PhotoLessons

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 12, 2009 at 7:59am

Chapter 1. Composition.
Part 1. Simple composition.

Composition is a first thing we should understand. In one word composition is an equilibrium. In another words composition is a correlation of parts in their common equilibrium.

Every picture consists of many parts. Almost every if we remember ‘Black Square’ by Kazimir Malevitch which consist of one part and have no the composition (or have the best composition because of the absolute equilibrium). Naturally if we have many part at our picture we have the composition. Good and delicate equilibrium means good and delicate composition.

The equilibrium of parts is an illusion which we make with help of tone’s thickness, colors, lines, lights and shadows.

We can stand out two big groups of composition in relate of simple/complicate and some examples in each group. First group of composition is Simple composition. Simple means that our composition consist of a few big parts – two, three, four and etc but not too much like ten or twenty. I can’t distinguish between ‘a few’ and ‘much enough’ (it’s not definitely in each particular case) but you could make it in you pictures yourselves.

You could use the simple composition in many cases like portrait, landscape or still life (nature morte). These genres often presented by immovable objects and we would means them like static. It makes them easy to compose in simple composition.

Usually a bottom space of picture a bit more than an upper space to make an ‘effect of air’. If we make a bottom space much less than an upper space you give effect of overweight to our picture. Also we could leave a bit more clear space to an edges of picture to make an ‘effect of more much air’. But please be careful with ‘effects of air’ otherwise your picture will consist of air but objects. If we leave rather small clear space to edges we make ‘big composition’ with big details of big objects.

Usually simple composition is presented by some examples: ‘central’ and ‘one-third’. You can see these examples with my comment at my page in the ‘PhotoLessons’ folder.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 12, 2009 at 8:27am

Hi, Vitaly,
I altered a photo I already had to make it look like a simple composition.

In your example, the focus of attention is in the center but I assume we can have the focus of attention towards one side/bottom as well? Of course, it may need other "lines" guiding the viewer to the target.
Thanks.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 12, 2009 at 9:12am

Hi Nalini. Yes this is the example of simple composition. Look, you would realise this like 'central' composition (green lines) or like 'one-third' composition (blue lines) as you wish. You would cut unnecessary parts (red lines) out (see Nalini_1 picture).
And you could get this result (see edited picture Nalini_2). I like a many layers of a forest mountains on the left side and I have left them ;-)) But I cut a silhouette on the right side out (and an air upper part) becouse it seems like a lack mean place at the picture.

Attachments:

• Nalini_1.jpg, 86 KB
• Nalini_2.jpg, 17 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 12, 2009 at 10:21am

After editing, both palm tree and the sun seem to get equal focus. While I believe in equality, ;-), I thought a picture should focus on one thing. One third draws attention to two or more foci. No hard and fast rules, I know. But what is your view on this? Should we focus on one feature or can we draw attention to several things parallel? I feel the objects are competing with each other for attention in one third.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 12, 2009 at 10:24am

In the pic I submitted, one third composition is seen in both dark areas. But after edition, it's one dark area and one bright area. Perhaps this is why I feel they are competing for attention.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 12, 2009 at 11:26am

I think we should search several foci to shot as well because more foci give extra deep to a picture. We only need line foci up into a perspective (into deep of a picture). In this way we could reach impression of more motion. Yes, they are competing for our attention but this competition is one of useful thing because we add our meaning in their competition. I think that more than three foci at one picture are hardly to perceiving.

Otherwise if we would use one focus (as point of gravity our attention) we will get calm and more static composition. Naturally, we often don’t have opportunity to take photo as we willing with some good foci ;-)) Composition is only instrument of our intention and we could choose any of them for purpose we have.

If we need to stand out any feature we should understand what type of composition will be better. It may be some types of it will be good. I think we need realize what we want to get and then use things which match better. There is no one way to go. ;-)) (this smile looks like Buddha’s smile from your photograph) ;-))

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 12, 2009 at 2:33pm

Yes, it's like Buddha's smile. ;-)
And yes, it's unlikely the nature will "pose" only a single foci all the time-her purpose is not for us to photograph. ;-) When we photograph people also we want to include some background feature as a souvenir. So, it'll be several foci at a time.
I'll find some more photos and concentrate on composition.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by nalini on April 12, 2009 at 3:23pm

One third composition-farmers and the temple at two levels.

Right side needs some more cropping, right? ;-) It doesn't look balanced to me.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 12, 2009 at 4:08pm

M-m-m... I would like to crop from top and from right side. I think too much a space at top. And it seems to me we need to increase objects by recomposing. But all what I say here is my opinion for my imagine of picture's aim. This picture really needs slight and accurate cropping. It might be like that (see Nalini_3). That wersion have more air. Or may be you would like to compose this photo to square (see Nalini_4). The square version might be better for report.
Well, Nalini you are so quick!! I see you have understood about composition and you need just a bit practice. Last photo is quite good ;-))

Attachments:

• Nalini_3.jpg, 15 KB
• Nalini_4.jpg, 13 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Emina on April 13, 2009 at 10:09am

Okay here's the photos I found of "simple composition" :)
Vitaly, please let me know where did I go wrong, if i did :)))

Attachments:

• black-stallion-rearing.jpg, 92 KB
• 52.jpg, 73 KB
• 34.jpg, 54 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Emina on April 13, 2009 at 10:23am

Here i found one more, and this one I took...

Attachments:

• lovebirds.jpg, 56 KB

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by be good twice on April 13, 2009 at 1:16pm

Hey Emina! Glad to see you ;-)) I have seen your photos and ready to discuss them. 'Black-stallion-rearing.jpg' and '34.jpg' are OK in my opinion. They could be edited but editing of them depends from sence and taste of editor. I do no not think they need to be edited. '52.jpg' have to much space at edges. But if you have to remain a dramatical effect of being mislaiding girl in deep water you should let it go as it is. In this case this picture has not a simple static composition but a dinamic one. Obviously they should be a big format pictures.
'Lovebirds.jpg' is very difficult picture for editing. Composition is almost good but birds too small and front plan is too dark. I try avoiding same foreshortening because my camera can't do detailing to close plan and far plan at once in this condition of light. So you can see this photo has not detalised far plan. Also I think that difference between dark close plan and pale far plane is too much. Composition is good but picture at whole isn't good enough.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last