Which works better?

[tevo]

I tried to capture my little sister drawing with some chalk, and I am stuck between the two that came out. I highly value your opinion in this matter!

This:

Chalk by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

Or this:

Chalk by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

 

[Derrel]

Second one is much better imho...

 

[peter27]

#2, because we share her perspective. In the first shot we are mere onlookers, in the second we see what she sees.

 

[The_Traveler]

Perhaps that might not be the question you ought to ask.
The second one is better because we are seeing her perspective but did you want to capture the drawing with only a hint of the person or did you want to capture her doing the drawing?
In that case a more powerful picture might have been from further back, catching her sitting, or stooping and drawing - incorporating the person and her personality.

 

[Mully]

The POV in the second shot is better. I would have liked to seen a tight shot of her hand and part of the drawing because it would tell the story better.

 

[tevo]

Perhaps that might not be the question you ought to ask.
The second one is better because we are seeing her perspective but did you want to capture the drawing with only a hint of the person or did you want to capture her doing the drawing?
In that case a more powerful picture might have been from further back, catching her sitting, or stooping and drawing - incorporating the person and her personality.

Good point. The thought in my head was to show a hint of the person with the important action being the drawing, with hints toward the identity of the person being the bit of pink dress shown in the corner. The second image was originally the one I planned on using, but the first image was another angle that showed the act of drawing a bit more clearly (I thought, not so much now).

 

[Derrel]

Mully states that the Point of View in the second is better; I'll expound upon that: it deals with "planes", and does that well. We have the plane on which she is drawing, and then the closer plane, on which we see a small segment of a frilly skirt or tutu. I am going to assume she is seated, or more likely, KNEELING, on a wooden stoop,step, or porch, and she is leaning over and drawing on the sidewalk. The drawings she has already made are shown, flat, on a broad expanse of concrete, with her hand and arm leading in from the lower right. It appears to me that she is placing the very last "sun-ray" on her iconic, kid-style sun drawing. The upper shot does not have the sun drawing completed yet, and the blue board on the diagonal is a strong element, but it doesn't advance the photo very much. Due to the shallow DOF in the first shot, and the angled view, the picture seems like a snapshot, with many disparate, boring elements, just randomly thrown together. The second shot appears to be a more-formal "look" at her drawing, the drawing is farther along, and the depth of field is even, and nothing is out of focus. Our eyes can easily see one, whole "depth plane", and we can use our minds to fill in some interesting missing information. The pink fabric? Says "girl in dress". The white-sleeved arm indicates that it's not in the heat of the summer. The upside-down plastic frog is kind of a kid-like, whimsical toy.

If you would like a better understanding of the compositional worth of these two shots, rotate them both, and look at each,individually, while viewing them upside-down. You will see that the first composition is little more than a jumble, a mish-mash, with almost zero cohesiveness--and the second one, not so.

 

[tevo]

Mully states that the Point of View in the second is better; I'll expound upon that: it deals with "planes", and does that well. We have the plane on which she is drawing, and then the closer plane, on which we see a small segment of a frilly skirt or tutu. I am going to assume she is seated, or more likely, KNEELING, on a wooden stoop,step, or porch, and she is leaning over and drawing on the sidewalk. The drawings she has already made are shown, flat, on a broad expanse of concrete, with her hand and arm leading in from the lower right. It appears to me that she is placing the very last "sun-ray" on her iconic, kid-style sun drawing. The upper shot does not have the sun drawing completed yet, and the blue board on the diagonal is a strong element, but it doesn't advance the photo very much. Due to the shallow DOF in the first shot, and the angled view, the picture seems like a snapshot, with many disparate, boring elements, just randomly thrown together. The second shot appears to be a more-formal "look" at her drawing, the drawing is farther along, and the depth of field is even, and nothing is out of focus. Our eyes can easily see one, whole "depth plane", and we can use our minds to fill in some interesting missing information. The pink fabric? Says "girl in dress". The white-sleeved arm indicates that it's not in the heat of the summer. The upside-down plastic frog is kind of a kid-like, whimsical toy.

If you would like a better understanding of the compositional worth of these two shots, rotate them both, and look at each,individually, while viewing them upside-down. You will see that the first composition is little more than a jumble, a mish-mash, with almost zero cohesiveness--and the second one, not so.

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40795"/>

<img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=40796"/>

This has helped me to 'understand my own eye', or what it is that was visually appealing when I took the picture. It also gives me something to look for in the future. Sometimes it is difficult to verbalize why you like something that you see, or why certain things do/don't work, so this has been very helpful to me. Thank you Der-Bear

 

[Derrel]

Thanks for the kind thought, tevo. Ya' know, you might try viewing through the camera using your "off eye", for a while, and see if that changes your compositions. It's an interesting exercise. The upside-down thing is a classic advanced technique. Also, it is something that those of use who have used large-format cameras have had to deal with; images that are not only upside-down, but also laterally reversed when viewing, focusing, and composing using the view camera in its "standard" configuration. Same goes with those of use who have used waist-level viewfinder cameras, both SLR and TLR, with their laterally-reversed images. I think the image orientation changes that come from waist level finders, and the view camera, can help us learn to 'see' things in new,different ways. Coming to understand your 'own eye' is a process.

 

[tevo]

Thanks for the kind thought, tevo. Ya' know, you might try viewing through the camera using your "off eye", for a while, and see if that changes your compositions. It's an interesting exercise. The upside-down thing is a classic advanced technique. Also, it is something that those of use who have used large-format cameras have had to deal with; images that are not only upside-down, but also laterally reversed when viewing, focusing, and composing using the view camera in its "standard" configuration. Same goes with those of use who have used waist-level viewfinder cameras, both SLR and TLR, with their laterally-reversed images. I think the image orientation changes that come from waist level finders, and the view camera, can help us learn to 'see' things in new,different ways. Coming to understand your 'own eye' is a process.

I've experienced this while shooting my friend's RZ67, as well as the finder on my Kodak TLR and my Premo. It is certainly interesting and makes me rethink composition; I'm looking into getting a waist level finder for my F3.