Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 48

Thread: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Posts
    2,270

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Vaughn,

    What I'm talking about is where Canaletto places the vanishing point(s). In many of his works, it is significantly off-center. Check out " Il Bacino di S. Marco" here to see what I mean: https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london...-a3680911.html

    If you follow the lines on the Palaso Dogal to where they converge, you'll see that that point is very far left from the center of the painting and corresponds to the position of the "eye of the viewer." This is different than, say, making an image of a receding row of buildings, which also places the vanishing point to the side of the image, but retains the central point of view for the viewer. (Hope that's clear.) I do this often with shift and/or cropping.

    Best,

    Doremus

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,369

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Bonus points:

    What lens (tele, normal, wide angle) would be used to created this object size rendering in this painting and where would the camera position be, what height would the camera be at?


    Bernice


    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    Vaughn,

    What I'm talking about is where Canaletto places the vanishing point(s). In many of his works, it is significantly off-center. Check out " Il Bacino di S. Marco" here to see what I mean: https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london...-a3680911.html

    If you follow the lines on the Palaso Dogal to where they converge, you'll see that that point is very far left from the center of the painting and corresponds to the position of the "eye of the viewer." This is different than, say, making an image of a receding row of buildings, which also places the vanishing point to the side of the image, but retains the central point of view for the viewer. (Hope that's clear.) I do this often with shift and/or cropping.

    Best,

    Doremus

  3. #13
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    7,140

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Quote Originally Posted by Doremus Scudder View Post
    Vaughn,

    What I'm talking about is where Canaletto places the vanishing point(s)....Doremus
    I assumed you were referring to between the columns, or perhaps the left column in particular.

    Bernice -- I don't think he was consistant in the equivilent camera-height throughout the image.
    "Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China

  4. #14
    Les
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    1,000

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Can't say I use tiny bites from all the visuals I encountered over the years, but somehow my brain adapts the alt formula. Subject/s tends to determine my approach. As always, it's a personal thing.

    Les

  5. #15
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,073

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Formulaic means the artsy photographer will be replaced by AI.

    I think "formulas" is an honest word to use in reference to what normal photographers consider when discussing composition. Yes we have better words for it.


    Maybe design harmony is a better word that composition. Composition is not separate from lighting, tones, etc.. it's all part of design that works together.
    For an old book on this, consider Arthur Wesley Dow's "Composition" which is available free from google books and in inexpensive reprints.

    Early modern photography was based on Dow's teaching or one step removed, and is generally not landscape, but does a nice job illustrating the possibilities of composition not based on shapes/rules/formulas.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Port Townsend, Washington
    Posts
    300

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    I am glad I had an early introduction to the traditional principles of composition. They led me to start looking critically at the visual compositions I encountered. My analogy is that those principals were the doorknob that opened the door to better seeing. Of course, there came a point at which I realized I was falling into the trap of composing photographs using the "rules of composition" far too often and uncritically. Learning to move away from the classic rules is growth, and that's good.

    Keith

  7. #17

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernice Loui View Post
    Bonus points:
    Am I right to suspect a trick question? I'm thinking a 25-foot tripod, a lens with an image circle measured in feet, and maybe five feet of fall...

    FWIW, the Palaso Dogal plays a starring role in Casanova's autobiography--one of the more famous literary jail breaks!

  8. #18
    Drew Wiley
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    SF Bay area, CA
    Posts
    12,990

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    Any rote formula or set of formulas is worth burning. An idiotic camera algorithm could do that. Autofocus, autoexposure, now autocomposition, or should it be, auto-compost? But some familiarity with art history can certainly help.

  9. #19
    Joe O'Hara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Marlton, NJ
    Posts
    547

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    I don't necessarily disagree with what anyone said above. In fact I would strongly urge anyone who wants to make better pictures to look at many, many successful pictures by others. Both paintings, and photographs--although I would say especially photographs, because there are things that can be done with the camera that were
    never anticipated by the painters of the past. If there is a photographer whose work you really like, take a book of his or her work and study each
    picture, and try to see what it is that makes it special, why the picture was made (it is usually not the subject matter itself).

    And, study the art of China and Japan especially. The use of "negative space" (actually an oxymoron IMO in the context of picture-making), partially-rendered, obscured, or
    hinted-at subject matter, all have much to teach us as photographers.

    Then, look at the world, find something that moves you, and arrange the camera and lens to make the best image.

    It is actually kind of striking the way the image "clicks in" when everything is just right. It's as though the composition lets you
    know when it is as it should be.

    And if you're not sure, try anyway. Film is still cheap (even TMax at >$2.00 a sheet for 4x5) compared to the value of our limited time. You may
    surprise yourself, or at least learn something.
    Where are we going?
    And why are we in this handbasket?


    www.josephoharaphotography.com

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    103

    Re: Basic Landscape Composition Formulas..

    I used to ask my sculpture, drawing, and design students to think of compositional 'rules' as 'strategies' instead, although 'formulae' isn't a bad description either. Or 'recipes.'

    Want to make pictures perceived as pleasing and harmonious by viewers embedded in Rennaissance-through-Modern Western visual cultures? The strategies linked by the OP will probably help. But they are hardly universal, or something humans innately understand or desire. There are plenty of other visual traditions (including landscape traditions) that fly in the face of these. As Philip U. implies above, compositional ideas are often predicated on a viewer metaphorically reading the image—the fact that some cultures read right to left and some left to right (and most traditional cultures didn't read at all) should complicate easy notions of universality.

    And there's a good argument to be made that compositional rules/formulae/strategies supposedly employed by artists from the Rennaissance through Early Modernism were actually post hoc rationalizations by 20th century art historians, trying to create an historical arc that lead inevitably to Formalism. As in, 'See the pyramidal composition used by Gericault for Raft of the Medusa? Well, Ellsworth Kelly's doing the same thing, just without the figures.' You can find Golden Ratios in the Parthenon if you look hard enough; that doesn't mean the Greek architects put them there.

    FWIW, I think Stephen Shore's excellent little book, The Nature of Photographs: A Primer does a great job of discussing how photographs work, without veering into airy-fairy subjectivity or arguments from dubious rules. Plus, it's 90% images, with a bare minimum of text.
    Last edited by DDrake; 19-Jun-2019 at 16:51. Reason: Clarity

Similar Threads

  1. Basic landscape metering question (not so basic actually)
    By RodinalDuchamp in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 28-Feb-2015, 21:14
  2. Your method for matching lens to landscape composition
    By emo supremo in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 11-Feb-2013, 04:45
  3. POP Formulas
    By imagedowser in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-Aug-2009, 22:26
  4. Old Formulas
    By Paul Fitzgerald in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 20-Feb-2005, 13:08
  5. Landscape/Mountain composition in the winter
    By James Phillips in forum Location & Travel
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 7-Jan-2001, 11:46

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •