• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Composition Question

R

Rachel Foster

New member
I am wondering if there is enough in this image compositionally to make it interesting. Also, I cropped more centered than I usually do. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.

ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/400.

smbeachedit.jpg


Beach Debris: Jacob Eliana 2010​
 
M

Mark Hampton

New member
Rachel Foster said:
I am wondering if there is enough in this image compositionally to make it interesting. Also, I cropped more centered than I usually do. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.

ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/400.

smbeachedit.jpg


Beach Debris: Jacob Eliana 2010​
Click to expand...

Rachel,
I think the image tells of your undecided nature in relation to it. Are you interested in the debris / or the out/on coming waves - or the area in between. You could crop the image to take out the wave and maybe clean up the debris..

I would want to ken what your were trying to say with the image... really start from there and work into this image or reshoot with more clarity..

are there more like this?

cheers

ps. you could change it to B&W - Split it - flip left and right and put a black redaction in it !!
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
I think you're spot on. I'm conflicted on how to get what I want. I want both the waves and the debris, but I am concerned that unless I zero in on the debris that part will get lost. I think I "want my cake and eat it, too."

I have several shots of this. A slightly different view:

sm2232.jpg


Beach Debris 2: Jacob Eliana 2010​
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel Foster said:
I am wondering if there is enough in this image compositionally to make it interesting. Also, I cropped more centered than I usually do. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.

ISO 200, f/7.1, 1/400.

smbeachedit.jpg


Beach Debris: Jacob Eliana 2010​
Click to expand...

First, tell me you shot more. Then rachel we can have fun!

If you are going to make the flotsam of vegetation key, then do so. Drop down, use the sky and oncoming water as background, or go above it, getting a position where your own shadow is not on it and then photograph against the sand.

Your water and sand, here, at least, seem to add nothing but distraction.

That's why I think you need coverage from many different angles and then study it at home when you have more time. Of course, if you do have time, then get a square with your fingers to frame from up down and all around. Choosing that angle plus the time is the key to the composition.

Can it be improved. Probably, but then we'd need the full size image.

Asher
 
Doug Kerr

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Rachel,

Rachel Foster said:
I think you're spot on. I'm conflicted on how to get what I want. I want both the waves and the debris, but I am concerned that unless I zero in on the debris that part will get lost. I think I "want my cake and eat it, too."

I have several shots of this. A slightly different view:

sm2232.jpg


Beach Debris 2: Jacob Eliana 2010​
Click to expand...
I actually like this one better.

Best regards,

Doug
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
I have 3 or 4 shots of this. It was only mildly interesting at the time, and has only begun to capture my interest almost a year later. (It's odd how I need time before I can evaluate what I shoot!)

The debris, solo, looks like this:

sm2233.jpg

Beach Debris 3: Jacob Eliana 2010​

I think it needs more.
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Asher Kelman said:
First, tell me you shot more. Then rachel we can have fun!

If you are going to make the flotsam of vegetation key, then do so. Drop down, use the sky and oncoming water as background, or go above it, getting a position where your own shadow is not on it and then photograph against the sand.

Your water and sand, here, at least, seem to add nothing but distraction.

Asher
Click to expand...

Yes, I think a low angle would have done the trick.
 
J

Joachim Bolte

New member
How is this working for you?

recropped to square ratio, piece of rope at 1/3's from the bottom. Upped the colors a bit so it would seem that the rope was lying in the sunset, waiting for the ocean to carry it away again. Also sharpened the rop a bit to give it a more rugged, harsh look in contrast to the soft water.
9ibuh5.jpg
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Joachim Bolte said:
How is this working for you?

recropped to square ratio, piece of rope at 1/3's from the bottom. Upped the colors a bit so it would seem that the rope was lying in the sunset, waiting for the ocean to carry it away again. Also sharpened the rop a bit to give it a more rugged, harsh look.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of telling a story with it (waiting for the waves). I like that a lot.
 
J

Joachim Bolte

New member
If you feel like it, try breaking away from cropping at 2:3 or 3:4 ratio. 16:9 is the logical step, but more exotic crops can do wonders for your composition.

And as with every media, photography is ALL about storytelling. and never the reality, always a subjective impression.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel Foster said:
I have 3 or 4 shots of this. It was only mildly interesting at the time, and has only begun to capture my interest almost a year later. (It's odd how I need time before I can evaluate what I shoot!)

The debris, solo, looks like this:
Click to expand...

sm2233.jpg

Beach Debris 3: Jacob Eliana 2010​

Where is the rest of the trail of debris. how could you crop it off when you take the picture. Unless we are a wedding photographers or the like, (where one is an ace in that work, day after day and can hit the composition each and every time), shoot wider. We need to end up with the impression of a "unit" of art. By that I mean that, whether or not its complete as a real thing is, it appears to be complete as a composition bounded by it's frame and placed alone on the table or wall or else in the context of the book, gallery or exhibition where it's shown.

Here, we have a far better view but the trailing edge, something quite interesting, is missing. why? For what it's worth, I'd be prepared to clone in the needed extra from your other picture.

Still, where are the other pictures, Rachel, what about views of the water? You must have more! We need to get the full gestalt of the place to do better.

Asher
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel, allow the following:

To those who don't know of Rachel's non-landscape work, it's remarkable for some exceptional portraits of flowers and portraits of people. I'm amazed at the huge gap between those and this.

Landscapes are so entirely different! It might be that people and flowers contain more emotion and Rachel as a "people-person" innately picks up the vibe of feelings and sensibilities of what's found around her in her everyday life indoors. Probably, we all have some esthetic islands where we naturally excel. This, in itself, I find fascinating.

Asher
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
That's why I spend so much time on landscapes, actually. I"m trying to unlock the secret. It's my weakest area and why I'm committed to mastering it.
 
K

Ken Tanaka

pro member
1. What prompted you to take the picture at all?

2. Are you simply ignoring the powerful form and gesture here? That "debris" looks like a dead animal, particularly with that leaf sticking up.
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Ken, I'm often not able to articulate what motivates me to shoot. When asked that question, I don't think in terms of shape and form (and that might be what causes my deficiency in scenics). My answer would be that I was intrigued by the juxtaposition of waste (death) with the water (life). Maybe if I pushed myself to go beyond the symbolic and think of it in terms of shape, I would see an improvement. I'll give that a try.
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel Foster said:
Ken, I'm often not able to articulate what motivates me to shoot. When asked that question, I don't think in terms of shape and form (and that might be what causes my deficiency in scenics). My answer would be that I was intrigued by the juxtaposition of waste (death) with the water (life). Maybe if I pushed myself to go beyond the symbolic and think of it in terms of shape, I would see an improvement. I'll give that a try.
Click to expand...

You have a harder task then! with a flower you say, this rose shows female sensuous allure. now you have a task to demonstrate that and you can deliver. With a person you say this girl feels isolated and you can make that too. All are related to discrete ideas about which you have to do little searching to know the meaning.

Here, just the idea of showing water as life versus debris as death, would seem far harder to pull off, just casually, in passing, as you have attempted portraits are in all ways, closer to home for you.

If we're lucky, we might discover how other artists have developed such ideas. After all these are not new, but the location might be novel. For me, I'd do the best job I could then take it home and return for another try later when I've sketched out my ideas. That's how I'd approach this.

Asher
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Actually, Ken's question has raised a fascinating question and possible answers to why I am better with portraits and flowers than scenics. I shoot from emotion, not design, it would seem. Now, if only I can do both at the same time --- emotion AND design --- I might be able to do something interesting!
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel Foster said:
Actually, Ken's question has raised a fascinating question and possible answers to why I am better with portraits and flowers than scenics. I shoot from emotion, not design, it would seem. Now, if only I can do both at the same time --- emotion AND design --- I might be able to do something interesting!
Click to expand...

Rachel, you know more about people and have been trained to watch them and read their emotions and drives. That's part of your being. Flowers are single units or clusters of one type of thing and a rose has rich poetry behind it. These are your familiar things.

A still life sketching class could do wonders, especially when you have to assemble the composition. With a good teacher and classmates reacting with each other's work, you will learn faster than just struggling in this strange world, expecting so much as you walk by what the waves drop on the beach.

Either way, I think sketching and experimenting with different viewpoints are needed. Even try to articulate your ideas in scribble or primitive doodles. However, you are going to be hard-pressed to externalize an idea that you have not yet framed and who's importance doesn't drive you with passion.

IOW, what's missing is the idea and form it could or should be. You do have passion to carry through something but it's undefined. So currently you are left "picking up shells from the beach", that's all. There's nothing wrong with that. Gather them up and look at them at home. Eventually you will come up with your controlling idea as you experiment.

Asher
 
Asher Kelman

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Rachel Foster said:
I've been sketching but atrociously. I think a class is a wonderful idea.
Click to expand...

Rachel,

Even when you represent what you see by overlapping triangles, circles and rectangles with bold curved strokes to join thing together, then there's already a major groundwork achieved in training. Ignore details of things just shapes and how light and dark they are and how one blocks the other, balances or sets up a tension.

Light, shadow, forms, movement and dynamics are more important than any detail you might struggle with.

Asher
 
Alain Briot

Alain Briot

pro member
Questions about image validity

Two interesting questions when pondering the effectiveness of an image are:

"Would I print it 40x50 and hang it in a prominent location in my home?"

And:

"Would I feature it in a portfolio whose goal is to showcase my finest work?"

Valuable answers can be had by answering these two questions honestly. Plus, you don't need to tell the answer to anyone either if you don't feel like it !
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Alain, I think no answers both questions. What I don't quite know is "why?" What's preventing this from being an image I would answer "yes" to?

Ken mentioned the shape of the debris. I can't, as yet, "see" it separated from the water. That might be one way of finding the answer.
 
K

Ken Tanaka

pro member
Rachel,
Every type of photography (excepting scientific) relies upon relationships. Most basically, every photo attempts to establish a relationship with its viewer. Some convey information , some attempt to invoke emotional response, recollection, imagination, etc. This relationship begins instantly with 99.99% of viewers first asking "What is it?". Whether or not viewers can quickly decode that answer, during the next few seconds they'll move on to ask, "What's important here? What's s/he trying to show me?".

Those questions represent your dialog with every viewer of every image you show. So if you want to convey anything to these people you're going to have to anticipate these reflexive questions. Don't leave answers to chance. Take control of them by making sure that you've asked, and answered, them for yourself before you press that darn button.

You answer these questions by establishing another layer of relationships, this time between elements in your image. Spacial relationships. Figurative relationships. Gestural relationships. That's what the camera's for. You move it. You use optical tricks to get things done.

Long-winded way to suggest that you've chewed this cud long enough. Time to try, try again by considering what you want to convey with such a subject and then considering possibilities for using that camera to paint the visual relationships required.

(From a purely compositional perspective -whatever the hell that means- go back to that Harald Mante book with this image. I think you'll find his lessons very accessible and useful for this image.)
 
K

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Ken said it...

I haven't had much time to post here, but when I saw the photograph it made me think of a teacher I studied privately with about 10-12 years ago. When we'd show him a slide in critique he's always first tell us to answer first "What is it an image of?" We have to know the subject first. We can discover we are wong about it as we study it, but Ken was very eloquent in his post above.
 
R

Rachel Foster

New member
Excellent advice, all. Thank you. I've got a lot to think about (as does other people struggling with compositional questions.) Again, thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top