Framing vs. Composition (non-technical stuff)?

[Evan55T]

So the most important thing(s) i should do is...

-try to line up the camera/viewfinder with lines within my frame so that would be my base for trying to get things even or level within the shot/frame/photograph.
-move back + use a shorter focal length lens

So in general i guess a lot of people use post-process to fix the leveling issue via cropping was always curious about this, coz i figured some people were naturally good at getting things to line up/level out perfectly lol and that it was a big deal to get things to be level in a shot *all the time*.

---

Thanks everyone for their responses really helps me out a lot thank you again

 

[smoke665]

Also i'm a beginner so every time i take a shot i start *heavy breathing* sometimes...

I try to get as close as possible in camera but I don't stress out about it because it's not that difficult to correct post.

The trouble with levelling in post is that you lose the edges of the picture. If you are photographing in a confined space (i.e. a church) that can be very important.

You missed the part where I said "I try to get as close as possible in camera". And, unless you have a miracle lens that I'm not aware of, you'll end up losing some of the top and bottom on a horizontal correction. My comment was more to the OP who stated " i'm still a beginner so sometimes i take a shot i start *heavy breathing* sometimes... the *heavy breathing* obv doesn't help" It's hard enough for a beginner to try to remember the elements of good composition without stressing out over things that could be fixed post. Rather than have a beginner stress out over having a camera perfectly level both horizontal and vertical I would advise them to move back or use a shorter focal length lens, so they have room on the edges to either rotate the image or adjust the perspective.

 

[OGsPhotography]

You can also correct/ alter perspective distortion in post. Very useful even for portraits.

 

[beccaf91]

*BUMP*

Didn't want to create another thread asking about something related to this topic ha.

How do i make all my shots straight/centered like do i just try to align my camera/viewfinder with lines or does it just take practice. Sorry if this question is unclear what i'm talking about is how most of my shots will tilt off to a slight angle instead of being completely flat, even, or leveled.

Such as when i'm taking some architectural pictures in a church or something is where this issue stands out the most, as the shot won't be completely level/symmetrical because of the way i'm holding it?

---

I think i can fix this with a tripod or by going into post-process and cropping it to make it so that everything is aligned straight.
^
But is there another way (besides PP or tripod) like a technique i can use to make sure i get leveled/flat shots all the time or does it just take physical practice to get clean leveled/centered/straight shots where all the lines are symmetrical.

I'll post some pics here in a bit of what i'm talking about.

I've found that its easier to find settings that have natural lines if you want your photos to be level. Like the photo below; I'm still working on composition and getting level images as well. *Oh and if all else fails, hit your photo with a rotational crop in LR.

Edit: is this better?

 

[goooner]

I don't want to rain on your parade, but the fence has a slant from top left to bottom right-negating your comment. Compositionally I would also have liked to see the boy more to the right, with the fence stretching in front of him.

 

[beccaf91]

I don't want to rain on your parade, but the fence has a slant from top left to bottom right-negating your comment. Compositionally I would also have liked to see the boy more to the right, with the fence stretching in front of him.

Oh not negating it, I said I'm still working on composition and getting images level. I never said this was perfect. Just that finding lines like that would be helpful. I know the image looks heavy on the left.

 

[Gary A.]

*BUMP*

Didn't want to create another thread asking about something related to this topic ha.

How do i make all my shots straight/centered like do i just try to align my camera/viewfinder with lines or does it just take practice. Sorry if this question is unclear what i'm talking about is how most of my shots will tilt off to a slight angle instead of being completely flat, even, or leveled.

Such as when i'm taking some architectural pictures in a church or something is where this issue stands out the most, as the shot won't be completely level/symmetrical because of the way i'm holding it?

---

I think i can fix this with a tripod or by going into post-process and cropping it to make it so that everything is aligned straight.
^
But is there another way (besides PP or tripod) like a technique i can use to make sure i get leveled/flat shots all the time or does it just take physical practice to get clean leveled/centered/straight shots where all the lines are symmetrical.

I'll post some pics here in a bit of what i'm talking about.

I've found that its easier to find settings that have natural lines if you want your photos to be level. Like the photo below; I'm still working on composition and getting level images as well. *Oh and if all else fails, hit your photo with a rotational crop in LR.
View attachment 135455

Edit: is this better?
View attachment 135459

I like this as a thought process ... a work in progress. I think the pose ... is unnatural and works against the all that is good. THe placement of the child against the left edge is uncomfortably close, but, his eyes looking into the blank/empty space helps balance the image, The results are an uneasy, 'edgey' balance, which I like, a yin/yang thing. I can see a purpose to the empty fence ... what distracts to my eye is all the sky. The sky and trees add very little to the primary subject of the kid, they distract more than they add to the image. What is interesting is that if the kid turned around and faced the fence, then the primary subject could, arguably, be the fence. I like images that make you think. Turn this image into a B&W and the kid would blend into the fence giving both nearly an equal footing with an edge to the kid. I'd crop it right above the kid's head, but I like tight.

There is absolutely no reason to maintain a final image which is proportional to your sensor format or the format of print paper and frames.

Style is important for a pro.

 

[Derrel]

Positioning a person so far off to the edge of a frame will usually cause some tension, either a huge amount if the person's gaze goes to the short side, and somewhat less tension if their gaze looks toward the majority side of the frame. The big issue though is the lighted tree, and also the other tree, and the large expanse of the fence. Considering the elements and principles of design that have been around for a long time in the visual arts, this composition breaks almost every normal rule, and does so without much positive gain. Gary refers to this as creating an "uneasy, edgy balance".

If you think about this as a see-saw, as a teeter-totter, we've got just one person on it. The balance is very heavily skewed toward the very,very short side of the frame, a short side that is so close that it looms. Why? What is the rationale? The fence takes up the majority of the space, and two trees and a large amount of sky overpower the boy. A slight bit of fence-post tops being minutely out of level is not the issue that needs fixing. What is it that this composition is trying to convey, or to show or illustrate? As Gary mentioned--had the boy been turned toward the large expanse of fence, normal thinking might easily lead the viewer to conclude that the fecne itself, was the subject of the image.

It's not all that common to offer C&C that has any bite, but Gary offered a summary I'd agree with, right at the opening of his C&C, when he said "I think the pose...is unnatural and works against the all that is good." This photo is breaking a lot of basic design ideas, to the extent that it's not improvable, unless it is basically cropped heavily and the right 80% of the frame discarded, and even then...his body position will be unnatural.

 

[beccaf91]

*BUMP*

Didn't want to create another thread asking about something related to this topic ha.

How do i make all my shots straight/centered like do i just try to align my camera/viewfinder with lines or does it just take practice. Sorry if this question is unclear what i'm talking about is how most of my shots will tilt off to a slight angle instead of being completely flat, even, or leveled.

Such as when i'm taking some architectural pictures in a church or something is where this issue stands out the most, as the shot won't be completely level/symmetrical because of the way i'm holding it?

---

I think i can fix this with a tripod or by going into post-process and cropping it to make it so that everything is aligned straight.
^
But is there another way (besides PP or tripod) like a technique i can use to make sure i get leveled/flat shots all the time or does it just take physical practice to get clean leveled/centered/straight shots where all the lines are symmetrical.

I'll post some pics here in a bit of what i'm talking about.

I've found that its easier to find settings that have natural lines if you want your photos to be level. Like the photo below; I'm still working on composition and getting level images as well. *Oh and if all else fails, hit your photo with a rotational crop in LR.
View attachment 135455

Edit: is this better?
View attachment 135459

I like this as a thought process ... a work in progress. I think the pose ... is unnatural and works against the all that is good. THe placement of the child against the left edge is uncomfortably close, but, his eyes looking into the blank/empty space helps balance the image, The results are an uneasy, 'edgey' balance, which I like, a yin/yang thing. I can see a purpose to the empty fence ... what distracts to my eye is all the sky. The sky and trees add very little to the primary subject of the kid, they distract more than they add to the image. What is interesting is that if the kid turned around and faced the fence, then the primary subject could, arguably, be the fence. I like images that make you think. Turn this image into a B&W and the kid would blend into the fence giving both nearly an equal footing with an edge to the kid. I'd crop it right above the kid's head, but I like tight.

There is absolutely no reason to maintain a final image which is proportional to your sensor format or the format of print paper and frames.

Style is important for a pro.

I thought the curve of the branch above his head helped sort of frame him and draw your eye more to him. He wasn't posed, this was a candid of him being goofy. He just turned 5. Lol. Being that you think the sky and the trees add nothing; it would be better to include only the things a subject is directly interacting with in a portrait? Or seems to have an interaction with? (Like if he were looking at something?)

 

[Derrel]

Here's a more-basic question. If the subject is taller than it is wide, what would be the most-natural way to orient a camera that shoots in a 3:2 aspect ratio? What is the subject of the photo? The child? The child in his environment? Was he wearing crazy kid shoes, like the orange Crocs my son loved when he was 4 and 5? Silly rubber boots? His first pair of Nike Air shoes?

How about the "him" as the subject? What about showing him, head to toe? Him as an entire personage. Him in his overall "smallness". Or as I used to joke about my son, "His Regal Tinyness". I think you gave in to the most-common trap for beginners, which is shooting the way the camera, or the phone, makes it easiest to grasp and click the shutter release.

It's instructive to note that MANY medium-format, square cameras had a shutter release button that was located on the front of the camera, on the lower left corner of the body, since the camera was often supported underneath with the left hand, and there was NO proper or improper way to frame. Camera orientartion is immaterial on a 6 x 6 aspect, square-format camera--but it is HUGELY critical on the wide-but-not-very-tall 3:2 aspect ratio cameras.

I think the real issue of the shot of the boy and the fence is that the picture was neither framed nor composed in the best or ideal camera orientation. The basic idea is that if the subject is taller than it is wide, the natural framing is as a "tall"... a vertical framing...with a 3:2 camera this is a HUGE decision! Many,many images cannot be corrected by "cropping" a 3:2 original down.

Television and cinema never uses a vertical framing.Computer displays favor the horizontal image. But NEW, smartphone displays look great with "talls".

 

[dasmith232]

I've long been biased towards verticals even in landscape work. But another factor is that our eyes are situated horizontally. Is that a real-world factor that pushes us towards horizontal orientation? On web pages, a wide picture in a scrolling browser window (going back to your comment about computer monitors) can be more impressive as a horizontal.

I fully agree with your points above. I also recognize that in today's world, there are (new, and not-necessarily-photographic influences) that push us towards horizontals.

On top of that, lenses don't favor any of those! Circles anyone?

 

[Derrel]

I've long been biased towards verticals even in landscape work. But another factor is that our eyes are situated horizontally. Is that a real-world factor that pushes us towards horizontal orientation? On web pages, a wide picture in a scrolling browser window (going back to your comment about computer monitors) can be more impressive as a horizontal.

I fully agree with your points above. I also recognize that in today's world, there are (new, and not-necessarily-photographic influences) that push us towards horizontals.

On top of that, lenses don't favor any of those! Circles anyone?

Verticals convey action, movement, dynamism, power, activity, and so on. Horizontals convey tranquility, repose, restfulness, stability. These are very basic, deeply-rooted psychological frameworks (biases?) for evaluating and categorizing pictures, shared by hundreds of millions of people. These are the types of built-in biases that are shared by the vast majority of people on this planet. This knowledge is out there, but many people operate in the visual fields without being expressly aware of these biases/views.

Michael Freeman has a nice book example that shows a crouching worker in a rice paddy, with about 20 different framings/croppings of the person, in various placements within the frame, and in vertical and horizontal pictures. This is a great book for a person who wants to understand how to use design principles, and how to most effectively arrange design elements to make good digital images. Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books

The idea here is that in **digitial imaging**, we often will capture shots with the intention of doing fairly extensive post-processing of the images we capture in the field; this, more than anything, is the critical difference between digitial and film-based photography.


Reason to Favor Verticals: Here is a post that I originally saw here on TPF on my desktop computer. Be aware that this has several B&W Not Safe For WORK type images

Fishnet Fantasy (NSFW) *Lots of Images*

Anyway, I saw it first here on a horizontal display. Later that day, I saw it on my phone, and on that tall,narrow, vertical display, the entire series was much stronger! The majority of the images were verticals, and the post displayed on a vertical phone layout in a much better way than it did on a horizontal computer screen!

This example might be the most clear example of how a good "tall" image, or a series of them, can make an excellent photo essay on a phone and in a web browser formatted display vehicle.