One or a few right down the middle compositions are fine, but many of them become static and boring. That is the reason for the guideline.
Funny. There was a time when I took great pains to avoid splitting a photo into two equal halves with the horizon, a tree or anything else. I also jumped through hoops to avoid telephone poles, power lines, road signs, etc, in my photos. I was shooting slides, so no cropping.
A few years ago I enrolled in a medium format photography class at my local university. As part of that class, I was assigned the task of discussing the photography of Lee Friedlander -- perhaps because the instructor noticed I was interested in similar subject matter. At first, his telephone poles - sometimes right down the middle of the composition - made me crazy. I am pretty sure that's why he did it -- a middle finger for the rule makers. Now you will often see powerlines and telephone poles in my photos, too, though almost never on a midline.
As for the composition under discussion, I prefer @Rolleiflexible's version in post #43. In every version which includes the couple on the right (ground level) I am bothered by how close to the edge of the frame they are. Like, fingernails-on-chalkboard bothered. I am sure they are very nice people, but I am happy to be rid of them.
I don't think it's for us to judge the merits of the photograph. Matt likes the couples. The OP had his reasons for framing this image as he did. But for the OP's invitation to reconsider it, I would find it presumptuous to offer an opinion. But since we are all now in a discussion, in effect, of what we would do if it were our photograph: I would look for a way to put the strong lines of the image to work, while not dwarfing the human (and canine) element. My crop, attached. (Which might be better titled, Trio.)
Too “pretty”?
The entire frame is the subject.I find the square format (wink, wink, Sirius) to be the most flexible when it comes to composition. Most of the traditional guidelines can be ignored. A horizon straight across the middle of a square image can be very calming, very stable. And since it is only the subject that really clues you in to which end is up, the horizon can be severely tilted and gain a dynamic the might be lost or disturbing in a more horizontal or vertical format. You can also push subjects to the edge, top or bottom and because the edges of the frame are all equidistant, the effect is made without being overly startling.
I find the square format (wink, wink, Sirius) to be the most flexible when it comes to composition. Most of the traditional guidelines can be ignored. A horizon straight across the middle of a square image can be very calming, very stable. And since it is only the subject that really clues you in to which end is up, the horizon can be severely tilted and gain a dynamic the might be lost or disturbing in a more horizontal or vertical format. You can also push subjects to the edge, top or bottom and because the edges of the frame are all equidistant, the effect is made without being overly startling.
The reference escapes me. The original is too pretty? My suggested crop is too pretty? What does it mean, to be "too pretty"?
I find the square format (wink, wink, Sirius) to be the most flexible when it comes to composition. Most of the traditional guidelines can be ignored...
Funny. There was a time when I took great pains to avoid splitting a photo into two equal halves with the horizon, a tree or anything else.
Yeah! My first camera was a Rolleiflex...love the square...
I simply mean you might have neutered the originals qualities into a more formalistic idea of safe minimalism.
It might not dare enough. It might not be on the edge of anything.
My aunt bought the Rolleiflex for my dad at a military PX in Spain back in the mid-50s. My dad used it for the family snapshots with a 35mm adapter inside until about 1970. He replaced it with a Kodak Instamatic 804 (top of the line). The Rollei went to my sister first who decided photgraphy was not for here, then to me in 1974...tho I did not start using it regularily until 1977 when I made my first prints.
I will take that as a compliment. An image (regardless of medium) tells a story with a syntax driven by principles of design -- rhythm, balance, tension and so on. There is no one right way to communicate a story, in words or in images. What you perceive as a "formalistic idea of safe minimalism," I consider a syntactic arrangement of elements in the frame. Far from neutering the image, the composition does not call attention to itself, and allows the eye to see the elements for what they are: Couple, dog, tree, door. An "edgier" composition calls attention to itself, pulls the viewer out of the image, and makes the viewer think about what the artist intended by the unusual arrangement. Your first crop in this post, for example, draws my eye to the large empty space above the couple, and I disengage from the image and wonder why you have directed my attention there.
In the end we are all different and experience the world differently and that is the beauty of art -- it enables us to see the world as others do. I suppose I do see the world from a more formal, and minimal, and rule-driven perspective. I am a lawyer, after all.
The crucial word in my post was “might”. But we are mincing words here.
All of this is throwing ideas up. Yours is absolutely valid.
In my experience, certain kinds of imperfections can I actually aid an image.
But that depends very much on whether it is printed large and/or whether it is consumed quickly, or hung on the wall.
There is a certain yin yang effect, and dynamic immediacy to some of the other crops, I think.
Were as yours is more static, and easily understandable.
Helge! Don't pull back from the edge!I appreciate your criticism. You and I are both reënacting here a Kabuki drama that has been staged countless times in the heads of every artist in every medium. There isn't a time you or I have looked into the viewfinder and wondered how best to compose the unmediated reality about us into a rectilinear image that means something, that mediates the chaos into something worth communicating. I'm not sure these posts accomplish anything other than giving me (hopefully you too) a way to explore my own biases. I appreciate your thoughts.
Like learning how to drive in a Porsche.
I learned to drive a manual transmission in an MGB.
Challenging, but really rewarding when you get the hang of it.
Just like a Rollieflex
Even if a Mamiya C330 is better suited to me.
I learned to drive stick in my friend's brand new 1974 Super Beetle. Sort of like a Porsche, come to think of it. Nearly fifty years later, I'm driving a 2014 Turbo Diesel Beetle. With a stick. I wonder whether people who prefer manual cameras drive sticks. Control freaks?
Lots of discussion about that in this thread: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/are-you-a-photography-masochist.193098/
I was just about to go print more kallitypes (because the world needs more) and you send me a nine-page thread to distract me? Get behind me, Satan.
Rollei is like a Porsche? My Rolleicord reminds me more of my 71 Superbeetle I drove for 10 years. Learned to drive a 1968 VW bus -- more like the 'flex...heavier, more do-dads. If Rolleis were like porsches, they'd always need more servicing...I learned to drive a manual transmission in an MGB.
Challenging, but really rewarding when you get the hang of it.
Just like a Rollieflex
Even if a Mamiya C330 is better suited to me.
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?