Daneinbalto
Established
Vernacular photography is often characterized by a centered nominal subject. On the other hand, basic photo books intended for the general public often tout "the rule of thirds". There are also more advanced recipes for good composition, and looking at fine art photography, it is admittedly rare that the nominal subject is smack in the middle.
However, I went through "Henri Cartier-Bresson: Photographer" and found five pictures where the subject (at least what I perceived to be the subject) was more or less in the center. Diane Arbus also has many pictures with a centered subject, but of course she was using a square format, which some think lends itself better to centered subjects.
In my own photography, I'm trying to avoid the affectation it could be move the nominal subject away from the center just because of dogma. Other than the odd HCB shot, I'm wondering if there are any 35 mm (or other rectangular format) photographers who give a hoot and center subjects with abandon.
However, I went through "Henri Cartier-Bresson: Photographer" and found five pictures where the subject (at least what I perceived to be the subject) was more or less in the center. Diane Arbus also has many pictures with a centered subject, but of course she was using a square format, which some think lends itself better to centered subjects.
In my own photography, I'm trying to avoid the affectation it could be move the nominal subject away from the center just because of dogma. Other than the odd HCB shot, I'm wondering if there are any 35 mm (or other rectangular format) photographers who give a hoot and center subjects with abandon.
Daneinbalto
Established
Maybe the moderator could move this thread to Photo Exhibits / Famous Photogs.
I wasn't aware of this forum until after I had posted...Is this forum new?
I wasn't aware of this forum until after I had posted...Is this forum new?
antiquark
Derek Ross
IMHO, the rule of thirds is a beginner's rule. It's to help you photograph a scene, rather than an object.
However, once you've "perfected" the rule of thirds, there's no reason to follow it mindlessly.
(I can't think of any photogs offhand)
However, once you've "perfected" the rule of thirds, there's no reason to follow it mindlessly.
(I can't think of any photogs offhand)
Nate Butler
Established
bmattock
Veteran
In my opinion, the viewer's eye should be led to the main subject, by whatever means that may take. Strong diagonals, rule of thirds, centering the subject portrait-style, eye-centering (which is not necessarily subject-centering) and so on.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct98/eye.html
http://www.linesandcolors.com/2006/03/30/eye-placement-in-portraits/
I would have to go back and look at my shots with an eye towards how I placed my subjects - I really don't pay much attention unless there is a specific juxtaposition I intend to use to draw attention or make a statement. I would not be surprised to find I do tend to place my subjects smack dab in the middle of the frame. But then again, I like vernacular photography.
I'll probably start paying closer attention now - at least for awhile!
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct98/eye.html
http://www.linesandcolors.com/2006/03/30/eye-placement-in-portraits/
I would have to go back and look at my shots with an eye towards how I placed my subjects - I really don't pay much attention unless there is a specific juxtaposition I intend to use to draw attention or make a statement. I would not be surprised to find I do tend to place my subjects smack dab in the middle of the frame. But then again, I like vernacular photography.
I'll probably start paying closer attention now - at least for awhile!
Al Kaplan
Veteran
There are various ways of trying to compose a good photo, but in the end it comes down to "Salt to taste". With B&W pictures you could put two people each 1/3 of the way from each other and the ends of the frame, or three people each centered in their own third. Boring, but it follows "The Rule".
But photos are made up of lights and darks. You could do the same as above, but using the lightest or darkest area of each figure, or a background feature. Having a person facing the nearest edge of the frame creates a tension, and on and on...Does it look good to YOU? If other people tell you it stinks does it bother you? If you ignore them does it bother them? Do you really care?
Go color. The chick on the left wears a bright red dress, the other two wear dowdy medium brown, but in B&W they are all close to the same shade of grey. What to do? Look for the moment when there's an interesting interplay of facial expressions? Hand gestures? A yellow Hummer drives by in the background? A group of pigeons fly by in the background? A cat comes bounding across the frame in the foreground?
Go out and shoot a couple of rolls within a few hours time. Whenever you see something interesting, whatever it might be, whip the camera up to your eye and fire the shutter as fast as possible, before the "moment" passes. Don't waste any time carefully framing the shot. My guess is that you'll get a higher percentage of interesting well composed photos than you'd get if you were worrying about the "rules" of composition.
If you'd like to see a bunch of pictures ~drawings, not photographs~ that have fantastic composition but don't seem to follow the classical "rules" google "Aubrey Beardsley", a late 19th century artist who worked in black and white, stark black and white! His drawings contain no greys. They do exemplify the concept of working with masses of blacks and whites, though.
But photos are made up of lights and darks. You could do the same as above, but using the lightest or darkest area of each figure, or a background feature. Having a person facing the nearest edge of the frame creates a tension, and on and on...Does it look good to YOU? If other people tell you it stinks does it bother you? If you ignore them does it bother them? Do you really care?
Go color. The chick on the left wears a bright red dress, the other two wear dowdy medium brown, but in B&W they are all close to the same shade of grey. What to do? Look for the moment when there's an interesting interplay of facial expressions? Hand gestures? A yellow Hummer drives by in the background? A group of pigeons fly by in the background? A cat comes bounding across the frame in the foreground?
Go out and shoot a couple of rolls within a few hours time. Whenever you see something interesting, whatever it might be, whip the camera up to your eye and fire the shutter as fast as possible, before the "moment" passes. Don't waste any time carefully framing the shot. My guess is that you'll get a higher percentage of interesting well composed photos than you'd get if you were worrying about the "rules" of composition.
If you'd like to see a bunch of pictures ~drawings, not photographs~ that have fantastic composition but don't seem to follow the classical "rules" google "Aubrey Beardsley", a late 19th century artist who worked in black and white, stark black and white! His drawings contain no greys. They do exemplify the concept of working with masses of blacks and whites, though.
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
If there was a fixed set of rules to make good art, all the best artists would be lawyers...
martin s
Well-known
But do you guys really actively think about all this while shooting? When I started out everything was in the middle (_especially 6x6), it took some time and now I don't center anything. I would like to, though, and I think I might just occasionaly frame that way in future. I kind of like the egglestonian (?) approach of shooting without thinking, from where you are - maybe even w/o conciously recomposing. This obviously leads to bad pictures on my part, but eventually I'm hoping it'll improve my photography..
Lise Sarfati is another photographer who frames a lot of her images centered.
Good night everyone.
martin
Lise Sarfati is another photographer who frames a lot of her images centered.
Good night everyone.
martin
charjohncarter
Veteran
That is really interesting, in the second site there is a place to click to a much bigger article.
sanmich
Veteran
I have the feeling that this "instictive" way fits mostly with wides, what do you think?
antiquark
Derek Ross
Usually (if I'm paying attention) I'll slowly move the viewfinder around a bit and look at what's around the edges of the picture. Some things help the picture, so I'll try to get them in the frame, some things will hinder the picture, so I'll keep them out.
In general I try to get stuff in the frame if it helps a picture.
Also, a centered image has the connotation of being "in your face" so it will give a different meaning to the picture.
bmattock
Veteran
I don't specifically think about centering the main subject - or not. I do think about how I want my composition to look, although that's become such second nature to me now, I can't say that I typically think of it consciously. I don't consciously apply 'rules of composition' either - either I'm not using them or it's ingrained and I do it without thinking - I don't know which.
When I do think about composition, it is generally when I see a valid choice of more than one composition for a given scene, and I find myself consciously selecting one or more compositions. If I have time, I may check them both (or more) out in my viewfinder, or take both photos, etc.
It's like phone poles growing out of people's heads. At first, you don't notice it until someone points it out in your photos. Then you notice it a lot, and pay strict attention to it. Then you forget about it, but you stop letting phone poles and lampshades grow out of people's heads in your shots. From time to time, you might still make a mistake - or find that you want the shot anyway, to heck with the phone pole. But otherwise, you just stop noticing.
Chris101
summicronia
Beardsley's work has masses alright - anatomically unattainable, but massive to be sure!
On topic, my subjects almost always find their way to the center of my photographs.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Totally agree. Alex Soth centers his subjects and his portraits are awesome, sometimes a little weird, but awsome just the same..
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The instinctive shot is easiest with a wide since focus isn't so critical. Between shots I try to keep my lens focused between infinity and the aproximate distance of the subject. That way I always know which way to turn it. When the images align it's button pushing time. With tabbed lenses you get to the point where you can fodus just by feeling where the tab is. That tab focusing is also the beauty of the Minolta Autocord TLR.
If it's a strong picture then slightly missed focus is no worse than a bit of motion blur. Sometimes they make for a more riveting image than perfect sharpness.
If it's a strong picture then slightly missed focus is no worse than a bit of motion blur. Sometimes they make for a more riveting image than perfect sharpness.
DougFord
on the good foot
close enough for rock'n roll
close enough for rock'n roll
The placement of the subject in my pics depends on a number of variables. I've taken pics of individuals without using the viewfinder and have ended up with them placed dead center with a light post growing out of their heads, but it 'worked'. I've also had time to compose shots through the viewfinder and positioned elements within the frame in a more formal arrangement. It either works or it doesn't. If I had the time to look through the viewfinder each time, perhaps I would have done something stupid like trying to make a more formal composition but in the process, missing the moment. If I see something interesting, I do whats necessary to get the shot. I'll let circumstance dictate my technique. What I end up with is what it is.
close enough for rock'n roll
The placement of the subject in my pics depends on a number of variables. I've taken pics of individuals without using the viewfinder and have ended up with them placed dead center with a light post growing out of their heads, but it 'worked'. I've also had time to compose shots through the viewfinder and positioned elements within the frame in a more formal arrangement. It either works or it doesn't. If I had the time to look through the viewfinder each time, perhaps I would have done something stupid like trying to make a more formal composition but in the process, missing the moment. If I see something interesting, I do whats necessary to get the shot. I'll let circumstance dictate my technique. What I end up with is what it is.
FrankS
Registered User
It's a case by case decision about what looks best. Placement of subject is an important decision, made either consciously or intuitively.