The Science of Pictures

[davidivad]

I want to get some new ideas for concepts that relate to photography.

I will start with two of my favorite techniques.

 

My favorite and most important rule is the rule of thirds. If you want to make a picture interesting, then you want it to follow this rule.

NEVER place the main subject directly in the center of the frame. If you are shooting portraits, then you will, at best, end up with a pretty mugshot. Imagine a tic-tac-toe that evenly divides your frame. The goal is to try to stay out of the center block. You can organize the viewer's attention by guiding him or her around the frame. This can help you tell a story by managing their attention in sequence.

 

Another favorite of mine is natural framing. This is done by using an object or objects to "wrap" the frame of the picture. I have been known to use a tree in the foreground, or such, where the roots are at the bottom third of the frame, the trunk follows one side, and a limb hits the top third of the frame. There as many variations on framing as there are clouds in the sky.

 

this topic is intended to create a small body of knowledge that is accessible to all, so please feel free to contribute.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[John Cuthber]

A look at some of the worlds most expensive paintings suggests the rule isn't obeyed very often

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=most+expensive+portrait&espv=2&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=B0dCU9sXwcOEB8mDgdAM&ved=0CE0Q7Ak&biw=1280&bih=899#q=most+expensive+paintings&tbm=isch&imgdii=_

[davidivad]

yea, while they are paintings one would think that should be the case. this is a rule for beginners. i have often placed an non-descript object directly in the middle to see if i can get away with it. it works occasionally. the rule of thirds is a technique meant to foster technique. i also think that most of celebrity shots are usually glorified mug shots. they are famous so you can get away with it. i sincerely hope this helps someone compose a better picture because that is what it really boils down to.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[CharonY]

The rule of thirds is more a guideline for beginners to avoid basic composition errors. The image tends to be a bit less static and invites eye movement through the image, instead of pinning it in the middle.

However, there are a lot of compositional situations where you want to break the rule, depending on what your point of interest is and what the total effect of the images is going to be.

 

For example, high-symmetry images require breaking the rule (for obvious reasons). Or images that are to convey dynamics can be created by using lines that draw your eyes towards the point of interest, instead of it being positioned in one of intersecting lines. Likewise low depth of field images create depth in the third dimension, and can create dynamic in a different way.

 

Remember, the rule is not about subject and not even merely about subject placement. Instead it is about the overall composition of the image (think in terms of lines and brightness throughout the image), the balance thereof and finally the desired effect. Interestingly, the framing that was described in OP could easily lead to a non-rule-of-third-image (i.e. people dead in center, but with lines surrounding them; probably works best with some diagonals).

 

In the end, it is a crude tool, useful when you start off, but if you adhere to it for now other reason that it is a rule, you have to work on composition and creativity to improve photography skills.

[davidivad]

i always enjoy your contributions. you bring an excellent balance with you.

i too use depth of field as it is a crucial element to focusing attention.

i love nikon (i have accumulated many lenses and even break out with my old fm2 so it is useful) and i have minimal lighting gear just for those cases where i need a little fill as well as my "studio" gear.

do you have any favorite practices for lighting or do you prefer natural lighting?

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[Acme]

I want to get some new ideas for concepts that relate to photography.

I will start with two of my favorite techniques.

 

My favorite and most important rule is the rule of thirds. If you want to make a picture interesting, then you want it to follow this rule.

NEVER place the main subject directly in the center of the frame. If you are shooting portraits, then you will, at best, end up with a pretty mugshot. Imagine a tic-tac-toe that evenly divides your frame.

...

this topic is intended to create a small body of knowledge that is accessible to all, so please feel free to contribute.

A tic-tac-toe arrangement would, I think, be a rule of ninth's, not thirds.

 

I suggest that a good starting rule, especially now in the age of digital photography, is to take a lot of photographs. Whether you have in mind thirds or ninths or whatever matrix, shoot your main subject in all positions and then later you can sort out which best achieves the effect you want. Even then there is plenty opportunity after the fact for darkroom -or now 'photoshopping'- techniques that recompose the original shot.

[John Cuthber]

A tic-tac-toe arrangement would, I think, be a rule of ninth's, not thirds.

 

 

No, it's two sets of thirds vertical and horizontal.

But I think you are right about "I suggest that a good starting rule, especially now in the age of digital photography, is to take a lot of photographs"

[Acme]

No, it's two sets of thirds vertical and horizontal.

But I think you are right about "I suggest that a good starting rule, especially now in the age of digital photography, is to take a lot of photographs"

Well, those 2 sets give you 9 square areas that could contain the central character. But it's arbitrary anyway. Perhaps I was transposing a technique from woodworking that requires divisions of ninths in measuring to produce an end construction result of thirds.

 

Back on topic, I think another helpful beginner recommendation is to get a tripod & use it. Not only can it keep the camera steady, it can put it in positions you can't otherwise reach and free your hands for other work such as positioning subjects or lighting modifiers such as reflecting or shading cards.

[John Cuthber]

No, those 9 squares give you 4 dividing lines (2 horizontal and 2 vertical) 4 lines give you 4 places that could contain the "centre of attention".

 

http://photoinf.com/General/KODAK/guidelines_for_better_photographic_composition_rule_of_thirds.html

Edited April 7, 2014 by John Cuthber

[davidivad]

yes, when i first started taking pictures, i would simply go out and and shoot through nine or ten rolls of film at a time. this had a two fold purpose.

first, it got me used to the camera and the basic concepts like aperture, shutter speed, the speed of the film (i learned by using manual mode), why a light meter is important- there was a lot of science behind the scene to learn. there is definite validity in shooting something several different ways.

 

you can do a lot of things with Photoshop. for those who are tight on finances i would suggest "the gimp". it has a learning curve but is also a very powerful tool that just so happens to cater my need to open source ( beside the topic). Photoshop can be quite an expense for a student.

 

as far as the rule of thirds, i think that this not only teaches technique but also establishes a historical background, so i suggest we maintain it's original name for integrity. in the end, if it helps to view it this way, there is nothing wrong with that. i would refer to another older thing that has historical value but can also be applied to modern concepts. the is the idea of grain. the courseness of a picture can do a lot of things for you. while grain has faded into history with film, the concept still has value.

 

tripods are very important for me. i like to use slow shutter speeds and movement is not an option. it is also nice when you need to set up multiple cameras for that timely shot. you can now remotely operate your camera which i am still in the habit of forgetting while planning a shoot.

 

edit:

my justification for the rule of thirds is this.

what is quantum mechanics without Feynman.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[CharonY]

No, it's two sets of thirds vertical and horizontal.

But I think you are right about "I suggest that a good starting rule, especially now in the age of digital photography, is to take a lot of photographs"

 

I would add: "then pick out your favorites and figure out why you like them. For good technique it is important to distance yourself from the situation in which you took them so that the composition of the picture talks to you, instead of the situation (e.g. vacation) in which you took them."

[Acme]

...

you can do a lot of things with Photoshop. for those who are tight on finances i would suggest "the gimp". it has a learning curve but is also a very powerful tool that just so happens to cater my need to open source ( beside the topic). Photoshop can be quite an expense for a student.

I agree. Note I put 'photoshop' in quotes. This is to indicate the term has become a catchall for digital photo editing; it is a genericization, otherwise called a proprietary eponym. Any digital editing software will do.

 

tripods are very important for me. i like to use slow shutter speeds and movement is not an option. it is also nice when you need to set up multiple cameras for that timely shot. you can now remotely operate your camera which i am still in the habit of forgetting while planning a shoot. ...

Good points. A tripod is also handy for elevating the camera above obstacles, as in having the tripod in hand and holding it up. For low shots it can be laid down so 2 legs contact the ground and then a suitable height support placed under the extension tube near the camera.

On the remote activation, while not all cameras have this facility, many have a timer that can achieve the same purpose in many situations.

Another useful concept/tool in the science of photography is the filter. In this category I think the best and most useful first choice is a polarizing filter. If one is available for a specific camera, all well and good, but if not then one only has to hold a polarizing filter in front of the lens. They can be found used at camera shops as well as thrift stores at reasonable prices.

 

Polarizing filter (photography @ Wiki >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizing_filters_(Photography)

A polarizing filter or polarising filter is often placed in front of the camera lens in photography in order to darken skies, manage reflections, or suppress glare from the surface of lakes or sea. Since reflections (and sky-light) tend to be at least partially linearly-polarized, a linear polarizer can be used to change the balance of the light in the photograph. The rotational orientation of the filter is adjusted for the preferred artistic effect. For modern cameras, a circular polarizer is typically used, this comprises firstly a linear polarizer which performs the artistic function just described, followed by a quarter-wave plate which converts the now-linearly polarized light into circularly-polarised light before entering the camera. The additional step of converting the light to circular polarization avoids problems with auto-focus and light-metering sensors within some cameras, which otherwise may not function reliably with a simple linear polariser. ...

[CharonY]

I think modifiers and lighting are advanced elements of photography. While people may learn differently, my feelings are that overall composition and proper framing is a good first step as it establishes a baseline. From there it is easier to visualize what you would have changed (light from a different position, removing/adding shadows) and add tools for certain situations. It is easy to go overboard and shoot with three flashes tripod with gimbal head flash gels and various filters without actually improving the image.

Start basic, and build up gear as you find the need is my advice (though admittedly, a tripod comes in handy quite early on).

Edited April 7, 2014 by CharonY

[Acme]

I think modifiers and lighting are advanced elements of photography. While people may learn differently, my feelings are that overall composition and proper framing is a good first step as it establishes a baseline. From there it is easier to visualize what you would have changed (light from a different position, removing/adding shadows) and add tools for certain situations. It is easy to go overboard and shoot with three flashes tripod with gimbal head flash gels and various filters without actually improving the image.

Start basic, and build up gear as you find the need is my advice (though admittedly, a tripod comes in handy quite early on).

I understand your arguments, though I think you draw too much out of it. A polarizing filter held in front of a lens is not 'advanced' in the same way your triple flash gimbal example. Any outdoor photo with sky in it can -and often does- suffer from a washed out sky compared to the featured subject no matter how carefully framed or otherwise composed. A polarizing filter is a simple and inexpensive solution to the problem for beginner and advanced photographer alike.

 

EDIT: PS I think there is a distinction between picture taking and photography. In this the title is incongruent with the opening post. Picture taking is more about simply capturing some event with little regard for photographic issues beyond 'camera' & 'got it', while photography puts the focus on the technical issues we are discussing.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Acme

[studiot]

Since you like exhibitions another good one is the home of photography, the Fox Talbot Museum

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/lacock/

 

Also worth a visit is Futuroscope in central France the Museum of the Moving Image

 

http://en.futuroscope.com/

 

And there is a museum in that is in the making inYorkshire concerning the recently discovered pioneer of moving images.

 

Sorry there is no link for that yet.

[davidivad]

for me starting out, i had the filters (color, basic polarized, diffraction). however they were more of what a basic set of starting gear was at the time.

what i would like to know is what you guys consider an essential set.

 

i started out with a 35mm fm2 (old nikon), a pack of basic filters, a short focal length lens, a zoom lens, lens cloth, a flash unit that was a distance from the lens, lots of batteries, film or media, a decent bag (i am sure i am forgetting something here), and someone to blame when i dropped the camera.

 

one thing i would add for beginners is how to hold the camera.

i put my elbow in and brace it against my chest while i support the bottom of the camera with my palm. my index finger and thumb are there to adjust the lens.

this will be different with a non-slr camera as you want both arms tucked in for support.

if the camera has a strap, then use it.

 

thank you studiot, i appreciate the links.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[davidivad]

content aside,

you do not need to make an algorithem for this it is included with the software.

just resize the picture in question (porn always looks better the smaller the picture gets).

[Acme]

for me starting out, i had the filters (color, basic polarized, diffraction). however they were more of what a basic set of starting gear was at the time.

what i would like to know is what you guys consider an essential set.

 

i started out with a 35mm fm2 (old nikon), a pack of basic filters, a short focal length lens, a zoom lens, lens cloth, a flash unit that was a distance from the lens, lots of batteries, film or media, a decent bag (i am sure i am forgetting something here), and someone to blame when i dropped the camera.

Here I would defer to Charon's view and say start simply. A camera & a tripod.

 

one thing i would add for beginners is how to hold the camera.

i put my elbow in and brace it against my chest while i support the bottom of the camera with my palm. my index finger and thumb are there to adjust the lens.

this will be different with a non-slr camera as you want both arms tucked in for support.

if the camera has a strap, then use it.

Good advice. I think for someone wanting to go beyond simple picture taking, an introductory book on photography would be helpful in understanding not only how to hold a camera and such, but how cameras works so as to get an understanding of the why's of the basics.

 

My first good camera -i.e. adjustable f/stops and shutter speed- was a used Twin Lens Reflex. After a little while I added a tripod and a cable release. Its maximum shutter speed was 1/200 & when I started running into blurring problems from subject movement I bought a used SLR with just a Normal lens and a case. This gave me a shutter speed of 1/2000 and aperture priority automatic metering. Only over years did I add filters, wide-angle lens, zoom lens, flash, and motor drive. Along the way I started doing my own B/W developing and printing.

 

I now use the still-photo function on a video-cam, but a couple months back bought my first roll of film for the SLR in 15 years. At the rate I'm going I should have the 24 exposures shot in another 3 months.

[davidivad]

yep, my first darkroom was for black and white of course. the sink was made out of plywood and fiberglass.

well, you do not have to start out with an slr anymore for a fairly good picture.

the set up i mentioned was from that of an slr. i like the lens quality. it can be hard to find a one shot lens in this case. also, the flash can be removed due to red eye removal today.

for simplicity and the sake of modern day convenience, let's stick to point and shoot cameras for a cheap basic set.

the only problem i have with this is that you have so little control beyond a snapshot.

you get what you pay for.

 

twin lens heh.

do you still have it?

[CharonY]

 

 

for simplicity and the sake of modern day convenience, let's stick to point and shoot cameras for a cheap basic set.

the only problem i have with this is that you have so little control beyond a snapshot.

 

I would not say that. There are quite sophisticated point and shoots (the lower end is getting eaten away by cell phones) which let you do most what a DSLR/mirrorless would let you do (except changing lenses). But then there are brilliant fixed lens cameras, too. Point is that that gear is often secondary to the skills of the photographer.

 

I agree that understanding your camera and its functions would be an important step, there are too many who use a DSLR on scenery mode, in which case a point and shoot would often yield comparable results.

 

PS I would love to toy around with a twin-reflex.

[davidivad]

may i ask what camera you are using?

 

i would love to play around with one too. while i do not have one of them, i do have an old billows camera with an adjustable film plane. you can dang near look around a building right in the way of your shot.

[Acme]

yep, my first darkroom was for black and white of course. the sink was made out of plywood and fiberglass.

well, you do not have to start out with an slr anymore for a fairly good picture.

the set up i mentioned was from that of an slr. i like the lens quality. it can be hard to find a one shot lens in this case. also, the flash can be removed due to red eye removal today.

for simplicity and the sake of modern day convenience, let's stick to point and shoot cameras for a cheap basic set.

the only problem i have with this is that you have so little control beyond a snapshot.

you get what you pay for.

 

twin lens heh.

do you still have it?

I no longer have the TLR. It was a Mamiyaflex Junior and it became hard to find the 120 roll film for it. I gave it to some kid that liked to take stuff apart.

 

As to camera choice, it's a tough call. If someone wants to do photography rather than take pictures then I think the point & shoot is pretty limiting. It took me several months to save up for even the used Nikon, but as nothing else would do what I wanted I just had to suck it up and wait. There is always the kindness of family, who armed with some hints may see their way to helping a budding photographer bloom.

[davidivad]

i think i bought my first slr for less than 200.

my lenses were nothing special.

if i remember correctly, i think i had about 500 in gear. that is minus the expense of toting around someone to blame.

however in under two years i had acquired over ten thousand in stuff.

i had even managed a few photo credits through the local paper and a couple of nondescript nature magazines.

i eventually moved on to things like wedding shoots. sometimes it was hard to get a check cashed, but it did buy equipment.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[StringJunky]

 

As to camera choice, it's a tough call. If someone wants to do photography rather than take pictures then I think the point & shoot is pretty limiting.

As long as a 'point and shoot' has manual aperture and exposure control over-ride, all basic creative options are available...the only difference is the photographer has to use his own brain and not the camera's.

 

"Photography" is not the preserve of good equipment, it is that of a good visual brain. David Bailey was once asked what cameras he used and he replied that he would use any thing you gave him ...changed my whole attitude forever twenty years ago. After reading that I stopped hankering after that dinky do-it-all Olympus OM4Ti.

 

A person seriously desiring to improve their photography would learn quite a bit about the thought and process of visualisation and subsequent image capture from reading Ansel Adams' The Negative.

Edited April 7, 2014 by StringJunky

[davidivad]

As long as a 'point and shoot' has manual aperture and exposure control over-ride, all basic creative options are available...the only difference is the photographer has to use his own brain and not the camera's.

 

"Photography" is not the preserve of good equipment, it is that of a good visual brain. David Bailey was once asked what cameras he used and he replied that he would use any thing you gave him ...changed my whole attitude forever twenty years ago. After reading that I stopped hankering after that dinky do-it-all Olympus OM4Ti.

 

you ain't making me give up my slrs!

so it is established under public opinion that the best starter camera will be point and shoot.

with a tripod

and a good reference book

i still want a good camera bag to put things in.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad