Center Composition

Even though center composition is the first topic in the series of articles, I actually read them all, I just found the theme of center composition to be intriguing. Like they said in the article "If one were to hand a camera to an aunt, and ask her to take a picture, she would most likely photograph the subject in the center of the frame." Basically, center composition is one of the most basic forms of framing. But because it is so simple, it is so easy to mess up. Being at a student film school, I see a lot of techniques that turn out extremely well, and some, well, not the best. Even though it is such a simple use of framing, Wes Anderson's work displays that just about any technique, when perfected, can be a staple of any great film, or film-maker. Here is an example of his work in relations to center composition.



Here are some other examples of center composition in movies:

Iron Man (2008) - Director of Photography: Matthew Libatique

Dirty Harry (1971) - Director of Photography: Bruce Surtees

The Shining (1980) - Director of Photography: John Alcott

Almost Famous (2000) - Director of Photography: John Toll

Meloncholia (2011) - Director of Photography: Manuel Alberto Claro


Here is a clip I shot for my FF1 film: "A Shrouded Order" that utilized center composition. I'm not saying its a good example, just an attempt by me. Feel free to criticize.

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. 

Composition & Bokeh

The part of these articles that I was drawn to was bokeh. I personally love the aesthetic of bokeh. Knight says “Obsession with bokeh is bad for your photography.” I somewhat agree with this statement. Too much can become repetitive and boring, however, I think if you use it in the right way and for the right photograph it can be amazing. Sometimes it’s better to see all the details and textures throughout the frame and other times those details don’t add anything. It really comes down to personal preference and judgement.

For example, in this photograph I think the bokeh works very well because it would be too busy with every detail in focus. You would get lost in all of the details and wouldn’t be drawn to the intended subject.

Chris Knight did a great job explaining some complicated concepts. Talking about composition rules such as the Baroque Diagonals, the Golden Ratio, the Rule of Thirds can become overwhelming. I like how he stated these are rules but are not rules at the same time. If you follow these rules it will not always lead to a provoking photograph. However, it is obviously important to read about and understand the rules for reference. I loved how well Knight explained what each rule was and how to apply most of them. After reading these articles I am more confident in what they are and how to integrate them. I’m looking forward to incorporating this new information into my future class, personal, and professional projects.

Composition

Chris Knight's Photography Stuff Article

First, hats off to Chris Knight for writing in two fairly easy to read articles about a bunch of concepts I've been struggling to grasp for something like three years of college in an easy to digest way. Takes skill to right about all this in an articulate way that isn't dizzying to read.

He started off strong by making it clear that these are NOT rules. I mean, yes, they are, but they don't determine what makes an image resonate. Photos have to have a core to them that is worth building upon for any of these guides and tricks to mean anything. I can compose a perfectly lit pile of dog poop that abides by every single one of these rules, even some fancy use of negative space, and it would still just be dog poop. That is the most important thing to take away from this article. We're all in an institution of learning. Going in, we assume that whatever we're taking away from all this is what we'll live by day in day out. These rules MUST be binding and exact, telling, if we're paying $50,000 a year for them. This is what leads a young 20 something coming out of film school to hate Spider-Man 2 because "they didn't like the lighting." It's a real corrosive and limiting mindset and I'm glad that Chris immediately did away with it before diving deep into the article.

On the actual principles themselves? Man this was fantastic. Aside from a few instances (He just defined the golden ratio and then gave no explanation at all of how to use it, what it means or how not using it could be powerful and that was infuuuuriating. He was similarly withholding on Sinister and Baroque lines.), Chris both teaches what and how. WHAT Chiaroscuro is and why it's evocative, HOW to use complementary colors and why it can be meaningful, WHY symmetrical compositions can be both empowering and damaging to a shot. If he went a bit deeper on a few of these I would have been happy but overall he handled all these very well.

Perhaps the principle that interests me most of the lot is negative space. Just the way the mind works in that regard, where the focus of the shot isn't really the point of the shot and yet at the same time without it it would not be nearly as powerful, is really interesting. I just want to figure out the variety of ways I could use this to find some differing understandings of a scene. The idea of symmetry also interests me. What makes a good shot of symmetry stand out and what makes a bad one bore you to your iPhone. These subtle little nuances are the kind of tool I want ready at disposal in my brain to bring life to whatever I'm working on. Not the sort of thing I remember I can use but that I know on instinct to do. I suppose that'll only come from constantly employing them but reading stuff like this is the first step.

"The Ultimate Guide to Composition"

Chris Knight's "Ultimate Guide to Composition" covers the five types of compositions: center, the rule of thirds, golden triangles, diagonals, and the golden ratio/golden rectangles/golden spiral.

Center composition puts the subject in the center of the frame. If it's done well, the symmetry and intricate detail makes it aesthetically pleasing. I really enjoy this composition, but it is very hard to create a center composition that is very visually appealing and memorable. For inspiration, here are some of my favorite Wes Anderson's shots that use the center composition:

The rule of thirds divides the image into nine equal parts. Using the rule of thirds makes it easier to create an interesting image, as the off-center subject creates more tension in the shot.

The golden triangles divide the image into three or four triangles with a strong diagonal line, called the "major line," and another diagonal line that goes from one corner to the major line, connecting perpendicularly. That line is called the "reciprocal line." This creates a more dynamic photograph, as seen below. Just look at that bridge and its diagonal line. Powerful stuff.

The two types of diagonals are Baroque and Sinister. Baroque are read from left to right and Sinister are read from right to left.

Baroque:

Sinister:

The golden ratio is all about geometry and proportions. The largest shape is divided by a perfect square, and the remaining portion is the same proportions as the first shape. Then that shape is divided by a perfect square, and so on and so forth. It creates somewhat of a spiral on the frame:

This ratio also works on other shapes and is seen in the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, the Parthenon, on the human body, seashells, and hurricanes.

Knight also focuses on other important concepts and theories that help make photographs more dynamic, such as a frame within a frame and the Gestalt Principles.

A frame within a frame is an extremely important theory that uses objects to frame the main subject. It's good to have a foreground frame that is darker than the background because our eyes go to the brightest parts of the image. 

Some of the Gestalt Principles are figure/ground, proximity and grouping, symmetry and balance, similarity, continuity, and closure.

Figure/ground means the subject and everything surrounding it is very contrasting. Using either chiaroscuro, strong contrasts between light and dark, and/or negative space, it enhances the illusion of depth.

When elements are placed together, they become a group. When similar objects are placed together, it becomes a whole. And elements with similar characteristics can be viewed as a group or pattern and can be very nice to look at.

Symmetry creates an equilibrium. As long as you make the center composition purposeful and dynamic, the symmetry is strong and appealing. Also, balance does not always mean perfect symmetry.

Continuity deals with leading lines. They can be straight or curved, but they're not alway obvious. They guide the viewer's eye to continue through the object.

Last, but not least, is closure. The subject is not fully seen, but the image gives your brain enough to form the rest. It "leaves a little to the imagination."

For me, learning the five main compositions was very helpful. I've learned the rule of thirds before, but learning and seeing the other compositions in use will help me frame my own shots and understand why certain photographs are more aesthetically pleasing than others.

First Reading Assignment Response

Chris Knight explains that composition is "Perhaps one of the most important parts of photography." Composition is how a photographer or filmmaker sees what he or she will be using for their project. If you can understand what good composition is, you'll know how to produce great photos or films.  Knight explains that there are multiple aspects of Composition including, Center Composition, The Rule of 3rd's, Golden Triangles, Diagonals, and Golden Ratios.
 
Center composition was as easy as it could get when it came to understanding the concept. Whatever object is in the center of your frame, that will be exactly where the viewer's eye will go. Thanks to the imaginary lines drawn in the Wes Anderson highlight reel, you are automatically drawn into the center of the frame more than you normally would.  When done properly, center composition can give a photo or film perfect symmetry, which for most of us is very, very aesthetically pleasing to the eye. "Symmetry creates equilibrium in an image."

The rule of thirds is another easy concept Knight explained very well. I think that the rule of thirds is the most important rule to composition. Without it, I don't think that you can properly frame an image. The rule of thirds has become so essential, you can't pick up a camera without seeing the rule of thirds lines on the viewfinder. Much like center composition, it makes images aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

Different from center composition and the rule of thirds, gold triangles allow photographers and cinematographers to make images seem off. Knight explains that where the lines intersect are where the viewer's eye are supposed to be drawn to. However, in the Eiffel Tower photo the photo is off centered. So could this mean that the lines could intersect somewhere else on the photo? Who's to say everyone will draw the same lines that will intersect in the exact same spot?

Diagonals I thought of as a tool to help viewers find the center of the composition.  However, Knight's explanation was a little off when he said that the viewer's eye will directly go to the ballerina dancer facing us. I understand that because she is facing us we as viewers might see her first but, isn't there a possibility that the viewers eye might be drawn to somewhere else. Perhaps the viewer might be looking at the center pillar first, or another dancer?

Lastly, golden ratios I found to be the most interesting of the composition aspect. Using mathematics to frame an image I found to be fascinating. Now if I wasn't a Park School student, I might be better at math and could potentially be a better photographer.

Aside from Knight's explanation of the aspects of composition there were some things he said that really stuck with me after reading these two articles. Knight said, "One of the best things a photographer can do is study painting and art history. Studying great painters is key to expert composition." What better way to understand the aspects of composition than to learn it from the people who first used proper composition in their work?

Another thing Knight wrote about that really stuck with me was his section about framing. Knight said, "Frame can add context, meaning or depth to a photo." Framing has such an important impact on an image. What a photographer or cinematographer decides to do with the frame can drastically change what a viewer might see or think about an image.  
-Patrick Ring

First Assignment: Understanding the basics of good composition

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.

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.