travis1 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 In RF mode or slr mode, what determines when to shoot portrait mode and when to shoot landscape mode? I can understand there must be a "spatial" consideration here. Is there an aesthetic consideration? Is it a concious decision or random? Landscapists, wedding shooters and streetshooters...what say you? For me, Im mostly a landscape mode person. The negs just feel more "complete" in landscape mode. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 It is absurdly simple: If the subject is taller than wider, use verticals...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas k. Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 <i>It is absurdly simple: If the subject is taller than wider, use verticals......</i> <p> That's an absurdly simple statement, but effective composition doesn't follow such rules. This from a guy who's surprised that French Canadians speak French. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luisarguelles Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Salgado exposed it quite simple: "never forget to shoot portrait-mode from time to time: These are good for first-page in magazines"! </p> Personally, I never make a conscious decision between both modes. For me it's instintive. And if you're in doubts, why not going 6x6? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom h. Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I just try to fill the frame in the best (to me) way possible. Sometimes it's diagonally, and it's always an aesthetic decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_brown4 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 If it's digital, then horizontal saves you the trouble of rotating the image later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 It is quite rare for a subject not to be obviously suited for vertical or horizontal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
preston_merchant Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 True, verticals are good for designers. If you are shooting for a publication, you would do well to include a few. Of course, horizontal images can be cropped, enlarged, etc., but it's rare to find and editor or designer who can imagine beyond the materials immediately in front of him/her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beau 1664876222 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I've never shot a vertical! I guess I just don't see that way. Maybe I should work on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 travis, i can lend you a 2 1/4 if you want :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_. Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 <<This from a guy who's surprised that French Canadians speak French.>> Canadian French:French as Ebonics:English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fg Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 A matter of briefing in my case. My commercial photography fills catalogues and billboards, my personal shooting fills my books or my frames. Soooo, it mostly depends on where/how you feel your images are going to be displayed. As far as the subject structure goes, it is simply not relevant: there are thousand of example of effective rendition of verticals in horizontal format and vice versa. My two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonas_yip1 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I probably shoot 95% vertical, regardless of subject. That's just where my spatial/visual/compositional sense leads me... j http://www.jonasyip.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Well, one of the "fine-art" photo instructors I had in college used to say, "If God had meant us to shoot verticals, he would have given us eyes like THIS! [pointing to his forehead and chin]". (Incidentally, he used an M2 and goggled 35mm lens exclusively for his own work.) I tend to shoot a lot of verticals - but then I started out as a Nat. Geo "wannabee", and they also tend to use a lot of verticals to fill those nice 35mm-format single pages - so I developed the skill. I look for (and see) vertical arrangements, as well as horizontal. I was also influenced by Gene Smith: the "lead" shot from the "Nurse-Midwife" essay (28mm vertical shot of a woman in labor in the foreground, with the nurse in the mid-ground and a kerosene lamp in the distance) does an incredibly effective job of 'leading' you literally into the room, and the story. When magazines were king, the vertical page format made good use of vertical pictures - so LIFE and LOOK photographers tended to shoot a lot of verticals. As TV's fixed horizontal format (and panoramic movie formats) came to dominate how we see the world, we are perhaps not as aware of 'vertical vision' as we once were. That's not necessarily a good thing. I don't think a horizontal composition would have done justice to the picture below - I would have gotten a lot of excess curb, and the little girl would have been 'squished' by the top of the frame.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_scecina2 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 There is a certain amount of tension/tenseness in a vertical picture that is absent from a landscape view regardless of subject matter. Consider that looking out of a dark enclosed space through a narrow vertical slit is a different experience than looking out through a narrow horizontal slit. How our eyes are situated on our face might indeed be why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al_kaplan1 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 The only advantage to shooting all horizontals that I can thing of, Travis, is that then you don't have to make the other big decision: shutter release and wind lever on top, or on the bottom? And if on the bottom: push the button with index finger or thumb? Life can get so confusing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_piper2 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Here's the Gene Smith "nurse-midwife" shot I just don't see this communicating as effectively if it were a horizontal - too much bed sheet, not enough 'focus' on the relationship between the women, and between them and their environment (as represented by the oil-lamp and bedpans). The 'flow' of the picture is vertical - hands to face to face to lamp and back again - so it's appropriate that the framing follow and reinforce that flow. OTOH - Smith's other famous "caring" picture - "Tomoko in her bath" from Minamata - is a horizontal, and works well because the internal relationships between people and objects and light are also horizontal. To borrow Paul Fusco's pithy phrase: "I concentrate on what I'm looking at, so I can understand what the hell I'm taking a picture of." - and then choose vertical, horizontal, or diagonal framing as appropriate.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 While I like horizontal smiles, I prefer the other variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_. Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I try horizontal first. If it doesn't work, then it is going to be vertical or diagonal. I think most frames can be done both ways - it is a personal choice. Yes, for magazine shots, vertical should be heavily considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob F. Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Okay, my turn. It seems that Brett Weston set up his view camera on the tripod, and took a horizontal shot. Then his father, (Edward) walked up to Brett's camera, turned the back 90 degrees for a vertical; put in his own film holder; and took a picture which has been published many times. Brett's picture, I am told, has never been published. Yes, It's an aesthetic thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_aitken Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 This thread is silly: you just "know" which is "right". If you have to think about the picture has probably already gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond_tai Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 I shot events for this public interest group for free as a favor to support their good cause but they got so annoyed at my mostly diagonal shots they never called me back after the second time. I was just trying to put an interesting perspective of people standing around with drinks in their hands doing nothing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsr Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 The subject nearly always suggests which way to hold the camera. If it does not, shoot a picture in each position when time permits. Compositional sense comes with practice and keeps on refining itself. If one must ask what composition is, there is much work ahead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers_. Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Vic, you like to watch plumbers work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now