composition realization

[mysteryscribe]

I just realized why I see most thing one way and most people here see it another. It isn't just generational, it's a little bit cultural.

When I grew up television was a novelty and computer monitors didn't exist. So when I saw a well composed photograph odds are it was shot for a magazine, which is primarily vertical first. Horizontal images were a compositional necessity, but not really the norm. So I look for the vertical first, then go to the horizontal.

Compare that to this generation that sees things on tv, movies, video games, and computer screens all horizontal format. In that forced horizontal format they have to force the image. So seeing a forced smaller tv doctor standing alone in a room with a ton of unrelated stuff seems normal to you and way wrong to me. I am used to the image being about the subject but that can't happen if all your images have to be horizontal to fit the playback.

Probably why all that empty space is less abhorrent to you guys. I hope that realizing that makes me shake my head in despair less often. I kinda doubt it your bias is formed from years of horizontal images and mine from years of vertical. Just an interesting thought.

 

[JimmyJaceyMom]

That is an interesting thought. Keep them coming!

 

[The_Traveler]

I just realized why I see most thing one way and most people here see it another.

No, it's just you being ornery.

 

[craig]

Sort of an interesting thought. Photography is very culture and generation based. It is who we are.

I can not stand shooting vertical. I have to do it in portraits and copy work. We see the world horizontally. The subject can (more often the not) fit in to a horizontal frame and still be effective. I base most my work on that idea.

Love & Bass

 

[abraxas]

Sort of makes sense to me. Up until roughly last October, I shot primarily horizontal for the last 11 years. The purpose was to display the shots on the web. I'm getting more book and magazine work, and now prefer the vertical. I suppose I'll find a happy medium as I work on my print library.

 

[Garbz]

I prefer horizontal because the horizontal field of vision is greater than the vertical (eye sockets and cheeks get in the way for vertical vision). At least that's what I always thought but your argument makes a lot of sense.

One thing I can't stand is cropping in a non-3:2 format. I grew up with 35mm, and progressed straight to a camera with a 3:2 sensor (not the 4:3 often found in P&S). I'm simply used to it and rarely pay attention when someone offers critique which involves square or non 3:2 framing. Panoramas are an exception

 

[Puscas]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure your world was so vertical? Granted, I wasn't around then, but you had the movies, newspapers,paintings and books, right? There's a reason our monitors are horizontal: they didn't flip 'm in/after the fifties just to break with the past.

That being said: my windows are all vertical.. So I don't have a problem with a vertical image.





pascal

 

[mysteryscribe]

ah I realize they had a reason but then they had to make the images fit the shape of the screen. Which is why I think most younger people see the images horizontal first.

In my world movies were a treat not an everyday bombardment. Newspapers and mags are mostly vertical formats. The page in a book is vertical. Most of the old master painting of a single subject are verticle. Its why they call printing formats portrait (vertical) landscape (horizontal) Most of the old timers would not try to squeeze a verticle composition into a horizontal format but most of the newer photographers do. I think it is a sign or the visual images we grew up with.

I could be wrong.

 

[motcon]

very valid point and observation. i take an objective view of the situation; if there are contextual elements necessary in a photograph and the only way to include them is by shooting landscape, then i'm all for it.

a bust shot of a person in a studio with an all white background does indeed call for a portrait framing.

personally, i haven't watched television in 13 years, nor do i read rag-tag-mags, so i don't believe i've been brainwashed.

i don't think that you are at all wrong. i do see a ton of images that were seemingly forced in to a portrait or landscape frame when they very well should not have been. i also see a fair amount of photos that receive the proper framing due to subject matter and content.

reasons for the improper framing are either lack of knowledge of composition or, indeed, a sad sign of the times.

 

[Alex_B]

hmm... this is a very interesting idea!

I like shots in portrait though, and I love square crops, so what does the latter mean

 

[motcon]

hmm... this is a very interesting idea!

I like shots in portrait though, and I love square crops, so what does the latter mean

that you live in a square white room that has rubber walls and padded floors.

 

[Don Simon]

One thing I can't stand is cropping in a non-3:2 format. I grew up with 35mm, and progressed straight to a camera with a 3:2 sensor (not the 4:3 often found in P&S). I'm simply used to it and rarely pay attention when someone offers critique which involves square or non 3:2 framing.

I'll have to lend you a TLR

I like the square image of a 6x6 negative. When shooting 35mm or digital I don't really have a preference for shooting horizontal or vertical - it's often more physically comfortable to shoot horizontally, but in aesthetic terms I don't have a preference. Also I will happily crop in any ratio. It simply depends on the subject.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I have become enamoured with 127 negatives lately. From the square 4x4 to the 6x4.5 seems like a reasonable format if you could get the film and cameras.

 

[Alex_B]

that you live in a square white room that has rubber walls and padded floors.

But they made one mistake ... they did not block the wlan

 

[mysteryscribe]

Sometimes i wonder how many of us are either in depositories for the insane or incarserated for some crime against humanity, and how many who aren't should be.