Compose thread Oct 17, 2010 23:55:15 GMT
Post by donsausa on Oct 17, 2010 23:55:15 GMT
Oct 17, 2010 22:55:31 GMT @mantarey said:
I'm actually referring to the part about birds in flight which I quoted from Enriques' post. A lot of people who are in photography would know about about symmetry but they don't have any idea how to properly compose bird images.
"For birds in flight shots, for example, the most outstanding ones have the bird positioned not in the center, with space given in the composition for a trajectory. For landing shots, that space is below the bird, and wherever the bird is facing, space is allowed. I think it's because we already know that birds will take the expected path of flight, regardless of our subconscious conditioning. We also know that they don't fly backwards, so we "expect" the space to be in front. For those with their bodies centered in the composition, usually something else offsets this static pose - wing or leg diagonals, or curves."
1. I agree with this opinion because it's what I'm trained to enjoy in individual photographs (unless I'm looking to have 3 pics with the same dimensions posted for a flight sequence and the space available for the remaining doesn't allow much for composition to meet those dimensions, so symmetry would be the ideal choice).
2. The idea of composition and the "rules" in photography are nothing more than subjective opinions. And as my good old teacher from jr. high once said, opinions are like armpits, everyone has them.
3. Violating those rules will often have reaction not from the general viewing public, but from the trained eyes who are biased towards a certain angle, shape, off-center, "spacing" opinion. I'm part of it, I fully recognize my psychological bias.
4. But before "visual arts" training when I picked up my film-based Pentax DSLR in the early 90's my shots were a little bit more loose, a central focus, symmetrical lines and guiding lines were more natural than the rule of thirds.
Another photographer summarized it better than me (Don's edit: note he is reviewing dpreview's forums and is not related to PBPF, but take note of his points objectively, there's truth to it):
Posted by NighCkahn
Date/Time 5:43:20 AM, Wednesday, July 07, 2010 (GMT)
Like almost all forums based on one subject, the people who populate those forums generally cater their craft to their own peers rather than the general public.
Show a picture of a model with so-called excellent use of bokeh to a photographer, and the photographer will oooo and aaaah. Show the same photo to the average person, and they'll wonder why the background is blurry.
The general public will also expose for the shadows and blow the sky highlights out completely, but show a properly exposed photograph to the public and it's too dark. The public doesn't care about the sky. They completely ignore it.
The same is true with the rule of thirds. To them, there's absolutely nothing compelling or more interesting when a photograph is off to the side of the subject or on some imaginary point off center, to them it looks like the photographer needs some practice pointing his camera.
Basically what is happening here is a bunch of mental mast****** about what's important in a picture. Photographers get so caught up in the technical aspects that they forget that the general public doesn't want a picture that's not centered, is too dark, and the background is so blurry that the only eye wandering that's going on is that of looking for the visine because they're sick of trying to resolve a broken picture.
If you are trying to impress your photographer peers, then pay attention to the "rules"; but if you are trying to impress the general public, then just concentrate on the background and make a photograph that's all-in-focus and doesn't try to over complicate the simple idea of clicking the shutter release.