experiments in composiition

[Renee M]

I was playing with composition here. I like the composition of the second photo yet something seems off with it.

[Rufus]

There are sufficient clues in the subject for the viewer to perceive what the subject is in real life. That applies to all 3 variants.

The composition in #2 is such that my brain keeps wanting to turn the image counter-clockwise to make sense of it. Perhaps that is why you also feel that something seems off with it?

[Renee M]

So does that give the image a factor of intrigue or is it just annoying?

[Manfred M]

So does that give the image a factor of intrigue or is it just annoying?

In general, if you have to ask the question, you've already figured it out. If an image is too confusing, most viewers will just move on to the next one.

While strange angles and shooting positions can be extremely effective, they can also not work very well at all. #2 is effectively #1 rotated 90 degrees clockwise.

Frankly, the whole series is not working all that well for me. I'm fairly certain that you saw a picture here that you wanted to create, but were not quite sure how to take this large three-dimensional object and translate it into a smaller 2-dimanesional representation. I find that the sky is not adding anything to the image, but rather, it is a distraction from the beautiful stone work, so why not eliminate the sky and concentrate on the stone, You have some lovely leading lines (but they don't lead the viewer to anything), but the repeating patterns are strong and worth exploring in more depth.

You might wish to consider getting in closer and exploring some of the details as well:



To quote the great (and late) Robert Capa, the famed photojournalist; "If your images aren't good enough, you're not close enough".

[Renee M]

Thank you all for your help. This gave me so good things to consider. Manford I liked what you did with the close up cropping. Unfortunately it totally loses what I was trying to do with the picture. Ted I have to agree with you that of the 3 pictures, I am gravitating towards the third one too. I am also starting to think that maybe what I wanted to do with this shot just doesn't work. Well I certainly have plenty of crap that falls into that category lol. From what I have seen posted on this site I know I have a very long way to go. Again thank you all for your feedback 😊

[Manfred M]

Thank you all for your help. This gave me so good things to consider. Manford I liked what you did with the close up cropping. Unfortunately it totally loses what I was trying to do with the picture. Ted I have to agree with you that of the 3 pictures,

Renee - When I look at someone's work, my first approach is to try to tweak the existing image to see if something can be done. Often one finds that eliminating a distraction or simplifying some element strengthens the image enough to give the photographer some suggestions on the direction he / she might want to try. That is very much the approach I took with your image in: Hello World


Here a good crop of the sky improves the shot, in my view.

I tried a similar approach in this thread and found I could not get a stronger image while sticking with your original intent. It's an interesting and strong subject, but the bright blue sky adds too much competition to the stones in the structure. The human visual system is keyed to areas that are bright and / or high contrast, so the sky is the distracting element in this shot. The shadows are harsh, so I can only assume that the shot was taken somewhere during the middle of the day.

I suspect that your composition might work better had you shot earlier or later in the day, at golden hour where the sky and associated light are more pleasing. I suspect that this is a travel shot, so you were there at a time dictated by your itinerary, rather than for photographic reasons.

Once I concluded that the sky was the cause of the issues, I started playing with an approach that took it out of the composition, and yes, it does change the nature of the composition quite significantly, but in my view, starts giving a stronger overall image.

Just as an aside, this is something I do when I shoot as well, I work the scene to get "coverage" so if one approach does not pan out, I have more material to work with. You seem to be doing that as well, but all three of your images are effectively variations on the same idea. Try adding some close ups and other points of view into your mix, especially if you are shooting at a site you are unlikely to return to easily.

As a general point of view, when I look at an image, if a component is not adding to the composition, why is it there? Negative space, i.e. the sky is definitely a compositional element that needs to be explored and getting the right amount can be challenging.