According to Chris Knight, the writer of The Ultimate Guide to Composition, there are 5 main 'guidelines' to follow in order to achieve at least half-decent composition in a photograph (or a film shot). These guidelines include the following techniques: center composition, the rule of thirds, golden triangles, the diagonals, and the golden ratio/rectangles/spiral. It's been brought to my attention by this composition guru that you pretty much need one of these 5 framing techniques in order to have a shot that even has a chance of being a pleasant one. Well, here's my opinion on these 5 composition guidelines as laid out by Mr. Knight. I'm sorry in advance.
Center composition, put simply, places the most important objects in an image in the center. When done correctly (as displayed in the image to the right), this type of composition can work very effectively in creating a certain feel to a shot. What is that person doing all the way out there? Are they lost? Reminiscent? Suicidal? I have no idea. The shot certainly makes you wonder, though, doesn't it? Not only does it evoke some sort of emotion, but it's also extremely aesthetically pleasing. The person is placed exactly in the vertical center of the frame along with the horizon in the horizontal center. Knight did a decent job explaining this.
Next we have the rule of thirds. Now, if you've ever attended a Park class, picked up a camera, or have lived in the modern world, you've heard about the rule of thirds. It's not a particularly hard concept to grasp. You basically just imagine (or many cameras will even show you on the viewfinder) four evenly spaced lines that divide the shot into nine sections. You then place the important objects in the shot on these lines, and you place the absolute most important objects on the intersections, like the subject's eyes. Knight explains that this kind of off-center composition adds more visual interest and tension for viewers. I mean, he's right. I don't know why there needed to be such a detailed explanation of the topic, but what the hell. Power to you, Guru Knight.
This third composition technique is completely beyond my understanding. The golden triangles is basically when the photographer divides the frame into three or four triangles, with the 'major line' dividing the image diagonally, and with one or two 'reciprocal lines' perpendicularly intersecting the major line from the corners of the frame. Just look at the image of the Eiffel Tower. It'll save you a whole lot of grief rather than trying to understand my explanation. Now, I'm not sure if I'm just not grasping the concept, or if Knight's explanation is simply terrible. Probably the first one, but hear me out. When looking at the Eiffel Tower, nothing particularly important is on the lines' intersection. Yeah, it's the center of the tower, but I feel that the shot would look exactly the same if the photographer had just aligned the tower with the major line. Am I wrong? I don't think so. If there's something obvious that I'm missing, comment on the post. I'd love to better understand this concept. Please and thank you.
I usually like to think of myself as a reasonably intelligent guy, but in this case, unfortunately, I don't quite understand the composition technique of the diagonals either. You win some, you lose some. Am I right? Anyway, Knight explains the concept of diagonals as splitting an image from corner to corner with either a Baroque Diagonal (read left to right) or a Sinister Diagonal (read right to left). I have two things to say about Knight's explanation of the ballerina image. He says the diagonal used in the composition is a Sinister Diagonal (read right to left). He says the ballerina's eyes line up with the ballerina's pointed toe on the right. First of all, wouldn't a person looking at the photograph immediately look at the ballerina facing us, forcing the viewer to start at the left of the image? Second, the ballerina isn't looking anywhere near the pointed toe. She's looking off to the right, not down. How was the pointed toe chosen as the second object to decide which way the diagonal would lean? Either this photograph is a very poor example of the use of diagonals for composition, or I'm missing something very important here. I usually like to assume I'm not the wrong one.
Last but not least, we have our famous golden ratio/rectangles/spiral concept. This is probably the most useful composition technique out there. It's not only used in photography, but can even be found in architecture and music. For its high level of universality, the golden ratio is an unbelievably simple concept. I'm not going to go into specifics (you can find those here), but all it takes is a little math, really. Knight doesn't do a terrible job of explaining the technique, either. Even I understood it. Kind of. The golden ratio is a fascinating concept. I strongly recommend you look more into it. You'd be absolutely amazed at all of its applications.
All in all, Composition Guru Knight did a quasi decent job of explaining the five main composition techniques all photographers should take into consideration when framing a shot. For all of you folks out there with a camera, take note.
I've been attempting to direct actors for about three years. I am NO expert, it's a world of science that can be quite a mystery. It's very difficult to work with amateurs, kids, animals, and many other life things!! This really reminds me of a facebook note from back in the day when notes on facebook were cool! I actually found it on my facebook and I love it it's so funny.
Win Wender's Golden Rules
1. You have a choice of being “in the business” or of making movies. If you’d rather do business, don’t hesitate. You’ll get richer, but you won’t have as much fun!
2. If you have nothing to say, don’t feel obliged to pretend you do.
3. If you do have something to say, you’d better stick to it. (But then don’t give too many interviews.)
4. Respect your actors. Their job is 10 times more dangerous than yours.
5. Don’t look at the monitor. Watch the faces in front of your camera! Stand right next to it! You’ll see infinitely more. You can still check your monitor after the take.
6. Your continuity girl is always right about screen directions, jumping the axis and that sort of stuff. Don’t fight her. Bring her flowers.
7. Always remember: Continuity is overrated!
8. Coverage is overrated, too!
9. If you want to shoot day for night, make sure the sun is shining.
10. Before you say “cut,” wait five more seconds.
11. Rain only shows on the screen when you backlight it.
12. Don’t shoot a western if you hate horses. (But it’s okay to not be fond of cows.)
13. Think twice before you write a scene with babies or infants.
14. Never expect dogs, cats, birds or any other animals to do what you’d like them to do. Keep your shots loose.
15. Mistakes never get fixed in post!
16. Final cut is overrated. Only fools keep insisting on always having the final word. The wise swallow their pride in order to get to the best possible cut.
17. Other people have great ideas, too. (I LEARNED THIS LAST YEAR WITH WHITE LIGHTS!!)
18. The more money you have the more you can do with it, sure. But the less you can say with it.
19. Never fall in love with your temp music.
20. Never fall in love with your leading lady!
21. If you love soccer, don’t shoot your film during the World Championship. (Same goes for baseball and the World Series, etc.)
22. Don’t quote other movies unless you have to. (But why would you have to?)
23. Let other people cut your trailer!
24. It’s always good to make up for a lack of (financial) means with an increase in imagination.
25. Having a tight schedule can be difficult. But having too much time is worse.
26. Alright, so you’re shooting with a storyboard. Make sure you’re willing to override it at any given moment.
27. Less make-up is better.
28. Fewer words are always better!
29. Too much sugary stuff on the craft table (or is it Kraft?) can have a disastrous effect on your crew’s morale.
30. Film can reveal the invisible, but you must be willing to let it show.
31. The more you know about moviemaking, the tougher it gets to leave that knowledge behind. As soon as you do things “because you know how to do them,” you’re fucked.
32. Don’t tell a story that you think somebody else could tell better.
33. A “beautiful image” can very well be the worst thing that can happen to a scene.
34. If you have one actor who gets better with every take, and another who loses it after a while, make sure they can meet in the middle. Or consider recasting. (And you know whose close-ups you have to shoot first!)
35. If you shoot in a dark alley at night, don’t let your DP impose a bright blue contre-jour spotlight on you, even in the far distance. It always looks corny.
36. Some actors should never see rushes. Others should be forced to watch them.
37. Be ready to get rid of your favorite shot during editing.
38. Why would you sit in your trailer while your crew is working?
39. Don’t let them lay tracks before you’ve actually looked through your viewfinder.
40. You need a good title from the beginning. Don’t shoot the film with a working title you hate!
41. In general, it’s better not to employ couples. (But of course, there are exceptions!)
42. Don’t adapt novels.
43. If your dolly grip is grumpy or your electricians hate the shot it will all show on the film. (Also, if you’re constipated…)
44. Keep your rough cut speech, your cast and crew screening speech and your Oscar speech short.
45. Some actors actually improve their dialogue in ADR.
46. Some actors should never be forced to loop a single line. (Even Orson Welles wasn’t good at that.)
47. There are 10,000 other rules like these 50.
48. If there are golden rules, there might be platinum ones, too.
49. There are no rules.
50. None of the above is necessarily correct.
#4: we went over this in class today!!
#6: I have a friend I interned with two years ago that was the script supervisor for a film I interned on! It was awesome having her around because she's gone on to do AMAZING productions: to name a few- Paranha 3DD, LOL (starring MIley Cyrus), Scream 4 (2011), and A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. Never really in big time A list movies but she does VERY well for herself and I had the privilege of working very closely with her. I also love seeing her facebook posts on what she's doing with her career. She's always got a ton going on and I think that could be the secret to her success. I've always wanted to try having a script supervisor for a film of my own! #17: I learned this in White Lights last year, I couldn't possibly take as much credit for what that film was with out Jackie Campbell, Josh Best, Dave Howelle, Maxwell Melhman, Courtney Herman, Harlan Green-Taub or R. Aaron Walters, or Benni Lee Janssen. It takes a crew to make a film happen you litterally can NOT do it yourself. Unless of course you're Jeffrey R. Newell.
#24: ALWAYS HAD to deal with this issue. I think it's made me a better film maker and a person.
#28: I learned this in script writing last semester! It's ver difficult to deviate from thinking your actors need to explain everything they're doing. They don't need to! Trust me it makes it a lot better when they don't explain anything: as we've seen in The Artist (oscar winning best feature film 2011). (see above video)
#41: When I directed a short adaptation called "The Flea" in 2010, it was a HUGE mistake casting a couple that was together to play my main couple. It was also a mistake trying to edit my film on a crappy old computer using a bootleg copy of a really lame editing software, but that's another story for another day! In the middle of my shoot the couple had broken up (WHICH would have been AWESOME for believable acting since it was a break up story), but He decided to screw my film because he was too broken hearted to leave his room to do a one hour shoot (tops) and have it be the end of it! My film sucked but it was the best I could have done given the circumstances! I can't say I regretted this film because I learned more doing this film alone than any other film I've ever done (directing). (see above film...and please!!! don't judge) #42: This leads me to my next point. NEVER EVER EVER adapt a novel unless you have a bjillion dollars and you don't care what people think of your films anymore because you have so much money that you don't need fans anymore. It's so hard and I don't think the general public will ever understand how hard it is to adapt a screen play from a novel. Therefore, they automatically won't appreciate anything you put out there. If a film maker adapted a novel word for word it would literally be a three day film. It takes a magical person to please anyone when adapting a novel to screen. I took a class on it the year I made The Flea! I honestly believe that the only way to appreciate a film based on a novel is by being extremely open minded, not expecting anything upon entering, and understanding the film as a "take" on how they saw the novel visually and how they made it work. I personally don't like to read a book before I watch the adapted film, because, this way I don't form my own visuals before I see others take on it. I like to see the film first and then read the book because then I can see more clearly how the film maker had seen it that way. I also enjoy the experience of reading it and seeing the story in more depth, rather than seeing a summarized version of the story after you already know what happened and why it happened. To me it's just not worth risking my career over someone being too close minded about my take on a novel. So I personally try and avoid it at all costs. However, some may strongly disagree with me on so many levels. They can go make their films and I wont judge them for that adaptation, in fact if anyone does it, I have a whole new respect for them. However, I feel most people dont see it the same way I do. #49+50: None of these rules need apply to anything. Do you're own thing. This is more of a good advice list from a professional. By all means go out and make mistakes, it's great to learn from them! I wouldn't have agreed with any of this if I hadn't made mistakes thus far in my own career.
I 'm learning about my self, I have learned that I don't personally take enough risks, I don't like to leave my comfort zone. No one has ever made anything of themselves by just waiting for miracles. Some how, I need to do what I don't want to do so that I can do what I love.
Anyways, I found this mostly relevant and fun too!
Center composition, put simply, places the most important objects in an image in the center. When done correctly (as displayed in the image to the right), this type of composition can work very effectively in creating a certain feel to a shot. What is that person doing all the way out there? Are they lost? Reminiscent? Suicidal? I have no idea. The shot certainly makes you wonder, though, doesn't it? Not only does it evoke some sort of emotion, but it's also extremely aesthetically pleasing. The person is placed exactly in the vertical center of the frame along with the horizon in the horizontal center. Knight did a decent job explaining this.
Next we have the rule of thirds. Now, if you've ever attended a Park class, picked up a camera, or have lived in the modern world, you've heard about the rule of thirds. It's not a particularly hard concept to grasp. You basically just imagine (or many cameras will even show you on the viewfinder) four evenly spaced lines that divide the shot into nine sections. You then place the important objects in the shot on these lines, and you place the absolute most important objects on the intersections, like the subject's eyes. Knight explains that this kind of off-center composition adds more visual interest and tension for viewers. I mean, he's right. I don't know why there needed to be such a detailed explanation of the topic, but what the hell. Power to you, Guru Knight.
This third composition technique is completely beyond my understanding. The golden triangles is basically when the photographer divides the frame into three or four triangles, with the 'major line' dividing the image diagonally, and with one or two 'reciprocal lines' perpendicularly intersecting the major line from the corners of the frame. Just look at the image of the Eiffel Tower. It'll save you a whole lot of grief rather than trying to understand my explanation. Now, I'm not sure if I'm just not grasping the concept, or if Knight's explanation is simply terrible. Probably the first one, but hear me out. When looking at the Eiffel Tower, nothing particularly important is on the lines' intersection. Yeah, it's the center of the tower, but I feel that the shot would look exactly the same if the photographer had just aligned the tower with the major line. Am I wrong? I don't think so. If there's something obvious that I'm missing, comment on the post. I'd love to better understand this concept. Please and thank you.
I usually like to think of myself as a reasonably intelligent guy, but in this case, unfortunately, I don't quite understand the composition technique of the diagonals either. You win some, you lose some. Am I right? Anyway, Knight explains the concept of diagonals as splitting an image from corner to corner with either a Baroque Diagonal (read left to right) or a Sinister Diagonal (read right to left). I have two things to say about Knight's explanation of the ballerina image. He says the diagonal used in the composition is a Sinister Diagonal (read right to left). He says the ballerina's eyes line up with the ballerina's pointed toe on the right. First of all, wouldn't a person looking at the photograph immediately look at the ballerina facing us, forcing the viewer to start at the left of the image? Second, the ballerina isn't looking anywhere near the pointed toe. She's looking off to the right, not down. How was the pointed toe chosen as the second object to decide which way the diagonal would lean? Either this photograph is a very poor example of the use of diagonals for composition, or I'm missing something very important here. I usually like to assume I'm not the wrong one.
