mzel
Well-known member
I always find it surprising how refreshing this forum can be!
Thanks, guys!
Thanks, guys!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Balance in Composition - the basics.
- Thread starter ianbramham
- Start date
Klay
Forum Enthusiast
With the perspective lines inherent in the bridge, I definitely see the thrust coming out of the photo. However, I don't see it as you depicted but rather towards the the viewer's head rather than off the edge of the picture frame. Maybe that's what you meant by leading in/out?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.
From the examples here, I think I see how Brian the Snail is applied to objects arranged on a 2 dimensional surface. The bridge image, or any with a feeling of depth, add another variable in the mix. It seems to me that what makes this image dynamic is that when I look at I perceive the depth there. If it didn't have that feeling of depth, it would just be a bridge.
Why does that happen? Can we apply the Golden Mean rule in a third dimension and does that tell us anything about the photo and how we see it? To consciously apply a golden mean rule sounds like a 3 dimensional compositional sudoku nightmare. I can't see how to do that or if it would be helpful but I am sure that I need to be aware of depth perception when composing an image - balanced, dynamic or otherwise.
Here's a few photos I tried to show perspective and depth. I wonder how this Golden Mean would apply? Are they successful in terms of that mean?
Bloedel Reserve, Bainbridge Island...D70s, f9, 1/50, 18-70 at 18mm. To me the family memebers at the other end draw me in as well as the lines of the reflecting pool. I felt the need to center them along the horizontal x axis but put them higher up the y axis
California redwood tree taken with a Coolpix 2100 (that should explain the CA). This one seems to draw me in along the twisted lines of the trunk. The blown highlights in the back actually remove those parts of the image from consideration. No need to look there, there's nothing there but sunlight.
Could I have improved the composition of either of these by tweaking the "balance" (i.e. unbalance them by some means) or by looking to the golden mean for guidance?
Interesting conversation
Kevin
--
http://leelaycock.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-bien/
'No point in steering now.' -- Doug McKenzie
ianbramham
Senior Member
Sally,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
The bridge is the first severn crossing near Bristol but the design is the same as your much longer version at Humber. I've been wanting to take a photo of the Humber Bridge for a while now but haven't had the opportunity - it's so beautiful when the early morning light catches the underside of the sculpted deck - it looks like it's hovering there above the river.
By the way....I have a confession to make. Just like you, I get too excited when I see a great photo waiting to be taken and, even now, I still occasionally forget to check I've got the right camera settings.
This photo is from a few weeks ago when I was on holiday in France. I had been trying to get a long 1/2 hour exposure photo of this bridge from La Rochelle to the Ile de Re when a sudden rainstorm blew over and forced us to run for cover.
Standing in the comparitive shelter of one of the huge support pillars I saw the light change as the rain grew heavier and I realised there was potentially a good photo there but managed somehow to set the camera to iso1600 instead of iso200 in my hurry to set it up before the storm blew over.
As luck would have it I really like the grainy noise in the shot as I feel it adds to the mood - an unplanned composition with the settings all wrong and it may have turned out to be my favourite photo from the holiday!
Ian
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/
http://photo.net/photos/ian.bramham
J
jkjond
Guest
I think you are hitting an interesting point here in the translation of 3D to 2D. My interpretation of the section is that it is just that, a 2D slice.
I feel a ramble coming on...
I don't know anything about the history of the golden mean other than it dating back to the ancient greeks - but what documentary evidence actually exists? Did the Greeks use it in practice or is it something which scholars picked up on an forced onto examples to prove a point? I've heard that there is not a single golden section in the Parthenon - though I have not been there to check it out or seen any documentary evidence of it either way - but please don't go saying it is covered in them only to find that the ratio is a decimal place out, that simply isn't accurate enough to place credence on this precise definition, you may as well just say it 'kind of oblong shaped'.
One thing I do know about the ancient Greeks is that they were very aware of optical illusions - long lines of steps in front of their buildings would bow up slightly in the middle to counteract the illusion that they dipped - and their tall columns at the front of buildings aren't straight sided. They bow out slightly in the middle, if they didn't, then they would appear to be pinched. Whether their slight taper towards the top so they look taller, or was to prevent them from looking top heavy, I don't know. But it does imply that they distorted dimensions so that the final optical viewpoint was all important, and not an architects 2D elevational view.
I also don't know how the golden section evolved in it use in 2D art. But this is an area which does fascinate me, and an area which I think contemporary photographers are deriving confusion in composition. Formal art training involves a lot of drawing - and in drawing you have compete freedom of construction. Compositional devises can be build in to art right from the blank canvas, and Renaissance artists had nothing better to do than just that. At this stage the architecture and art of the Greeks and Romans had been rediscovered big time, and principles were being copied and used. Golden sections will be in evidence all over the place and the section will have become part of art language. Buildings and paintings were certainly constructed sticking rigidly to principles... rules.
Nothing changed much for quite some time, partly because communications technology amounted to getting on a horse, so it look a long time for information to spread across the globe. The breakthrough came in two stages. Turner invented real art, and Fox Talbot and Daguerre came up with photography. The early exponents of photography fell into two camps, those who thought that photography was a short cut to reproducing the current vogue in painting, so went to great lengths to reconstruct formal compositions or recreate what had been done in painting, much as formal art training was doing at the same time. Then those who thought Turner was onto a good thing and used photography as a tool for seeing the world. All this lead onto the Impressionists who recognised that art is about interpretation and expression, so junked the formal values - and art became really interesting.
So here we are, a century on, and what have we learned? Well, art is going in all directions. A lot of contemorary art is working on the Impressionist concept of turning its back on whatever went before, and coming up with all kinds of bananas. Some of it is nice, the rest is akin to what my dog can do. Some art harks back to established principles while some develops its own.
Hmm, losing where I'm up to here, need to get back to photography. Here we have a tool which can instantly capture what we see before us. This part of the conversation is looking at how the golden mean is used in photography - and my view is that it isn't much. We have the ability to produce cameras which superimpose Brian on the viewfinder, but nobody has chosen that option (no doubt a few somewhere) - and without it I doubt there are many people who are capable of visualising the mathematical grid necessary to exploit any values it may have. So we are left to superimpose the snail on images after they are taken.
I find the results are very interesting, but it certainly isn't something which I will carry back to the field and give a moments thought to when looking through the viewfinder. I can't help but think it is a process which leads back to the deadly dull work of the Renaissance artists, the people who inspired me to buy my first pair of running shoes so that I could sprint through those boring rooms in the art gallery in order to get to the good stuff, Turner and beyond.
So that is a potted art history lesson as seen by the totally unbiased or opinionated eye of jkjond - with no real evidence or educational grounding. My art training was more hands-on, rather than historically based - though I took every module available on Turner or the Impressionists, had a professor who was an absolute nut for Vassari, studied Brunelleschi in a bit of detail and fell asleep in any lecture related to David, Death and the Oath of Horati (I think). Incidentally, Turner produced some real rubbish in his early years - very much the formal approach of his contemporaries. I'm not sure where Ruskin fit in there, I don't know whether he championed his cause in the early stages or came late to the party - or how his input compares with that of Emile Zola for the Impressionists. But through Turneres sketchbooks he developed huge visual knowledge and technique which led to what I find to be the most amazing paintings I've seen. You need to see his originals to appreciate his genius, as with all art, the printed page doesn't come close... apart from photography!
Kevin, I've run out of characters here, I'll throw some comments on you pics separately.
I feel a ramble coming on...
I don't know anything about the history of the golden mean other than it dating back to the ancient greeks - but what documentary evidence actually exists? Did the Greeks use it in practice or is it something which scholars picked up on an forced onto examples to prove a point? I've heard that there is not a single golden section in the Parthenon - though I have not been there to check it out or seen any documentary evidence of it either way - but please don't go saying it is covered in them only to find that the ratio is a decimal place out, that simply isn't accurate enough to place credence on this precise definition, you may as well just say it 'kind of oblong shaped'.
One thing I do know about the ancient Greeks is that they were very aware of optical illusions - long lines of steps in front of their buildings would bow up slightly in the middle to counteract the illusion that they dipped - and their tall columns at the front of buildings aren't straight sided. They bow out slightly in the middle, if they didn't, then they would appear to be pinched. Whether their slight taper towards the top so they look taller, or was to prevent them from looking top heavy, I don't know. But it does imply that they distorted dimensions so that the final optical viewpoint was all important, and not an architects 2D elevational view.
I also don't know how the golden section evolved in it use in 2D art. But this is an area which does fascinate me, and an area which I think contemporary photographers are deriving confusion in composition. Formal art training involves a lot of drawing - and in drawing you have compete freedom of construction. Compositional devises can be build in to art right from the blank canvas, and Renaissance artists had nothing better to do than just that. At this stage the architecture and art of the Greeks and Romans had been rediscovered big time, and principles were being copied and used. Golden sections will be in evidence all over the place and the section will have become part of art language. Buildings and paintings were certainly constructed sticking rigidly to principles... rules.
Nothing changed much for quite some time, partly because communications technology amounted to getting on a horse, so it look a long time for information to spread across the globe. The breakthrough came in two stages. Turner invented real art, and Fox Talbot and Daguerre came up with photography. The early exponents of photography fell into two camps, those who thought that photography was a short cut to reproducing the current vogue in painting, so went to great lengths to reconstruct formal compositions or recreate what had been done in painting, much as formal art training was doing at the same time. Then those who thought Turner was onto a good thing and used photography as a tool for seeing the world. All this lead onto the Impressionists who recognised that art is about interpretation and expression, so junked the formal values - and art became really interesting.
So here we are, a century on, and what have we learned? Well, art is going in all directions. A lot of contemorary art is working on the Impressionist concept of turning its back on whatever went before, and coming up with all kinds of bananas. Some of it is nice, the rest is akin to what my dog can do. Some art harks back to established principles while some develops its own.
Hmm, losing where I'm up to here, need to get back to photography. Here we have a tool which can instantly capture what we see before us. This part of the conversation is looking at how the golden mean is used in photography - and my view is that it isn't much. We have the ability to produce cameras which superimpose Brian on the viewfinder, but nobody has chosen that option (no doubt a few somewhere) - and without it I doubt there are many people who are capable of visualising the mathematical grid necessary to exploit any values it may have. So we are left to superimpose the snail on images after they are taken.
I find the results are very interesting, but it certainly isn't something which I will carry back to the field and give a moments thought to when looking through the viewfinder. I can't help but think it is a process which leads back to the deadly dull work of the Renaissance artists, the people who inspired me to buy my first pair of running shoes so that I could sprint through those boring rooms in the art gallery in order to get to the good stuff, Turner and beyond.
So that is a potted art history lesson as seen by the totally unbiased or opinionated eye of jkjond - with no real evidence or educational grounding. My art training was more hands-on, rather than historically based - though I took every module available on Turner or the Impressionists, had a professor who was an absolute nut for Vassari, studied Brunelleschi in a bit of detail and fell asleep in any lecture related to David, Death and the Oath of Horati (I think). Incidentally, Turner produced some real rubbish in his early years - very much the formal approach of his contemporaries. I'm not sure where Ruskin fit in there, I don't know whether he championed his cause in the early stages or came late to the party - or how his input compares with that of Emile Zola for the Impressionists. But through Turneres sketchbooks he developed huge visual knowledge and technique which led to what I find to be the most amazing paintings I've seen. You need to see his originals to appreciate his genius, as with all art, the printed page doesn't come close... apart from photography!
Kevin, I've run out of characters here, I'll throw some comments on you pics separately.
J
jkjond
Guest
So back to your pics, Kevin.
First one strikes me as GREEN before I consider the composition! I find the content a bit lacking overall. Nice enough view, but it isn't really talking to me. I don't think this is anything to do with the composition, I've never had a problem with centred - which isn't a compositional approach with much scope for exploiting golden sections. I find it is currently simply a photo of a nice location, there is nothing in the content, light or processing which is creating a mood or giving it any expression. The exact same view at a different time of year, say with autumn colours, could be visually stunning, or in winter could be far more expressive.
The tree is quite hard to look at with the blown areas, though the CA does give some expression to it. It looks like the twisted nature of the bark was a large part of your inspiration here, and unfortunately it is hard to make out that detail. Compositionally, I'd say you don't have a huge number of choices, its down to whether you shoot it straight on, or more of a diagonal - then it is more to do with how close you are to the tree itself, the angle of your camera to the vertical, lens selection and dof. But you could aim to use the golden whatever on it, and I'm sure somebody somewhere would pick up on the fact and congratulate you.
First one strikes me as GREEN before I consider the composition! I find the content a bit lacking overall. Nice enough view, but it isn't really talking to me. I don't think this is anything to do with the composition, I've never had a problem with centred - which isn't a compositional approach with much scope for exploiting golden sections. I find it is currently simply a photo of a nice location, there is nothing in the content, light or processing which is creating a mood or giving it any expression. The exact same view at a different time of year, say with autumn colours, could be visually stunning, or in winter could be far more expressive.
The tree is quite hard to look at with the blown areas, though the CA does give some expression to it. It looks like the twisted nature of the bark was a large part of your inspiration here, and unfortunately it is hard to make out that detail. Compositionally, I'd say you don't have a huge number of choices, its down to whether you shoot it straight on, or more of a diagonal - then it is more to do with how close you are to the tree itself, the angle of your camera to the vertical, lens selection and dof. But you could aim to use the golden whatever on it, and I'm sure somebody somewhere would pick up on the fact and congratulate you.
Klay
Forum Enthusiast
It hadn't occurred to me to view the golden mean and composition in art from a historical perspective. Very interesting as well - way more than the golden mean or Brian by themselves - thanks for the narrative. I guess what we think of as visually stimulating/interesting/oooomphy is influenced by our cultural and historical background and our modern views on art must trace their origins back to early western civilization. Way too big a topic to take on in a thread about balance in photography let alone on my lunch break. I think this is definitely worth mulling over while trying to improve my ability to take and process a good picture.
I looked up Turner (this guy I assume: http://www.j-m-w-turner.co.uk/Index_English_Rivers.htm ) and found his paintings quite striking. There's a bit of the rule-of-thirds in there but his portrayal of light is what sets the mood for me in what I saw. Eruption of Vesuvius is almost a 3x3 matrix with blown highlights: http://www.tempsperdu.com/turner.html but I the light and colors give it a scary mood. Looks like the Tate Online has the sketchbooks you mention. That's a bit to go through there: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/BrowseGroup?cgroupid=999999998
Thanks for the comments on the photos.
Cheers,
Kevin
--
http://leelaycock.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-bien/
'No point in steering now.' -- Doug McKenzie
I looked up Turner (this guy I assume: http://www.j-m-w-turner.co.uk/Index_English_Rivers.htm ) and found his paintings quite striking. There's a bit of the rule-of-thirds in there but his portrayal of light is what sets the mood for me in what I saw. Eruption of Vesuvius is almost a 3x3 matrix with blown highlights: http://www.tempsperdu.com/turner.html but I the light and colors give it a scary mood. Looks like the Tate Online has the sketchbooks you mention. That's a bit to go through there: http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/BrowseGroup?cgroupid=999999998
Thanks for the comments on the photos.
Cheers,
Kevin
--
http://leelaycock.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-bien/
'No point in steering now.' -- Doug McKenzie
J
jkjond
Guest
Yup, that's the man. His light is what he is best known for - you may well be the first person in history to describe his work in terms of blown highlights! I must say, I've never looked at any of his images and thought about composition at all, in fact the only time I think about composition when looking at paintings is when they jump out as looking poor!
Turner was one of the most prolific artists of all time creating hundreds of oils and watercolours - he travelled extensively throughout Europe and would pre-tint his sketchbook pages then work quicky on sketches, maybe making 4 studies in 20 mins while watching a sunset. He left all his work to the nation, and most of it was stored away for years - some was considered too much for the viewing public, whatever that means. The Tate gallery used to always have key pieces on display, then they build an annex on the original gallery solely to house Turners work.
I you haven't seen any of his work in the flesh, then find out where you can see it.
Laycock? Could you be related to Fox Talbot in some distant way? He invented photography while experimenting at his home, Laycock Hall. He was frustrated at his lack of ability to draw and paint, so worked on other ways of creating images. I think he was quite well off and didn't need any income from it, he did it for his own satisfaction, but was at the root of all that followed and created photography for the masses.
Meanwhile Daguerre was hell bent on becoming famous and producing an image making process for the masses - but his process creates an image which can only be viewed on the original metal plate by shining light on it at a critical angle, the two guys should have swapped processes!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/
Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
Turner was one of the most prolific artists of all time creating hundreds of oils and watercolours - he travelled extensively throughout Europe and would pre-tint his sketchbook pages then work quicky on sketches, maybe making 4 studies in 20 mins while watching a sunset. He left all his work to the nation, and most of it was stored away for years - some was considered too much for the viewing public, whatever that means. The Tate gallery used to always have key pieces on display, then they build an annex on the original gallery solely to house Turners work.
I you haven't seen any of his work in the flesh, then find out where you can see it.
Laycock? Could you be related to Fox Talbot in some distant way? He invented photography while experimenting at his home, Laycock Hall. He was frustrated at his lack of ability to draw and paint, so worked on other ways of creating images. I think he was quite well off and didn't need any income from it, he did it for his own satisfaction, but was at the root of all that followed and created photography for the masses.
Meanwhile Daguerre was hell bent on becoming famous and producing an image making process for the masses - but his process creates an image which can only be viewed on the original metal plate by shining light on it at a critical angle, the two guys should have swapped processes!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leechypics/
Make your own mind up - there are no rules in this game.
Klay
Forum Enthusiast
I will keep an eye out for it. It will probably be one of those artists that I stumble across on vacation sometime. Like in Rome where the guide says, "Oh, and by the way, if you stop looking at that Caravaggio and turn around, this little statue is a Michelangelo..."
The family history is vague and confused but it does include Keighley and vicinity (and Ireland, France, North America and other parts of Yorkshire), as one of several ancestral homelands. Martha and Jabez emigrated from there to work in the fabric mills in Massachusetts in the late 1860s. I was aware of the photography connection but I think my kinfolk may have run in different social circles than Fox Talbot.
Kevin
--
http://leelaycock.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/k-bien/
'No point in steering now.' -- Doug McKenzie
geoffrb
Leading Member
Hi
This is a link to a simple composition guide by Kodak, a bit dated but for anyone struggling with the basics it's simple and llustrated. I used it for my children when they started to show interest beyond simple snaps.
http://photoinf.com/General/KODAK/guidelines_for_better_photographic_composition_introduction.html
Geoff
This is a link to a simple composition guide by Kodak, a bit dated but for anyone struggling with the basics it's simple and llustrated. I used it for my children when they started to show interest beyond simple snaps.
http://photoinf.com/General/KODAK/guidelines_for_better_photographic_composition_introduction.html
Geoff
Supr X
Senior Member
. . . more excellent information! Nice work, Ian.
--
David~
WSSA Member #90
. . . shoot like there's no film in the thing!
--
David~
WSSA Member #90
. . . shoot like there's no film in the thing!
jrcartasgmailcom
Forum Enthusiast
Got it ready this while drinking my night tea to comprehend every tiny bit!
Can not wait to go home and re-read it.
thanks for the explanation
Can not wait to go home and re-read it.
thanks for the explanation
ianbramham
Senior Member
Thanks David and jrcartasgmailcom,
it wasn't my intention to resurrect this thread but I do see balance in composition as going hand in hand with the simplicity KISS thread that I started earlier toady.
Ian
http://ianbramham.com/
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/ (Photoblog)
it wasn't my intention to resurrect this thread but I do see balance in composition as going hand in hand with the simplicity KISS thread that I started earlier toady.
Ian
http://ianbramham.com/
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/ (Photoblog)
torags
Senior Member
I'm pleased to say I did not read this entire thread.
I would like to point out that images are more complicated than a pound here and there.
Picasso had ideas of how to balance tones and colors in the image. Light colors need more real estate than dark colors for balance
I recognize Pablo didn't have a math degree, but his opinions should be considered as we contemplate our navels.
--
Rags
I would like to point out that images are more complicated than a pound here and there.
Picasso had ideas of how to balance tones and colors in the image. Light colors need more real estate than dark colors for balance
I recognize Pablo didn't have a math degree, but his opinions should be considered as we contemplate our navels.
--
Rags
It's curious that after I read your post everytime a look threw the viewfinder inmediataly the first thing that comes into my mind is the word balance. Looking at photographs every where I've come to realize that balance is a key concept in photography , even more important then what many believe it to be.
ianbramham
Senior Member
Thanks!
It seems amazing to me but it's now 2 years since I started this thread. Good balance together with simple composition are still the two main things that give me the most personal satisfaction in my own photos.
Modern life often seems so full of chaos and complication that it's feels good to produce simple uncluttered photos that have an obvious harmony or balance in the way that they are composed.
Ian
http://ianbramham.com/
http://ianbramham.aminus3.com/ (Photoblog)
ianbramham
Senior Member
It's been quite a while since I started this thread about balance in composition and another similar thread on this forum about simplicity in composition.
I just wanted to let you know that I've recently expanded on the ideas I put forward here with my latest thinking in light of the extra 3+ years of experience that I've had.
Here's a link to my latest thoughts on balance and on the KISS technique in composition:
http://www.ianbramham.com/section536519.html
Ian
Fine Art Photography Website: http://ianbramham.com/
I just wanted to let you know that I've recently expanded on the ideas I put forward here with my latest thinking in light of the extra 3+ years of experience that I've had.
Here's a link to my latest thoughts on balance and on the KISS technique in composition:
http://www.ianbramham.com/section536519.html
Ian
Fine Art Photography Website: http://ianbramham.com/
apaflo
Senior Member
A couple of references you may or not know about:
"Art and Visual Perception", Revised, 1974 (original published in 1954); University of California Press, (Fiftieth Anniversary Printing 2004) Paperback, 518 pp, ISBN 9780520243835
"Entropy and Art", 1971; University of California Press, ISBN 9780520026179.
The second one is available online at http://www.kenb.ca/z-aakkozzll/pdf/arnheim.pdf
Here is a snip from the introduction in "Entropy and Art", which could just as well be part of an introduction to your articles on composition!
- " When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable left out, one can understand the interrelation of the whole and its parts, as well as the hierarchic scale of importance and power by which some structural features are dominant, others subordinate."
ianbramham
Senior Member
Thanks for those references Floyd - I wasn't aware of them so I'll need to give them a read.
Ian
Fine Art Photography Website: http://ianbramham.com/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum