
composition with meaning

yeah, it belongs in another thread
but if it isn't talked about here RIGHT NOW
then people are probably just going to go back to saying what perhaps is only what they believe others NEED to hear in order to be included in their group


and what a surprise
in my other opened tab "small mercies"

it's about kincade
we all know how kincade gets treated around here


so

of course














and btw
I think Tub-O could be a good photo if there were something -better- to be read from it
i just don't see it

sun of sand
8-Nov-2010, 15:37
and frankly
the thread was dead
if it ever really got up a pulse

I find that putting a lens cap on the lens generally improves my compositions

how interesting esp since most of the posts here are essentially that same thing

Jim Galli
8-Nov-2010, 15:41
Egads, somebody tell me where the ignore button is.

Merg Ross
8-Nov-2010, 16:02
Egads, somebody tell me where the ignore button is.

I did it! First time I have used that function in nine years! It works, and I feel much better now.

Drew Wiley
8-Nov-2010, 16:27
Wow this thread goes back a ways, but if Domenico is still tuning in, I'd like to ask a
question, whether or not you had some early impression planted in your subconscious,
or else formally studied, some of the Renaissance masters? It's a bit unusual to see
that kind of strategy in a photograph, and unless it's deliberately posed (like J.Cameron, for example), requires some sort of embedded reflex. Interesting.

John NYC
8-Nov-2010, 18:12
I did it! First time I have used that function in nine years! It works, and I feel much better now.

SoS is now the third person to make it on my ignore list in the year plus I have been here. That's a pretty low ratio, I think, and tells me how valuable such a wide range of people are here to me personally. Most people here, even when cantankerous, have something meaningful to say. And I listen. No so in this case.

Sirius Glass
8-Nov-2010, 19:11
SoS is the first person on any website to make my "Ignore List". He must be very proud to himself.

Steve

sun of sand
9-Nov-2010, 03:47
what is composition

isn't the only thing that matters just
balance

i cant think of anything where balance is off and you still get a solid piece of art

I cant think of anytime where balance is off and you get anything near artistic ever in any art whether "fine" or performance or athletic
musical?
i doubt it
rhythm is the underpinning of music, isn't it?


if you create a good artwork using some imbalanced composition
I'd bet that in that same work there will be weight shifted somewhere outside where the imblanace is thus actually creating balance

I'd have to see to not believe it

charles barkley doesn't have balance
jim furyk does

neither very pretty in whole but at the moments in jim furyks swing where there is great imbalance a correction always takes place elsewhere ..hopefully coming to perfect balance at the time of the strike


i guess the meaning there is the well placed position of the ball down the hole

hes not great just cause he makes balance at the bottom of a swing
the movement in general is skillful
but it's not artistic unless its saying something meaningful
if there is no meaning to it -the movement- it just becomes

"What the hell was that for, Spaz"


chicken or the egg
golden mean or spiral curlicue or balance

one just -tries to- explain on paper what is already understood in the mind perfectly







how about instead of months worth of this threads growth and its fruit of about 8 photos
you share a photo and ask if its balanced well and give your support for why

otherwise youre just taking someones photo and copying it as the basic fundamental of whats going on probably isnt understood

charles barkleys swing aint getting any better
probably cause he just cant make the connection for whatever reason and instead tries to phony his swing up to match the textbook example

sun of sand
9-Nov-2010, 03:54
Wow this thread goes back a ways, but if Domenico is still tuning in, I'd like to ask a
question, whether or not you had some early impression planted in your subconscious,
or else formally studied, some of the Renaissance masters? It's a bit unusual to see
that kind of strategy in a photograph, and unless it's deliberately posed (like J.Cameron, for example), requires some sort of embedded reflex. Interesting.


why?

this sounds like nothing more than applause, to me

who did the renaissance masters study it from ..and them and they and so on and so forth

cjbroadbent
9-Nov-2010, 05:17
I've always been taken aback by spirals and diagonals drawn on photographs - easy enough to do afterwards but no help at all before shooting.

In the hope that this may of use to compositionally challenged photographers like myself here is my easy way out.

Starting with the principle that an image need structure, light and an idea, take composition to mean structure - a straightforward utility for locating the things in the scene unambiguously within the limited field of view of the reader.

It is pretty easy to get going from this utilitarian approach. Just work out the couple of elements you are going to use as clues to spatial location. Add your own feeling of balance (as S.O.S. rightly calls it) and once the structure is solid enough you can play creative games with all the draping, folding, feathering, flying, running and jumping elements that delight the eye (think through Valasquez to Dali) and mask out problems (like the six legs of seated person and distracting peripheral artifacts).

My personal and limited approach to structure is a base plane with a front edge and/or a horizon and some perspective clue as to the height and distance of the readers point of view with respect to a main subject. Elders and betters have been at this approach for five hundred odd years and it seems to work.

jeroldharter
9-Nov-2010, 06:46
...
charles barkley doesn't have balance
jim furyk does
...

I understand your point, but did you ever watch Barkley play? He had a lot of balance in his game. The balance in his game (as well as an ass and 2 elbows) allowed him to outplay much larger players. As far as photography goes, Barkley is an image that you need to study a little to see the balance that you guessed was there but did not discern at first glance.

Drew Wiley
9-Nov-2010, 11:37
SOS - like I said, it's one thing to pose a shot like the old pictorialists attempting to
copy a painting, it's another to sponteneously do it as a reflex. Now I really don't know if the "spiral" shot in question was just lucky or if he sometimes sees this way.
In any event, he recognized it afterwards and shared it. And yes, I was giving him a
compliment for it. If you don't get it, that's not my problem. I appreciated the shot.

sun of sand
10-Nov-2010, 00:25
I know it says elementary but it's the best such -visual- explanation of composition
-balance-
I've been able to find in a couple days

http://paintings.name/abstract-art-lessons.php


leading lines and rule of thirds and s curves especially and such are just landmarks that are very easy to locate that tend to create balanced compositions
theyre tips
cheatsheets

i believe if you really want to learn how to compose well you have to figure out how to balance the weights of things together
then you can just see and not have to rely on finding an s shape etc out in the wild somewhere


charles barkely was a very good basketball player but not in my group of favorites

i was comparing barkleys golf swing to furyks
both are ugly swings
furyks swing works exceptionally well however because he gets it
barkley just sucks because he doesnt

if you watched haneys project youd see how sometimes barkley could make an ugly ugly half swing and at the moment of his hitch
stop
regroup
end up at the ball in fine shape and follow through very well

still nasty
but it produced

he just can't find a way to consistently regroup and balance out the issues

sun of sand
10-Nov-2010, 00:39
SOS - like I said, it's one thing to pose a shot like the old pictorialists attempting to
copy a painting, it's another to sponteneously do it as a reflex. Now I really don't know if the "spiral" shot in question was just lucky or if he sometimes sees this way.
In any event, he recognized it afterwards and shared it. And yes, I was giving him a
compliment for it. If you don't get it, that's not my problem. I appreciated the shot.


i have no problem with liking the composition
i think the composition is fine
he's made good photos

that's not my point
i didn't like the photo as to me it has no meaning no intent no importance no emotion
its almost blank
like i have to make it say something
and all i come up with is puzzlement and not humorously or anything significant
just ...what is this about and why?

a sharp image of a fuzzy concept


i don't get the "reflex" thing, either

If you pose something specifically like that
you must have a "reflexive" liking of that type of pose

i dont see any difference in whether you see it and snap it or pose it and refine it
it all comes from the same place

and i dont get how this "manger" look is somehow exclusive to religious artwork
people have probably been looking at their children since
forever

jeroldharter
10-Nov-2010, 00:43
...
if you watched haneys project youd see how sometimes barkley could make an ugly ugly half swing and at the moment of his hitch
stop
regroup
end up at the ball in fine shape and follow through very well

still nasty
but it produced

he just can't find a way to consistently regroup and balance out the issues

Sorry. I thought you meant Barkley playing basketball. His golf swing is an embarrassment.

sun of sand
10-Nov-2010, 00:52
why i think this is important
and much more interesting than looking at 6 exaples of leading lines or symmetry or s curves

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/K/kertesz/kertesz_new_york.html
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/C/callahan/callahan_eleanor_chi53.html

what would these be defined as?
i don't know
i doubt they have compositional rule names
and if they dont
i just wonder how many of these photos we miss because we are too scared to trust our hopefully expert sense of balance and instead look for landmark cliches that hopefully end up being balanced in our framing of em
and i dont belive in cliche but it fits

sly
10-Nov-2010, 12:16
Too bad this thread has been shanghaied. I was going to post an image, but I doubt anybody going to wade through the nonsense.

Greg Miller
11-Nov-2010, 14:51
Too bad this thread has been shanghaied. I was going to post an image, but I doubt anybody going to wade through the nonsense.

I vote for going ahead and posting your image. Let's get a healthy dialogue started.

Jack Dahlgren
11-Nov-2010, 16:15
why i think this is important
and much more interesting than looking at 6 exaples of leading lines or symmetry or s curves

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/K/kertesz/kertesz_new_york.html
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/C/callahan/callahan_eleanor_chi53.html

what would these be defined as?
i don't know
i doubt they have compositional rule names


The Harry Callahan is the rule of 5/6ths. :-)

Gary L. Quay
14-Nov-2010, 03:51
Too bad this thread has been shanghaied. I was going to post an image, but I doubt anybody going to wade through the nonsense.

Absolutely, post it. I'm revived this thread because I'm really interested in composition, and what makes photos, or even artwork in general, pleasing to the eye. Motifs such as the Golden Mean, converging lines, leading lines, curves, and etc. are well known, but there are many others that I have yet to put my finger on. I studied art briefly in college, but I've forgotten most of the nomenclature. Returning this discussion to an exploration of compostion would be a good thing. And don't worry about the nonsense. Most people go through a few pages, and then go straight to the last. After a few more posts, that other stuff won't be noticed.

--Gary

tbeaman
14-Nov-2010, 15:38
Indeed, I read all of that other crap mostly for laughs. Post away. Composition is better discussed through examples anyway. Anything else is reduction.

sly
14-Nov-2010, 17:36
Here's some converging lines.
Scanned from an 11x14 print (4x5 neg) 2 halves stitched in photoshop, attempt to reproduce thiocarbamide toner.

sun of sand
25-Nov-2010, 12:48
it seems people are saying you cannot take a bad photo of an s curve
i guarantee you that it can be done ..by ignoring everything else within the frame

it just doesnt make any sense to talk about these "tools"
perhaps at the most introductory level to get people familiar with the concet of balance but after that its useless and perhaps a drag


go into an art forum and try starting up a conversation on abstract art
some of the most talkative know it alls will stfu saying nothing more than i dont get it


why dont they get it?
because they dont have a very good understanding of composition

period

they get all lost trying to "understand" what its about when its usually about nothing more than composition

Struan Gray
26-Nov-2010, 04:59
This is worth a read:

http://books.google.se/books?id=szQGAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

sun of sand
26-Nov-2010, 08:07
this might be good for a few
i know it is actually

a lot of people laugh and make jokes but when the cards are dealt they vanish

http://www.goshen.edu/art/ed/creativitykillers.html

sun of sand
26-Nov-2010, 08:09
another one
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Photography_lessons/a_about/_Teaching_composition.html

Sirius Glass
26-Nov-2010, 09:23
With sun of sand around, I am really enjoying the ignore list and how well it works. It really does make the website more enjoyable without his drooling and puking all over. Better yet, I will not even see his witless comments either!

Greg Miller
26-Nov-2010, 09:32
Or the impossible to comprehend, run-on, stream of conscious, sentences with no punctuation...

Colin Graham
26-Nov-2010, 10:45
this might be good for a few
i know it is actually

a lot of people laugh and make jokes but when the cards are dealt they vanish

http://www.goshen.edu/art/ed/creativitykillers.html

Interesting link, thanks.

In a similar vein-
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html

Sirius Glass
26-Nov-2010, 10:47
Or the impossible to comprehend, run-on, stream of conscious, sentences with no punctuation...

In the case of SoS, most of the stream was unconsciousness. Hence, the first time use of the ignore list ever. :D

Steve

Gary L. Quay
4-Dec-2010, 03:10
Cathedral Arches, St. Johns bridge, October 2010.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5199688881_d78e4dd4a8_z.jpg

Compositional features: Linear Perspective, Symetry, and the Rule of Thirds.

Linear Perspective: The sense of depth created by lines leading into the image.

Symetry: The arches are repeated into the distance, and have sides that are mirror images.

Rule of Thirds: this picture has three vertical features: the backlit tree, the bridge, and the bright area to the right.

Interestingly, I wasn't thinking of any of this while I was taking the picture.

--Gary