Composing your image, preferences?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

Composing your image, preferences?

(60 posts) (16 voices)

Started 6 months ago by msmoto
Latest reply from SquamishPhoto
Related Topics:
1. guys guys guys, n gals, advice please

Tags:

« Previous 123 Next »

donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Here is another image for everyone to consider (I will post a link to original to download and work on yourself). These buildings are in Sugartown, PA and are over 200 years old. I tried to use two composition techniques: the "rule of thirds" in making the sky line fall one third the way down the page and the "frame in a frame" by making the edge of the barn and the stone wall in the foreground frame the two houses. Then I applied a bit of vignetting and the Craquelure filter to "age" the photo appropriately. This is my result:

It will be best viewed on your monitor as large as possible to see the effect: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8059/8197340563_5e0ca3e25a_k.jpg

Now here is a link to the full size original for anyone to download, edit as they like and repost in an improved (or at least different) take on the same original image. http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8197337651/sizes/o/in/photostream/ Maybe you like the original image better than my "improvements." Share whatever you think. That is how we all can learn to be better photographers.

Posted 6 months ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

Isn't composition position of camera as well in relation to the subject. Also focal length.

there is a psychology behind composition and the rule of thirds are one aspect of that. If your camera is lower to the ground it makes the scene feel larger. If you subject is small in the frame it makes the subject feel more alone. A tight shot shows off intensity...

How you compose your subject does play an important role it isnt limited on where you place your subject on a grid. why is also important...

this may not be my best shot but imagine if the "musician" filled the frame how different the shot would be

Posted 6 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

@ donaldejose... Architectural photos are very specialized. My preference would be to have shot the buildings individually. Or, to have chosen a perspective which shows the front a bit more from a frontal position. I find it disconcerting that the front of the left house is looking out of the image.

@ kyoshinikon... good points...and wide lenses are great for adding the addition of wild perspective. In your shot, and this is easy to see after the fact, I think I might have moved slightly to the right and moved back a few inches, then cut off some on the left and eliminated the window in the upper left either by post processing or cropping. The image as it is.... possibly slightly off the top and left sides, again eliminating the upper window. Maybe even cutting into the painting on the left so as to bring a similar element into the overall image on the left as on the right.

Posted 6 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

kyoshinikon: Yes, composition includes those elements also. We could also add saturated colors vs more washed=out colors as an element which affects the message a photo presents.

msmoto: Good idea. I guess you see houses like I see people: If that house on the left was a person near the edge of the frame who was looking out of the frame my mind would see disengagement and alienation. I don't read those human emotions into inanimate objects. I don't give human feelings or "humanize" animals or houses. However, I will go back and try your idea of shooting the houses individually from the front to see if that works better.

Here is the stone house shot alone but the morning sun was hitting the back of the house. I have to go back in the evening to get the warm sun on the front. I tried to use the tree as a frame here but was not happy with this image. Perhaps it is the fact that the front of the house is not what you see. Maybe a house is like a face; we expect to see the front, the entrance. Maybe I do "humanize" inanimate objects and that is why I am unhappy with this photo!

Posted 5 months ago #
Pippigurl

senior member
Joined: Oct '12
Posts: 67
offline

A main reason that I have appreciated and learned from PAD has been through the help and comments from many individuals such as Adamz, donaldjose, squamish, and many others. So, when the discussion turned to rule of thirds and golden mean I decided I should read more. During mu initial inquiry on line I ran across many very technical calculations that apply to the golden ratio far above my understanding, However, I did find an interesting application that IMHO best illustrated to me this principal. So, I would like to share it with all. Just follow the link and you can easily download your own snaps and see how this principal can aid in determining the final product. I hope this is of value.

http://photoinf.com/Tools/Composition_Adjuster/Java-Composition-Adjuster.html

Posted 5 months ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

Thanks, the photo does need work but having been shot for the press I couldn't photoshop out the window or camera.

The photo you just put up donaldejose is pretty nice and has a good use of the rule of thirds. To me what is lacking is animation. Just having a tricycle or bird somewhere noticable in it probably would have changet the feel of the shot. An old instructor used to always say "put a duck in it!"

Posted 5 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

@ kyoshinikon... good point.....a human element....

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Here is an image I just shot trying to obtain "good" bokeh in the background. 50mm f1.4 on a D600 body at f1.4. I am generally happy with the color of the leaves and the smoothness and color of the bokeh. However, I think the dark lower right corner is a weakness. How do you think this image should best be cropped to show off colorful leaves and colorful smooth background bokeh?

I was thinking about using a square or vertical rectangle frame to eliminate the dark lower right corner? What do you think? Download the original image here http://www.flickr.com/photos/76080384@N03/8210695011/sizes/o/in/photostream/
crop to your preference and re-post below.

Posted 5 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Here is my version, Donald

This is what I call an analogous, monochrome, color photo....

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Msmoto: Cropping is better but I think the colors are worse. You have killed the beautiful warm colors in the leaves and bokeh. However, I know colors are a matter of personal preference. Some people like them more intense and warm while others like them more neutral or even cool.

Posted 5 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Yes, the background was to me a bit distracting... My example could use a more vivid color in the leaves of course. IMO bokeh comes form point sources of light and set up a pattern of small circles or other shape. The background in yours did not seem to lend itself to this as well as point sources do. But, this is just personal preference as you say. Neither is right or wrong, better or worse.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Yes, there is a great deal of personal taste in composition. Personally, I don't like the "point source highlight circle" type of bokeh. I like a "smooth creamy blending of warm attractive colors" type of bokeh. I think this background bokeh is a great improvement over the image I posted today in PAD.

How about this crop? What do people think of this? What would you do different to improve it to your eyes?

Posted 5 months ago #
benji2505

preferred member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 272
offline

The overall intent of composition is too lead the eye of the viewer into or through the picture in order to make it more interesting. Composition has many more aspects than just the golden ratio/cut. A placement of a subject in the golden section gives a picture an optical balance and harmony. The diagonals that Donald addressed is another compositional elements (out of many).

I would not agree with Donald that there are no pics on PAD that follow the golden section rule, I see many.

Michael Freeman published a good collection of books in which he explains some of the compositional ideas. The read is a little intense, but good.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

How about this take on the image we have been working on? I cloned bokeh to cover those black areas.

What else should be done to improve the image in your opinion? I would like to see the subject leaves all crisp and sharp but I was working with f1.4 and didn't have sufficient DOF for that. Perhaps re-shoot at f2.8 and f4? But that might reduce the smooth creamy bokeh I was seeking for the background.

Posted 5 months ago #
benji2505

preferred member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 272
offline

I don' t know whether I am going too far here, but let me give my thoughts about the most recent pic:

A good picture has 4 important aspects: subject, background, light, and composition (with varying importance depending on genre):

1. Subject: is the foliage on a branch. Color is homogenous red, contrast is flat, a portion is out of focus (maybe intentionally, what did you try to show?) IMHO topic 3. has ruined the subject.
2. Background: usually gives information about the setting, maybe the subject. In this shot it is more of artistic importance. I liked the background that carried some contrasts, but that is personal taste.
3. Light: hard light, hard shadows, reflections on the foliage, therefore colors do not come out. Structures of the leaf are washed out in the reflections. Dark shadows cover a good portion of the subject. A good pic in direct intense light is very difficult and works only in special situations IMHO. I think that foliage comes out better back-lit.
4. Composition: subject is close enough to the golden section-vertical line on the left. An interesting shape of the branch itself would have resulted in an interesting line that guides to the leaf. But there is nothing wrong with the composition.

'Hope you don't take this as too harsh.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

benji2505: good thoughts.

1. I agree the harsh lighting (black shadow and shadows have "ruined" the subject; as has the fact that some parts of the subject are out of focus. It would have been better to shoot on a bright overcast day or used an umbrella to diffuse the sun in order to reduce highlights or used a reflector or fill flash to fill shadows or used all of them.

2. I limited myself this morning to "wide open" shooting in natural light as I found it. That was the challenge. Thus, I could not make adjustments to satisfy the weaknesses listed in No. 1 above. [But I really couldn't see these issues on my LCD screen at the time anyway.]

3. I keep looking back and forth between the two backgrounds: one with some black areas and one without. On second thought I just might prefer the increased drama created by the black areas also. Still, the leaves should be all in sharp focus no matter which background is used.

The point of this thread is to evoke critique and discussion of an image so we see how different people have different thoughts about it and learn from each other that way; not the "you are so great" back slapping so often found on PAD. If I posted perfect shots, there would be no discussion would there?

Posted 5 months ago #
benji2505

preferred member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 272
offline

Donald, yup, one can only learn. Many photo-sites have critique sections, if Peter wants to expand the forum that might be a nice addition.

Msmoto started the discussion about composition, then everybody talked about the golden section. I just wanted to argue that

1. there are more elements to a good picture (4 in my opinion) and comp is only one of them. I always use these 4 elements when I look at pics.
2. I also wanted argue that composition is not limited to the golden section there are many many more aspects.

Posted 5 months ago #
safyre

senior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 52
offline

My thoughts.

1. There's nothing wrong with the hard light. With hard light, you get a much wider range of tonality, which can be a very good thing depending on how you post process.
The problem is that the background is also very contrasty in both color and tonality. When you put the two together, it ends up becoming too much; your eyes look at the leaves and then dart all over the place. The image would be much stronger with a plainer, more neutral background to balance out the contrast of the leaves. (Once again, I'm applying this specifically to hard light).

2. This is more of a personal opinion, but I've never been a big fan of the red/green combination despite them being complementary colors. It's already challenging to color grade green, and throwing in the contrast of red makes it even more so. I'd rather prefer a green/white or red/brown combination.

3. Could it be sharper/focused differently? Yes, but it isn't that big of a deal in my opinion. You already have separation of subject and background through depth of field so people can clearly tell the subject is the leaves. Having a cleaner background would do much more for the picture than having it sharper.

Anyways, here's my take on the edit. I chose to turn it to black and white since it really brings out the highlight/shadow contrast from the hard light, thereby drawing your eyes more to the leaves. And of course you don't have to worry about the variation of color either.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

safyre: I think that works quite well.

It is good to see different takes on the same image.

Posted 5 months ago #
benji2505

preferred member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 272
offline

Contrasts and hard direct light in BW is a different animal/story. BW images need the light contrasts.

I personally think that hard direct light decreases the color quality in depth and tonality (prior to PP at least)

In terms of focus I would think that it is generally acknowledged that the subject should be in focus unless one is trying to achieve a certain artistic effect. Question here is what the subject is, just 2-3 leaves or the whole bunch.

Posted 5 months ago #
Yetibuddha

preferred member
Joined: Oct '11
Posts: 466
offline

This is a very good discussion. I am not sure that Donald actually stated that the golden mean is the only compositional rule. Like Benji, I feel there are many components to composition and how the elements of the image are arranged within it. There is also the notion of negative space, separation of elements, leading lines, lines, textures,forms, color and shape that are involved. Knowing these, plus light (type, direction, quality) and other technical aspects are important in producing images with impact. Of course, not all elements of composition will be present in every image. I always go back to the notion of what story is it that you as a photographer want to tell, and with what impact. That then, in my mind, suggests how one uses light, composition, background, processing etc. to tell that story.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Right, I said the "Golden Radio" was something I don't know how to use when composing through the viewfinder. It seems too complex to me with all those boxes and rectangles. I can, and do, use many of the others on a regular basis. The best answer has been to think of the rule of thirds as a simplification of the golden ratio.

We could use some discussion and examples of "negative space." Can anyone provide them. We need images to study so we can visually see what people are saying.

I don't so much think of a photo telling a story, unless it is a photojournalism style photo. I think more of a photo being a work of art pleasing to look at. I don't ask "what story does it tell?" Rather I ask: "why is it pleasing, or not, to my eye and what feeling does it evoke in me?" That is one reason why I like the warm color tones. They evoke warm feelings in me.

Posted 5 months ago #
donaldejose

preferred member
Joined: Mar '11
Posts: 1,043
offline

Here is a photojournalism type photo I took last year when covering High School Basketball for a local newspaper. What is the story? One player in white swarmed by three opposing players in blue trying to prevent him from shooting a basket? Or number 32 yelling at the player in white? Or the determination of the player in white to get the ball to the basket in spite of the overwhelming opposition? How could it be improved? By seeing the face of the player in white? Wish I had a D4 and was shooting at 10 fps during these few seconds. I might have been able to capture both the yelling and the face of the player in white.

What is the primary composition? The player in white is centered which is not generally a very good composition: too bland. But when you are portraying one player swarmed by others the center is a good place to put your main subject. Is the main composition a diagonal composition following number 31's outstretched arm to the face of number 32? What do people see and think about this photo? What could be done to improve it?

D7000, 80-200 2.8 shot at 120mm and 2.8, 1/320sec, ISO-1600.

Backstory: the player in white is the consistent high scorer for his team so the opposing players were trying to shut him down by double and triple teaming him all night. He is a guard who scores often by charging the basket and getting off a near shot or layup-type shot.

Posted 5 months ago #
David

member
Joined: Nov '12
Posts: 44
offline

While Donald and other have been very gracious posting different composition techniques would you'll have any recommendations on what to read to get the does and don't on composing a shot. I know little when it comes to composition and would like to get better at this. I have some books by Scott Kelby but the first 2 I have read haven't covered anything about rules of thirds or diagonal composition. While I have learned a lot from those books I find myself struggling on how to compose the shot either from the viewfinder or from the crop tool inside lightroom. Mihai CH posted a great pic in PAD of a tree with lots of space to the left. I really like the pic and think the space works but don't know why. I wouldn't of thought of adding that much space thinking I would be wasting space in the frame. I am obviously missing something here but don't know what. I also posted a pic in PAD of a penguin. I think it follows the diagonal rule that Donald talked about but feel like I might have taken that shot to tight but don't know. If I had taken a wider shot where would I put the space??? At the bottom left corner giving the penguin somewhere to swim too???

Here is link to penguin pic in PAD if you haven't seen it.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=12644&page=24

Posted 5 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

@ David

My suggestion on composition.... go to an art museum....such as the Dallas Museum of Art, and simply walk around looking at the various paintings and photography on exhibit, studying the composition. See what you find pleasing. Then, in their bookstore, see if by chance they have a book on composition. Or, ask if possibly there are classes in the area which teach this.

While this thread has a lot of suggestions, it is only a very basic beginning for the photographer. Most artists study other artists' work and this is how they learn.

One interesting exercise is to take into a museum two pieces of card stock which are cut like a framing square. By overlapping the two pieces, one can create a movable frame and view works through this, altering the cropping of some of the world's great masterpieces. This will allow one to see what they prefer and also what does not work.

In the photo on PAD, by you David, of the seal or whatever, I would take about 20% off the top and right side. My idea is the out of focus tail end of the subject adds nothing. And, dropping the 20% as above brings the head more into the "rule of thirds" area which I find more pleasing. However, this is not my photo and thus what I want to show may not be what you wish to show. Only my preference, not necessarily right, wrong, good, bad, or whatever... In Donald's photo of the basketball players, I would have shot that at about 8-10 FPS and chosen a shot which showed the face of the player in white. But, this may not have been available to Donald.

Look at some of the portraits on PAD. Some have a very distinct tension and convey the artist's ideas about something we may be unaware of. Others are more peaceful and simply nice photos of people. Composition plays a large part of the message.

So, much of this composition stuff is about the message we want to convey. But, by observing at the museum, we find many examples of what folks have found pleasing enough to display and state these are good works.

Posted 5 months ago #