Composition and Cropping

[jkantor]

Looking at high-quality published work versus aspiring photographer's works, it seems to me that the major difference is composition. Photographs are two-dimensional framed works. Composition isn't a secondary element (after the subject proper) - it is the subject.

 

<p>

 

Some good examples of composition (not to mention lighting) can be found in this month's PDN online portfolio of Brian Doben. What's really interesting about them though, is that - even though they are presented as 6x8 aspect ratio and could therefore have been framed in-camera as seen - they had to be shot quite a bit wider to allow for the necessary bleed for print work - and I would argue to get the extremely precise composition that they exhibit.

 

<p>

 

I have a good eye for composition, but I find that I compose to the viewfinder too much. I need to work on shooting a bit wider to allow for cropping - as well as for different aspect ratios. In particular I'm finding that when I have to mat my wedding shots, I'm encroaching on my subject - and thereby mention making subtle changes to the composition.

 

<p>

 

As a more practical matter, I'm also finding that people order reprints in more traditional aspect ratios - and that I have many pictures that I can't successfully crop because they were composed to 35mm's aspect ratio.

 

<p>

 

http://www.pdnonline.com/global/en/professional/features/legendsV5Q3/index2.jhtml

[Spearhead]

John, I have to disagree with your opening. I don't think

composition is the subject in most photos, nor do I think it is the

most important element.

 

<p>

 

I find that light is far more important than composition to defining

the difference between (to use your terms) aspiring vs published. I

don't agree with this categorization, I think the difference between

aspiring and published often has far more to do with business skills

than photography. Returning to the premise, there are many great

compositions that are ruined by being ill-lit, yet it is unusual to

find a photograph that has great light (or lighting) that is harmed

by the composition. Maybe even this is an arbitrary distinction. It

is the combination of elements that make a photograph work, and

composition is but one. In my mind, as I said above, not the most

important one.

 

<p>

 

I am not as impressed with the work of the photographer you cite.

His work looks more like an "aspiring" photographer - a bit of this,

a bit of that. No style, no sense of individual vision, but

commercially quite capable.

 

<p>

 

I found a book the other day in a used bookstore by a photographer I

had never heard of, Milton Rogovin. He's still alive, probably in

his eighties or nineties by now. The book is portraits, as was all

of his photography, mostly of working class families or individuals

(he was quite political about who he photographed.) Looking at his

images, one gets a strong sense of the subjects, of the relationship

between the subjects and the way in which they were photographed, and

of Rogovin. That is missing in Doben's work.

[jkantor]

I stand by my proposition. Composition is learned, but it's what we

react to first and foremost in two-dimensional art whether it's

Mondrian or Ansel Adams. It's the same as melody in music and

sentence structure in writing.

 

<p>

 

You can of course, if you understand the basic rules, "break" them in

creative ways. And you can create works that emphasize elements other

than a representational subject - such as light (which I'd call tone

or color since that's what it becomes in the final print) and texture

both representational and real (though the latter is more prominent

in painting of course).

 

<p>

 

But what I see too often - particularly in People photography - is

the photographer thinking that his emotional relationship with the

subject somehow transcends the basic form. Perhaps for him it does.

But for the rest of us, the first and foremost elements we have to go

on are formal, and it's composition that is the fundamental one.

 

<p>

 

But composition isn't simply placing your subject using the rule of

thirds either. It is the juxtaposition of lines, shapes, tones,

colors, textures, and negative space in a "pleasing" proportion. In

short, it's the art of seeing three-dimensional subjects as two-

dimensional.

 

<p>

 

I really think that all photographers should start by learning to

draw before they start taking photographs.

[chris_y.]

>I need to work on shooting a bit wider to allow for cropping - as

well as for different aspect ratios.

 

<p>

 

I've noticed this too, john, I keep telling myself this time I'll

pull back plenty but when its happening I end up "stuffing the

frame." It's the kind of thing that if I did it daily I'd have it

down by now, but shooting once every week or two I have time to un-

resolve...

[Spearhead]

John, we will probably argue endlessly unless we agree that we

disagree on this topic. I would only add this, as my final statement

on this topic:<p>

 

<i>Chiaroscuro, an Italian word literally translated as �light and

dark,� has typically been used to discuss the treatment or balance of

light and shadow in paintings. More recently adopted to describe

aesthetic characteristics of photography, Chiaroscuro �the word and

the title�emphasizes not merely a visual quality, but the very

essence of the medium itself. For at its most basic level, the

photograph is a product of light�a literal manifestation of

chiaroscuro. </i><p>

 

And just to give an example that I think demonstrates this, I would

refer to:<p>

 

<a href="http://masters-of-

photography.com/A/alvarez_bravo/alvarez_bravo_eternal_full.html">this

beautiful photograph</a><p>

 

as an example of light leading the composition. (I've seen a print

of this in a museum in Mexico, it is a truly spectacular photograph.)

<p>

 

On the other hand, I agree with you about drawing. Those photographs

that I set up I usually sketch beforehand. I find this helps to

crystallize my thinking about the photograph, even if I eventually

end up shooting something very different. The <a

href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=004gLU">Semana Santa</a> photograph I posted here a while back

is an example of something that I had drawn several times, in several

different settings, before I shot it.

[jkantor]

After seeing that example, I don't think we disagree at all. The

light/tone issue is one of perspective (cause and effect). I doubt

that Bravo just sighed, said "nice light" and started clicking away.

I expect he rather cold-bloodedly chose the camera and subject

positions to make the best use of the light. An experienced eye

translates the quality of light at the scene into the tones that will

eventually be evident in the final work.

 

<p>

 

The problem with many photographers is that they are seduced by the

moment - the subject, the action, and the ambiance - and fail to take

the steps necessary to translate those very personal and specific

impressions into a two-dimensional work that consists merely of

differing tones. Talking about "light" per se in a painting or

photograph is really just a metaphor for technique.

 

<p>

 

Of course the biggest problem evident on Photo.net is that most

beginning photographers don't have any awareness of just how much

conscious thought and manipulation takes place both before and after

the fact.

 

<p>

 

In other words, it's a misnomer to talk about "capturing" the scene,

the subject, or the light. We may be inspired by those elements, but

we are creating a completely new representation of them.

[jkantor]

"I am not as impressed with the work of the photographer you cite.

His work looks more like an "aspiring" photographer - a bit of this,

a bit of that. No style, no sense of individual vision, but

commercially quite capable."

 

<p>

 

We are, of course, at the mercy of Kodak's editors for which pictures

of his we see. There a some that I don't think are particularly

successful. However, there are quite a few that are very strong

images. (And I would say those images do exhibit an identifiable

style and vision.)

 

<p>

 

Of course, it should go without saying that his technique is both

very contemporary and commercial. However, I don't understand why

this should be seen as being either outright negative or at best

irrelevent to the artistry involved. Michelangelo was a commercial

artist who had to both go out and "sell" patrons on subsidizing his

works and then produce ones that would make them feel their money was

well-spent - and in most cases do so while adhering to the very

specific dogma of the church.

 

<p>

 

Post-renaissance aesthetics and capitalism aren't foes - they are

inseparable and incestuous.

[Spearhead]

<i>Of course the biggest problem evident on Photo.net is that most

beginning photographers don't have any awareness of just how much

conscious thought and manipulation takes place both before and after

the fact. </i><p>

 

Digressing from the original topic, this applies to most

photographers on photo.net, beginning or not. Most are so hung up on

believing that equipment and materials are the only important things

to think about that they never get to thinking about the image

itself. I don't like sounding so harsh, but it seems that the vast

majority of the postings aren't very connected to the real image-

making process.

[Spearhead]

<i>Post-renaissance aesthetics and capitalism aren't foes - they are

inseparable and incestuous. </i><p>

 

I did not mean to imply this if I did. My comment was more a

reaction to the presentation of a group of photos that seemed to hit

every major style in that vein, which could be a result of who

edited. There just isn't any feel for the photographer in them, it

could be the work of any of thousands of mid-market commercial

photographers. There was a portrait photographer in Italy whose work

was discussed here (brought up by you?) that I thought was far

better, although that may be because it was his presentation.

[jkantor]

And I'd like to point out that even photojournalists faced with

tragedy can still think about how artistry makes a powerful statement

about a tragic subject, as the Time photo-essay shows:

 

<p>

 

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/shattered/index.html

[keith_strickland]

"The problem with many photographers is that they are seduced by the

moment - the subject, the action, and the ambiance - and fail to take

the steps necessary to translate those very personal and specific

impressions into a two-dimensional work that consists merely of

differing tones. Talking about "light" per se in a painting or

photograph is really just a metaphor for technique."

 

<p>

 

As a beginner portrait I am probably out of my depth when trying to

contribute to such an erudite exchange of philosophies (and you will

probably tell me so) :-)

To me studio lighting is a means to an end,because of various reasons

(mine is lack of money and maybe imagination)in order for me to

create an image of a person that best portrays that person( for me

and that person),I have to use alighting setup that has no

variables,then and only then does MY creativity come into play,not

everyone creates an image the same way but that does not diminish in

any way their creativity.

[jkantor]

Photographers should take a cue from other artists and work on the

basics more - starting with b/w abstracts and working up from there

before they start working with subjects with which they have some

emotional involvement (like pictures of their family).

[jkantor]

And UseFilm's photo projects are a good start:

 

<p>

 

www.usefilm.com