Odd composition

I know this breaks a few rules of composition but I like this particular photo very much. In fact, it is one of my favorite shots from the 33 Meters Squared series. Although, no one else seems to agree. Your thoughts?

George Holroyd said:

I like this particular photo very much. In fact, it is one of my favorite shots from the 33 Meters Squared series. Although, no one else seems to agree. Your thoughts?

George Holroyd: No. 6

From the series "33 Meters Squared"​

Click to expand...

i will agree on that George.

Thanks, Mark.

This is interesting, but what about a crop to a square format?

Jerome Marot said:

This is interesting, but what about a crop to a square format?

Click to expand...

Thank you for the suggestion, Jerome. I have resolved not to crop, beyond correcting distortion or straightening the horizon, and then only where doing so wouldn't cause me to lose too much resolution. If I wanted a square, I'd shoot medium format film. As it happens, I'm committed to digital and therefore, the 2:3 format. besides, I really like the texture of the floor in this photo.

George Holroyd said:

I know this breaks a few rules of composition but I like this particular photo very much. In fact, it is one of my favorite shots from the 33 Meters Squared series. Although, no one else seems to agree. Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Let's put aside, for later, one possible way of reading this, George. Theres not a lot of the figure to immediately evoke the rest of the body, so we can exclude that for first glances, at least as a start. So the immediate composition has to come from what's in the picture for real.




So, George,


It might fit in perfectly well in between others in series as there's carry over from one to the next. Here, however, by itself, there left foot appears, (just to me), to kind of "intrude". It could be because the rectangular bright reflection on the right is at angle and the highly detailed left foot takes away too much attention from the smooth folded shape on the right. That quiet coherence of the other photographs is not present in this one seen isolated.

Perhaps you have another shot you were holding back where both feet are interacting with the bright rectangle? Some variation of this might work better by itself.

Of course, if we stare and think a lot, an entire woman is present. Then everything might change.

Asher

Hi George,

I don't find this composition all that odd, and consider it a striking photograph -- both sensual and evocative.

I especially like the angled darkness at the top and the way it balances the imagined "darkness" off the bottom left corner. The parting of the legs and the leading lines of the floor support this and are quite suggestive. If what you're after is sensual mystery, you've got it, in my view.

The only thing I wonder about is the difference in processing between floor and legs -- one so rich and textured and the other with a Brandt-style treatment noticeably absent in detail. Some grays of the leg look mottled and unnatural on my monitor.

I have not seen others in the series, so perhaps that's consistent throughout. However, I can't help but wonder how the picture would look with comparable treatment of both, meaning a more natural skin texture in the legs. But that's an artistic decision that only you can make.

Overall, it strikes me as a wonderful example of the power of what's not seen over what's there before our eyes. I like that.

John

John Wolf said:

Hi George,

I don't find this composition all that odd, and consider it a striking photograph -- both sensual and evocative.

I especially like the angled darkness at the top and the way it balances the imagined "darkness" off the bottom left corner. The parting of the legs and the leading lines of the floor support this and are quite suggestive. If what you're after is sensual mystery, you've got it, in my view.

The only thing I wonder about is the difference in processing between floor and legs -- one so rich and textured and the other with a Brandt-style treatment noticeably absent in detail. Some grays of the leg look mottled and unnatural on my monitor.

I have not seen others in the series, so perhaps that's consistent throughout. However, I can't help but wonder how the picture would look with comparable treatment of both, meaning a more natural skin texture in the legs. But that's an artistic decision that only you can make.

Overall, it strikes me as a wonderful example of the power of what's not seen over what's there before our eyes. I like that.

John

Click to expand...

Thank you, John. I too, like the implied body that is off-frame and hoped to have the model appear relaxed, as if lounging. In actuality, Sarah was sort of taking a break from a pose that didn't work out. The treatment is uniform, there are no local adjustments to the shot, save for a couple of graduated filters in LR3 to balance the light on the left and right-hand sides. I shot this with a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 lens at f/5.6 on a tripod. The plain of focus is on the floor and her left foot, which makes the right thigh appear much softer.

Asher Kelman said:

Perhaps you have another shot you were holding back where both feet are interacting with the bright rectangle? Some variation of this might work better by itself.

Of course, if we stare and think a lot, an entire woman is present. Then everything might change.

Asher

Click to expand...

The only other photo in the series in which the hardwood floor figures prominently is the one below, which is a completely unrelated subject and composition.

George Holroyd said:

The only other photo in the series in which the hardwood floor figures prominently is the one below, which is a completely unrelated subject and composition.

George Holroyd: No. 31

From the series "33 Meters Squared"​

Click to expand...

George,

This is a satisfyingly unique and impressive image. It is finished and does not ask anything but to be experienced. Furthermore, it transports us to the same small locked in space as the pictures where your wife is the subject, in whole or part. Like the pictures with your wife, where her head is not seen, so in this image the sandals head has nor mid-tones and we must even just presume this is a cat, but that, from the picture is uncertain. So, like the pictures of your wife, the composition, not the identity is dominant here.

Although you have, by your right as the artist, classified this picture as being completely unrelated in subject and composition, similarities are in fact inherent and obvious. Putting aside the special human and personal status of your lovely and kind supportive wife, the cat does interact with the light pattern on the wood floor in a like manner. To the novel eye, these all bear your fingerprints and a common motif. But that's good. Art from your catalog should be recognizable and this far it is.

Thanks for sharing this special image.

Asher

Hi George, I think this is a very well chosen composition. It gives your subject more impact. And I particularly like the small patch of light on the floor. In my opinion it makes this picture look complete.

George Holroyd said:

Thank you for the suggestion, Jerome. I have resolved not to crop, beyond correcting distortion or straightening the horizon, and then only where doing so wouldn't cause me to lose too much resolution. If I wanted a square, I'd shoot medium format film. As it happens, I'm committed to digital and therefore, the 2:3 format. besides, I really like the texture of the floor in this photo.

Click to expand...

I wont put the image on the thread <<<Dont click here if your offended with pictures of boobs / babies / cats / or light...

this image has some similarities with this one.

i think you should use B&W film on this project.

i think colour may also be worth thing how to use?

have you started to print these and work on a sequence?

I have not started to print yet, but have been thinking of a final edit and sequence. I will probably end up having a set of 20x30 cm prints done at some point. Things are a bit up in the air for me at the moment so, it might be a while before that happens.

Mark, I really like the image you linked, thanks for bringing it my attention.

George Holroyd said:

I have not started to print yet, but have been thinking of a final edit and sequence. I will probably end up having a set of 20x30 cm prints done at some point. Things are a bit up in the air for me at the moment so, it might be a while before that happens.

Mark, I really like the image you linked, thanks for bringing it my attention.

Click to expand...

George,
how about printing small and working through the images like that. stick them on a wall and work them. sequences and relationships can be changed and read better that way - for me that is. i mean small prints (5/7) don't cost much.

cheers

I just checked with Picto, a local lab and they have 10x15 (4x6") direct prints on offer. I'll do that, as you said, to get a feel for the proper sequencing of the set. I'm also reducing the amount of photos on my site to just the one body of work.