composition rules exposed..

[mysteryscribe]

Gee this really is my last post here but I couldn't pass this up.... or as that great philosopher Kenny Rogers said, You gots to know when to holdem and know when to foldem... now I promise no more...

 

[skieur]

And both the photojournalist and the editor will be kicked out of the organization. Case in point - the recent photo manipulation.

Sorry, but that would not happen and has certainly not happened to me. As to the case in point at Reuters, that was completely falsifying the photo, not simply postprocessing, or other adjustments that every photographer should be making in composition whether they are photojournalists or not.

skieur

 

[danalec99]

By post processing if you mean cloning* out elements from an image, that's a cardinal sin in pj. I'll post the new Reuters post processing guidelines if I find it.

*I specifically mentioned cloning because that was what you advised The Traveler to do in his pj shot at the Crit section.

 

[skieur]

By post processing if you mean cloning* out elements from an image, that's a cardinal sin in pj. I'll post the new Reuters post processing guidelines if I find it.

*I specifically mentioned cloning because that was what you advised The Traveler to do in his pj shot at the Crit section.

Actually, cloning is not a cardinal sin in PJ at all. I and my colleagues do it all the time. The National Press Photographers Association of the US indicates specifically that cloning out of minor elements such as objects and other useless details is ethical. Cloning out a major person from the photo changes its meaning and is unethical and not allowed. As an example of a major person they cited the groom in a wedding photo with the bride.

skieur

 

[danalec99]

http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop

A quote from that link:

Cloning, Healing or Brush Tools are not to be used. The single exception to this rule is sensor dust removal. The cloning tool will only be used below the 100 pixels radius setting. Unless performed on a well-calibrated screen under good working conditions we strongly recommend photographers to request dust removal by pictures desks.

In pj/documentary photography, it would be a gray area to decide which element is important or not. But then again, you don't believe in documentary photography. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[sabbath999]

Cloning out unimportant details in photojournalism is not unethical, nor is cropping, or adjusting brightness, saturation or any other adjustments made to make the image print better or easier to understand.

Here is an example:

In the PJ forum here, user jimiismydaddy posted a bunch of pictures of a fire in Dallas. He put them up unedited for all of us to see, and has "My Photos Are OK to Edit" turned on... This was one of his shots:

I suggested the following crop:

For demonstration purposes only, I went into PS and cloned out one small element that bugged me about my crop, and made the following:

There is absolutely no difference in the "story" this photo is telling, but the image is more clean and has a slightly better impact because of a minor change.

I spent 10 years as the editor of a newspaper, and worked with literally tens of thousands of pictures -- likely hundreds of thousands. We edited and cropped pictures all the time. The reason that photographers get in trouble with photoshopping isn't that they edit pictures, it is because they substantially change elements important to the story the picture tells...

 

[skieur]

http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop

A quote from that link:

In pj/documentary photography, it would be a gray area to decide which element is important or not. But then again, you don't believe in documentary photography. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

From reading the link: Reuters is trying to get as close to reality as possible by combining image and captions to give total credibility to their news photos. Their objective may be praiseworthy but I have always contended that it is not possible.

I use the example of, as a court photographer for an inquest, I had to take a photo of a snow pile and the area around it. The issue was the possible liability of the property owner for the accidental death of a young person. Any photographer knows that using focal length, angle, lenses, exposure, contrast, etc. one could make the amount of snow and the piles look from very large and copious to very small and not much at all, and that is without any postprocessing whatsoever. What is the reality here?

Your distance from the subject and focal length distort reality, as does your angle, exposure, shutter speed, colour balance, and even the limits and capability of the digital sensor. Post processing is often done because the image has NOT accurately reproduced what the photographer saw. Considering the contrast nature of sensors in many lighting situations even accurately reproducing the lighting is an impossible task without postprocessing.

So I tend to agree with the National Press Photographers Association that cloning out objects and useless details that do not effect the meaning of the photo is ethical and should continue to be permitted. I don't think that making a decision is that difficult either when you are talking about part of a microphone, arm, paper etc. in the background.

(By the way, I got the impression from Reuters that part of the reason that they were banning a lot of Photoshop use in the field was that it was not being done very well.)

I notice that in journalism reviews, it seems photojournalism in Canada and the United States is "all over the map" from major manipulation which is used as fair comment legally when politicians are involved through to cropping, touch up and some cloning out in the middle ground and to just cropping to fit the publication space at the other end of the spectrum.

skieur

 

[danalec99]

I use the example of, as a court photographer for an inquest, I had to take a photo of a snow pile and the area around it. The issue was the possible liability of the property owner for the accidental death of a young person. Any photographer knows that using focal length, angle, lenses, exposure, contrast, etc. one could make the amount of snow and the piles look from very large and copious to very small and not much at all, and that is without any postprocessing whatsoever. What is the reality here?

I would assume that one wouldn't pick a fisheye or a shallow depth of field for this shot.
I see your point, but wouldn't a normal lens on a ff body solve the issue? Did your photo negatively influence the case?

So I tend to agree with the National Press Photographers Association that cloning out objects and useless details that do not effect the meaning of the photo is ethical and should continue to be permitted. I don't think that making a decision is that difficult either when you are talking about part of a microphone, arm, paper etc. in the background.

The main reason why we are discussing cloning is because you suggested to blur that man and clone out the lady in the other thread, which he titled Photojournalistic shot. People are not unimportant objects. My reasoning against it (this has nothing to with composition or 'artistic' merit) is what if that blurred man or the cloned out element is important to an upcoming sinister plot? What if that is the only shot to solve the case? Hence the need for 'reality'.

I'm not comfortable with cloning out the microphone, arm etc either, but that's a personal preference - unless the shot is for a commercial work and if the said elements distracts the final intended content.
If I'm not mistaken I think it was you who posted an image from an hair salon and asked if the arm was distracting. To me, it wasn't. Like I said, it's a personal preference. Therefore it would be pointless to advocate a 'one size for all sweatshirt' as mysterscribe puts it, while analyzing an image.

 

[deanimator]

Weston sounds like an under-rated maestro....

Sure. Just like J. S. Bach and L. v. Beethoven were under-rated.

 

[crownlaurel]

When a child learns to speak, he follows the patterns he hears most. When he becomes aware of the rules, he almost always overgeneralizes the rules until he becomes mature enough in his ability to distinguish among rules and patterns and "outlaws." Maybe the same holds true for forms of art.

As someone who is new to SLR photography, I'd never heard of the "rule of thirds" until recently. I had heard of not centering everything and having some sort of context to pictures and many of the pictures I had taken before do "follow" the rule I'd never heard. I'd also taken a short class for shooting slides for missions work and one of the "rules" they gave us (I may still have the papers somewhere) said something about getting some greenery in the portraits ("Put a limb in it" was a phrase I remember because we played off that and had extra arms and legs stuck in portraits just for fun). That's where I also learned about not cutting off someone's hands or feet but I quickly learned that that rule isn't taught to low end photo studios like Sears or Olan Mills and it grated me to get a perfect picture of my child with one foot cut off (and having paid for it at that).

I began taking my kids' pictures 3 years ago. I knew what looked good. I knew what I liked to see and what I wanted to preserve. I knew to get their faces I had to squat or sit or even lay down. I knew that a head shot of a smiling face (posed in some ungodly and uncomfortable position) didn't capture their character. I learned from old snapshots that even a bad picture can create emotion (especially any photo of my late mother who hated to have her picture made).

Since I came here, many critiques of my images have said something like "nice composition" with suggestions on lighting, exposure, DOF (this is what I have learned most in the last few weeks), color, etc. I guess I consider the rule of thirds a little more now when shooting or cropping, but I also think it's too simplistic to place focus on one of four crosspoints in a photo where a slight move in one direction or another can mean the difference in including a crucial part of the picture or excluding a major distraction.

All my life I wanted to learn to paint. I had images in my head and I wanted to share them. I was told photography wasn't "art" and painting from a picture was cheating. Although I had a few fluke good pieces in art class, I never really learned to paint and now I find out photography IS an art. I can find or create the images I have in my head and I can share them. I believe that because it is an art, some people will only ever create pieces of technical perfection with no feeling or meaning. Some will create an image that perfectly follows the rule of thirds or other rules, yet has absolutely no value other than an image. And because it is an art, those who master and take license with it will be able to break every rule and still touch the heart.

 

[highwoodhiker]

They aren't rules. They are proven principles. The rule of thirds is the most commonly known and not even understood properly by many people and is not a guarantee of a good photo if used. There are other principles that are of better use depending on the photo. The rule of thirds is only the tip of the iceberg.
Because the principles are based on the balance we sunbconciously find pleasing to look at with the confines of borders or a frame, a person will naturally learn them and use them and get better at using them without even realizing they are doing it simply by judging which of their technically correct photos are good and which are bad without even really knowing exactly why they are good or bad. This happens naturally. It's just the way our brains work.
A person can say there are no rules but the principles do exist. Purposely learning them and putting in the effort of applying them through experimentation and practice will just speed up acquiring the ability to use them proficiently.
I guess it depends on how long a person wants to take to master composition. Why take 10 years to learn what could be learned in only a few years just by putting in a little extra effort?

 

[skieur]

I would assume that one wouldn't pick a fisheye or a shallow depth of field for this shot.
I see your point, but wouldn't a normal lens on a ff body solve the issue? Did your photo negatively influence the case?

The main reason why we are discussing cloning is because you suggested to blur that man and clone out the lady in the other thread, which he titled Photojournalistic shot. People are not unimportant objects. My reasoning against it (this has nothing to with composition or 'artistic' merit) is what if that blurred man or the cloned out element is important to an upcoming sinister plot? What if that is the only shot to solve the case? Hence the need for 'reality'.

I'm not comfortable with cloning out the microphone, arm etc either, but that's a personal preference - unless the shot is for a commercial work and if the said elements distracts the final intended content.
If I'm not mistaken I think it was you who posted an image from an hair salon and asked if the arm was distracting. To me, it wasn't. Like I said, it's a personal preference. Therefore it would be pointless to advocate a 'one size for all sweatshirt' as mysterscribe puts it, while analyzing an image.

Well, I tried to reply but it got deleted or disappeared.

skieur

 

[fmw]

I'll agree with Hertz on this one. Guidlines for composition might be a better term. There aren't any rules, really.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I keep saying this and it keeps getting lost....

Rules and ridgid formulas are easy... so people go looking for them. It is not that simple, It's about Balance.

Those things are common elements in good photos a lot of the time, but it isn't about that. It's about the image being balanced and you learn that by doing. Doing then having it pointed out to you. and then doing it again and having other flaws pointed it.

That's how you learn balance in images. Just following rules guidelines never teaches you balance. It teaches you to be a mime.

So get over the idea that you can carry a card with some instructions in your pocket and make great pictures. It just isn't going to work that way. That was my point in the beginning.

If you look in the thread 'really raw' you will see a flag on my front porch. I have shot it three times and probably will shoot it three more before I get an image I am satisfied with. It isn't about fixing it, it's about shooting it right. Anybody should be able to put a bandaid on a photograph and get it to pass. God knows over the years I've sold enough to crappy photos to know that is a fact.

 

[danalec99]

Sure. Just like J. S. Bach and L. v. Beethoven were under-rated.

Actually Ludwig is more 'popular' than Bach. Him and Mozart - just like Ansel Adams and HCB.

The little piece of info I had about Weston was that he was an inspiration to AA. I'm not a huge fan of of AA. Why then would I pay attention to his influence? But I'm glad I was wrong.