Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: JohnKoerner on September 10, 2011, 06:47:53 pm
-
I was curious to hear opinions as to which of these compostions seems to work best:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra2.jpg) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra2.jpg)
1. Landscape, off-center
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra1.jpg) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra1.jpg)
2. Portrait, high
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra3.jpg) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra3.jpg)
3. Traditional, bullseye
Which composition honestly creates the best presentation?
Number 1?
Number 2?
Number 3?
Do two of them work?
Do all of them work?
Do all of them suck?
Thanks for any feedback,
Jack
.
-
Jack, I hate to mention the rule of thirds, but #1 is the best composition of the three -- because of the rule of thirds -- not in an academic sense but just because it really works in this case, as it often does.
-
Russ is right as usual.
The same elements occur in all three, but #1 has them spread in a way that makes a more interesting balance.
How much time did you spend training your butterfly? ;)
Eric
-
Jack, for me, the bullseye doesn't work at all, the landscape isn't too bad, but feels top-heavy, and the portrait version is very nice and feels balanced. I look at macro and near-macro work as portraits, so prefer the portrait orientation. In addition, most plants and flowers are vertical subjects, so the portrait orientation works better for me.
Alan
-
The bullseye doesn't work at all. The portrait is okay, but for me the landscape #1 is the best and most natural of the three. It just "feels" best. The subject has plenty of room, the eye can wander around and pick up all sorts of environmental information, and yet the eye is led back to the subject every time. Nice frame.
-
I love #1..
-
All of them work.
We (photographers) often forget that we shoot mostly for the general public, and rarely, if ever, for other photographers. We also tend to forget that photography has a utilitarian function as well, not just being fine art. Photographs like these might have a number of utilitarian uses, not least of which is illustrations for magazine articles and covers. In that sense (e.g., magazine cover), having a portrait version can be very useful. It also makes sense not to compose too tight, as magazines might need a lot of "empty" space around for text.
So, keep doing them in multiple versions. And here is one you forgot (square):
-
So, keep doing them in multiple versions. And here is one you forgot (square):
Yes. That's the best. ;D
-
I agree that Square should always be considered.
For me, the Landscape works the best. Rule of thirds and also golden mean come to mind with it - not because of that do I like it, but I am not surprised that it appeals the most when I see that it tends to tick both those boxes.
The bullseye is not very interesting, but would work for a text book or study review (so, it does depend on the audience). I like the square - it's more interesting than the bullseye while presenting in a similar way.
I find the portrait to be the weakest. It's not an elongated subject and we're not really used to see then in that way, (which might very well be a reason to use it at times, but not this time).
-
Just to be a dissenting voice, I don't like #1 because the stem obfuscates the right tail of the butterfly, and it is a swallowtail after all. Because of the long tails I'd also avoid #3 as it represents to me a vertical subject caught in a landscape frame. Therefore I'd go for #2, but the square could work.
Mike.
-
Jack, I hate to mention the rule of thirds, but #1 is the best composition of the three -- because of the rule of thirds -- not in an academic sense but just because it really works in this case, as it often does.
Russ is right as usual.
The same elements occur in all three, but #1 has them spread in a way that makes a more interesting balance.
How much time did you spend training your butterfly? ;)
Eric
The bullseye doesn't work at all. The portrait is okay, but for me the landscape #1 is the best and most natural of the three. It just "feels" best. The subject has plenty of room, the eye can wander around and pick up all sorts of environmental information, and yet the eye is led back to the subject every time. Nice frame.
I love #1..
I agree that Square should always be considered.
For me, the Landscape works the best. Rule of thirds and also golden mean come to mind with it - not because of that do I like it, but I am not surprised that it appeals the most when I see that it tends to tick both those boxes.
The bullseye is not very interesting, but would work for a text book or study review (so, it does depend on the audience). I like the square - it's more interesting than the bullseye while presenting in a similar way.
I find the portrait to be the weakest. It's not an elongated subject and we're not really used to see then in that way, (which might very well be a reason to use it at times, but not this time).
Thanks for the feedback, guys, #1 is also the most natural-feeling for me too.
Jack
PS: Eric, I spent no time training that butterfly. (However, it is amazing what 30 min in the refrigerator will do to slow a subject down enough to facilitiate multiple shooting opportunities ;) )
-
Jack, for me, the bullseye doesn't work at all, the landscape isn't too bad, but feels top-heavy, and the portrait version is very nice and feels balanced. I look at macro and near-macro work as portraits, so prefer the portrait orientation. In addition, most plants and flowers are vertical subjects, so the portrait orientation works better for me.
Alan
Just to be a dissenting voice, I don't like #1 because the stem obfuscates the right tail of the butterfly, and it is a swallowtail after all. Because of the long tails I'd also avoid #3 as it represents to me a vertical subject caught in a landscape frame. Therefore I'd go for #2, but the square could work.
Mike.
Thanks for the feedback Alan & Mike. My girlfriend agrees with you and likes the portrait shot best too. She is much like Riaan, and prefers shooting almost everything she does in portrait mode hereself. I like this perspective as well, but prefer #1 by just a tad.
Mike, interesting catch there with the butterfly wing. I appreciate your hawk-like eye (or should I say "Owl-like" eye? ;) ), and normally I would agree with you. However, I believe the white border of this butterfly's tail makes it stand out clearly against the stem of the flower, and so nothing is lost by its alignment with it IMO. And in fact the square composition that Slobodan suggested, that you also say works, is likewise taken from #1 :)
Jack
.
-
All of them work.
We (photographers) often forget that we shoot mostly for the general public, and rarely, if ever, for other photographers. We also tend to forget that photography has a utilitarian function as well, not just being fine art. Photographs like these might have a number of utilitarian uses, not least of which is illustrations for magazine articles and covers. In that sense (e.g., magazine cover), having a portrait version can be very useful. It also makes sense not to compose too tight, as magazines might need a lot of "empty" space around for text.
So, keep doing them in multiple versions. And here is one you forgot (square):
Yes. That's the best. ;D
Interesting twist, Slobodan. As usual, you give me a perspective I had not considered, so thank you for that.
The reasons you listed for taking multiple shots in general are exactly my thinking behind doing so for this butterfly: multiple applications from fine art, to a magazine cover, for a species ID book, etc. Normally, in the past, I would have just taken the "bullseye" shot (#3) and filled the frame with the butterfly. However, in trying to develop an artistic perspective, I have been experimenting with different compositions to see which one(s) harmonizes the best. The Zebra Swallowtail happens to be my favorite butterfly, so I wanted to take multiple shots of it before this season ends.
Regarding your squared suggestion, I have to admit that Russ has me programmed "never to crop," so for me not maintaining the "original photographic dimensions" seems to be a sin (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
However, the crop you did does remove some arguably wasted-space, and might fit better in (say) a magazine column article, where (just thinking about it now) I have seen many photos cropped for reasons of space.
So thanks again for the suggestion,
Jack
.
-
Jack, I hate to mention the rule of thirds, but #1 is the best composition of the three -- because of the rule of thirds -- not in an academic sense but just because it really works in this case, as it often does.
PS: One more thing Russ: doesn't #2 (Portrait Mode) also satisfy The Rule of Thirds?: 1/3rd purple flowers, 1/3rd butterfly, 1/3rd plant leaves below?
Maybe not exactly, but pretty close?
Thanks again,
Jack
.
-
In #1, the tail superimposed over the stem leads my eye down and out of the picture. I have to force it back to the butterfly and its flower. In number 2, though, I can look at all the interesting stuff without being dragged away.
-
In #1, the tail superimposed over the stem leads my eye down and out of the picture. I have to force it back to the butterfly and its flower. In number 2, though, I can look at all the interesting stuff without being dragged away.
Thank you for providing your opinion, Dale.
In honor of Mike, who first pointed this out, as well as to satisfy your affirmation of this view, I offer another (similar) perspective of this same butterfly which addresses this issue:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra5.jpg) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra5.jpg)
4. Landscape, tail problem corrected
I also added a new "twist" for those who preferred the portrait version ... and that is another portrait version, but this one off-centered also:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra4.jpg) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/POSTS/zebra4.jpg)
5. Portrait, off-center
Curious to see if these alternatives change any opinions :)
A big thanks again for all who have taken the time to comment and provide their opinions and insights!
Jack
.
-
The new portrait version is very nice. Again, it's loose enough to provide a lot of information and framing. It would make a great magazine cover, with room for copy.
I did not have a problem with the stem/tail issue, but the new landscape version fixes that.
In both versions, and the original landscape, I particularly like the sense of depth provided by the other flowers in varying degrees of focus.
-
The new portrait version is very nice. Again, it's loose enough to provide a lot of information and framing. It would make a great magazine cover, with room for copy.
I did not have a problem with the stem/tail issue, but the new landscape version fixes that.
In both versions, and the original landscape, I particularly like the sense of depth provided by the other flowers in varying degrees of focus.
Thank you again for taking the time to comment.
In consideration of all the comments you and others have made, I re-worked several of my images, and in particular I found another example to use for Number 2 (hit "Refresh" on your browser). This was the exact same shot as what I posted originally for Number 2, except I brought it back just a bit to allow more room at the top for the flowers, which I think is important.
I was able to take over 40 shots of this butterfly before he warmed-up and flew away, and was trying to consider as many options as I could to develop my "eye" for good compositions, so I sincerely appreciate everyone's helping me analyze the strengths/weaknesses of these compositions. Your comments regarding depth ... Russ's & Farmer's take on "The Rule of Thirds" (though I am not sure what "The Golden Mean" is) ... Mike's on the tail being in alignment with the stem ... Alan's comments on the portrait perspective in general ... and Slobodan's option of The Square ... have all give me plenty of food for thought to rub my chin over as I work with these images and consider my next opportunity.
So a big "Thank you" again :)
Jack
.
-
Just to be a dissenting voice, I don't like #1 because the stem obfuscates the right tail of the butterfly, and it is a swallowtail after all. Because of the long tails I'd also avoid #3 as it represents to me a vertical subject caught in a landscape frame. Therefore I'd go for #2, but the square could work.
Mike.
I'm glad you wrote that, Mike, since it's exactly what I felt. #1 does give the best feel as an image overall but is spoiled for me by the overlap of the tail and the stem.
I always get worried when I'm about to disagree with Russ, though ;)
Jeremy
Edit: having now scrolled down to the bottom of the thread (I must control my itchy fingers) I'll vote for #4.
-
#5 is the clear winner to me, a nice clean vertical/portrait composition suits the subject and flowers very well, and as Slobodan indicates, leaving breathing room around the main object makes this an effective layout for illustrative purposes.
All nice shots, but definitely #5 gets my vote.
Dave (UK)
-
I'm glad you wrote that, Mike, since it's exactly what I felt. #1 does give the best feel as an image overall but is spoiled for me by the overlap of the tail and the stem.
I always get worried when I'm about to disagree with Russ, though ;)
Jeremy
Edit: having now scrolled down to the bottom of the thread (I must control my itchy fingers) I'll vote for #4.
#5 is the clear winner to me, a nice clean vertical/portrait composition suits the subject and flowers very well, and as Slobodan indicates, leaving breathing room around the main object makes this an effective layout for illustrative purposes.
All nice shots, but definitely #5 gets my vote.
Dave (UK)
Thank you very much for your comments, Jeremy and Dave, I appreciate both of you taking the time.
All of this "nitpicking" has made me think more deeply about my compositions, and made me really feel unsatisfied with most of the 40+ shots I have taken (which is a good thing!) If I make it my business to take nitpicking to the extreme, I think I have to change my own vote to #2. My reasoning is it is the "cleanest" image out of the lot of them. Mike and Jeremy's pointing out of the tail disorder of #1 has now spoiled that image for me, LOL. I personally like the close "bullseye" shot for book purposes (because that is what I am used to seeing), but yet I am now noticing that the tip of the flower is cut-off in that one (I should have pulled back just a bit and included it).
With this added criterion in mind (namely a clean background with no clipped flowers), I feel #1 is likewise a little snug up top by the flowers--and clips them in half at the bottom of the foreground. So, to me, Numbers 1 and 3 have to be ruled out. If I re-examine Numbers 4 and 5, they also have clipped flowers--and while I like the layout of #5 a little better, I am less comfortable looking at half-a-flower lengthwise in #5 than I am looking at just the top of the flowers in #4. (For some reason, it seems "okay" just to see the tops of the flowers in the foreground of #4, but a blunder to see them cut-in-half lengthwise in #5.)
So I think it is between #2 and #4 now. Number 2 has to be considered the cleanest image, and yet the flower tops in #4 add to its dimensional feel, but I just don't like that clipped leaf behind them ...
Hmmm, at what point does a person become too nitpicky to enjoy his own images anymore? (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Thanks again for the feedback!
Jack
.
-
All nice shots, but definitely #5 gets my vote.
Dave (UK)
+1
Alan
-
Jack, I'll go with #5 also, though I think people are infinitely more interesting than butterflies.
-
... I think people are infinitely more interesting than butterflies.
Ah, Russ, but you seem to forget there are at least two people present in each photograph: the photographer and the viewer.
Dismissing no-people images is like dismissing the whole opus of instrumental music, e.g., all the great symphonies and concertos, in favor of vocal music. Consider an image of a butterfly as a musical etude, where the harmony of nature's shapes and colors meets the photographer's harmonious capture, ending in a visual harmony, just like a musician is attempting to create a sonic harmony.
-
Well, somehow I missed Jack in the picture, Slobodan, but you've hit on something by chance: As far as I'm concerned, the greatest composer of all time is Giacomo Puccini, and he wrote a lot of what I guess you'd call "vocal music." I'm also very much attracted to the music of Joe Green (Verdi). But then, I'm also a serious fan of Beethoven, Chopin, Mendelssohn, and several others in that vein.
Actually I don't dismiss no-people images. As you well know, since you've gone through my web, I shoot them all the time. But if I want to see great pictures of flowers I pick up a seed catalog, and if I want to see great pictures of butterflies I look up one of the books my lepidopterist aunt used to have all over her house.
-
Ah, Russ, but you seem to forget there are at least two people present in each photograph: the photographer and the viewer.
Dismissing no-people images is like dismissing the whole opus of instrumental music, e.g., all the great symphonies and concertos, in favor of vocal music. Consider an image of a butterfly as a musical etude, where the harmony of nature's shapes and colors meets the photographer's harmonious capture, ending in a visual harmony, just like a musician is attempting to create a sonic harmony.
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for expressing it so well, Slobodan.
Eric
-
Well, somehow I missed Jack in the picture...
What, you did not notice that delicate flower in the background? ;)
-
Well, I saw it, but since it wasn't wearing a gun I didn't realize it was Jack. ;D
-
+1
Alan
Thanks Alan. I just finished Photoshopping-out the offending flower in the foreground, while leaving the clean flower in the foreground, and this amended version is now my favorite as well.
Jack
.
-
Jack, I'll go with #5 also, though I think people are infinitely more interesting than butterflies.
Thanks for your vote, Russ.
Your opinions on people versus butterflies (or nature in general) are yours, however, and certainly not mine. I know you prefer street photography, and that's fine, and (while I privately consider photographing people without their concent as intrusive) I still try to see "in it" what you as the photographer are seeing. Hopefully, you can see the beauty in the photos I took too.
Since you want to compare what is "interesting," the truth is I can see and photograph hundreds of people a day if I want to go to the city (yawn), while from a novelty perspective I haven't seen a Zebra Swallowtail in weeks ... and a perfect specimen like this in months :D
As far as the "spiritual" experience of photography goes, I would venture to say that most people find a deeper sense of serenity and peace in nature than they will ever find it within big cities full of people. Honestly, I consider most street photography to be a sad commentary on humanity. As Nietzsche said, "I fear that the animals consider man as a being like themselves that has lost in a most dangerous way its sound animal common sense; they consider man the insane animal, the laughing animal, the weeping animal, the miserable animal." And, almost without exception, most "street" photos merely provide a sad testimony to this fact.
I much prefer to enjoy the beauty and harmony of nature :D
Jack
.
-
Ah, Russ, but you seem to forget there are at least two people present in each photograph: the photographer and the viewer.
Dismissing no-people images is like dismissing the whole opus of instrumental music, e.g., all the great symphonies and concertos, in favor of vocal music. Consider an image of a butterfly as a musical etude, where the harmony of nature's shapes and colors meets the photographer's harmonious capture, ending in a visual harmony, just like a musician is attempting to create a sonic harmony.
Well said.
Russ' views are exactly the opposite of my own: I consider any evidence of humanity in a photograph to be a negative (pardon the pun) (http://www.johnkoerner.org/Emoticons/lol.gif)
Jack
.
-
What, you did not notice that delicate flower in the background? ;)
Well, I saw it, but since it wasn't wearing a gun I didn't realize it was Jack. ;D
LOL, don't you old phogeys have anything better to do than pick on me? :'(
.