The Dark Art of Composition

[Paulbe]

Stewart---thanks very much for the discussions.
Very informative, well worth the read.
Thanks again!
Paul

[Al Kaplan]

I want Kodak to bring back Ektachrome Infrared film.

Whoops! That magic orange filter I used to use with it went off with the rest of my 58mm filters last week. The film though, it was truely magic also.

I don't think that digital sensors see far enough into the infrared part of the sprctrum to get the same color rendition.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

[Keith]

Has anyone suggested this thread be made a 'sticky' yet?

When the occasional question about composition arises in a post it would be good to be refered to this thread!

[fuzk]

Thank you for the very informative read Stewart! And yes, like Keith suggested, this should be made into a sticky!

[BillP]

Originally Posted by shadowfox

...
Please skip this evolution *theory*...

Pardon? I was thoroughly enjoying this thread up to now.

Bill

[aniMal]

Thanks a lot, this was one of the best threads ever... Both the content and the slightly humorous tone - I wish more of the postings on the net had the same!

Will there be an encore???

[Bike Tourist]

One thing I have noticed, or think I've noticed is the lack of vertical oriented photos in the modern world. Is it the influence of television? Too much trouble to rotate the camera 90º? Or, maybe it's my imagination.

Too me, vertical compositions seem to be meeting the same fate as adverbs among athletes and sports writers.

[Richard G]

And to think this marvellous thread was here the whole time I've been a member. Thanks to Dick for bumping it back to current pages.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Originally Posted by Bike Tourist

One thing I have noticed, or think I've noticed is the lack of vertical oriented photos in the modern world. Is it the influence of television? Too much trouble to rotate the camera 90º? Or, maybe it's my imagination.

Too me, vertical compositions seem to be meeting the same fate as adverbs among athletes and sports writers.

The big-wigs (i.e. curators, portfolio reviewers) tend to frown on "portrait" photos vs. "landscape" photos. The "vertical"/"portrait" style is not the norm, and sometimes they stand out on their own merit (as opposed to the "distraction" committed upon big-wig viewers when mingled with other "landscape"/"horizontal" shots). Some get into a big tizzy over it. And I mean big. So, by applying the theory of "trickle-down", you can see (heh) that it tends to be segregated along the whole photo consumer (and I mean that in the visual, not commercial, sense) chain.

There will always (always always) be the "who cares!"-ist who either doesn't want to be bothered with what others want, but more with what he wants, and deride rules just for being rules.

I respect somebody's work who can successfully digest rules, and can also show when they can not be applied, and who doesn't go down the empty-calorie road of pointing out an exception as evidence that the rule is silly.

[BardParker]

Stewart, I just stumbled upon this thread, and it is fantastic! How about an encore? I am sending this thread to my daughter who is an art/ photography major in college.

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by BardParker

Stewart, I just stumbled upon this thread, and it is fantastic! How about an encore? I am sending this thread to my daughter who is an art/ photography major in college.

as one of those silly fellows who teaches this stuff, in college, i would hazard a guess that she is quite up to speed on this. Wucius usually rolls out in the first year of curriculum as a means or logic to discuss these things.

either way, a fabulous thread. i often wonder though, how much has this logic influenced our visual 'perception' of the world about us? did the need for a logic influence how we perceive harmony or is it naturally occurring? certainly 'pattern' in nature speaks to this.

[emraphoto]

Originally Posted by Gabriel M.A.

The big-wigs (i.e. curators, portfolio reviewers) tend to frown on "portrait" photos vs. "landscape" photos. The "vertical"/"portrait" style is not the norm, and sometimes they stand out on their own merit (as opposed to the "distraction" committed upon big-wig viewers when mingled with other "landscape"/"horizontal" shots). Some get into a big tizzy over it. And I mean big. So, by applying the theory of "trickle-down", you can see (heh) that it tends to be segregated along the whole photo consumer (and I mean that in the visual, not commercial, sense) chain.

There will always (always always) be the "who cares!"-ist who either doesn't want to be bothered with what others want, but more with what he wants, and deride rules just for being rules.

I respect somebody's work who can successfully digest rules, and can also show when they can not be applied, and who doesn't go down the empty-calorie road of pointing out an exception as evidence that the rule is silly.

which has occurred in history. during the renaissance the ideas of volume and linear perspective became de rigueur. the exploration of said concept has disappeared and reappeared, or its relevance challenged, numerous times. Cubism was preceded by the common idea that volume was understood and thus it was unnecessary to spend so much time
(and canvas) on 'explaining' it to us.

[Bill Clark]

Any thoughts on composition when making photographs of people?

Two additional topics to think about:

Posing
Lighting

Your thoughts?

Thanks!

[Brucefg]

see this photo, black and white

by hohn Vincent on Flickr