I print from in-camera negatives in platinum and in carbon transfer. The carbon prints, since it is a transfer process, reverses the image. So while I will often be considering one process over the other when composing, I do find that both versions of an image can equally work as well, just perhaps not in the same exact way.
Under the darkcloth, for a platinum print, I just mentally spin the image on the GG 180 degrees on the same plane. Since carbon printing reverses the image, for those I just mentally spin the GG image on the horizontal axis along its center. Anyway, the end result is that I end up composing an image that is mentally orientated the same as print will be.
I still remember the first time, after a long session under the darkcloth, that when I took the darkcloth off and looked around, the world looked upside down for an instant, then returned to 'normal'.
Something my prof mentioned often -- while turning student's photos upside down on the critique board.
I'm biased because I just started with LF photography. But I still feel that general composition is better right side up. Maybe if you are honing in on objects and forms and shapes for BW photography, upside down may be better. But for general photography, the rules of composition work right side up.It takes some doing, but what you describe (upside down/laterally reversed) is one of the allures of the larger formats for me. If you can learn to let go of your conceptions of what the picture is of, but instead study how the image looks on the ground glass, you will eventually fail to even recognize what your brain is telling you is “correct.” There have been plenty of times when I’ve come out from under the dark cloth, looked at what the camera was pointed at, and thought “Huh. How about that. I had no idea.”
Would that be as in General Patton as played by G.C.Scott? Cause he'd say that rules will work whichever damn way up he wants them to.But for general photography, the rules of composition work right side up.
There is a simple test for eye dominance, and it usually does correspond to hand dominance, although more left-handers can be right-eye dominant rather than the other way around. Make a small hole (like a hole punch) in a piece of paper. Hold it at about arm's length, centered and look at a spot or object about 6 feet away, using both eyes. Then close one eye, left or right. The one that sees the spot is the dominant one.
You can just switch from one to the other, makes no difference.
There are rules to composition? Maybe in a high school photography class where the teacher gives an assignment to give the kids something to do. There are no rules of composition in the real world.But for general photography, the rules of composition work right side up.
No, the composition is not in mind before I go under the dark cloth. That’s where the discovery and growth occur. I’m not tweaking anything under there—I’m finding the picture on the ground glass, and quite often it’s nothing like I assumed it would be. Moving past one’s assumptions is key to this.Also, you have the composition in mind before sticking your head under the dark cloth. You already honed in on the subject and layout. So basically, you're probably just tweaking the final edges under the cloth so upside down doesn't;t matter.
I promise you, there are a whole world of discoveries you might make if you set aside all the preconceptions (and “rules”) and dispensed with the “taking the picture before taking the picture” approach. The ubiquity of digital has killed quite a bit, unfortunately.I'm using my digital camera as a director's viewfinder. So there again, I plotted the composition before I even set up the tripod and selected the lens.
Hold the paper further away.
The instructions say to center the spot in the hole in the paper with both eyes open. Then without moving the paper or your head, close one eye and if you still see the spot through the hole, that is the dominant eye. If you don't then that eye is not dominant. Obviously, the distant spot you are focusing on needs to be relatively small.Makes no difference, if you start by using your right eye, every time you do it it will come up right side. If you start by using your left eye then that will be dominant. If you just do it randomly it will use which ever eye was last used......then after awhile you go cross eyed and can switch from one to the other.
The instructions say to center the spot in the hole in the paper with both eyes open. Then without moving the paper or your head, close one eye and if you still see the spot through the hole, that is the dominant eye. If you don't then that eye is not dominant. Obviously, the distant spot you are focusing on needs to be relatively small.
I don't agree, as if you look at any print upside down and it still works, it usually has good composition. Most LF users see the image upside down which is an aid to composition. Also the left right and right left is also an aid for composition. HCB was a past master at this, helped by a Vidom finder.
There are rules to composition? Maybe in a high school photography class where the teacher gives an assignment to give the kids something to do. There are no rules of composition in the real world.
No, the composition is not in mind before I go under the dark cloth. That’s where the discovery and growth occur. I’m not tweaking anything under there—I’m finding the picture on the ground glass, and quite often it’s nothing like I assumed it would be. Moving past one’s assumptions is key to this.
I promise you, there are a whole world of discoveries you might make if you set aside all the preconceptions (and “rules”) and dispensed with the “taking the picture before taking the picture” approach. The ubiquity of digital has killed quite a bit, unfortunately.
There are no rules of composition in the real world
I alluded to this earlier, but perhaps I should have said it more clearly. I took a high school photography class in which the teacher talked about those “rules.” I learned the “rules” and left them behind. Sorry about that.I have found that those that say there are no rules to composition haven't bothered to learn the rules in the first place.
Surely those rules are post hoc? The first people to make pleasing compositions would not have had rules to follow.I am afraid I strongly disagree with this statement. There are visual rules to the composition that will enhance the appeal to the eye of the finished image.
I have found that those that say there are no rules to composition haven't bothered to learn the rules in the first place.
IMO learn the rules first and then know how you can break them but don't break them just for the sake of it.
Surely those rules are post hoc? The first people to make pleasing compositions would not have had rules to follow.
I have seen a few web pages where famous photos are used to illustrate rules of composition. The analysis sometimes seems so far-fetched as to be laughable. And to me a key point is that composition must often happen in a second or less. In those circumstances, the process has to be instinctive or so deeply ingrained that it happens sub-consciously. There isn't time to think about the rule of thirds or to calculate the golden ratio, or consciously to make triangles or S-shapes, or to balance tonal masses.
For some (many?) people, arranging elements within a frame to make a pleasing composition (or to create a deliberately unsettling one) comes naturally without ever knowing there are rules. Others absorb a sense of what is pleasing from looking at art of all kinds. Some people unfortunately never get a sense for it even if they learn rules - maybe it doesn't matter enough to them? (Beats me why my left eye has higher standards than my right though!)
I alluded to this earlier, but perhaps I should have said it more clearly. I took a high school photography class in which the teacher talked about those “rules.” I learned the “rules” and left them behind. Sorry about that.
Composing images for maximum visual impact and for directing the eye and for creating senses of tension and repose has been around a lot longer than photography. Condensing composition into guidelines or rules is just a way to start understanding and getting a handle on the concepts and techniques. Painters have been learning rules of composition for centuries. The good ones go on to individualize and extend the impact of their compositions. Learning the rules of composition is like learning the rules of harmony; once mastered, you have a good jumping-off point for becoming an artist.
Also...anybody else have a warm eye and a somewhat cooler eye as far as colour temperature goes?
My theory is that in addition to stereo vision, it might give a subtle boost to 'seeing' the sculptural three dimensionality of things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?