ChrisP
Grain Lover
Curious as to what people think about images with people looking out of the frame (and sharing some images may help us make up our mind on this subject). I have lots of images with people looking into the frame (see first set of examples). This seems to be fairly safe. It causes the image to be a little unbalanced which keeps thing interesting but isn’t too discomforting. We know what, if anything, the subject is looking at and this seems to put us (or the viewer I guess I should say) at ease.
However, another possibility is to have the subject looking out of the frame. This seems more uncomfortable for the viewer. Now the image is unbalanced and additionally we don’t know what the subject is looking at. Does this extra drama work? Is it pushing the discomfort too far? Are there certain situations where it works and where it doesn’t? I’d be interested to hear what people have to say about this.
(This one isn't the best image because of the shadow on the eyes but I think its a good example)
(This one feels like the subject is looking out which I guess means the subject is the guy on the left, OR maybe instead of looking out with should be talking about blank space behind the subject)
However, another possibility is to have the subject looking out of the frame. This seems more uncomfortable for the viewer. Now the image is unbalanced and additionally we don’t know what the subject is looking at. Does this extra drama work? Is it pushing the discomfort too far? Are there certain situations where it works and where it doesn’t? I’d be interested to hear what people have to say about this.
(This one isn't the best image because of the shadow on the eyes but I think its a good example)
(This one feels like the subject is looking out which I guess means the subject is the guy on the left, OR maybe instead of looking out with should be talking about blank space behind the subject)
It depends on the photo for me... if it works, then cool IMO. For me the your 1st and 3rd photos work...
cambolt
Green Spotted Nose Turtle
Sparrow
Veteran
I'd have said those were looking into the frame actually ... well apart from the one colour photo
PS I like the first one a lot
PS I like the first one a lot
RioRico
Opinionated User
Sit them on a playground merry-go-round, spin and shoot all aspects. Not fast enough for a barf-bag unless you really need the excitement (and use a fast shutter).
braver
Well-known
None of the so called compositional ruls are any use. I'm all for challenging the balance of a photograph and I think the color photograph works in a way.
21-135 Apo All Good
Established
Generally the leading line comes into a photo from the left side, as we read from left to right. Break the rules when you know it works. Otherwise all you have is a mistake. Try putting something of interest in the foreground or opposite the face that helps tell the story.
Shoot it both ways and sell the one that people will buy.
Dave
Shoot it both ways and sell the one that people will buy.
Dave
mdarnton
Well-known
I'd agree with Sparrow on this: by the original question's definition, any photo where the subject is looking square into the center of the lens is "looking out of the frame". Isn't that about 99% of all pictures that aren't family snapshots or advertising illustrations?
Anyway, yes, using rules for composition are the surest path to a rotten picture. If there's any rule that works, it must be that everything that's happening in the picture should ideally have a reason for being there and being the way it is, an explanation beyond simply doing something different for effect. None of the pix above are all that interesting to me because they aren't really telling me anything at all about the subjects or the situations, and in several cases, the emphasis on and inclusion of the background is totally inexplicable (the last photo of the man in cambolt's post is a good example). The first one could be chopped right in half, and I don't think anyone would miss the left half at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
Anyway, yes, using rules for composition are the surest path to a rotten picture. If there's any rule that works, it must be that everything that's happening in the picture should ideally have a reason for being there and being the way it is, an explanation beyond simply doing something different for effect. None of the pix above are all that interesting to me because they aren't really telling me anything at all about the subjects or the situations, and in several cases, the emphasis on and inclusion of the background is totally inexplicable (the last photo of the man in cambolt's post is a good example). The first one could be chopped right in half, and I don't think anyone would miss the left half at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
mdarnton
Well-known
Malarky to me? And yet you did just what I suggested, and it's a nice picture that works the best of any here so far.
. . . and looking at your work, you appear to be a king of the tight crop.
. . . and looking at your work, you appear to be a king of the tight crop.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
Malarky to me? And yet you did just what I suggested, and it's a nice picture that works the best of any here so far.
. . . and looking at your work, you appear to be a king of the tight crop.
Sorry, no, not you. The "rule."
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
Sometimes it is a bit irritating to have a picture cropped or composed so that no room is left on the side the subject is looking. Composition rules are meant to be broken though, and IMO the result is often interesting. This one I posted before, but it fits in this discussion I believe..
