Author Topic: thoughts on composition? (Read 6440 times)

LT · « **on:** April 09, 2008, 03:51:29 PM »

which of either of these do you prefer - if you like them at all - maybe dull and boring? thoughts eitherway?

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

moominsean · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:04:04 PM »

initially i prefer edthe bottom shot. leaving the top of door in place draws your eye, which is confusing because the bright object in the foreground pops so much.

the longer i look at it, the top shot has more balance and is a bit more interesting, so i think i prefer that.

david b · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:30:03 PM »

The first one works best for me - the door and surround work as a framing device of sorts, and the result feels a bit more harmonious and considered.

al · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2008, 04:56:06 PM »

first one works best for me, my eye goes straight to the main scroll, then explores the detail, there somehow seem to be more distractions on the second.

eyecaramba · « **Reply #4 on:** April 09, 2008, 06:19:57 PM »

The second one for me. I tend away from symmetry - even though I know in the first one you are making an interesting play at symmetry and asymmetry - but I try not to do so stubbornly. I really like the first one but I like the more substantial role of the foreground in the second one. I like the balance of foreground and background in the second one. They are only subtly different and I would be pleased with either but for me it the second one by a nosehair.

rdbkorn · « **Reply #5 on:** April 09, 2008, 08:18:13 PM »

I would prefer to see more "focal" separation between the foreground subject and the background. Less depth of field to make the background more abstract and less of a competing compositional element.

Karl · « **Reply #6 on:** April 09, 2008, 08:33:31 PM »

the first one has more balance. There's a book on composition that's really helped me think and understand this in more depth - Composition in Art by Heny Rankin Poore. It's pretty old and quite 'classical' but always in print which must say something about it. And it's a shade over 5 quid on amazon

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Composition-Art-Henry-Rankin-Poore/dp/0486233588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207769373&sr=8-1

Karl · « **Reply #7 on:** April 09, 2008, 08:34:34 PM »

forgot to say I also really like the image!

eddie · « **Reply #8 on:** April 09, 2008, 09:13:18 PM »

First one does it for me where the main church type ornaments are surrounded by the full arch in the background. The contrast between the dark diffused backround and highlighted church ornaments adds something to the image also.

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #9 on:** April 09, 2008, 09:15:45 PM »

Like 'em both which is unusual for me because I rarely see an 'inside of a church/chapel' photo that does it for me. If pushed I'd go for the first one (probably) because I like seeing the top of the door - OK, call me shallow. However, I really like the fact that the bottom photo has more of the spikes in it.

So a combo of the 2 would have been perfect. Aim higher to get the top of the door and left a bit to get more spikes.

Genuinely gorgeous images though. Well done.

RandomHamster · « **Reply #10 on:** April 09, 2008, 10:08:43 PM »

To begin with I thought the first, more in balance, but as I switched between them I prefered the second one, slightly off kilter makes me want to look at it more!

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** April 09, 2008, 10:37:09 PM »

I tend to like the top one better.
On the second print, the Gothic arch over the door is cut, something I find distracting. Even if it is out of focus, it tends to be a strong line in the image. The wood paneling, even if it has a nice wood grain, is not a very interesting shape. Seeing the entire panel is not necessary since we can easily imagine it's shape. Also, the curly end piece seems to bring a lot of weight to the image since it occupies such a large space. With the three spires, you get a good counterbalance. With four, it seems to be off kilter. The numbers also play a big part in it. Three spikes for one end piece fits nicely (like when arranging flowers). On the second one, four to one feels a bit odd.

I noticed the top one is a square while the bottom one is a slightly rectangular shape. With a square, the rule of thirds tends to bring stuff towards the center without causing any problems so I wouldn't worry about this. With the rectangle, even if it respects the rule, it has an odd feeling to it... like if something was not right.

Top one give more a feeling of serenity which is in character with the scene, something which is not the case with the bottom one.

Depth of field is not much an issue to me. If it were done using a smaller aperture, distinguishing between front and back elements would have been hard and readability might have suffered.

But that's only my two cents worth...
(Somehow, I feel like I'm trying to get the picture to look like I would have made it

)

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #12 on:** April 09, 2008, 10:59:39 PM »

Yea the top one feels more complete for me....but the extra spike is nice as well...no the top one!

eyecaramba · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2008, 12:49:56 AM »

I feel like sneaking in under different assumed identities to support myself here. Well, I described this one over the phone to me mum and she told me that she was sure I am probably right about something like this. So, there's another vote for the second one.

Come stand next to me, Leon!

LT · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2008, 09:43:18 AM »

thanks for your thoughts everyone - and thanks to Francois for taking the time to write his reply - it is appreciated.

I suppose I posted these as an experiment. I was wating for the "rule of thirds" to be mentioned. I thought people would like no 1 the best as most did (apart from Elgordo, who we know tends to exist on some alternative dimension lateral to the rest of us), but they both have merits based upon the rule of thirds ... the only difference being the door out of centre on the 2nd. Interesting. I'm sorry to say to gordon that I do prefer number one. I find it succeeds in making the viewer look at the scroll work first, which was what motivated me to take the picture, and then the eye wanders around to find out the context. The second one for me tends to be all a bit disparate and unharmonious.

rdbkorn - Good point about the depth of field ... I wonder if the context would be as obvious though if the background was more obscured?

here are the pics with the thirds over the top.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

david b · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2008, 10:17:25 AM »

Quote from: eyecaramba on April 10, 2008, 12:49:56 AM

Well, I described this one over the phone to me mum ...

She must be a very patient and understanding woman.

al · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2008, 10:48:13 AM »

Quote from: leon taylor on April 10, 2008, 09:43:18 AM

I'm sorry to say to gordon that I do prefer number one. I find it succeeds in making the viewer look at the scroll work first, which was what motivated me to take the picture, and then the eye wanders around to find out the context. The second one for me tends to be all a bit disparate and unharmonious.

So I got the answer exactly right then! Where's my prize?

LT · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2008, 11:02:19 AM »

how does 50p and a bag of grapes grab you?

eyecaramba · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2008, 11:53:49 AM »

Ooo, I like riddles!

Sam Thompson · « **Reply #19 on:** April 11, 2008, 07:56:29 AM »

I prefer No. 1

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #20 on:** April 11, 2008, 08:47:35 AM »

good point 2p. nice use of a triangle too. the triangle is a very underated geometric shape. (note to self: I must remember to use more triangles in my everyday life)

seriously, looking at it your way, number 1 makes even more sense.

Elgordo - the evidence is stacking up against you my friend. Looks like you and your mum are just plain wrong

eyecaramba · « **Reply #21 on:** April 11, 2008, 02:02:02 PM »

I respect the application of formulae here to determine the inherent goodnesses of Leon's work. BUT there remains for me the spectre of infantile incontinence in the first image whereby the resulting effluence is stinky - but only somewhat. There is movement here plainly but is it the kind that we as viewers welcome or will this movement simply fill our nostrils? Whereas in the second there is admittedly a related choking sensation but because of the proximity or prominence of a nearby chair totem- in this case represented by the heavier more pronounced railing there is the suggestion of incipient release from the visual tension. We can throw ourselves more easily against the more pronounced railing and spikes. The release in this image may fairly resemble more the flight of a sirloin gristle chunk than the slogging release of a hairball but in either case the relief is welcomed and I have to say that I'll taking gasping relief over the sustained aroma of biological sourtude.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #22 on:** April 11, 2008, 02:09:04 PM »

oh dear - I think I've actually wet myself. Nurse?

eyecaramba · « **Reply #23 on:** April 11, 2008, 02:13:31 PM »

And here I have taken the liberty of superimposing a picture of my mother on the obviously better version of the two images... I am sorry I had to pull out so many stops to help out here with the misunderstanding. Usually, people more or less get it but occasionally I have to work to clarify things.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

LT · « **Reply #24 on:** April 11, 2008, 02:30:36 PM »

ahhh - but without the arrow, it mean nothing. Is art art when someone has to tell you that it is? Does a tree on it's own sometimes play backgammon with the malicious demon??? erm, you get me though innit?

Sam Thompson · « **Reply #25 on:** April 11, 2008, 05:08:23 PM »

The Rule of Thirds is a great aid in composing a photo. But if you look at classic works of art, da Vinci, Dali and others, including architecture. You will see that their works are more proportioned using the Golden Ratio, consciously or subconsciously.

Gordon, I see the golden ratio in a lot of your art and dare I say your writing style.

Leon's work are beautiful because they follow the proportion of the ratio. A more recent example would the row of trees that you photographed, I think it's perfect.

We probably are not aware that we are doing it when we're composing a photograph. It is like a "feel", or you just get into the "zone".

JMHO and WTFDIK (and other disclaimers that may apply).

Sam.

Francois · « **Reply #26 on:** April 11, 2008, 05:38:11 PM »

Gordon: effluence, aroma, release, relief, gasping...
When reading this, at one point, I thought you were talking about the last time I had beans

2Polar: sorry to argue, but this is not a true triangular composition... A true triangular composition would have strong lines that create a triangular shape. If those lines are not present, there can be objects positioned in the shape of a triangle (your mind fills in the empty space by creating invisible lines).

We seem to be in the presence of a composition largely based on the use of positive/negative space. In psychology, Gestalt (the study of how we see) calls it the figure/ground relationship. I went looking through a book and came out with these points:

Quote

Regardless of placement in the frame, figure is perceived as being closer to the viewer. Figure appears closer as the background recedes due to the lack of focus.
The figure usually occupies a smaller amount of space in the frame than the ground. Although it may appear larger and closer due to focus and importance, it usually takes up less physical space than ground
Figure and ground cannot be seen simultaneously, but you can see them sequentially.
Figure is seen as having contour or shape while the ground is not seen as having these caracteristics.

I think it applies nicely to both images...

(is it just me or am I getting too technical?)

This-is-damion · « **Reply #27 on:** April 11, 2008, 06:02:40 PM »

this is the best thread ive ever read.

moominsean · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2008, 04:00:22 AM »

i played that first image backwards and heard this:

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

Sam Thompson · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2008, 07:26:18 AM »

With the three spires, you get a good counterbalance. With four, it seems to be off kilter. The numbers also play a big part in it. Three spikes for one end piece fits nicely (like when arranging flowers). On the second one, four to one feels a bit odd.

Francois: It was precisely your comments that made me think of the golden ratio. I thought the triangle easily
illustrated your thoughts.

Sean: That's a riot!

Isn't it scary, that even the image you used fits perfectly. The Trident on the three spikes and the Devils eye on the cross. ( cue music from the Twilight Zone).

Sam.

eyecaramba · « **Reply #30 on:** April 12, 2008, 03:33:47 PM »

OK Leon, we give up. How does 50p and a bag of grapes grab you?

Sometimes I feel a little manipulated by your experiments, Leon. It is as though you wantonly play with us whenever you have a little extra time. We have feelings you know. And I right now, I feel dirty. Dirty and hungry.

I dreamt last night of you in your dark gothic scrollworked bedchamber only there were no beds in there, just rows of tables and on the the tables were big frogs with human faces and all the frogs had their chest cavities pulled back by clamps and tongs with various stringy parts pinioned by electrode bolts and their skull caps soaking in basins of pale selenium toner and you, Leon, in your lab coat and goggles, were walking along the rows with long stemmed forceps asking each wretched subject questions about context and composition and process, touching each of them, each of us, here and there to see our legs involuntarily jerk leaping or our faces peel back in mirthless grins of muscular contortion whenever you decided that we should agree with you and as you made your endless circuit occasionally you would pause and close your eyes to sleep, standing in place with your chin on your chest like some kind of paranormal shark man and then you would wake up with a start and continue down the line ranting of dolmen and whippets...

Jesus, I thought it would never stop. Please let it never stop. Let me be your frog subject, Leon. I will not be so wrong next time. I will get it right. Please....

moominsean · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2008, 04:00:41 PM »

give me 50p and i'll turn around and show you.

closer...

cllloooossserrr.

[Sorry, image deleted during forum software upgrade. Please re-upload if so inclined.]

ali · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2008, 10:31:19 PM »

that is just WRONG!