Looking for elements of composition

While strolling with my wife one evening, I came upon this scene.  At first, I was drawn to the repeated elements of the steps, and the placement of the couple.  I didn't want to be too obtrusive, so I just snapped the shot without taking too much time and moved on.  My thinking at the time was that the vertical composition would work with the steps going upward in the frame.  And while it was not a wonderful photo opportunity, I felt certain that something interesting was in there.  

So, I got back to do the post processing and at least straighten up the frame, etc.  But in the process I decided to crop out some extraneous dead space and such, so I switched to landscape orientation so I could emphasize the couple. 

And that's when a sort of magical thing happened.  I realized that there were additional compositional elements in the photo that I had, frankly, not noticed at first.  Here is my crop:

First of all, I like this much better because the crop has pulled the foreground couple closer and made them more of a focus.  But by doing that I noticed a happy accident in the background.

There are actually three couples arranged in a triangle on the right side of the frame.  Ok, I know my red markup looks more like Mickey Mouse head, but I was just pointing out the location of the three couples.  The steps work to direct the eye upward to the right, toward the couples.  So that was cool.  But from a balance standpoint, something else was there.

This guy.  Standing off the the left.  In this crop he is prominent enough to actually become a compositional element in two ways.  First, he works in opposition to the foreground couple on the right.  Imagine a balance with the fulcrum near the center of the frame, near the couple, and the guy off on the long arm of the balance.  They are 'heavy' on the lower right, but he is trying to balance the composition by being separated at a distance.  The long lever arm leaves the impression that he could weigh down the long arm and balance out the weight of the couple.

So, whatever, right?  It's kinda thin, I admit.  But still the balance of weights in a composition is important and provides another element of subliminal experience in the viewer.  But here is the most important compositional element in the storytelling sense:

On the right side of the frame are three couples, and on the left side is a single man.  Plus, there is something about the way he is standing there that also creates tension.  It's a place where couples go to stroll and sit and look at the streets of Rome, but he has no partner.  At a glance, you might not notice, but if you look at the photo for a minute, you begin to think about the back story possibilities, why is he alone, etc.  At least, that's what I do.

Saving a shot

Often you will find yourself in situations with bad lighting.  Noonday sun, for example, that over exposes everything and simultaneously creates impenetrable shadows.  Or night time scenes (which we will focus on specifically later).  Or building interiors.  Or dusk.  There are innumerable situations where your eye sees everything just fine, but the camera sensor, not so much.

But have heart, many of these situations are salvageable.  Take this shot for example.  It's a crop from a larger image, and although it is not in finished form, you can see possibilities.  But can you see the possibilities in the original image?

Hmmm.  It's a stretch.  This was an offhand street shot where the camera chose to meter on the sky, leaving everything else in almost total darkness.  Or so it seems.

But I have shot a lot with this camera (Olympus OMD EM5-II) and I know it has the ability to pull up useable images from the mud.  So when I looked at the viewfinder, I saw a nice sky and some illumination in the foreground, and I felt like I could save it.

The first thing I did was to adjust the exposure, which I could do pretty well since I shot the original in raw format.  Here is the result:

By adjusting the exposure in the foreground, I was able to save the sky and bring up details.

Next, I adjusted the crop.

That's pretty good.  Yeah, I know things are all angle-y, but she is pretty straight and because she is looking up to the right of the frame, you don't mind the tilt of the background so much.  Next, I brightened her up a little:

So, this seems ok, and maybe better than ok.  And I am thinking this is a keeper, but it does have some issues.  First of all, since it was getting dark, when I pulled up the exposure I pulled up a lot of noise with it.  At this size, you can't really see that, but if you blew up the image on the screen, it is obvious. Filtering out the noise softened the image so much that it was very noticeably smoothed, and the texture on the background structures was lost altogether.  So I scrapped that idea.

Instead, I used my patented trick for saving bad photos: IMTDT (I Meant To Do That).  I used this technique three ways, just to see what would happen.  Never be afraid to experiment with digital photos, just make sure you save your work early and often.

First, I altered the color grade and introduced MORE noise.

You probably don't notice the extra noise I introduced in this version, but on a larger scale it is definitely there.  It was designed to give a fashion treatment, but I thought it would work here.  And it does.  The addition of the noise provides a little magazine/print subtlety.  Not for everyone, but it works.

Next, I intentionally increased the contrast.

This treatment gives a very different, more dramatic effect.  But you lose the clouds.  Eh, can't have everything I suppose.  I like this version too, because of the increased contrast. It actually takes your mind off any noise issues.

And finally, I did my patented (just kidding) black and white conversion to see how that would work out.

This one, too, has extra noise thrown in to simulate film grain.  I can't say I like this one better than the others, but I do like it.  Notice how the addition of a little film grain has actually pulled up detail in her hair, which was blowing slightly in the evening breeze.  Makes it feel like there is a little motion in the image that I didn't feel in the other versions.

So, did I do anything worthwhile?  You decide.  Keep in mind that she was just standing there, overlooking the ruins of the Forum in Rome, and taking in all the historical significance.  And thinking, and wondering.  Which of the images conveys that emotion the best?

More Composition Basics

I like Alfred Eisenstadt photos.  He had a long and illustrious career in photography, and when you think of news photography of the Time and Life Magazine ilk, it's probably his photos that come to your mind.  Like this one, the famous kiss on VE Day in Times Square.  By the way, I borrowed this image from the interweb someplace (actually, this place) so go there and read the article if you like.  It's cool from an art history perspective.

But don't take it too seriously.  Eisenstadt did not compose his photos using the principles described in excruciating detail.  Who could do that?  But the article is not suggesting that he did, only that we like his images because they followed certain presumably immutable laws of composition.  Once again, I will fall back on my Ansel Adams quote "There are no rules for good photographs.  There are just good photographs."

Having said that, I will actually say that the elements of composition that make one photograph more interesting than another photograph should be studied and thought about as you practice training your eye with the camera.

Let's take a look at another photo I took a couple of years ago while visiting the Outer Banks of North Carolina.

Let's break this image down into some compositional elements, just for fun.

First, the background defines the frame, so check this out:

Note that the image is divided into a lighter block on the top and a darker one on the bottom, and that the horizon is not exactly in the center of the frame.  The darker portion of the background at the bottom provides weight and sort of anchors the frame. You sort of imagine that the bottom portion is heavy, and the top portion (sky) is light, and the proportion is such that the heavier part is smaller than the lighter part, providing a sort of balance.  Like one of those old punching bags we had as kids (well, I did anyway), there is something heavy on the bottom and the top is full of air, such that if I gave it a shove, it would rock back and forth but finally settle back into this configuration.

Next, note that the composition in broad terms is geometric except for the figure.  It's all blocks and lines and triangles and angles, except for the curve of the body.  Like this:

I know this is getting messy, but hopefully you see my point.  The figure, through its curvature, stands out against the other elements that are linear.  And that produces some interest as well as separation of the figure from the ground.

Finally, take a look at this:

The figure is leaning in such a way that you imagine he is about to fall into the water, and only that thin line in his hand is preventing this disaster!  In fact, you almost want to tilt your own body in the opposite direction when you look at this photo, to prevent the accident that seems about to happen.

And that provides the movement and tension in the photo.

Now, I obviously did not set this photo up with the sailor.  But I did recognize that as he worked I might find a decent image that communicated the feeling of being  on the boat.  The original shot looked like this:

You can see that I cropped this to make the more interesting photo above from this not very interesting shot.  But, like I keep saying, for me the fun is to use the camera to capture a potential image, and then going to hunt for it in post production.

Photo Composition Fundamentals

Let's start with another Ansel Adams quote:

"There are no rules for good photographs.  There are only good photographs."

That's easy for Ansel Adams to say.  For the rest of us, there are definitely some rules we need to at least keep in mind, so our photographs will be better.

Elements of Composition

The difference between a boring snapshot and an interesting photograph is almost always the composition.  OK, sometimes it's also the subject, but I maintain that good composition can make even a boring subject more interesting.

So, what sorts of things comprise good composition?

Composition rule 1:  Symmetry is boring

We naturally gravitate, for some reason, toward symmetry.  At least, we do when we are not behaving as artists.  Symmetry seems to make us feel that everything is somehow in its right place, and so it must be perfect.  Therefore, we put our subjects in the center of the frame, and make sure the horizon is splitting the frame dead center, etc.  But such compositions are generally just not noteworthy, unless the geometric pattern is the subject, and then just maybe we can use symmetry.

Symmetry does not lend itself to tension in the image, and tension in the image is what creates interest.  We want items in the photo to create a war in the mind of the viewer, so that his/her eye is forced to wander around the scene we created.  So, we try to use odd numbers of objects, arrange them in non-symmetric positions in the frame, etc.  When we do that, we cause our attention to continuously search around the image.  And that action is what makes the image memorable.

Good composition can be sophisticated, but there are some easy rules of thumb to keep in mind when we compose a shot that will lead directly to better photos.

Composition rule 2: Rule of Thirds (RoT)

The image at the top of the page has superimposed upon it a framework illustrating the rule of thirds.  Simply put, you divide the frame both horizontally and vertically into thirds, and then place your center of interest at one of the intersection points.  In this case, I chose the focal point to be the grouping of three people walking and placed them off-center to the lower right.

So this grouping is placed in one of the rule of thirds intersection points.  Your eye is drawn there as a natural point of interest.  But that's not all that we have in this photo.

 We also have this natural point of interest down the street.  All the lines in the photo converge on this spot, and so your eye is directed there as well.  These are called leading lines and they are an important way to force the viewer to look where you want.

Notice that the point of interest is off center in the photo.  It's not precisely at one of the RoT intersections, but still it pulls you away from symmetry.  The horizon is probably in that plane, but you can't really see any horizon in the photo so that's not upsetting.  Overall, there is no real symmetry in the frame, even though there is sort of symmetry in the building structures.  But by placing them off center, we broke the symmetry and created the tension.

Looking at the photo again with the lines all removed, you can see how the two areas of interest pull your eye back and forth between them.  The leading lines pull your eye down the street to see what is in the distance, but the grouping of people in the foreground to the right pull your eye back to the front.  Here is the photo with no markings so you can see it better.

See, the leading lines are pulling you down the street, but the people walking near you keep demanding your attention.  So your eye jumps back and forth between those two point of interest.  And that jumping back and forth is what makes it interesting.  You, the viewer, had to participate.

The group of walkers accomplishes another purpose as well as creating visual tension.  They provide depth to the scene.  Without the walkers, the scene is distant and flat, but with the walkers, you have some foreground action that reminds your brain that there are different planes in the photo.

To be fair, I have cropped this image down from the original frame to turn it into a decent image.  The original looked like this:

This image breaks all the rules.  I intentionally was just shooting a wide shot down the street because I knew I could make something out of it later.  So I ignored the composition, mostly.  But as I discussed in earlier posts, that's the fun part for me.  Also, to be fair, the walkers were just dumb luck.  If they hadn't been there, I probably wouldn't have tried to save this shot.  And finally, I shot with the wrong lens, if I intended to get detail in the people at the far end of the street.  But this was the lens that was on the camera at the time, so you get what you get.  To quote my favorite kitschy artist Bob Ross, "We don't make mistakes, we just have happy accidents."