Sparrow
Veteran
It is refreshing to see a thread on RFF actually discussing HC-B's images instead of what lenses he used!
HC-B studied under André Lhote so he would have extensive knowledge of classical drawing and design. He used the golden ratio as well as the root system of design and he knew instinctively where everything sat in the frame. The 1.5:1 frame used with a Leica is close to the Golden Rectangle and also close to the Root-2 rectangle. The 1.5:1 frame can be constructed exactly with two overlapping Root-4 rectangles. HC-B used all of this knowledge for composing.
One thing that I really admire about HC-B is his use of a gamut; simplifying an image to just a few dominant lines. For example, the following photo where the dominant lines are the horizontal, the vertical and the 45-degree diagonal. This image is also composed very accurately using overlapping Root-4's.
© Henri Cartier-Bresson/Magnum Photos
Yes, I'm in complete agreement. Composition (geometry) is visual grammar and shouldn't necessarily be the subject.
... so you think the repetition of the more oriental 1:1 and 1:2 proportion an the profusion of 45 degree parallelograms and right angle triangles have little to do with your reaction to that photo? I would have said that was a typical example of similarity, continuation and common fate myself ... and given Henri's avant-garde peccadilloes surely if he were thinking of anything when he took that shot would not Gestalt rather than Classical psychology have been the more likely?
Nando
Well-known
I find the photo interesting due to a number of things; there is the important historical context as it was taken during China's communist revolution and old China does have its charm. The geometry in this particular photo, fascinates me immensely. How the table cuts the lower 1/4 of the frame creating a Root-4 (1:2) rectangle at the top. Similarly the head at the top-left is also 1/4 down from the top of the frame. How the heads are placed on the rebated diamond but also on the 1/3rd vertical divisions. The 45 degree lines of the shadows, the lower man's right arm, the frame of the table, etc. Now for me, as a photographer, I am actively looking at the geometry. I always want to see how an image was constructed. To the general viewer, the geometry is normally subliminal.
I can't speak for HC-B but when I see lines at 45 degrees, I automatically think about composing with a rebated diamond and thus the root-4 rectangle. Unfortunately, I haven't had much success at it. I find composing with the rebated square or with a major-diagonal/reciprocal easier.
I do not think that HC-B sees all the things I mentioned above as he takes the shot. Or perhaps he does. I don't know. My hunch is that he relies primarily on instinct when shooting but he does take time to compose when he has the opportunity. This was evident when I saw some samples of his contact sheets. Rob brought a very important point to this discussion. We should also take into consideration that we have a 2nd chance to review the composition of the photographs - when looking the contact sheets. At this step, HC-B could fully analyze the shot and make the final oui or non.
Adam Marelli does a nice analysis of the above in his article on Craig Semetko.
http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2011/06/craig-semetko/
Sparrow
Veteran
Personally I'd have done what he did and put the subjects, the two people, on the diagonal third nodes ... he may well have seen the repetition of the diagonals, squares, rectangles the various hemispheres and inverted hemispheres at the time but I doubt it ... it looks like somthing that was noticed on the contact sheet to me.
I really don't think he was seeing, or looking at proportion at all .. otherwise he would have spotted that glaring vertical line slap-bang in the middle of the frame wouldn't he?
Nando
Well-known
I don't see anything wrong with the vertical line dead centre in that particular photograph. If you take into consideration that a Root-4 is in the ratio of 2:1, an element dead centre that divides the two squares often works. It depends.
George61d
Member
Doesn't that create a nice symmetry ?
George61d
Member
George61d
Member
Thanks PKR...Your loading me up with homework for the weekend[/Q
The PDF, in the dark block, last paragraph..
Noted, thanks.
Does for me. Remove any one element from that photo and I bet it may fall apart.
Sparrow
Veteran
Em, no ... it's something to be avoided in almost all aesthetic systems, verticals are oddly less intrusive than horizontal half divisions but both draw the eye in a linear way discouraging exploration of the rest of image and leading the eye out of the frame
But it works in this photo regardless of what is supposed to not work in general. That said, we all don't see the image the same way.
olakiril
Well-known
Great thread indeed.
Thinking visually requires a lot of training. In the process of mastering this, it slowly becomes more intuitive and requires less effort. Now, I believe there is no single solution to a visual problem, and different compositions can be implemented to emphasize different points. It would be very hard to see the decisive moment if you had to philosophise the question at the same time. So even if it was just a simple snapshot from HCB this does not mean that it was random. All the critical thinking and experience had been used for that single shot.
Absolutely agree with George here and this relates to another recent thread on whether a single photograph should stand by itself. Of course it should, but when going through a series of photographs, then we can gain more information from each individual picture since they were dependent on the single photographer.
I would slightly disagree here. I would change the word understanding with appreciate because art does not have a goal by itself. Maybe over-thinking allows us to critically generalize and generate new ideas that help our understanding of the world. Art helps in that.
But maybe I am wrong.
M.
Thinking visually requires a lot of training. In the process of mastering this, it slowly becomes more intuitive and requires less effort. Now, I believe there is no single solution to a visual problem, and different compositions can be implemented to emphasize different points. It would be very hard to see the decisive moment if you had to philosophise the question at the same time. So even if it was just a simple snapshot from HCB this does not mean that it was random. All the critical thinking and experience had been used for that single shot.
Absolutely agree with George here and this relates to another recent thread on whether a single photograph should stand by itself. Of course it should, but when going through a series of photographs, then we can gain more information from each individual picture since they were dependent on the single photographer.
I would slightly disagree here. I would change the word understanding with appreciate because art does not have a goal by itself. Maybe over-thinking allows us to critically generalize and generate new ideas that help our understanding of the world. Art helps in that.
But maybe I am wrong.
M.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Just wondering, you certainly know more than I do about composition. But could you give, boiled down, the 2-4 basic composition formats that are the most important.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Nando
Well-known
Adam Marelli gave an excellent lecture at B&H that shows the basics without getting into the root system of design used in classical drawing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwk3YFknyNA
As for composing using the root system of design, the book that you provided the link to is an excellent start. The root rectangles have a dynamic, repeating, harmonic geometry within the frame that can be used to establish a gamut and for placement of elements. The root system of design can be quite confusing for the beginner. I had a bit of head start. I used to draw and I was introduced to some of the basics by an art teacher in high school. Then I became familiar with dynamic rectangles in university while studying mathematics. Most recently, following Adam Marelli's advice, I went through Myron Barnstone's Foundation of Drawing and Design course. It improved my understanding of classical composition immensely and I actively started to employ it in my own photography.
Normally in classical drawing, the painter would choose a frame that is suitable for the subject. For example, for a head and shoulders portrait a Root-Phi rectangle (close to 3:4) may be chosen. For a seascape, a wide Root-4 or Root-5 rectangle will likely work best.
With photography, we often go the other way around - we start with the frame.
Personally, I use 35mm primarily and 6x6 and 6x9 in medium format and 4x5 large format. I avoided 6x7 because of the weird ratio. I'm attracted to 6x12 (a perfect Root-4) but I have enough cameras.
The 35mm frame is a 1:1.5 rectangle. It is close to the Golden rectangle, which is approximately 1:1.618. I normally use the same conventions used when composing using the golden rectangle. Finding a rebated square or two. Finding whirling squares. What I tend to do most is to try composing on the diagonal with its reciprocal.
The Root-2, which is approximately 1:1.414, is also close to 1:1.5. The 'rule of thirds' come into play with the Root-2 rectangle.
When using the root rectangles, one can stack and combine them. The Root-4 is handy because it is in the ratio of 1:2. Two identical squares joined together form a Root-4. A 1:1.5 frame can be constructed by overlapping two Root-4 rectangles. By drawing in all the diagonals and their reciprocals, you'll get a 1:1 rebated diamond in the centre, the frame can be divided horizontally in quarters and vertically in thirds or quarters where diagonal intersect (the eyes).
With 6x6 - I usually try to imagine a pentagram when composing. All the lines of a pentagram intersect each other on the golden section. Fra Bartolomeo's "Madonna and Child," which sold for $13 million a few days ago, is composed using the pentagram. Michelangelo's "Holy Family" is another example. Both are actually framed in a circle but composing can be the same for a square. I find square format quite difficult to deal with and I don't use it often enough to improve. Also I find framing with squares within a rectangle much more interesting than a square frame by itself. I often use my 6x6 cameras when I intentionally want to crop. The 6x6 negative is usually big enough for it. I'll likely abandon 6x6 eventually.
Despite being called a 6x9, my Bessa RF actually has a 3:5 frame and is closer to a golden rectangle than the 1:1.5 frame. However, my Bessa RF is more of a toy than a tool for me. I only use it when I want to have a break from my other cameras.
With 4x5, I take out 1/2 inch on the short side to get a 3.5:5 ratio. This is extremely close to the Root-2. Take a look a Marie Cosindas' work. She framed pretty much everything with the Root-2. Every line and angle is measured, every element positioned perfectly... Eileen Cowin's did similar work too. An aside: Cosindas and Cowin carefully constructed their frame whereas HC-B extracted a frame from chaos. For me, that is the what makes HC-B a genius; not only could he extract the perfect composition but also the emotion and significance of the moment. And that he made so many great photographs.
So, getting back to dynamic rectangles. in my opinion, the ones that come in handy are the Root-2, Root-4 and the Golden Rectangle. I don't consider myself an expert. Lets just say that I'm a big fan of classical drawing just as one may be a big fan of classical music. And I try to understand and employ the techniques of the past masters I admire into my own photography. For me, this means using employing the principles of the root system when composing.
Nando
Well-known
This video by Myron Barnstone may help bring some clarification to what I wrote above:
http://vimeo.com/12245720
Barnestone's demonstrates a composition made by a 14-year-old Pablo Picasso with a Root-2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGbBjc2blQ0
http://vimeo.com/12245720
Barnestone's demonstrates a composition made by a 14-year-old Pablo Picasso with a Root-2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGbBjc2blQ0
George61d
Member
Nando, great information thanks.
George61d
Member
@olakiril, I agree appreciation is a better term.
My plan is to write up some sort of photo or other fine art Investigation every month. I have to balance it with a day job that involves lots of travel so I may not be able to do it as often as I hope.
My plan is to write up some sort of photo or other fine art Investigation every month. I have to balance it with a day job that involves lots of travel so I may not be able to do it as often as I hope.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Very many thanks for your wonderful essay. There is alot to go through there, but I have the day off today so will continue reading. Thanks again, not only from me but for everybody else that will learn about a hard subject.
Edit: thanks again nando, I enjoyed them all. Adam's video was very good for photographers. I will watch it again
Edit: thanks again nando, I enjoyed them all. Adam's video was very good for photographers. I will watch it again
Sparrow
Veteran
... root 2, that is 1:1.41 isn't of any real application other than it's the ratio of the A-size papers A4 being 210x297, A3 297x420 and so on ... phi, is the golden ratio at 1:1.62 both are irrational constants from the Classical Era ... that is Greece BC 500 to 300-ish
Both being close enough to 1:1.5 is missing the point it's like claiming 3 is close enough pi not to matter
Your third paragraph is a very pertinent observation ... although I suspect he would be looking for Gestalt rather than Classical composition
Both being close enough to 1:1.5 is missing the point it's like claiming 3 is close enough pi not to matter
Your third paragraph is a very pertinent observation ... although I suspect he would be looking for Gestalt rather than Classical composition
Nando
Well-known
Yes, by "root" I mean square-root.
A Root-1 is 1:1 (a square)
A Root-2 rectangle is one that is in the ratio of 1:√2
A Root-3 is 1:√3
A Root-4 is 1:√4 = 1:2
A Root-5 is 1:√5
A Root-φ is 1:√φ (φ is approximately 0.618)
A Golden Rectangle is 1:Φ (approximately 1:1.618)
More info on dynamic rectangles here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_rectangle
Depending on the application, these rectangles can be stacked one on top of the other, placed side-by-side, and they can also overlap. You would see this very much in architecture. For example, take a look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Laon_Cathedral's_regulator_lines.jpg
Now, the 35mm frame is in the ratio of 1:1.5. We can construct this rectangle exactly using two Root-4 rectangles.
Here is a Root-4 rectangle with its rebated diamond. Imagine there are two of these rectangles, one in front of the other.
Now, imagine shifting one of the rectangles up to make a 1:1.5 rectangle. So here, I shifted the red Root-4 rectangle up a bit and its now overlapping the white Root-4 rectangle below.
Now, here is the overlapping Root-4's applied to the HC-B image that I referred to in my previous post:
I do pretty much the same things. When looking for a pleasing composition, I know that if I can manage to line things up on the golden section or on the harmonic lines of a root rectangle, I'll automatically get a pleasing composition. Believe it or not, its a short-cut. Once, you familiarize yourself with the root-system of design and spend a lot of time looking at and analyzing works of past masters, simplifying their works in straight lines and divisions, you'll start to actually seeing the same sort of things in the real world when you're just looking around.