Balance in Composition - the basics.

[pmong]

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9476880@N02/

 

[RomanJohnston]

But as an action.....hummmm....so will evervything become so automated that we dont have to put ANY creativity into it?

Where is the love?!?

Roman
--

'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.

Actually, who are we not to be?'

--Marianne Williamson

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

 

[kellog]

However, the conclusion is facial. The concept it Greek to me - think
of what you area saying here. The Golden Mean is a very precise
concept, we're talking square roots here and maths which we don't
carry in our heads when shooting. I don't see any relationship
between the underlying images and the shots.

I have spent the last several days reading your thread and studying
the golden mean. I think that all of your photos shown fit the golden
mean rule.
I guess that means that not only do you see balance but you also see
the golden mean at the same time. I agree with someone who stated
earlier... It like swimming against Michael Phelps!!!
This cs2 shape is available at http://www.photoshopmama.net
Thanks Photoshop Mama, I searched for days for something like this!!
Kelly

So lets look at number 1. Striking image - it achieves drama from
imbalance, so maybe not the best example in the thread. So what of
the snail? It doesn't hit anything - OK it goes through the light,
but lets face it, draw a long squiggly snail on any photo and it
almost bound to pass through a part of the main subject.

I think you are missing the vertical lines here John.

The right vertical runs right throught the clouds on the top. The left vertical intersect the right and left portions of the lighthouse. Also note the spiral itself, starting from the left, it patterns the clouds rather well it also intersects the white on the lighthouse perfectly.

Now here you could have something, the prow of the boat does pretty
much hit that all important vertical, and the centre of the spiral
does represent exactly what the U-boat captain would want to see
through his periscope - but the dynamics of this image are about the
line of boats and glorious sky, which largely ignore Brian.

I agree with you that Brian ignores the major horizontal line here, but I beleive that the horizon is not the most visual object here, the boats are. If you were to take a look the upper right horizontal line runs right across the three boats and draws your eye toward them.Therefore, I believe it is ok for the line not to be directly on the horizon as long as the other key elements are on the line.

Once more Brian works his magic - smack on the fisherman's armpit - a
simple crop would get him right on the line so I'll give you that -
but in this and the previous shot, surely the key line of both images
is the horizon... which totally ignores the major horizontal line of
Brian.

Yes the key line of the horizon but that's not where the visual impact lies for me. I thinks it's on the fisherman and rake. The fisherman are in tha large rectangle and the rake is in the lower right triangle. I think that is enough. I agree that a crop, possibly a 1.618 ratio would move the fisherman more to the left and the rake more toward Brian would work well. I'll have to try it.

Now this one's single point of interest so far as Brian is concerned
is where the near shore meets the frame, right on Brian's toe. Errrr,
but at the expense of the key element of the image, the primary
stanchion. Our U-Boat commander is at it again and scores a direct
hit on the deck - provided his torpedoes drink Red Bull®. But that
hot spot is a real vague area, I'm not really sure what it is trying
to show 'hey, get a part of your subject within this jumble of lines
and you get the cigar'. No, I don't think so, Ian's shot is for more
complex than the Ancient Greeks suggest.

Here I believe that the near part of the bridge does again hold the most visual impact for me and therefore to have Brian centered on it is totally appropriate. After I posted these shots last night I said to myself, "You should've cropped them to a 1.618 ratio if you wanted to accurately display the golden mean. I reworked this one today after work and this is what I came up with. My only way of testing my theory was to ask my daughter and son which one they preferred, the cropped one or the uncropped one. They both chose the cropped one. Not very scientific, but hey it's all I had!!

Cropped to 1.618 ratio



Cropped to 1.618 ratio with Brian

I've stated elsewhere that I don't understand the mechanics of this
composition, and according to my inbuilt aesthetic it doesn't work.

The success of this one is actually due to the post processing
(eat your heart out, Aristotle, a man who didn't foresee photoshop),
Ian's first version didn't work, yet this one is a gem.

--

Whatcha think, Kelly? Fair, unfair - am I missing something (such as
tact!)?

You're never unfair and I think you explained yourself wonderfully. I think you have agreat eye and are very artistic. I also think you are more right brained and I am more left brained.(I want to follow the rules!!) I like to hear differences in thought processes as I tend to learn a lot from it. Thanks for making me think a little differently and analyze a little more carefully. Thaks Ian for letting me use your images!

'No man is as large as when he stoops to help a child.'
Abraham Lincoln

 

[mrp1124]

I'm not sure how/why I missed this thread last month, but I have to say that it is one of the most insightful ones I have read. Thanks Ian and everyone else who makes this forum as informative as it is.
--
Miguel

 

[jkjond]

Good to see you standing your ground.

I think you are missing the vertical lines here John.
The right vertical runs right throught the clouds on the top. The
left vertical intersect the right and left portions of the
lighthouse. Also note the spiral itself, starting from the left, it
patterns the clouds rather well it also intersects the white on the
lighthouse perfectly.

The secondary intersection is interesting - though the cloud doesn't form a definite line that dark area does fall in the square quite well. and the top of the lighthouse does support the major horizontal - though the major vertical could be almost anywhere to the right and arguably hit the main subject. The other part of interest is how the lighter cloud to the left fits within the major curve - when imposed so boldly. Besides all that, I don't think this composition balances anyway, the imbalance creates drama and the success of the shot is how this is supported by the textures and tones.

I agree with you that Brian ignores the major horizontal line here,
but I beleive that the horizon is not the most visual object here,
the boats are.

Possibly, but its all about relationships - its a complex image where a lot of components are working together to create a mood. Ian't first version of this had the most lifeless Kate I've ever seen - but this version's success is down to his reprocessing of it to reveal texture, tones and life. Take this on a cloudless day and the image changes completely. Tempting to mask all the cloud out to see what Brian makes of it all. There is an underlying simplicity to the composition, but I'm not sure how important it is - the line of the boats works well, but Ian could have dragged the middle one to the left or right without altering the impact of the shot.

Yes the key line of the horizon but that's not where the visual
impact lies for me. I thinks it's on the fisherman and rake. The
fisherman are in tha large rectangle and the rake is in the lower
right triangle. I think that is enough. I agree that a crop, possibly
a 1.618 ratio would move the fisherman more to the left and the rake
more toward Brian would work well. I'll have to try it.

So clarify for me how Brian works, do components have to land on intersections to be perfectly placed (Aristotle theory of composition), or do we take the Plato approach and place items in the areas defined by the lines and curve? I think it is starting to look like the Rorschach inkblot test approach to composition. Brian covers an awful lot of an image... have you tried it on lousy images?

Here I believe that the near part of the bridge does again hold the
most visual impact for me and therefore to have Brian centered on it
is totally appropriate. After I posted these shots last night I said
to myself, "You should've cropped them to a 1.618 ratio if you wanted
to accurately display the golden mean. I reworked this one today
after work and this is what I came up with. My only way of testing my
theory was to ask my daughter and son which one they preferred, the
cropped one or the uncropped one. They both chose the cropped one.
Not very scientific, but hey it's all I had!!

Worth doing - but how much of the change is due to the altered relationship between the bridge as a whole and the foreground which you have cropped, or the change between the bridge flying off through the corner compared to fully off the right side? I think this last point is one which has a huge effect on an image - whether to go through the corner or not and one which is very difficult to decide upon when cropping on a computer, never mind in camera.

Cropped to 1.618 ratio



Cropped to 1.618 ratio with Brian

I've stated elsewhere that I don't understand the mechanics of this
composition, and according to my inbuilt aesthetic it doesn't work.

The success of this one is actually due to the post processing
(eat your heart out, Aristotle, a man who didn't foresee photoshop),
Ian's first version didn't work, yet this one is a gem.

--

Whatcha think, Kelly? Fair, unfair - am I missing something (such as
tact!)?

You're never unfair and I think you explained yourself wonderfully. I
think you have agreat eye and are very artistic. I also think you are
more right brained and I am more left brained.(I want to follow the
rules!!) I like to hear differences in thought processes as I tend to
learn a lot from it. Thanks for making me think a little differently
and analyze a little more carefully. Thaks Ian for letting me use
your images!

Its a good exercise - but I honestly think there are as many arguments against as there are for it. I think people do have their natural rhythms in composition, and maybe this is why we can recognise some people's images from across the street - maybe Ian's trained eye has a distinct Greek twist to it, and why he and Alexring get on so well!

But I must say, I'm going to remain my predictable belligerent self on this one. The more I look at Brian, the more I think he is open to such a wide range of interpretation that any successful shot can be backed up by using him.

... and my earlier point, will anyone introduce a Brian Grid to impose in the viewfinder? Some people can't see past the ROT (rule of thirds) so they'd go totally ape if Brian were available. Now to weed out a few earlier words to get this within the character count...

 

[ianbramham]

I have spent the last several days reading your thread and studying
the golden mean. I think that all of your photos shown fit the golden
mean rule.
I guess that means that not only do you see balance but you also see
the golden mean at the same time. I agree with someone who stated
earlier... It like swimming against Michael Phelps!!!
This cs2 shape is available at http://www.photoshopmama.net
Thanks Photoshop Mama, I searched for days for something like this!!
Kelly

Hi Kelly,

I started this thread just before I went on holiday thinking that it would sink without trace. It's great to see lots of people expressing an interest.

The diagrams I drew at the start of the thread were, of course, greatly simplified and I'm sure you've spotted that there are lots of other things in the 4 example photos that help the overall composition apart from just balance. Things like exaggerated perspective from the 10-20 lens I've used, lead-in lines, play of tone and light & dark....

You've mentioned the golden mean.

Any connection to the golden mean or fibonacci spiral in these 4 photos is purely coincidental however after I had posted the example photos it did occur to me that one of them - the 'Kate' photo, was relying heavily on the composition of the golden mean.

Personally I see the general area of the culmination of the fibonnacci spiral as a sweet spot in the viewfinder rectangle - it somehow feels very harmonious and subconsciously I often find myself placing the main focal point of an image in this area.

I don't think there is any relationship to the golden mean in any of the other 3 photos although I hope they have balance and harmony.

Here's a few others picked at random which I can see were subconsciously influenced by this 'sweet spot' area:

Regards,

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham



The person and dog in this particular one are too near to the edge for the golden mean but I find it interesting how by placing them just that bit further over creates a tension or edginess in the image.

 

[ianbramham]

--

John,

You're right about the balance in this photo having nothing to do with the golden mean.

When I re-processed this photo after your comments when you first saw it all I diid was accentuate the parts of the image that gave it more harmony and drama.

I believe it works due to two things - one is the way many of the lines point to the bridge support pillar; the other is balancing out the darkness of the line of the bridge with other light and dark lines of cloud and water as in the sketch I've done below:

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[jkjond]

--

John,

You're right about the balance in this photo having nothing to do
with the golden mean.

When I re-processed this photo after your comments when you first saw
it all I did was accentuate the parts of the image that gave it more
harmony and drama.

I believe it works due to two things - one is the way many of the
lines point to the bridge support pillar; the other is balancing out
the darkness of the line of the bridge with other light and dark
lines of cloud and water as in the sketch I've done below:

It may shock some people to hear that I'm don't go along with all this leading line thing, mainly because most lead out just as much as they lead in... in a lot of cases more so - and nothing wrong with that.

Take the energy in your shot, for example. Look at that enormous THRUST belting out to the top right, a huge flow of chi or ki.



Now look at the way the heart of the shot, the white cloud (A), is generating all this energy. I think it has energy to spare and has to send it somewhere, so controls the image very well, backed up with its lesser reflection (B) with variant texture.

Leading out, leading in? Maybe and possibly.

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/

Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.

 

[ianbramham]

OK Professor Ian… I’ll take a stab… But I need a cupa first…

1st photo – This one is not as obvious – yet you choose it first –
interesting… You have a ton of rules going on in this photo – except
your horizon line is dead center. But, this works because both the
top and the bottom have quite a lot going on, so balance is achieved.

2nd photo. I love this one. The balance is more obvious though – in
fact, it is everywhere in this pic. The large cloud upper left
balanced against the large structure bottom right – and they over lap
at the middle point of the seesaw. Also the texture is balanced –
the rough bricks sort of mimic the grain in the clouds.

1. 3 – Not as easy as I thought it would be. Once again you have your

horizon almost dead center – do you do this a lot?

Jeri - Don't read too much into the horizon position. The 10-20 wide angle I've used for these 4 photos has huge distortion if you tilt it up or down so quite often I elect to keep the horizon toward the middle of the frame to keep the distortion under control.

Sometimes - as with the bridge shot, I'll crop after in PP but horizon position is not as important as you might think.

I’ll have to

start watching for this. This is balanced for sure, though I’m
having trouble figuring out why. The bridge is a very strong element
and I don’t think the water on the left would be enough to balance it
by it’s self, so it must be the fact that the clouds on that side are
stronger than on the right – therefore the strong clouds + the large
body of water = bridge.

1. 4. I always enjoy seeing this one. A very special photo indeed. I

wonder though… would it be even more powerful if the figure on the
left was all alone? Once again the center horizon line is almost
centered. Interesting. But, this one is obvious where the
balance is concerned. The smaller figure is further away so it holds
more power and therefore balances the larger figure that is closer.

(grin) – I don’t know if this is what you had in mind, but it was a
great exercise for me. I want to thank you for all the time you took
to put this together - I will remember this when I shoot and PP.

(After thought) Ian – balance is super important, you just proved
that. But your photos contain just as much emotion as balance. How
are you going to teach me that???

As far as emotion goes, it was John Leech (jkjond) when I first started contributing to this forum who first encouraged me to try and express my feelings with my photos so you should ask him to help.

As Roman rightly points out it's vital that you are passionate about the subject of your photography, but as far as post processing goes a useful starter for you may be to simply accentuate the things that you love about your favourite photos and see what comes out.

It doesn't matter if at first you end up going over the top with it - you can always rein things back in later but it's very useful to experiment wildly when you are first starting out so that you get an idea of the kind of things you do and don't like.

All the best,

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[ianbramham]

http://www.artsconnected.org/TOOLKIT/encyc_balancesymmetry.html

The photo of the mobile is very useful and perfectly explains the idea....thanks for the link Anthony!

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[ianbramham]

... this made my brain hurt. LOL But thank you for taking the time
trying to explain things to me and others who are interested. If I
can just learn a teensy bit of what you do, then I'm happy.
--

Karin....you've already shown with your photos that you intuitively understand the issue of balance in composition. It's just a question of gradual refinement and practice now.

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[ianbramham]

Principles of Composition in Photography by Andreas Feininger

My copy turned up today, worth it for that amazing shot on page 111
alone. Just as I remember it, perfectly divided into quarters. I've
had a quick flick through the rest, great stuff, will read it from
cover to cover when I get chance.

I first read it at an impressionable age and I bet most of this book
is still near the surface in my jumble of a mind despite almost 30
years!

Here's a quick quote to get people queuing to order their own 2nd
hand copy. They should reprint it.

A total subject approach
Composition is not a step-by-step procedure. Instead, when composing,
a photographer must use what I call a 'total subject approach' and
give simultaneous consideration to all the different aspects of his
future picture because they are inseparably related; a change in one
will invariably result in a change in one or more of the others.

Ooooh, I can't wait to read on...

John,

It sounds like a great book and I agree completely with the total subject approach quotation.

Have you had a chance to finish it yet - what did you think?

For beginners I think that gaining a basic understanding of some of the issues that affect compsitional balance is very useful so that they can take that first step on the road to the goal of being able to compose a photo by instinct.

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[Katania]

The spiral is just one result of the golden mean, but the golden mean is used in many more ways when applied to composition.

Composition is really difficult to learn because there is al ot more involved in it, and it isn't an exact science either. But think of it this way: you use composition to grab the eyes of your viewer and then gently guide him though you image in an orderly fashion.

The lighthouse image is composed using perspective with a single vanishing point. The vanashing point which can't be seen, but is imagined does fall under the golden mean.

The three boats image: This one is more about rythem and perspective.

Rythem: three boats in the foreground pretty much evenly spaced from each other, and four smaller boats in the background also evenly spaced from each other.

Perspective: If you draw a line connecting the four boats in the background, another one for the three boats in the foreground, and two more for the horizon and the beach, they will all connect to a single vanishing point left just outside of the image. Even the rope in the foreground seems to be headed to that same point.

Three fishermen: Same perspective composition as with the boats. The direction of the stik and the line connecting the two men all come together at the same vanishing point.

There is also some golden mean stuff happening here. The most obvious one is the position of the largest man and where the sky is a lot brighter. If we then look at the area left of the largest man, the second man too is positioned at the golden mean between the edge of the image and his buddy.

Less obvious but the most important are the other aspects in the photo all drawing your eyes to the largest of the two men. The opening sky above him, but also, many of the tracks on the ground all seem to be pointing in his direction. You're eyes are first drawn to him. Then the second guy, and then the rest of the picture. And if you keep looking, you're finally rewarded with the two flocks of birds at either end of the photo.

Anyway, great thread!

 

[Katania]

But as an action.....hummmm....so will evervything become so
automated that we dont have to put ANY creativity into it?

Where is the love?!?

I wouldn't worry about that.

The following pretty much sums up why I love composition and why it is so challanging:

• To be good, you have to learn the rules.
• To be great, you have to learn when to break those very same rules.

 

[ianbramham]

Ian,

I was intrigued by your explanation. I have just started photography,
so you should take what I say a little bit lighthearted. I have just
ordered a book on composition, since what I have thusfar is more
focused on the technical side of photography.

As a rule of fist I have always translated compositional rules to:
you should always have a clear subject. So on the beach, either the
sand is the subject or the cloud, but not both. So the horizon is
"never" in the middle. Equivalent: in communication there is always
one main message, never more.

Having a single subject however is boring, and especially its
interaction/relation with other subjects define the essence of the
main subject. What is a bridge without water? Hence the balance
appears. (Or a surprise or desillusion if the river is empty. But
that is also an interesting emotion.)

I would tend to explain composition much more in rules of psychology.
Or maybe some physiological aspects (the different neurons in our eye
reacting to different colours in certain ways, thereby "liking" or
"disliking" certain colour combinations). It would be interesting to
see how you eyes would scan your photos, and if we can learn
something from that. The emotions you have of seeing a bridge or a
certain colour are much more difficult to find though.

In the end all art appreciation comes back to our pyschological response to it but it's such a huge and complex area to explore that beginners would undoubtedly end up going round in circles not achieving anything.

For beginners it's best to keep photographs simple - the simpler the better as this considerably eases the difficulties in achieving strong compositional balance. This is one of the reasons that I so much enjoy photography on the coast.

I often think that good landscape photography is more a process of reduction than of addition. (ie ask yourself what can I leave out of this photo to make it simpler rather than attempting to capture the whole scene in front of you)

The more complex the location the more expert you will need to be as a photographer to make successful photos which is why I admire the great 'street photographers' more than any other.

It would seem quite possible that certain psychological processes
lead to certain mathematical rules (golden section) or photographic
rules (near, middle, far).

I'm sure you're right that many of the published compositional rules are simply rationalisations of why we find certain forms more beautiful than others.

As an example, I'm quite sure that the device of the lazy 'S' curve derives from the psychological attraction that we have for the curves of a beautiful woman. When I was a young architect in the 1980s I distinctly remember one of my colleagues designing the shape of the roof a new swimming pool as a straight copy of the curve of a woman's back from a calender hung on the wall of our office- what a beautiful shape. The client loved the design and the pool was built.

Here's a couple of own photos using the lazy 'S'

Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[jkjond]

As an example, I'm quite sure that the device of the lazy 'S' curve
derives from the psychological attraction that we have for the curves
of a beautiful woman.

Ian - be prepared to be reminded of that one for the rest of your days : )

Love the pool story, did the same guy have wire rim glasses, a brown overcoat and use the same template for everything?

'and here's my new design for an office block/garage/skateboard park/twin lemon squeezer.'

 

[ianbramham]

As an example, I'm quite sure that the device of the lazy 'S' curve
derives from the psychological attraction that we have for the curves
of a beautiful woman.

Ian - be prepared to be reminded of that one for the rest of your
days : )

Love the pool story, did the same guy have wire rim glasses, a brown
overcoat and use the same template for everything?

'and here's my new design for an office block/garage/skateboard
park/twin lemon squeezer.'

it's true though! (PS - I notice you haven't disagreed about the basis of the 'S' curve)
Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham

 

[photoeng]

Ian,

I really like your images and this is a thread that I had overlooked in the past. Just read it and I really like what you are proposing here. If this is the 'basics', I look forward to hearing more and 'beyond basics'!

 

[RomanJohnston]

Felt like I went along. : )

Roman
--

'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.

Actually, who are we not to be?'

--Marianne Williamson

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

 

[sallygohl]

Hey Ian
Is that the Humber Bridge?
I am only 5 miles away from that ..

Thanks for spending time and effort teaching us the balance of composition , very very interesting and marvellously informative . Your photos are inspiring , I love them all , particularily the last one . Thanks to you and John L , I am getting far more aware of composition and not just snapping away in a panic with excitement that I have found a nice shot in case it disappears and then forgetting everything , even to check settings lol ..

My problem is with pp ing , now i really need a course on that !!

I shall read this post several times to make sure it sinks in !
Thanks again
Sally