How do you approach composition in your photography? (Page 9): Most of my photos are made with my smartphone and I compose them with the screen, I do very little post processing. BTW...

Vaun's photography Loc: Bonney Lake, WA

Most of my photos are made with my smartphone and I compose them with the screen, I do very little post processing.

BTW welcome to the forum and I hope you post some of your photos soon.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

larryepage wrote:

For me, this divides several ways... br br Landsc... (show quote)

There are some strange distinctions there. I would never think of railroad photography as a special category that has particular rules. And architectural photography has no real artistic value? Maybe if you’re doing real estate photography, but real architectural photography can be some of the most creative and interesting stuff I’ve seen. The thing is there aren’t different rules for different genres. Maybe there are guidelines about things that are important, like eyes in focus for portraits, but as for composition genre doesn’t matter.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

SuperflyTNT wrote:

There are some strange distinctions there. I woul... (show quote)

Yep. A good sense of composition works for just about any scene. Composition is the structure of an image, the way subjects and objects are arranged in the space of the frame. It's the art of inclusion and exclusion and emphasis or deemphasis.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

SuperflyTNT wrote:

... some would say it’s not a rule of thirds composition.

Indeed. I wonder how many sports photographers adhere strictly to the ROT. Racetracks would be another place I'd expect to see frequent centering.

User ID

btbg wrote:

Actualky that diagram is clear without further explaination. The cirlce is placed such that the center of the circle is exactly on a line that runs 90 degrees from the open end of a 45 degree angle. The top line of the 45 degree angle must also bisect the center point of the circle. Doesnt matter the size of the circle as for both the top line of the angle and the center of the circle to bisect the same point everything will line up. The second arc then just goes tangent to the circle.

ROTFLMFAO !

User ID

Herbie1924 wrote:

In color slide days, one composed in the camera's viewfinder - & still do today.
To better assist you, send some of your pics to crop.

All that "back in the day" color slide pride stuff gets more absurd every time another hobbyist brings it up.

The "Post Processing" of color slides was quite routine. It was similar to darkrom work, altho easier and cheaper to set up. Quite oddly, BW darkrooms were vastly more popular amongst hobbyists than was the color slide "lightroom".

That acoarst led to this ridiculous and cultish notion about making color slides demanding an absurd level of mastery of "camera craft", due to the ignorant belief that a SOOC color slide is a unique hermetically self contained fully finished end product.

The above refers to chromes for projeccton. Obviously if intent is print media publication no "lightroom" is involved, cuz the printing processes provide all the necessary PP.

Randyfrieder Loc: Long Island, New York

MrBob wrote:

If you are a skilled typist do you THINK about where the keys are located... ? Your BRAIN knows; it has learning ability. When it is right, you KNOW and FEEL it... Of course there are ALWAYS scenes within the scenes...

Yes, what he said!!

Bill_de Loc: US

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

I like that approach! For some folks sometimes, however, the image appears in the photographer's mind's eye before it appears on the camera's sensor, and alas, somewhere along the way, the image as it was perceived did not make it!

So, waht happened? I am not talking about exposure or color issues but the beautiful scene did not come through. The photographer saw the scene, stopped his or her car, breathed in the fresh country air, listened to the waterfall, took in the aroma of the flowers- all ther senses were at work and hopefully their visual prowess was also in play. But the resulting first shot is kinda blah!

To the rescue comes "working the scene"! This is where your technical knowledge, perhaps some rules and references come in handy. Why does the scene look different from what made you stop the car and get out and shoot? Is the issue in your shot perspective, choice of focal lengh or distance, point of view, did my slight overexposure desaturate the colors, would a longer or shorter exposure prove a better interpretation of the waterfall or any one or combination of issues that need to need to be solved?

This theory or method does not only apply to landscape photography. It can be any kind of work under any kind of situation. A stilllife or product shot of a single or group of objects can preset many challenges and yo may need to work diligently to come up wit an impactful composition that will tellthe story, sell the product, or simply satisfy you artistic appreciation.

The more rules, theories, techniques, and knowledge you have in your toolbox the faster you will troubleshoot problems and create successful images.

Something else to consider. Psychologists and neurologists tell me that there are three kinds of folks when it comes to waht influences their art or craft and perhaps may othere decisions and behaviors. The are Visuals, who react to and absorb more easily what they SEE. Auditories, will respond or learn more from waht they hear or read, and Kinostetics will tend to react more strongly to what they feel or touch. The VISUALS should (?) make for better visual artists but we all still have the other senses. So, in a visual creative situation, can we isolate our visual percept for othere influences?

Even in the controlled studio or studio-like portraiture, you may need to "work the scene".Not ever subjects a model. You may see a very attractive person who is not particularly photogenic. They cou be lovely pers with great personality but once you get past ther personable attitude you fine facial asymmetries, all maner of beemishes or a person that is nervios and freezes in for of a camera. You then have your"work" on this scene, cut out for you. Get out your toolbox!

I like that approach! For some folks sometimes, h... (show quote)

Food for thought. Thanks very much!

--

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Orphoto wrote:

Linda -- John Telford??

Wasn't familiar with the name, had to look him up.

Perhaps more Guy Tal.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

SuperflyTNT wrote:

There are some strange distinctions there. I woul... (show quote)

My point was that composition in photography is different from composition in the more additive arts. Painters have the freedom to "build" a composition however they choose. In photography, the primarily available tools are position, framing, and cropping. At least two, and maybe three of those are available at the time of exposure. Only framing and cropping are available later.

I spoke of railroad photography because I do it. It's what got me interested in photography. Most railroad photographers aren't really very good at it. They are just documenting something interesting which they have seen. Very few viewers find any interest in their photographs unless they are interested in the locomotive or whatever that is (generally quite poorly) recorded. I'm not a lot better, but I do try to make railroad photographs that others might want to take a look at.

Photographing architecture is like photographing statues. Its derivative, not artistic. And of course there are exceptions, but not very many. But it's still much more documentation or photojournalism than artistry. That doesn't mean that the craft can't or shouldn't be good, just that it's not usually art unless there are special circumstances of some sort.

Finally...there are many subjects that are worth being photographed but that offer no opportunity to even support any sort of classical composition. That certainly doesnt mean that we do not photograph them. I have photographs of a number of interesting geological formations. Nature, unfortunately, created them in places with boring foregrounds or distracting and overpowering backgrounds. None of that means that I don't take a photograph. Nor do I remove those distractions. They are part of the experience.

Compositional rules exist for good reason. But those reasons are not to enslave us.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

larryepage wrote:

Photographing architecture is like photographing statues. Its derivative, not artistic. And of course there are exceptions, but not very many. But it's still much more documentation or photojournalism than artistry...

"Not very many exceptions..." Larry, I know you just can't help yourself with your sweeping generalizations and eagerness to quantify or find order in what can't be quantified or labeled. But, seriously, would you please stop and think? Or at least educate yourself a skosh:

https://amateurphotographer.com/technique/fine-art-architecture-photography-guide/
https://www.sharontenenbaum.com/architecture
https://www.topazlabs.com/learn/architectural-photography-julia-anna-gospodarou
https://www.stlmag.com/culture/visual-arts/experience-architectural-photography-in-its-most-abstract-fo/
https://luminous-landscape.com/abstract-architectural-photography/
http://www.graphicmania.net/amazing-black-and-white-modern-architecture-photography/
https://www.australianphotography.com/photo-tips/the-magic-of-mono-tips-for-creative-architecture-bandw-shots-part-two

Need more?

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

User ID wrote:

All that "back in the day" color slide pride stuff gets more absurd every time another hobbyist brings it up.

Did you ever shoot slides, "back in the day"?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Linda From Maine wrote:

"Not very many exceptions..." Larry, I k... (show quote)

We learn from generalizations. We practice on exceptions. Trying to learn without the general principles can lead to insanity. Besides, what are the rules of compisition if not sweeping generalizations.

You folks go ahead and talk it out.

srt101fan

burkphoto wrote:

Yep. A good sense of composition works for just about any scene. Composition is the structure of an image, the way subjects and objects are arranged in the space of the frame. It's the art of inclusion and exclusion and emphasis or deemphasis.

I like your definition, Bill!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

User ID wrote:

All that "back in the day" color slide p... (show quote)

I concur. Joe Cool Average Amateur might need a little coaching to use slide film, but it wasn't rocket science. From 1979 to 1987, I was a multi-image AV producer. I made thousands of slides every year.

We did our own processing in a dedicated darkroom with a 5-gallon tank sink line using nitrogen burst agitation and a temperature control unit that kept the water bath around the tanks at 100.4°F, ±0.5°F. So the E6 process itself is rigidly controlled, but you can push up to +1 stop or pull about -0.5 stop with decent results (some quality loss).

The post processing we did for slides to be projected consisted of slide duplication. That enabled a very wide range of effects. We cropped, straightened, composited, titled, masked, made minor exposure corrections, and color balanced images when needed. It became a routine for us, although I would classify it as an advanced skill.

The camera skills needed were nothing out of the ordinary, but we did have to be careful about scene contrast range and exposure accuracy. Color filters over the camera lens were used to correct light source deviation from the film's color temperature rating (5500K or 3200K). Sometimes we filtered flash with a green filter and put a magenta filter on the lens to blend cool white fluorescent classroom and office lights with fill flash... Some might call that advanced. I didn't. I learned the technique from a film crew cinematographer.