How switching to full frame DID make me a better photographer

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>That's a bit damning Shun. Composition can work in an infinite variety of ways, and use of symmetry is one such way that definitely defies the application of an off-centre subject. As, generally, do triangular compositional forms. Besides, a committee following the golden ratio - without any understanding - has given us the appalling 16:9 HD TV standard "letterbox slot" to look through. While OTOH Karsh frequently placed his subject's eyes centre frame to great effect.</p>

<p>Basically, there are no "rules" to composition; only guidelines.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Well, damning or not, if that shot were cropped where the head, with eyes looking out right angle, were placed in the left

upper third cross hair, the composition would be much stronger. Yes, no question, I am one of the first ones to throw out

the rule book and "go for it" but in this case Shun has a specific point, yet perhaps a bit harsh.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Again, I hope people, including the OP, do not mind a direct, harsh answer. I am certainly not known for dishing out those softball, "congratulations to everybody for their great images" type comments that make people feel good but do nothing else.</p>

<p>Concerning the dead center composition, I was not merely referring to just one image. Check out other images on this thread.</p>

<p>Photography is mainly about composition, lighting, posting (for portraits), capturing the right moment (sports, action) .... Camera brand, sensor size/format, lens sharpness ... can make some small differences around the fringes, but those are not where the main issues are.</p>

<p>I have talked to a number of well known professional photographers (John Shaw, Art Wolfe, David Middleton ...). Everybody was a beginner early on (obviously) and took some mediocre images, and they all have had this type of experience: when you revisit, after a few years, those images you once treasure and realize how ordinary they are, you know you have improved. While I am not as good as those guys, I certainly have had that same kind of experience.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>but a very basic rule of composition is that if you place the subject dead center in the frame, it typically leads to very boring images</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, Considering i've been a professional designer for the past ~5 years or so I'm quite familiar with the rules of composition. In an abstract way, composition is my profession.</p>

<p>If I feel that the subject should be in the center, then I will put it there. I think telling someone that X composition will lead to boring images is unwise, as every subject and the photographer's interpretation of it is different. Of course one should be familiar with the rules, but the rule of thirds is one that I find goes out the window pretty fast once one starts really "feeling" their subject. Sometimes right smack in the middle of the frame just works.<br /> <br />Take the third image in the first second post I made. How would that have benefitted form the rule of thirds treatment? I meditated long and hard on that shot, and in my eyes it DEMANDED a centered composition. Thoughtful center composition will go much farther than thoughtlessly putting the subject where a blanket rules says it should.<br>

And thank your for the complements everyone!</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Richard, not so much today, but years ago I read similar post like yours on the <br>

Medium and Large format forums on the web saying how much better photographers<br>

the suddenly became because they worked in larger than 35mm formats.</p>

<p>I can only say I think digital has helped a lot of us because it makes it possible to firstly,<br>

view our exposures and check our framing, focus and exposure. We can afford to use<br>

bracketing, HDR, and in general get through many more exposures more practice.<br>

Film was expensive, changing rolls of time slowed down shall I say our practice.<br>

My camera says I have 600 exposure capacity, that lets me try and retry, experiment<br>

and learn and I can afford to do it. <br>

In my opinion, DX is the equal with todays gear of film 35mm, FX is superior, and the <br>

difference is not so great between DX and FX to make one per se a better craftsman.<br>

Remember HCB and Galen Rowell didn't use extensive or the most impressive gear<br>

it was their technique that set them apart. I remember reading Galen saying<br>

he used an FM10 a kit camera since it was light and hiking and climbing was easier<br>

with light gear in his kit.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>a very basic rule of composition is that if you place the subject dead center in the frame, it typically leads to very boring images. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> It's not a rule; it's a technique, one among many. Sometimes this technique improves the image and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes a different technique works better. Sometimes moving the image off to the side looks pointlessly tacky. Sometimes it looks as though the photographer cared more about adhering to some convention than making a good photograph.</p><div></div>

[dan_south]

<p>Any change can be inspiring. Jumping from color to black and white can be inspiring. Trying medium large format can be inspiring. An all manual camera can be inspiring.</p>

<p>I walked around for a weekend with a borrowed "mirror-less" camera, and that was inspiring. Anything that gets you up off of your seat with a camera in your hand is a good thing.</p>

<p>Personally, I prefer shooting full frame for the increased image quality and the larger viewfinder image. But if I went on a safari, I would probably want to shoot with a high resolution crop sensor most of the time so I could fill the frame with distant animals.</p>

<p>In the end does the gear matter? Yes, but perhaps not in the way we might imagine. Gear matters when it feels right and when it supports what we want to accomplish. Whatever gets us up off of the couch is worthwhile.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The combination of blurred background, slight telephoto compression and angle of view that made this shot what it is just wouldn't be possible with a smaller format. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, shooting an 85 on DX would give you <em>more</em> compression. and the 127.5mm FLE is still within the "classic portrait range" so i dont see that FF makes that much of a difference on this particular shot.<br>

<br>

as far as centered portraits go, if you get closer so the body, or more likely, head and shoulders, fills the frame, as in Dan's shot, the results are often more interesting -- especially when the background is otherwise unremarkable. simply put, part of the technique of composition is to eliminate all the wasted space in a frame.</p>

[keith_burdett]

<p>Richard, I like your pictures very much and that's an emotional response not an analysis.<br>

I also agree over the move from dx to ff. I experienced the same thing pretty much.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Richard, let me put it this way, like for most of us, there is plenty of room for your photography to improve. I had made some suggestions earlier. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. But if you would like to improve as a photographer, it is best to find some people who you respect to critique your images. That is beyond the scope of this thread.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I bit the bullet and bought a ridiculously used D700 for a great price.<br>

Since then, my photography has grown by huge leaps and bounds.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, I am afraid that you attributing any improvement to the sensor format is leading you down the wrong path.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I like the last shot you posted Richard. It's quite cinematic I think. I wouldn't change the composition for anything. It's about the whole scene, I think to go in tighter would lose something from the overall scene.</p>

 

[scottelly]

<p>Richard I too became a better photographer after buying a full-frame camera. I "went full-frame" for much the same reason you did, but I found over time that I was mistaken in many aspects of what I though previously. I have now come full-circle to using smaller sensors. For example, I prefer 1.5 crop factor sensors now, because I get a deeper depth of field. I have realized that even at 70mm and f5.6 a full-frame camera makes my depth of field TOO short, when shooting a portrait of a model. I've found that good bokeh is more about selection and placement of the subject relative to the background. I have also realized that foreground can be blurred about as much as I like, and that the bohek is more a function of the lens and position of elements in the shot than it is about the lens quality or the aperture setting. I have shot photos with crap lenses that are good, and I have shot photos with amazing lenses that just don't have it . . . and the reason was what I chose to do with the equipment and subject(s), not the fact that I had or did not have a full-frame sensor.</p>

<p>That said, congratulations on biting the bullet and taking the step forward. Now learn as much as you can, experiment as much as you can, and good luck!</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p>P.S. I am shooting with an old Sigma SD14 now, which has a 1.7 crop sensor. It works just fine, and it produces the cleanest, most noise-free images of any camera I have ever used (as long as I shoot with it at ISO 100 . . . the noise in images is horrendous at ISO 400 and above).</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Richard, that last shot you posted is a perfectly composed and processed image. Brilliant!</p>

<p>I'm assuming you're processing it to look like old film shots from the '70's including the vignette as effect. Your centering the subject low within the frame amplifies the subject's isolation within a vast, desolate landscape that fades both in tone and clarity juxtaposed against that gorgeous broad and bright glow above and behind as if the image is reflecting the subject's actual thoughts much like a thought balloon only the subject's thoughts are slowly coming out of the fog. Pretty damn good shot!</p>

<p>Yeah, I get what you're talking about concerning FF and its short DOF getting closer to the subject. It looks so film like I had to Google the Nikon D700 to make sure you weren't actually shooting with a 35mm SLR camera. LOL!</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>I love critique, i thrive on it, but i personally thought that that particular critique was not valid and something I had personally addressed at the time of taking the picture. Agree to disagree.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am afraid that you attributing any improvement to the sensor format is leading you down the wrong path.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course there are other factors involved that imporoved my photography. But what other factors contributed to the fact that, after looking at my first image off my D700, I thought "thats the look I've been looking for all this time!". Is there a reason why I haven't even considered a new camera/lens combo since then? Because I've found the equipment that suits my taste.</p>

<p>Should everyone do what I did? No, of course not, we all have a different vision. But to say that it didn't contribute to my images looking, at least to my eyes, better; seems a bit reactionary.</p>

<p>I ask again, what equipment do you use? If its anything more than, say, an entry level bridge camera I think you should do a little thinking. Its the oft repeated mantra I hear on this forum that gear has nothing to do with your pictures, but I rarely see the GAS police put their money where their mouth is.</p>

<p>Would we be having this same debate if I had been raving about the switch to large format and how it helped my photography? I wonder.</p>

<p>And again, thanks for the kind words everyone!</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p >I've found that good bokeh is more about selection and placement of the subject relative to the background.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >A lesson quickly learned myself! I realized that blurry backgrounds and good bokeh are not a cure for bad background choice, but I personally like the subject/background separation. Like any other effect, the image must be successful WITHOUT the effect first. The cherry on top if you will.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Besides, bokeh is an effect with so many variables that I would find it difficult to rely on anyway.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I love the way this topic has hit on 2 of the great misconceptions and blatantly incorrect assertions that have been elevated to mythic rule status, symmetry being the second of the two. Incidentally Dan, your composition is not symmetrical, but you subject is centrally located, which is quite different. And Shun's assertion is simply wrong. In the history of image making symmetry has been consistently used to create pictures with a calm and serious authority.</p>

<p>The internet photoforums probably developed this anti-symmetry idea by accident or ignorance of the evolved history of composition - what is true, however, is that if you wish to convey dynamic action and a sense of naturalism, symmetry is likely to produce a more boring result than one of the informal compositional structures.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p>Thanks you for the kind words, Tim!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It looks so film like I had to Google the Nikon D700 to make sure you weren't actually shooting with a 35mm SLR camera. LOL!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I take that as a compliment. Ever since I had to sort through my grandfather's old box of Kodachrome slides I have been on a quest to emulate that elusive "film look". i've developed a bit of a recipe book, but it will have to remain a secret for now :)</p>

<p>More on topic, I also believe the subtle relationship between depth of field/perspective characteristics of full frame is one of those intangible things that triggers the mind to think "this looks like film". I suppose its all about connecting with those classic old images we've seen our whole life.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<blockquote>

<p>In the history of image making symmetry has been consistently used to create pictures with a calm and serious authority.</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >Confidence in letting your subject speak for itself perhaps?</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >The internet photoforums probably developed this anti-symmetry idea by accident or ignorance of the evolved history of composition </p>

<p > </p>

</blockquote>

<p >Personally I think it has to do with lack of thought on composition. Throughout my brief time as a photography student I had often heard "don't put your subject in the center", and other rules of thirds nonsense. Poorly thought out composition on a third line does not guarantee good results any more than sticking int he center will. I think if one meditates on their subject enough the appropriate composition will become clear. Then of course, honing your skills on doing that in the moment.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think it has to do with lack of thought on composition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Add a lack of sense for design, but then most hobbyist photographers didn't take graphic design to develop an instinct for seeing a scene that way. Can't blame 'em for that.</p>

<p>Your last shot is very reminiscent of what I used to see as a former art director flipping through "Communication Arts" mags back in the early '80's to get inspiration. That period seemed to be a golden age for graphic design with kick ass photography placed compositionally tasteful within minimalist modular design layouts and beautiful typography.</p>

<p>Lot of it haled out of the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, a US centralized location for a huge number of innovative graphic design firms at least that's what I kept coming across as labels on entries in "Communication Arts" mags. Don't think there's very many firms left in that area seeing digital desktop forced everyone to head for east or west coast locals.</p>

[richard_bach1]

<p >Great insight, Tim!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I agree with you about the golden age having past in a way. More commercial photography now seems to fall into a very particular "look". I mean Terry Richardson's "look" is plastered all over everything nowadays, but one can still easily pick out his work. Artists seemed a bit more varied back in the day. True for photography AND design.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >And pretty off topic, but check out MK12, a firm out of Kansas City Missouri if you want to see a great firm thats NOT on a coast. And they must be doing pretty well, considering they did the intro to the last James Bond film!</p>

[dave_wilson1]

The landscape with the young man is a wonderful shot in many ways, but it is not really what I would think of as a strong

composition, but rather it is a weak one. If you want it to become stronger and have more visual power, take some of the

blank bright sky out until the young mans head is yes, look I said it, along the upper third plane and also there will then be

a secondary strong factor of having the hills in the backround run a diagonal across the frame. You don't have to agree

with me, and this really is very subjective, but if you don't see the difference, well then you don't see the difference, and

life will go on. The use of thirds and diagonals are tried and true compositional tools, they are not some myth of hobbyists.

NO you don't need to use any of them, and this is really the Nikon forum not the composition forum, but that's a different

topic once again.

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Dave: the topic of this thread is <strong>How switching to full frame (Nikon) DID make me a better photographer</strong> - and therefore all the kinds of issues that contribute to the topic can be included, for one, I welcome this. Lack of time or laziness means that I come to this Nikon forum in preference to a dedicated "composition" forum or even "philosophy of photography".</p>

<p>Dave has now supplied us with our 3rd misconception, the idea that a "strong" composition is better than a "weak" one and that strong has more visual power, it just simply isn't true.</p>

<p>There is a very funny side to all this re: forums in general, if a new member of a forum put up a pic a few years ago, that looked a bit like what Terry Richardson does, doubtless the senior members of the forum would have posted comments saying that the exposure was wrong (too bleached out) the flash technique producing harsh shadows could be improved and so on, and on. From my own perspective, one of the reasons why I was reluctant to buy a Nikon was that I thought Nikon pics often looked a bit bleached out - little did I realise that it was just a fashion.</p>

<h1> </h1>

[dave_wilson1]

I never said one was better than the other, I indicated that one type of composition is STRONGER than the other, a

common discussion in painting, drawing and other visual arts.

[richard_bach1]

<p >Just for fun, I took the picture and cropped it the way that Dave suggested. Did it become a little more visually striking? Perhaps, but then It becomes a picture about a boy, who happens to be a in a landscape. The intent was to to be a picture about a boy and his surrounding.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Which I suppose proves Clive's point, that composition is a rather subjective tool to make the viewer feel a certain thing and not an absolute quality.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I personally like the interesting road this thread has taken :)</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Sorry Dave - yes I am guilty of assuming that you were implying that Strong is better than Weak. And yes, I agree it has been a topic of discussion in art schools etc for as long as I can remember and probably for 100s of years before that.</p>

<p>I think the most important thing about composition is that it is driven by intent.</p>