What about the composition in this ribbon winner?

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

02/20/2006 07:23:45 AM · #1

h//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=349429What makes a "7+" Photo etc etc

OK Last week we talked about and compared 2 photos' compositions. This week's "Country"'s Third place ribbon seems to contradict some of the "rules" expressed in that thread. So, can someone explain why this composition works?
--jrjr

Again, this is a beautiful and deserving winner. Just trying to learn here folks.

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 07:24:28.

Refwhett

Nikon D300

02/20/2006 07:29:27 AM · #2

Well I didn't vote, but for me this photo works because I feel that the beautifull open space and the sky is what gives it it's character and is actually the main subject. The peer on the left, though not fully in line with the "rules" does lead me into that space while the house in the back keeps me within the frame. I also feel that the pattern of the clouds and their reflection on the water pulls me into the horizon.

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

02/20/2006 08:24:03 AM · #3

There are two main points of interest, which are the brightest points in the photo. They both fall just a little outside of where the thirds lines intersect. The path your eye takes between the two pretty much is one of the lines of thirds, so I'd say it follow the rules of thirds pretty well.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/20/2006 08:51:47 AM · #4

Originally posted by jrjr:

h//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=349429What makes a "7+" Photo etc etc

OK Last week we talked about and compared 2 photos' compositions. So, can someone explain why this composition works?

This image has unique and very strong compositional elements that, combined with exceptional technical quality, explains it's deserved placing.

Compositionally, this image's strength comes from a combination of both vertical and horizontal symmetry along the horizon line.

The vertical symmetry comes from the clouds reflected in the mirror flat water. The photographer likely chose the specific timing for the capture specifically for this effect, much like the photographer chose the timing for the other ribbon winner discussed. The vertical reflection of the model contributes greatly to the vertical symmetry of the image.

The horizontal symmetry lies right along the horizon line balancing the model on the left with the house on the right. That is why the photographer placed the horizon line near the center of the frame in violation of standard landscape photography practice. Notice how the photographer has carefully framed them the same relative distance from the right and left edges of the frame.

Even the color of the dock balances horizontally with the color surrounding the house and that adds compositional strength to the image as well.

Those two symmetries together are a very, very powerful combination that makes this a special composition.

Couple this with a tranqility of the scene, beauty of the model and superior technical quality and you have yourself a ribbon winner.

Fine imagery, great picture. Kudos to the photographer!

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 09:05:39.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/20/2006 10:04:36 AM · #5

Originally posted by stdavidson:

...

Those two symmetries together are a very, very powerful combination that makes this a special composition.

Couple this with a tranqility of the scene, beauty of the model and superior technical quality and you have yourself a ribbon winner.

Fine imagery, great picture. Kudos to the photographer!

Very nice analysis - it's interesting to know the "why" it works part and will hopefully help some of us work on our composition skills a bit.

In addition to the points you brought out, I'd add that there definitely seems to be something in the air in Iceland that lends itself to great photography!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/20/2006 12:27:39 PM · #6

Davidson's analysis is very nice and is spot on, except he is not mentioning one other aspect of this composition that completely dominates it in my eyes: It's the overlay of an extremely strong diagonal/trinagular element on the pure sky/water symmetry. click on the image to see the superimposed triangle.

That implied triangle absolutely controls the image, for me: the rest of it is like the "stage set", the "background" on which this relationship of the person to the home is played out. There's a very strong emotional context to this image, and the "edgy" composition emphasizes it to a very high degree. If there were sufficient extra space left and right to place the house and the figure on the 1/3 lines, this sense of yearning and visual movement would be a much less agressive factor in the composition.

It's my personal opinion that the so-called "rule of thirds" is one of the most dantgerous assumptions you can carry into a landscape with you. ESPECIALLY when we are dealing with skies and their reflections.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 12:28:28.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

02/20/2006 01:16:47 PM · #7

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

... the overlay of an extremely strong diagonal/trinagular element on the pure sky/water symmetry. click on the image to see the superimposed triangle.

That implied triangle absolutely controls the image, for me...

Agreed, the triangle is a fantastic compositional element of the image that I completely overlooked. The geometry of this composition is amazing.

Together, the model and her shadow not only direct attention toward the house from a pure technical standpoint but draws the viewer emotionally into wondering what she is thinking as bear_music astutely points out. Without the model this is just another pretty picture.

I'm liking this one more and more all the time and it is all because of composition!

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

02/20/2006 01:28:05 PM · #8

I think it is a very strong composition and deserves it's placement. I do wonder, if someone can elaborate, if this shot could of moved up possibly to 1st with a different camera setting.

The photographer took the picture at ISO 400 , f/7.1 , and 1/320 shutter. I wonder if there could of been a more dramatic look if the ISO was dropped to 100 increasing to say f/16 and using a longer shutter of say 2sec. or 4sec. to give movement in the sky and water. I feel this could of been done since everything in the photograph could stay stationary.
Just a thought.

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 13:32:54.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/20/2006 04:22:57 PM · #9

It's my personal opinion that the so-called "rule of thirds" is one of the most dantgerous assumptions you can carry into a landscape with you. ESPECIALLY when we are dealing with skies and their reflections.

Wow- We have to keep these analyses (sp?) going. I am definitely "guilty" of composing according to thirds which this Photo clearly ignores. I actually do not understand where this leaves us (novices) when going forth and composing shots. Originally I thought that the incredible beauty of the shot trumped a poor Composition but what you are saying is that there are other forces at work i.e. geometry. Photography was "easier" when I thought I had a hard and fast rule to follow!
This is going to require much more thought. Thanks.
--jrjr

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

02/20/2006 04:29:57 PM · #10

For me it stood apart from other landscapes by including a human element.

As I said in the 7+ thread, I generally vote a little higher for entries that include that element. In a landscape it can add a focal point as well as a sense of scale.

cheers,
bazz.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/20/2006 04:41:20 PM · #11

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Davidson's analysis is very nice and is spot on,

That implied triangle absolutely controls the image, for me: the rest of it is like the "stage set", the "background" on which this relationship of the person to the home is played out. There's a very strong emotional context to this image, and the "edgy" composition emphasizes it to a very high degree.

It's my personal opinion that the so-called "rule of thirds" is one of the most dangerous assumptions you can carry into a landscape with you. ESPECIALLY when we are dealing with skies and their reflections.

Robt.

I concure as well.

The 'triangle' is not a recent invention. Great painters have used the triangle over and over again in their paintings among the centuries.

As I have been advocating all along, emotion, yes. I see this as wanting. Creating emotion is the begining of a story.

Rembrandt

Monet

petrakka

02/20/2006 04:56:02 PM · #12

clearly im in the minority here, but this composition leaves me with a feeling of being 'pulled apart' which makes this slightly unsettling. While I do think it's a good photo, I personally don't consider the composition a very strong one.

I'm not sure if the elements could have been balanced better, or the photo would be better to detract from one of the elements. That would change the whole meaning of the photo though, I don't know how I would improve it off hand, but I am left a bit unsettled by it.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/20/2006 05:58:07 PM · #13

Originally posted by petrakka:

The "unsettled" quality derives from what I have referred to as its "edginess", and is the prime contributor to its emotional quotient, in a sense. As I mentioned earlier, if you imagine the image with enough extra space around it to place the figure and the house according to the rule-of-thirds, that edginess would be replaced with a sense of containment, a more static situation altogether.

R.

edit to add: my sole ribbon-winner utterly ignores the rule of thirds:

Message edited by author 2006-02-20 18:00:02.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/20/2006 06:46:18 PM · #14

Bear_
How can we as novices ACT on this information and revelation? It seems that normally, only rule of third photos get rewarded. You youself "spanked" me once for having a horizon too close to center (believe me I am not comparing any prior work of mine to this one). WE NEED RULES!!!

Note: your ribbon winner was in response to a challenge that demanded that type of photo. Yes?
--jrjr

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

02/20/2006 07:28:27 PM · #15

Originally posted by jrjr:

The challenge for my skiff shot was "Minimalism"; other versions of the shot had the skiff in a more conventional placement, and they didn't seem to work for me. This edgier version did. Nothing in the challenge encouraged disregard of the rule of thirds, but I suppose "minimalist" composition might naturally encourage edginess.

As for your horizon, it goes without saying (I hope) that if you're gonna break the rules there needs to be a reason for it. In the current context, there's a very good reason why the horizon is so nearly-centered; in general, reflections shots work well when they are broken at, or close to, the center of the image. Especially this one, where the foreground reflection of the dock and the figure is so important.

There really aren't any hard-and-fast rules, and people who judge images based on their adherence to these presumptive "rules" are taking the easy way out a lot of the time.

That said, there's a reason these "rules" come into being, and it's perfectly sensible for those who are new to the art of composition to follow them and try to internalize them until they become second nature. Take your average shooter's snapshot-of-kid, for example. The face will be smack dab in the center of the frame, even if it's a full-length shot; they'll be tons of sky and very little foreground, and the face will be in the center, and the whole thing will look blah. This photographer would be well-served by learning the rule of thirds and placing the subject enough off-center to produce a pleasing balance of subject and ground.

You've just got to develop an eye, you've got to judge situations individually, when you get into the more rarefied air of truly striking compositions. Like this one.

R.

02/20/2006 07:28:39 PM · #16

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

02/20/2006 09:48:12 PM · #17

The rules of thumb in any photographic format is just a basic guide line for the artist to enhance, and to break.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/20/2006 10:30:19 PM · #18

Originally posted by American_Horse:

The rules of thumb in any photographic format is just a basic guide line for the artist to enhance, and to break.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

...it's perfectly sensible for those who are new to the art of composition to follow them(Rules) and try to internalize them until they become second nature.

Suffice it to say that if you have no concept about what makes good composition in the first place then you need a starting point.

Study photography, read books, do Internet searches or whatever it takes to get an idea what makes good composition. First try one thing at a time and then later combinations of compositional techniques you learn and apply them to your photography. Hard work combined with trial and error will reap rewards.

Creativity is what results after trying the rules first and discovering they don't work in a given situation and THEN coming up with something better. Obviously you have to fully understand the rules first before that can happen. Today's creative idea becomes tomorrow's rule.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Panasonic LUMIX-DMC ZS100

02/20/2006 11:12:24 PM · #19

Originally posted by southern_exposure:

Just to do the math, switching to ISO100 and f/16 leaves you a full 5-stops short of 2 seconds. I'm guessing a polarizer may have already been used, so you would need 5 more stops of ND, not a common filter.

I also think the water is so still that it would not change much to the picture. The very slight ripples would be traded for a very slight blurring of the reflection.

wheeledd