[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Free Show | Home]

OC examples of good/bad framing?

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 29
Thread images: 7

File: FramingBad.png (685KB, 1296x432px) Image search: [Google]
FramingBad.png
685KB, 1296x432px
hi /p/haggots i was hoping you could show me some examples of bad framing vs good framing using your own photos?

like could you possibly grab your camera and take a photo of the first thing you see, inside or outside, doesn't matter? and show me how you would frame that object/thing/person/pet PROPERLY and then also show me how NOT to frame?


im actually trying to take photography more seriously and i think framing is the most important thing to try to learn for now
>>
Today's photographer need not necessarily make his picture resemble a wash drawing in order to have it admitted as art, but he must abide by the "rules of composition." That is the contemporary nostrum. Now to consult rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection and after-examination, and are in no way a part of the creative impetus. When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to tedious repetition of pictorial cliches.

Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught, because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.
>>
>>2931558
The rule of thirds is shit and images that obey it are boring
>>
>>2931578
source?
>>
>>2931558
Study graphic design and the work of the good photographers like Ansel, Salgado, Bresson, Ho Fan, and etc. Paintings and drawings also help.
>>
File: B0157951-y720px.jpg (98KB, 479x720px) Image search: [Google]
B0157951-y720px.jpg
98KB, 479x720px
Stop putting everything in frame-centre.
Stop using landscape orientation for *everything*.

That's just full retard

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera ModelPENTAX K-3
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.0.3
PhotographerAndrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2016:08:28 01:03:10
Exposure Time1/250 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating2000
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length70.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width479
Image Height720
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationLow
SharpnessHard
Subject Distance RangeDistant View
>>
>>2931581
Every single image I've seen to "prove" the rule of thirds has not followed the rule of thirds.
>>
File: august-sander-4.jpg (888KB, 2128x2684px) Image search: [Google]
august-sander-4.jpg
888KB, 2128x2684px
>>2931558
>frame PROPERLY

im afraid theres no such a thing. the "rule of thirds" is so rigid and amateur looking that youll regret having so many pics like that once you grow up of it. its not that its useless, but theres so much you can do with a frame and a subject that only doing that is very limiting.

best advice is to look at the greats. there is this german guy, august sander, one of the early masters of portraiture. he did lots of people and specially workers, his framing is a lot of times centered, sometimes centered with little off axis tilt. there is a sense of dignity in all of them, aided of course by the rapport built with the subject, and the great use of space.

your pic related is a retarded critique, if anything, that photo should have been a full body portrait with that same perspective. the only way to make the thirds thing work is to have in the background elements that are significative to the subject and that contextualize him. frozen cars give no context to that kid no matter where you put him in the frame.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2011:10:21 19:05:03
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width2128
Image Height2684
>>
>>2931558
The rule of thirds works sometimes but. It nearly enough to warrant all the parroting it gets.

A lot of times if you have something off in a corner like that it just leaves a bunch of useless space.

It works best when it is balanced by the remainder of the frame or shows some kind of scale or atmosphere that completes the story.
>>
>>2931594
(cont)

some guys that i consider god tier in composition department are: harry gruyaert, alex webb, todd hido, franco fontana, andre kertesz, alexander gronsky, martin parr (until the 2000s, nowadays he just doesnt give a fuck).
>>
>>2931582

Seeing Photographically, Edward Weston
>>
I fucking hate the rule of thirds, worst rule. It is more preliminary than amateur to be honest.
>>
>>2931631
You forgot to mention Bresson, which is the GOAT
>>
>>2931578
This is a lot of horseshit.

The "rules" of composition aren't a "never do x" or "always do y", they are more along the lines of "if you do x, most people will have y response" or "doing x emphasizes y".

It's much the same as choosing a given synonym in writing or speaking. Calling someone nosey is really similar to calling someone inquisitive is really similar to calling someone curious. All three words provide essentially the same meaning about the person, but each carries a vastly different connotative weight.

Abandoning rules of composition in search of freshness is like a writer entirely ignoring language in search of freshness. At the same time, it's pretty foolish to slavishly stick to something like the rule of thirds. If you really want to get good at this shit, study and figure out WHY different compositional techniques give the results they give. Once you figure that out, you can use or subvert them to achieve your goals.
>>
>>2931850

no i didnt.
>>
File: pleb.jpg (153KB, 828x555px) Image search: [Google]
pleb.jpg
153KB, 828x555px
>>2931866
> t. Pleb

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2010:04:16 06:53:19
>>
>>2931858
>The "rules" of composition aren't a "never do x" or "always do y", they are more along the lines of "if you do x, most people will have y response" or "doing x emphasizes y".

So, literally formulaic, then?

Good composition is just whatever helps a photo hold a wall. Working from these predetermined notions in order to second guess the viewer is derived from the exact same logic as the rule of thirds dogma.
>>
Not OP, and pretty new to photography. My sister has an art degree, and I was talking to her about composition a week or so ago. She said there's no good way to really teach it, but some things are regarded as "good," then gave vague examples. Once she finished I boiled it down to, "So basically you want it to draw your eye from element to element, and elicit an emotional response?" She said yeah, pretty much. So to you experts, did I boil it down correctly, or even close? Would this be a decent summation of composition, even though it's still vague and hard to teach?
>>
>>2931924
>So, literally formulaic, then?
Kinda, but not really. Let's throw another metaphor at it: cooking.

A composition is like a completed dish. You can take the same basic ingredients, but use them in different proportions to achieve different dishes that taste differently. It's about how you put them together, what you use to balance what, what flavors you want to bring forward and what you want to minimize. To top that off, you gotta know that even if well executed, not everyone will care for it.

Like cool colors recede and warm colors advance. Additionally lighter colors advance and darker colors recede. So what happens when you have a warm, dark color paired with a cool light color? How does that feel and why? Certain palettes are more pleasant and homey feeling while others are more disconnective. Positioning in frame, things like leading lines, and focus are how the photographer tells his audience what he wants them considering and in what order or what way. It also hints at what the photographer is trying to say about the subject -- going back to the writing deal, like how calling someone curious is a much more positive statement about someone than calling them nosey.

I wish I could explain it better, but it's more that the rules of composition are the grammar of visual language. It's no more formulaic than the grammatical rules in language where how you choose to use or subvert the established conventions is just as much of a message as the denotative meaning of the text itself.
>>
>>2931994
>It's no more formulaic than the grammatical rules in language where how you choose to use or subvert the established conventions is just as much of a message as the denotative meaning of the text itself.
Oh, and this is a vital idea for you to understand because you seem to have your head firmly up your ass about the idea of leveraging "predetermined ideas". Aside from the fact that for any kind of communication of ideas to take place there must be some common ground, you also cannot divorce your work from whatever meaning greater society has latched onto a symbol. Neglecting that there will be a reading of your work with conventions in mind is idiotically arrogant. Ceci n'est pas une pipe and shit.
>>
>>2931867
>muh fibonacci
>>
File: framing 101.jpg (2MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]
framing 101.jpg
2MB, 2000x1333px
You can go wrong with Fibonachos
>>
File: 1468328038142.jpg (57KB, 1000x664px) Image search: [Google]
1468328038142.jpg
57KB, 1000x664px
>>
>>2932659
Great composition and colour! You have been awarded the flickr award of composition for gracing humanity with this image!
>>
>>2932005
>Oh, and this is a vital idea for you to understand because you seem to have your head firmly up your ass about the idea of leveraging "predetermined ideas".

I was literally just quoting Edward Weston lmao.
>>
>>2932660
wat
>>
>>2933036
This >>2931924
Isn't "just quoting"
>>
>>2936474
Golden spiral, rule of thirds, golden ratio, and triangle composition overlays
>>
>>2931594
>houses and bicycles give context to soldiers
Most today's portraits are centered or center one eye, again portrait photographers have to make great use of space.

>>2931631
Vertically the subject is arranged to a third, which I guess is working here. Of course your claim of good background usage/framing is supported here.
Thread posts: 29
Thread images: 7


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]

I'm aware that Imgur.com will stop allowing adult images since 15th of May. I'm taking actions to backup as much data as possible.
Read more on this topic here - https://archived.moe/talk/thread/1694/


If you need a post removed click on it's [Report] button and follow the instruction.
DMCA Content Takedown via dmca.com
All images are hosted on imgur.com.
If you like this website please support us by donating with Bitcoins at 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties.
Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site.
This means that RandomArchive shows their content, archived.
If you need information for a Poster - contact them.