Part One: COMPOSITION: The Math and the Magic:

[mikestryinagain]

Gary, couple of great questions there! Im interested as well.

 

Anne, what a great graphic demonstration. That makes a lot of sense to me. Interested in what others think about this!

[fotografz]

Dolly, there are number of ways to crop your photo, you did one by cropping in closer,

David demonstrated one, and here's another take on it ...

 

This is based on the reality of 4X6 proofs ... which brings up an interesting factoid ... when

you divide a 4X6 into thirds the 2/3rds part forms a square ... like it does in the Golden

Mean Rectangle.

 

That square keeps popping up doesn't it?<div></div>

[rtrace]

One thing to always keep in mind, is to watch the backgrounds. Is the background competing with your subject? Does it add? If so, how? Etc. Many times the nicest pictures are also the simplest. But simple doesn't necessarily meany easy. The most dangerous thing IMO is to let the eye wonder around a picture. The subject should be bold and clear and the background should complement the subject - not distract from it. The story should be understood.

 

Sometimes the background may be more complex in order to tell a story (see my picture above "selective DOF #2"), and sometimes it may not. It depends on what you are trying to convey. Try to aim for a picture where every element has some meaning, and if something doesn't, then make it apparent (i.e. use less DOF in that area, crop, etc.) that it's not as important as your subject.

 

Nothing is worse than a busy picture where there are too many elements that tire the eye. One way to look at it is to think if you were to sit down and paint or draw your picture, would you do anything different?

 

Bogdan

[eric merrill]

Speaking of subject placement, I think this article is interesting:

 

http://www.ski.org/cwt/CWTyler/PrePublications/ARVO/1998/Portraits/

[fotografz]

So, while we'd all like to follow the Golden Rules, we all have to deal with the reality of

most common print sizes ... 4X6 or 4X5 proofs, 5X7s, 8X10s, 11X14s etc. ... and to

complicate matters, most final print proportions don't conform to what we see in the

viewfinder. It's maddening.

 

Most DSLRs produce a 4X6 proportion which is great for proofs, but translate up to a

5"X7.5" or 8"X12" print size. So you have to crop. 1/2" off the proportion for a 5X7 isn't

bad, but 2" off the long side for a 8X10 is a lot to chop ... and can mess with your best

planned composition done in the viewfinder.

 

This is why some, including me, frame a little looser in the viewfinder and deal with the

compositional design in edit.

 

It is also why one of my favorite formats is the square used by so many MF systems. Frame

a little loose, and you can decide in edit if you want a landscape oriented framing or a

portrait oriented framing... or a square.

 

I also recall that one of the top wedding shooters always shoots in the landscape

orientation with a high resolution DSLR and crops later. In other words, he never turns the

camera on it's side.

[eric merrill]

I'm suprised that we don't have the option of a square "35 mm" digital. Yes, it would cost more to make a 36mm x 36mm sensor, and it would make the camera bigger, but the existing lenses will work with that.

 

I also like to hope that someday, the most sensitive AF sensors will be placed at thirds or golden means or someplace other than dead center. :)

 

 

Eric

[fotografz]

Everyone seems to be getting on with this basic compositional notion, so maybe we can

move it to the next level ? Once you practice the Golden rules, you will find ways to break

those rules and still make an interesting composition. You will find it helpful when

designing album pages and other projects also.

 

Bogdan and David have hinted at some further ideas that we could explore. Maybe

something like the positive - negative and it's effect on the design of a photo.

 

I prefer being more specific, and thought it would be valuable to explore the impact of

"Dominate and Recessive" compositional elements in a photo.

 

There are a number of ways to get there. Depth of field is one way. That which is in focus

tends to dominate attention, while the out of focus areas recede from attention. Duh! But

it's amazing how many times this is overlooked. Thus Bogdan's note on how some

compositions could have been improved through the use of DOF field to control the

viewers attention.

 

In essence, even something much smaller that's in focus will command more attention

than a larger object that isn't.

 

Dark and light is also away to command attention where you want it. Like in some of

David's images posted here ... and Ann's night shot ... or my "Milk Bottle" example.

 

Another dominate/Recessive tool is the use of color. Certain colors are dominate. It's not

for nothing that yellow is used to garner attention ( i.e. Federal Safety Yellow, Caution

Yellow for stop lights, etc.). Other colors are a little more recessive ... like Green.

 

Here's a simple juxtaposition of yellow and green. Not only does the yellow half of the

square dominate attention, it sort of looks larger than the green half to my eye.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Oops, I created that color comparison on a black screen and should've simulated it here

also ...<div></div>

[fotografz]

Here's a photo that may help demonstrate the ideas all in one shot.

 

First, all of the complexity of the shot is contained in the smaller portion of the Golden Mean

Rectangle... then the remaining square portion of the image falls out of focus (more apparent

in a regular sized print), as well as not having any complexity of subject. The man's yellow/

orange sweater is dominate both in color and in brightness .<div></div>

[picturesque]

I'm with Stacy--absent for a couple of days and wow... I just sat down and slowly read everything posted, and as expected, learned a lot. I guess I always composed in the camera and used the rule of thirds (or whatever) naturally. Never had the "center everything" problem. I do frame just about everything (unfortunately) for an 8x10, figuring a 5x7 can be made from it, so I guess I do frame loosely now. When I started in photography, I had the opposite problem--I cropped everything in the camera, and when I started in wedding photography, would miss shots because I was taking an extra second to frame. Had to force myself to just shoot during true action sequences, although I got pretty fast with composing during fast moving action.

 

Couple of things. First, I'd like to thank Marc for spearheading this assignment. Second, no one answered Michael's question above (or commented) re his shot of his daughter by the window.

 

Also, I want to suggest a couple of other sub-topics. First, more about the plain vanilla shots we wedding photographers have to shoot. Dolly's question about how to apply good composition to group shots, which leads me to the second sub-topic--symmetry--is it possible to have a dynamite compostion using symmetry and dead center position, or the anti-golden mean. By group shots, I mean the really boring formals, like a shot of 4 people, or half length of a small group. I would think this is the hardest type of composition to make interesting. Gary had a good example above. I have had a couple of clients request dead center positioning when I had set them up off center (on the 1/3) to allow for the train.

 

Then, I don't know if there is anyone that can provide some informaton about composition in Asian art? I always wondered if my lack of centering was due to my background (Asian). I am as uninformed about this on a conscious level as I am about Western composition, unfortunately. About the only thing I know is that odd numbers are preferred in images, and negative/positive space is a big factor.

[picturesque]

By the way, Marc, Allen Chen is right about the strange characters. I worked up my fill flash info in Word, and the special characters didn't translate when I copied the text to post. So the next time, I copied the text into the posting window on photo.net and then went through again and re-typed any special character, like quotes and apostophes, etc.

[anner]

I love the use of unexpected selective focus. One thing I think is important to keep in

mind is that even though the background is out of focus, it is still part of the image, and

should be treated as an equal partner in the composition. You also have to make sure that

you choose your DoF (Depth of Field - combination of focal length, aperture, distance

between you and subject, and distance between subject and background) carefully based

on how OOF (out of focus) you'd like parts of your image to be.

 

Do you want to make them out of focus to the point of mere shapes, or so that people are

still recognizable, with only a slight sharpness to draw attention?<br>

<br><center>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/34/122424340_42116c01ac.jpg"><br>

Just enough DoF to bring attention to the cake, but also enough focus to make the couple

easily recognizable.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/57/157020707_b1ed6872ea_o.jpg"><br>

Slightly larger DoF to bring very strong focus to the poker chips while making the kiss

seem like something secretly happening in the background.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/42/84728598_a59d529e74_o.jpg"><br>

In this image, I tried to use a lot of DoF in order to draw attention to the similar shapes of

the chandelier and the couple with minister. I avoided extra sharpening and contrast on

the chandelier in order to focus on the shapes rather than the objects themselves.<br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/62/153865057_ab7f6d40d5_o.jpg"><br>

Almost completely eliminating the couple in the background... but still part of the

composition.</center><br>

<br>

I hope I'm not monopolizing... I have a lot of images already online that I can pull from, so

I hope it helps.

[anner]

As a side note... selective focus can be done quite candidly simply by framing the image in

the right way. Only the poker shot above required me to actually position the couple (no one

naturally kisses that close to the table top!).. everything else was done candidly by including

something between me and the couple in the framing of the image.

[uk]

Example of using Depth of fiel to force attention on the subject.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Thanks Ann. No you're not monopolizing. It's good to see you so active here again.

 

Great shot Gary! Excellent example ... which not only uses DOF bring discussed, it fits the

Golden Proportions and uses lighting as a dominate element.

 

Hi Nadine, yep that's what I did (created in Word) but the weird characters didn't show up

until I actually posted, or I would have fix it. Won't do that again.

 

As to your question concerning composition of formals and group shots ... I suggest that

should be a separate subject which deserves its own tutorial ... One that I nominate David

Schilling to do once this Composition assignment is complete. He has done some very

interesting compositions with formals (which I'm going to try an emulate this Saturday: -).

IMO composition of formals happens with-in the structured shot itself, and can be

effected by how you pose the subjects as much as how place the subjects or how you crop

the image.

 

So, I think Formals, Bridals and Groups is a subject unto itself with a lot to cover beyond

composition. It's one I'd personally like to see here myself. Perhaps other PJ shooters could

also benefit greatly from it?

 

Concerning compositional aspects that don't necessarily adhere to the Golden Mean ... as

in "symmetrical compositions" that Nadine refers to: Yes, that actually was the next sub-

catagory of this thread that I was going to explore with this group.

 

But first I'll take a crack at answering Michael Warren's question concerning the photo of

his daughter (thanks for pointing that out Nadine).

 

Michael, you've already said ignore the clutter and the widow was BRIGHT (placing the

subject in deep shadow). So, in a way, you answered your own question. The composition

while shooting would be to try and eliminate both of those issues. Moving in a bit and

using fill flash would be the first suggestions.

 

However, given a "grab shot", as we sometimes have to do at a wedding, here's what I'd do

with your existing image:

 

I cropped in to a 4X6 proportion and did the best I could to use the rule of thirds. More

importantly, cropping simplifies the composition and creates a bit more intimate view. I

also used the bright window as an element in the photo and blew it out all the way to

further simplify the composition. There are other ways to look at it, this is just one of

them ...<div></div>

[fotografz]

Now onto "symmetrical" compositions.

 

While mindlessly centering every subject is something to avoid over-all, mindfully creating

a balanced and symmetrical image is a different thing. It can be as powerful and pleasing

as using the Golden Mean. After all, if everything followed one "Rule" it'd get boring pretty

darn fast.

 

Symmetrical basically means having balanced proportions ... as in halves of a whole.

Unlike the Golden Mean Rectangle it often has a central dividing line with either side

corresponding to or mirroring each other. There are other aspects to it, but that's the

basics.

 

Here's a couple of different applications of Symmetry applied ... both of these were pretty

much cropped in the camera.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Now, that said, Symmetry can be used with-in a composition that has an off kilter element in

it to create tension and focus attention on the lesser element.

 

This shot does that to some degree. The over-all view is quite symmetrical, but the people

are off center a bit and line up with one another just right of the central dividing line.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Here's another shot I titled "Horses Rule" that has an obvious central dividing line but doesn't

mirror the halves. It also uses something of a balanced dark light, neg/pos, space.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Finally, here are some of those concepts applied to wedding photography.

 

Many of the venues where we shoot feature Symmetrical settings which be taken

advantage of by symmetrically composing with-in them.

 

The two images below were shot in just such a setting, and taken with-in minutes of one

another.

 

The top shot using a wide angle to include all the Symmetry of the setting (a scenic which

was printed very large). The one below it was with a telephoto, but still has a central

dividing line mitigated by neg pos space and other non symmetrical elements with-in the

composition.

 

With this in mind, look back over your previous work and see where you may have used

this, or more importantly could have used it to make an image more powerful and

compelling.<div></div>

[mikestryinagain]

Good stuff,Marc. Its easy to see from these examples exactly what you are describing. Thanks for the critique on my picture, I guess next time I do a "snap" I had better finish the job! ;) BTW, how are you guys combining your images into a single image and how do you keep the grid lines on the picture? I use Elements 3, so it may be slightly different from CS2, but Im sure the same principles apply. Been a great tutorial thus far!

[rtrace]

Selective/suggestive DOF *with* symmetry. Shot intentionally with a warm white balance.

 

Marc, another thing we should perhaps talk about is choice of lenses and how they affect compositions - wide angle vs. telephoto, etc.

 

Bogdan<div></div>

[anner]

Bogdan, that's a great shot! It's very rare that a church lets me get behind the altar, so it's

nice to see one from the other side. ;-)

[rtrace]

Thanks Anne. Eastern Orthodox weddings/churches are more liberal, and I can move around more than at Catholic weddings. Nobody seems to mind - they welcome it!

 

Bogdan

[kari douma]

How about this... I croped this photo with the B&G in the center, then on the thirds line. Which is better?<div></div>

[rtrace]

Center looks better to me because the background's symmetry adds and doesn't distract in this case.

 

Bogdan