A Bit to the Left

Should I move the camera a little bit to the left or a little bit to the right?

You stand back and strike the pose of a renaissance painter about to carve into marble and, while it’s no Venus de Milo, what you’re about to do is equally as delicate. But you’re on a schedule and if you don’t get the shot in the next five minutes, you could easily find yourself scraping your feet as you look for another job. Harsh, but this is serious business.

This is composition.

For those who don’t have the time, the willpower, or the want to read for themselves: composition is basically how things are put together in an image (moving or not). We can look at articles like Chris Knight’s “The Ultimate Guide to Composition,” as a bouncing off point.

Images in their basic simplicity, are made of lines. Lines that form boxes, lines that intersect, and lines that draw the viewers’ eyes to where they need to be. Think of composition as a laser pointer. It's a subtle technique that filmmakers will use to get someone to subconsciously focus in on one aspect of the shot. But just talking about the technical jargon behind a film doesn't necessarily teach us what that means. Why should we use center composition? What's the difference between diagonal and horizontal arrangements? Is composition really that big of a deal?

And my answer is: yes, it is.

But don't just take it from me. Don't just take it from Chris Knight. Take it from a physical product that was successful in its own right, that had this technique honed down to an art. Let's look at Pixar's The Incredibles. Directed by Brad Bird, and released back in 2004, the film is a cult classic (within animation).

Really, it's a movie you either love or hate and I will be the first to say I had been the latter up until a few years ago. Honestly, I could go on forever about why this movie was one of the most well-put together films of its genre (writing and plot issues aside), but today we'll focus on its composition.

For time's sake we'll look at its opening sequence:

Right away you'll notice these shots fall into what we call center composition. It's literally taking your point of focus and forcing it right into the middle of the scene. It's not something that most people recommend doing, and it's certainly not something that can be done well.

But why?

This in part, lies with how our brain takes in information. Yes, we have a certain affinity towards the symmetrical but there is something about focusing ourselves into the middle of an image that throws us off. Objects can be symmetrical, but an image has to have action. And that's the problem with centering your subjects. It immediately erases any depth around them and gets rid of the action in a scene. This is because your image has to literally stop in the middle. It's too abrupt for our senses to take in from a "two-dimensional" point of view. And it's boring.

But this is why it can be such a powerful tool as well. As seen in the above video, centering the shot only works to really set up the feel of the interviews. While candid, they don't do much to give us insight into how these characters works. Yes, yes, we understand how they might feel but for the moment we are the interviewers. The common public that looks at these heroes in quite a two-dimensional way. And that's the problem set up, because these heroes are human. They make mistakes and they certainly aren't gods.

For those who haven't seen it, the core of the movie is the dynamic between those who have superpowers and those who do not. For years, these heroes were idolized and put up on a pedestal. But through a series of events, their powers back-fire on them and they're forced to hang up the masks and gloves. They are forced to fit in. Yes, there's a lot more to the actual movie's plot but stay with me.

The above "interviews" only work because of the composition. The image is scaled down and positioned right smack dab in the middle of the frame. Adding to that, they've made it so every character is also put within the middle of their own shot. This gives us a layered centering of objects. They force us to look at these people as the movie looks at them.

As superheroes they are the center of attention. They own their surroundings in an almost arrogant sort of way. And because we've got nothing to look at but them, we feel uncomfortable. Obviously, this is old. Obviously, something isn't right. But in that moment, we are the public before the storm. All of our attention is focused on these people and we are literally watching their every move. But there's something about giving them all of our attention, that makes us feel uneasy.

Then it transitions to the sequence below:

While it may not be noticeable with how it was uploaded, but the composition changes in many ways. We've just faded out from the interviews and our perspective literally increases (meaning the screen literally gets bigger). It may not be what you consider composition but it is. It's creating invisible lines that expand our view and it adds dimensions.

Before, were were just watching the characters. Now, we are actually getting a glimpse at what they do. Immediately, the movie utilizes everything from golden triangles to the "Rule of Thirds." As the shots are set up, we can see that hardly anyone dominates the space and hardly anyone is centered in the middle anymore. This is a fantastic way to put action and life into the scene. From the skyscrapers in the back (during the car chase) to the sidewalk as the little old lady cries for her cat, the filmmakers are creating subtle lines that pull our attention inward to the points of focus (mostly Mr. Incredible in this case).

By not having him centered anymore, they also start to engage the audience. We are constantly moving our eyes to find the subject of the shot. And for an action-heavy sequence, this works delightfully well in keeping us focused on the movie. The constant movement confuses us just enough to make us want to notice everything. But it also makes us start to root for him. For the superheroes. And coming from those interviews, it feels good. Because we want to, don't we? I mean, they're superheroes.

Even in the last few shots, as she flings herself in to the sunset, we are left wanting more. We've come a long way from just staring at these people as they grin from the center of an interview to rooting for them as they do what they do best. And that's fantastic because it won't last. But by making us have to work to root for these guys, it nicely sets us up to become more emotionally invested as things start to crumble.

And this couldn't be achieved without proper composition. We, as an audience, don't want to just sit there and stare at something head-on. We need movement. We need depth. We need action. We need the characters to move: a little bit to the right, a little bit up, a little bit down, and a little bit to the left.

The Mathematics of Composition

Moderns Film could be considered one of the most advanced forms of media we have today. When done well, films effectively combine the elements of sound, composition, story, talent and more to create one fluid cinematic piece. It takes years of hard work and sheer talent to master all of these elements. Until then, it’s a good idea to focus in on one area of film that interests you more then the others.

Chris Knight, writer of fstoppers.com, has created an ultimate guide that makes learning one such element much easier. Specifically, composition – a defining element of film, and pretty much the defining element of photography.

Wait, You mean that rule of thirds thingy?

Ah yes, but as Knight proves in his article, it goes far beyond that nine-box rule.

With pictures and examples guiding his definitions all the way though, Knight provides a clear guide to the mathematics behind beautiful composition.

After reading his article, and in an effort to beat Arturo to the punch, I’ve decided to review some of my own work to see if it stands up to the test.

Center Composition

The first and most basic type of composition Knight mentions is center composition. For this I used a picture I took while in the middle of nowhere. The road stretched on for miles and the lighting was fantastic. With flat land on both sides of the road, this was a perfect time to use symmetry to my advantage.

It's not mathematically perfect, but still an effective example.

Rule of Thirds

The classic. The 101 of photography. When unsure how to compose a photo it's best to stick with the good 'ol threes. I found this photo of a prairie dog which falls right on the sweet spot. 

Golden Triangles 

When playing with angles, golden triangles are a great way to check composition. Knight uses a picture of the eiffel tower as a great example. 

I found one picture from Santa Monica that again, is not mathematically perfect, but shows how this type of composition can have a compelling effect. 

Frame Within a Frame

Another type of composition he mentions is the frame within a frame effect. 

It's a great way to give an extra layer of depth to the photo while at the same time putting extra focus on the subject. I managed to achieve this once this summer as Erin walked through the main gate at Mount Rushmore. I was lucky enough to capture the moment by chance, but usually you need to plan out shots like this. 

In this picture her figure does not fall right on the rule of thirds line. In fact, she's quite a bit under it. But it slightly dwarfs her and makes Mount Rushmore seem even larger. The point is that in the end, art is art, and mathematics can't always determine its effectiveness. But it's a great starting point for discovering what might look cool. 

A Knight in Golden Armor

Get it? Chris KNIGHT? GOLDEN ratio? I digress.

I'm a big fan of this article, mainly because our man Chris Knight found an unpretentious, non-patronizing way to tell us not-so-savvy-with-a-camera people how to make small adjustments to better our poorly composed scenes. He understands what a film/television student really needs: big pictures with not a lot of words underneath.

This is a circle.

I've had a slew of high school teachers attempt to explain the golden ratio, and all I really got out of it was that I would never pursue a career in math and George Clooney was scientifically gorgeous (duh).

Symmetry is sexy.

But along came Mr. Knight with his diagrams and BAM! I am now a member of the club known as "Basic Understanding of Rectangles". Shot a little too crowded? Take ten paces to your left and try again. Subject look a little boring in the center of the frame? Shimmy over to your right and the interesting shot is yours.

The most adorable Rule of Thirds.

I was most affected by one of the smaller points of the article. Knight explained the basic technique of using a frame within the frame (a tunnel, a tree, a window, etc...). But, you can also use darkness as a frame. If you want to highlight a subject in the distance, keep your foreground dark. I always found lighting tricky, but this quick little tip really helped keep the basics of lighting in perspective.

Obviously these concepts are only the basics of composition, but it's a great start to the more complex aspects of setting up a shot. So put down your "Composition for Dummies" book, check out Chris Knight's "The Ultimate Guide to Composition", and explore the depths (of field... ha...) of framework. 

Bokeh and Shallow Depth of Field

Normally, I'd be the last person to talk about composition, f-stops, and even cameras in general - mostly because I know next to nothing about them and don't particularly have any interest in them -  and yet here I am, writing my first blog post of the year on blurry backgrounds and why they may or may not suck. Thanks Arturo.

So Chris Knight, the author of the two part article about composition, really seems to hate bokeh. Or Boke, however you want to spell it. He goes so far as to say that a focus on bokeh (pun entirely intended) can make for lazy composition and can ultimately make your photography flat-out bad. So what exactly is bokeh, and is it as bad as Knight says it is? Short answer: no.

Bokeh, in terms that even I can understand, is the "aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image made by a lens." Here it is in this pretty picture of a bench. See all those lights in the background? Bokeh.

As far as I can tell, there are a few reasons why a photographer would choose to use such a shallow depth of field to create the softly blurred background images that result in bokeh. One such reason is that you may wish to isolate the subject of your photo - in this case, that lovely bench - by separating it from the background. Here, even though the lines of light are forming something that looks just like one of Knight's "golden triangles," the focus of the picture is clearly on the bench. If the lights in the background were sharper and more in focus, the bench would not seem as isolated.

Another reason for bokeh could be to give the illusion of motion in pictures. If I'm correct, by combining a shallow depth of field (in this second picture's case, only bits of the windowpane are in focus) with a longer exposure time, you will get a slightly elongated bokeh, which gives these cars the appearance that they're actually moving. I think it's pretty cool, and when you take a few of the things that Knight said about composition into effect, I think that they're actually both pretty good pictures, bokeh and all.

To be fair, I can see where Knight would have an issue with having an "obsession" with bokeh. Too much of a good thing is, well, never a good thing. Bokeh is pretty, and people like pretty things, so I can see how the technique could quickly and easily get out of hand. When used correctly though, and when also taking composition into consideration, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with bokeh. It's also really fun to say. Try it. Bokeh.

Single Point Perspective

Film and photography by definition are a two dimensional medium. They are flat. Half of our jobs as film makers is to break that view and bring our audience into the picture as if it is happening right in front of them.One of the ways we can do this is by changing the perspective of the shot, adding depth of field to our image. One specific technique for adding depth of field is using a single point perspective. For those who don't know what single point perspective is, think about standing in the center of a railroad track and watching it disappear into the distance.
One of the greatest film makers of all time used single point perspective in many of his films. Stanley Kubrick has been regarded as one of the best directors in the history of film. His films include, The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, A Space Odyssey 2001, Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and many more.The single point perspective is apparent in all of these films. But what I have been taught many times is don't make a symmetrical shot. Set the eye line just off from center. By watching great film makers we see that being the best, means breaking all the rules.

Kubrick // One-Point Perspective from kogonada on Vimeo.