This or That - 3 Compositions

[FlyPenFly]

Hello, I have three sets of photos in here and I'm trying to decide, compositionally, which is superior in each set. Your thoughts would be appreciated!

Taken at Coney Island shot wide open at F1.4. I can't decide which of the 3 is the better composition. Thoughts?


Lady by the Sea
A

The Lady by the Sea by jaetography, on Flickr

B

_DSC2102.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

C

Lady by the Sea 2 by jaetography, on Flickr


Tree in a Field of Greens

A (wide open at F1.4)

F1.4 by jaetography, on Flickr

B (more of the background in focus at F5.6 and a bit less CA)

Old and Young by jaetography, on Flickr

C (A different composition following rule of thirds)

_DSC1684.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

Subway Fluorescent

A

_DSC1850.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

B

_DSC1851.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

B-A-A

1B: An emotional decision - shes looking at the sea - what is she expecting - what or whom waiting for - what does she feel? I feel most involved with A.

2A: A tough decision. I was changing between A and C. The people in the background distract. In A there is shallow DOF together with a bigger portion of that tree.
But if I'm not mistaken I see some CA issues at the trees in the background.

3A: An emotional decision. IMO the wide format supports the subject better.

[FlyPenFly]

Thanks for taking the time to comment! I appreciate your thoughts.

Here's a second version I did of a recrop and WB change on the lady by the sea.


_DSC2102.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A-B-A (I would crop out the upper white part though, after correcting for a barrel distortion)

[RSL]

Fly, You also need to crank down your aperture. This kind of shot can't afford a background as out-of-focus as that one.

[FlyPenFly]

My idea for the photo was to separate the subject from the background but not blow away the background either nor have it be in focus.

[Rob C]

Fly, You also need to crank down your aperture. This kind of shot can't afford a background as out-of-focus as that one.

Nope, can't buy into that, Russ, though I do think it would work better even more out. Hell, that's why your own street shot of the three people with the o-o-f girl in the background had such charm, quite apart from the story in the principal lady's face. To tell the truth, I don't think one should treat 'landscape-portraiture' or even landscape-without-people as different to the reality. I've never felt the need to see everything crisply at the same time; it's pretty well impossible to achieve, even intentionally in life: we always concentrate on something specific when we look, and the rest is just a peripheral early warning system to stop us falling off the edge.

That's why Hans Feurer is so bloody good.

Slobodan, I'm amazed you didn't underline the distortion bit to ensure you didn't get taken seriously!

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Slobodan, I'm amazed you didn't underline the distortion bit to ensure you didn't get taken seriously!...

If I do not take my perfectionism seriously, who will?

[FlyPenFly]

It was taken with a 85mm F1.4 on FF, distortion should be minimal. The crop might also be playing funny tricks with distortion.

I changed up the white balance a bit, brightened the pics a bit and tried a different crop.

This one is at F2.8 with the bg a bit more in focus and the one below that is wide open at F1.4 with more of the background blown away.


_DSC2108.jpg by jaetography, on Flickr


The Lady by the Sea by jaetography, on Flickr

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It was taken with a 85mm F1.4 on FF, distortion should be minimal. ...

Just to be sure, I was referring to the third A/picture (underground).

But out of curiosity, why "should the distortion be minimal on a 85mm F1.4 on FF"? If anything, FF shows whatever distortion is there fully (the first F in the FF), f/stop does not affect distortion, and every focal length is distortion-prone.

[FlyPenFly]

Sorry about that, didn't mean to imply aperture affects distortion! Oops. And also didn't mean to imply FF somehow makes it undistorted, indeed it brings it out even more.

My point was that the ZA 85mm shows minimal distortion.

[RSL]

Nope, can't buy into that, Russ, though I do think it would work better even more out. Hell, that's why your own street shot of the three people with the o-o-f girl in the background had such charm, quite apart from the story in the principal lady's face. To tell the truth, I don't think one should treat 'landscape-portraiture' or even landscape-without-people as different to the reality. I've never felt the need to see everything crisply at the same time; it's pretty well impossible to achieve, even intentionally in life: we always concentrate on something specific when we look, and the rest is just a peripheral early warning system to stop us falling off the edge.

Rob, I'd agree if, as you say, it could be more out. Seems to me it has to be either one or the other. The usual thing is to give that kind of scene the f/64 treatment. But it'd be good too if the background could show a Monet-style-sketch lack of sharpness. Pretty hard to do with a camera. In that shot of mine I was close in and it had a foreground and background that were out, emphasizing the plane of focus occupied by the woman. I was lucky with that one. I had the lens set at f/8 in aperture priority and there wasn't time to change, so, as the song says, I took what I could get.

I like the last version of Fly's shot. The background in that one is almost soft enough to satisfy. A little lens blur work in Photoshop could finish the job.