Same scene, which composition?

[xpatUSA]

A couple of hurried cell-phone snapshots of a spectacular sunset (for around here): can't decide between these two:



The 4:3 aspect ratio appears to place more emphasis on the colors.



However, 3:2 opens out the country aspect of the scene (fields and an invisible dirt road).

The shadows can be brought out a bit but my interest was in the actual colors in the sky. However the road is implied by the power wires . . .

What do y'all think?

[Geoff F]

Neither one for me, Ted. You need to reduce the black shadow area at the bottom by at least half. Then decide if you want lose anything from the sides or change the size ratio.

If you are going to leave the wires, I think they look best coming from somewhere close to the corner.

[Downrigger]

Pretty evening!

I agree with Geoff, Ted. The horizon needs only to provide a narrow floor for your area of interest. I think you could keep the same aspect ratio, and bore in on your interesting sky and reduce the dark foreground. I would experiment with both images, but think this might go better with the second.

[William W]

Same scene, which composition? . . .can't decide between these two:
The 4:3 aspect ratio appears to place more emphasis on the colors.
However, 3:2 opens out the country aspect of the scene (fields and an invisible dirt road).
. . . my interest was in the actual colors in the sky. However the road is implied by the power wires . . . What do y'all think?

On composition and emphasis of the sky and its colours – the second (3:2) is the better aspect ratio of the two.

If those two aspects (sky and colours of it) are the aims of the emphasis of the image then:
• a steeper AR will benefit. I’d try 2:1.
• lose the power lines, they are very intrusive to the sky

Rough indicative:



WW

[xpatUSA]

Nicely done, William.

Ta.

[William W]

Thank you and you're welcome.

Interesting Back Story:
By coincidence, we were discussing AR this morning.
My view is, that "widescreen" (around 2:1) is not used often enough for "Landscapish work" – one of my arguments being, on the Movie screen it works a treat . . .
Black - (Opening Credits) - FI – Pan L (Wide Shot) – vista of sunrise across vast plains – and etc.
. . . yet still (many) Still Photographers think in 10 x 8 or 14 x 11, by default, I guess?

***

Neither is 1:1 AR used enough for Portraiture - but that's another story and happens to be my tropic for next Friday’s tutorial.

WW

[xpatUSA]

Thanks again Gents,

Turns out that Wifey had taken far better snaps previously than I, so I edited one of hers, incorporating all comments and tried a 2:1 aspect, which certainly suits the scene, IMHO. It was taken on a tarmac road and the buildings at right add some subtle interest, plus no power lines! We both have Galaxy SII phones and the 8MB camera module is quite good. I changed neither the saturation nor the hue, although I'm sure the Samsung adds a bit ;-)



OT, William, but I've just bought a Panasonic DMC-GH1 micro four-thirds which has four AR selections 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 and 1:1. It does it cleverly without changing the horizontal framing and the sensor is oversized in order to do that. I've already used 1:1 for a product shot, it suits quite well and eBay's listing pic is in that ratio.

How do you feel about 16:9 which is kinda close to 2:1?

Tom Schum (he who wrote a field guide book for Nikon SLRs a while back) over on DPreview has mentioned 16:9 a good few times.

[rpcrowe]

Hi Ted.

I like sunset shots better with some specific foreground interest. I like this shot better as almost a pano cropping with plenty of added contrast and vibrance and pehaps even some added saturation...

You are the first person I have met on this forum from Beeville, Texas. My ancestors were some of the first settlers of that area and came there on Mexican landgrants around 1829. Their names were Felix and Bridget Carigan HART...

Regards,
Richard

[xpatUSA]

Yes, I went to Austin County Courthouse records some years ago and, in the original survey for my property, distance was measured in varas - spanish for "rod" - about 2' 9". Might be the same where you live too, I guess.

don't know any Harts but I've only lived here for a few years.

[William W]

. . . Wifey had taken far better snaps previously than I, so I edited one of hers, incorporating all comments and tried a 2:1 aspect, which certainly suits the scene, IMHO. It was taken on a tarmac road and the buildings at right add some subtle interest, plus no power lines! We both have Galaxy SII phones and the 8MB camera module is quite good. I changed neither the saturation nor the hue, although I'm sure the Samsung adds a bit ;-)
OT, William, but I've just bought a Panasonic DMC-GH1 micro four-thirds which has four AR selections 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 and 1:1. It does it cleverly without changing the horizontal framing and the sensor is oversized in order to do that. I've already used 1:1 for a product shot, it suits quite well and eBay's listing pic is in that ratio.
How do you feel about 16:9 which is kinda close to 2:1?
Tom Schum (he who wrote a field guide book for Nikon SLRs a while back) over on DPreview has mentioned 16:9 a good few times.

Sorry, I read this last week and wanted to continue the conversation, but had a very hectic weekend . . . A few points –


From a compositional standpoint and what you wrote you wanted to achieve - your Wife’s Photograph is better.

Now I guess you know it is a ‘better’ Photograph – but that’s not what I am meaning and not the point I want to make: what I mean is the COMPOSITION is better, to make the emphatic point about the sky. (Am I explaining the nuance difference?) . . .

Put another way (and I know this is camera phone stuff whist driving along) – BUT – the composition MUST come from the original framing – the point being - the original photograph had a failed chance of success to be a “good” sky photo: but the second photo had a good chance of success of being a “good” sky photo.

CROPPING can only do so much – the COMPOSITION is in the FRAMING.

OK - I have said the same thing several different ways . . . like I said you may already know this so don’t think it is a lecture, it is just a conversation.

***

On my mention of the 2:1 AR – my mention of it was actually NOT specific, but I should have written “I’d try 2:1 or something around that AR to ‘widescreen it’ “ - Sure 16:9 is fine.

It’s interesting that 16:9 would probably be “better” as the masses are mostly more cultured to that ratio (many 16:9 television screens) than any of the wider “Cinemascope” Aspect Ratios (fall off of Movie goers).

***

On the point of the tarmac road and wanting to have some detail in it – IF one decides that the foreground is only a form to “sit the sky upon” then I can dispense with it and not care too much.

Though the road is useful in you second photograph, mainly as it gives depth, going into main subject.

***

On the other hand in this shot (below) the depth of the Photograph HAS to be achieved by the sky itself. and maybe it does not succeed in doing so - what I mean is choosing a silhouette foreground at the exposure choice(s): usually makes for a more difficult job.

Also I wanted to show this example, because it is in an AR - 2.93:1 – which is an old Cine Aspect Ratio and the AR used for “Ben Hur” – so I just think it is fun to use.



If I recall correctly, you do like tinkering with stuff. Perhaps I have stimulated a desire in you, to research and play with old Cine Aspect Ratios.


WW

(aside question out of curiosity does ‘tarmac’ mean ‘asphalt’ or ‘concrete’?)

[xpatUSA]

Sorry, I read this last week and wanted to continue the conversation, but had a very hectic weekend . . .

. . . .

If I recall correctly, you do like tinkering with stuff. Perhaps I have stimulated a desire in you, to research and play with old Cine Aspect Ratios.

(aside question out of curiosity does ‘tarmac’ mean ‘asphalt’ or ‘concrete’?)

Thanks for your comments and advice, William, pardon me for not repeating all of them (especially the bit where you agree that Wifey took the better shot ;-)

I've met aspect ratio before in the world of wrist-watches and (OT) I go on about it at some length here:

http://tcktek.blogspot.com/2009/11/r...oportions.html

'tarmac' is asphalt basically and is a patent name derived from 'tar macadam' see more about that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac

[William W]

Fantastic information! Thank you.

Never knew about Hooley. We say “asphalt” down here. We still have little respect for the Poms, obviously.

“Obscure Information” is right up my alley. I like watches too. And also Fountain Pens. And I can do Long Division with pencil and paper.

Your Wife’s Photo was only a teeny-weeny bit better.

WW

[xpatUSA]

If I recall correctly, you do like tinkering with stuff. Perhaps I have stimulated a desire in you, to research and play with old Cine [2.93] Aspect Ratios.

Wide-screen seems to suit flat and boring Texas, even here in the so-called "Hill Country" much of which is flat around here and where everything is usually seen through a windshield, er, windscreen.



750x256px cropped from 750x500px cell-phone shot. Wires left in by popular demand (pommie sarcasm) . . .

[William W]

Nice shot.
I like the tree juxtaposed to the road.

WW

(yes, I appreciated 'windscreen')