/p/ - Photography » Thread #2931558

[30 / 7 / ?]

OC examples of good/bad framing?

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 22:03:39 No.2931558 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2931581 >>2931588 >>2931594 >>2931606

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

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 22:54:48 No.2931578 Report

Quoted By: >>2931582 >>2931858

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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:09:05 No.2931581 Report

Quoted By: >>2931592

>>2931558
The rule of thirds is shit and images that obey it are boring

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:16:11 No.2931582 Report

Quoted By: >>2931840

>>2931578
source?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:26:39 No.2931588 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931558
Study graphic design and the work of the good photographers like Ansel, Salgado, Bresson, Ho Fan, and etc. Paintings and drawings also help.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0157951-y720px.jpg, 98KiB, 479x720

!!Me2iIexFVez Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:27:26 No.2931590 Report

Quoted By:

Stop putting everything in frame-centre.
Stop using landscape orientation for *everything*.

That's just full retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:30:44 No.2931592 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931581
Every single image I've seen to "prove" the rule of thirds has not followed the rule of thirds.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO august-sander-4.jpg, 888KiB, 2128x2684

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:40:03 No.2931594 Report

Quoted By: >>2931599 >>2931631 >>2936506

>>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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 22 Sep 2016 23:55:25 No.2931599 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931594
(cont)

now here is a very off axis photo of werner herzog while filming fitzcarraldo which is successful at arranging the elements in the frame, making them interact. as corny as it may sound, it almost looks like the ship comes from his head (the lines on the ground mark the path), which is actually true. the top mist is used to great effect giving it a surreal, dreamy atmosphere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 00:12:01 No.2931606 Report

Quoted By:

>>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.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO med_andre-kertesz-washington-squ (...).jpg, 153KiB, 512x782

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 01:24:34 No.2931631 Report

Quoted By: >>2931850 >>2936506

>>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).

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 13:11:33 No.2931840 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931582

Seeing Photographically, Edward Weston

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 13:37:25 No.2931846 Report

Quoted By:

I fucking hate the rule of thirds, worst rule. It is more preliminary than amateur to be honest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 13:50:10 No.2931850 Report

Quoted By: >>2931866

>>2931631
You forgot to mention Bresson, which is the GOAT

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 14:03:55 No.2931858 Report

Quoted By: >>2931924

>>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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 14:17:56 No.2931866 Report

Quoted By: >>2931867

>>2931850

no i didnt.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pleb.jpg, 153KiB, 828x555

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 14:20:10 No.2931867 Report

Quoted By: >>2932064

>>2931866
> t. Pleb

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 16:28:16 No.2931924 Report

Quoted By: >>2931994 >>2936492

>>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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 16:52:49 No.2931934 Report

Quoted By:

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?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 18:05:43 No.2931994 Report

Quoted By: >>2932005

>>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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 18:16:37 No.2932005 Report

Quoted By: >>2933036

>>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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 23 Sep 2016 19:47:00 No.2932064 Report

Quoted By:

>>2931867
>muh fibonacci

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO framing 101.jpg, 2MiB, 2000x1333

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 14:58:43 No.2932659 Report

Quoted By: >>2932676

You can go wrong with Fibonachos

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1468328038142.jpg, 57KiB, 1000x664

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 15:00:44 No.2932660 Report

Quoted By: >>2936474

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 24 Sep 2016 15:27:20 No.2932676 Report

Quoted By:

>>2932659
Great composition and colour! You have been awarded the flickr award of composition for gracing humanity with this image!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 25 Sep 2016 04:43:24 No.2933036 Report

Quoted By: >>2936492

>>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.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 21:33:15 No.2936474 Report

Quoted By: >>2936494

>>2932660
wat

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 22:07:16 No.2936492 Report

Quoted By:

>>2933036
This >>2931924
Isn't "just quoting"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 22:08:27 No.2936494 Report

Quoted By:

>>2936474
Golden spiral, rule of thirds, golden ratio, and triangle composition overlays

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 29 Sep 2016 22:28:50 No.2936506 Report

Quoted By:

>>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.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

OC examples of good/bad framing?