# Framing vs. Composition (non-technical stuff)?



## Evan55T (Jan 1, 2017)

Hi, i really want to learn more about these 2 concepts i understand they are different right? (correct me if im wrong still learning).

Framing focuses on different angles and viewpoints/perspectives the subject is being shot, and there are some angles at which certain subjects or objects look best at correct to highlight certain points/aspects about photo to make it more appealing for x,y, and z...?

lights

Composition having different elements about the photo work together such as foreground, subject, background, not having things you don't want in your shot like dead space or irrelevant things etc...?

---

*I don't understand how people say use rule of thirds (esp when you are starting out it annoys me so much), balance, and all that stuff for composition but if the angle/frame of the photo is completely boring or whatever trying to compose the photo doesn't mean anything? 

So there is a difference between composition and framing correct, and why do people associate them together is it because they are both talking about the visual aspects of the photo/shot?

---

Also can anyone recommend any books/resources for me too that discuss these 2 concepts?*


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2017)

Framing is a _component_ of composition.


----------



## Evan55T (Jan 1, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Framing is a _component_ of composition.



Hm... so do you compose like do the rule of 3rd's/balance subjects, background, etc... first before you take a shot or do you just find an angle/viewpoint you like and then try to frame things then compose?

---

Also when taking different types of shots take for example portrait shots... you are limited to the different angles/or composition you can do correct? Because the main focus should just be on the person which should fill up the frame?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 1, 2017)

Look into the science of composition, which is based on the elements and principles of design.

The "rule of thirds" is a modern-era, made-up, sort of a so-called *hack*, to use modern language, to help beginning shooters make pictures that are not dreadfully awful. The "rule of thirds" is kind of like one of those over-used, cliche phrases, like,  "Just keep the car between the ditches!". The stock phrase, "Keep the car between the ditches," does NOT tell a person, "_How to drive properly_." And so goes the so-called rule-of-thirds.

The elements and principles of design. That is the science that underlies how pictures are composed, and what they are made up of, either paintings, drawings, engravings, or photographs.

Framing is how we decide what is the proper way to orient a camera's field of view.

Do I, "Frame this portrait of a woman seen from very close up as vertical composition? Or do I frame it like an untrained noob with zero art background, in such a way that I lop off most of her hair, cut into her forehead,and chop off her chin as well, and leave two dead, useless, empty spaces on either side of her chopped-up face, by framing with the camera held horizontally?"


----------



## Designer (Jan 1, 2017)

Evan55T said:


> Hm... so do you compose like do the rule of 3rd's/balance subjects, background, etc... first before you take a shot or do you just find an angle/viewpoint you like and then try to frame things then compose?
> 
> Also when taking different types of shots take for example portrait shots... you are limited to the different angles/or composition you can do correct? Because the main focus should just be on the person which should fill up the frame?


After reading some books on composition, you should come to the realization that it all pretty much needs to happen all together.  So you see the composition in your mind's eye, and attempt to get that same composition in the frame as you take the photo.  

Takes practice, too.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 1, 2017)

You want a quick fix? I looked at this for about two hours last month at the library.  Good book for beginning photographers using digital cameras and software, where the image WILL BE, most likely, manipulated later.

https://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2017)

Evan55T said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Framing is a _component_ of composition.
> ...



I really don't 'frame' using the camera.  At least in terms of using the cameras boundaries of recording the scene.  I make a mental note of roughly where I want the edges of the final image to be, shoot with plenty of 'space' outside my mental frame,  My 'framing', I think in the sense you're referring to, is done in post depending on the aspect ratio I want/need.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 1, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Evan55T said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


I frame using the camera.  I attempt to see the final image before bringing the camera up to my eye.  Then I adjust camera position, focal length, speed, aperture, ISO (if needed) to match my mental image. I attempt to do everything in-camera and minimize processing time. I am trying to attain a level of skill, that if I need to crop in post, then the image is a failure and gets dumped.

When all else fails, follow the rules.

This is how I shoot.  We all see and shoot differently.  You need to find what works for you.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Evan55T said:
> ...



I just prefer to 'shoot wide' and crop in post because of the multitude of aspect ratios, as well as being able to edit the image more towards a customer's specific needs.  Since I don't do commission work, my sales are driven using existing work.  Cropping in situ could cost me a LOT of money.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 1, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


I dunno ... I understand aspect ratios differ.  I use wide borders in order for the final image to accommodate any aspect ratio.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...




Soooooo..... it sounds like you do the same thing I do then.


----------



## KmH (Jan 2, 2017)

The rule of thirds was first written about in 1797 by John Thomas Smith, an English painter, and engraver.

There are guidelines for visual art composition, but no rules.

Most of the visual art composition guidelines used in design and art today were developed over 1000 years ago.

The rule of thirds is just one of many guidelines for visual image composition.

There are other guideline similar to the rule of thirds based on the Golden Ratio, and still others based on triangles.
Studies by psychologists have been devised to test the idea that the golden ratio plays a role in human perception of beauty.

Or put another way, a lot of  visual art composition guidelines are based on mathematics, mostly the mathematics of ratios.


----------



## Gary A. (Jan 2, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Quite possible, but I try not to crop in post ... a la Henri Cartier-Bresson.






Film Full Frame Borders


----------



## Derrel (Jan 2, 2017)

Sorry KmH, do some more real, actual, substantial research on what the hack artist John Thomas Smith had to say about HIS understanding of rural landscape painting, as limited as it was. I get that a quick web search will turn up erroneous information, written by a college kid who still subscribes to compostion-by-numbers and magic math! lol

What John Thomas Smith, an English painter, and engraver, had to say was, "
_
Analogous to this “Rule of thirds”, (if I may be allowed so to call it) I have presumed to think that, in connecting or in breaking the various lines of a picture, it would likewise be a good rule to do it, in general, by a similar scheme of proportion; for example, in a design of landscape, to determine the sky at about two-thirds ; or else at about one-third, so that the material objects might occupy the other two : Again, two thirds of one element, (as of water) to one third of another element (as of land); and then both together to make but one third of the picture, of which the two other thirds should go for the sky and aerial perspectives."
_
So: give the sky 1/3 of the picture, or 2/3 of the painting area, and then fill the balance of the frame with "material objects" OMG...hilarious!

Not the same as the *modern era hack of dividing a camera's field of view into a grid-pattern*, running horizontally and vertically.

You might want to do more *actual research* before confusing a 1797 hack artist with the *MODERN-ERA rule of thirds concept, that of dividing the image into a grid*. That comes from a Popular Mechanics magazine article. And which is indeed, a MODERN "hack", put forth for noobs with zero study in the visual arts.

Overlaying "grids" onto already-shot images is a fool's errand. And that is the way he MODERN-ERA "rule of thirds" is typically "taught". Smith was a failed artist who went nowhere, and a man who espoused such simpleton-like ideas as this, "_ In short, in applying this invention, generally speaking, or to any other case, *whether of light, shade, form, or color, I have found the ratio of about two thirds to one third, or of one to two, a much better and more harmonizing proportion*, than the precise formal half, the too-far-extending four-fifths—and, in short, than any other proportion whatever."
_
A simpleton, trying to look at landscape paintings, and to numerically decode how to compose! Hilarious ****! From..the 1790's!


----------



## DriedStrawbery (Jan 6, 2017)

@Derrel So, you do not agree with rule of 1/3rd or the grid approach being helpful? Seems to be a simple guide to get started with composition.


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 6, 2017)

I don't consciously use the rule of thirds, but it is surprising how many of my better pictures happen to closely agree with it. It is also surprising how many of my pictures have elements that lie on the Golden Spiral - again, never intentional.

I do, however, use A format paper for my prints as its sides are close to the Golden Ratio of 1:1.6


----------



## john.margetts (Jan 6, 2017)

Derrel said:


> <snip>
> 
> A simpleton, trying to look at landscape paintings, and to numerically decode how to compose! Hilarious ****! From..the 1790's!


Da Vinci did much the same around 1500 but I am not sure he was a simpleton.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2017)

DriedStrawbery said:
			
		

> @Derrel So, you do not agree with rule of 1/3rd or the grid approach being helpful? Seems to be a simple guide to get started with composition.



NO, I do not because it is not a good guide. This is a "rule" not found in any art books of the last 200 years. It leads many noobs astray...they think they can slap *anything* on a precise point, and make a good image. Classic case in point: Horizontal frame, woman standing, looking to the right, and placed on the right 1/3 line. Idiotic. Makes an AWFUL composition. 2/3 of the frame to the left, useless...her amputated at the knee joint...and looking out of the frame to the short side...BAD composition.

AGAIN..look up, on-line, the following term:* the elements and principles of design.
*
There is vastly,vastly more to composing than compose by numbers, which is what this so-called rule of thirds is...compose by numbers. There are a LOT of other factors in creating a composition than just plunking stuff at certain, specific points within the confines of a frame. LIke in the above example: I see the above image repeatedly, by people who have NO idea of what it is they have done. 

It is a "simple guide", just as paint by numbers painting are a simple way to get started with painting. And yes, the so-called rule of thirds, it is simple, just as simplistic as the advice, "Keep the car between the ditches" is as a guide to getting started in driving an automobile. NEITHER is really solid advice.

University art classes in drawing and painting and design showed me that the "rule of thirds grid-line system" is NOT, I repeat, IS NOT a part of the visual arts. We've had this discussion here on TPF for multiple years. Dissing the so-called rule of thirds grid system annoys the hell out of people who've never studied the visual arts, but who compose sort of by the seat of their pants. But drawing lines, on top of pictures, after the fact, utterly ignores what "pictures" are made up of!!!! Lines, shapes, masses, textures, hues, tonal values, repeating "things", hgarmonious arrangements of 'things", dissonant "things", and so on. Again: *the elements and principles of design.*


----------



## Derrel (Jan 6, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



here is a piece on composing by lines and shapes drawn on top of a frame: The Diamond Ratio: The Ultimate Rule of Photo Composition

Read it. And then LOOK at all the morons who think this is real, and not a satire!

Yes, the uneducated pontificating about "lines",drawn on top of pictures. Study the visual arts at a university level, and this charade is revealed for what it is. Love the random da Vincii reference in this as some sort of bona fide! Again, read the article Andrew wrote, and watch how many suckers take the bait! many beleive a composition can be mathematically decoded.

Composition is NOT solely about placing things on *exact "points" on lines*--there is much,much more to a composition than WHERE, exactly, things are placed. There are many other things that make up a good composition than where, exactly, random things happen to land. Read until the end, where I talk about drawing lines of a finished thing on top of a photo, and claiming one therefore _knows how to create_ said object.

The hilarious thing is people who draw lines on top of pictures, and ignore allllllll of the underlying things within that image. Shapes, colors, tones, for example. NONE of those things has squat to do with "lines drawn on top of the image". Same with repeating patterns, or one, single dissonant object within a sea of repeating shapes, or fifty other types of compositions. *The "lines" theories simply ignore 95% of the composition*. The grid theory cannot explain 95% of the actual stuff in a picture! The simplistic grid theory is a hack to teach the novice how to make pictures that are, basically, not dreadful.

Looking for shortcuts, while ignoring what pictures actually are made up of, this is where the lines theorists were headed, but they failed. Again...there **is** known information about the visual arts, but the *lines-on-top-crowd* does not understand the field's basics. Just as we lay people cannot do surgery. Or even repair a jet engine. Pop Culture Ideas are not the "science" underlying any fields of study.

The actual ELEMENTS of the picture. And the PRINCIPLES of design used to organize the composition. Neither the elements, nor the principles of design, follow slavish "lines" theories. Keep in mind: at one time, and for centuries, smart folks thought they could find a way to turn lead into gold.  And "bad blood" and bloodletting were 'scientific principles' that ultimately were shown to be wrong. NONE of the "lines" or "grid" theories address the fundamentals of designing anything. *They are like looking at a brick structure, drawing the outlines of the walls and roof, and proclaiming, "THIS is how a mason builds a building! He looks at these few lines! This **is** the secret to masonry!!!*

Allow me to address this "lines-on-top-as-secret" fallacy with a final analogy: And so, we're right back to *the elements and principles* of building _A Brick Building_. Bricks, mortar, plumb bobs, bubble levels, shovels, trowels, hods, measuring tapes, labor,foundation principles, interlocking of bricks, cutting of bricks, curing of mortar, mixing of mortar,properly aligning bricks,etc. Just some of *the elements*, and *the principles* of building a brick building.

YES, we can *trace the lines on a finished photograph of the brick building*, and claim that we know how to make a building out of bricks.* Because...well, the LINES!*


----------



## DriedStrawbery (Jan 6, 2017)

Derrel said:


> DriedStrawbery said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for repeating your thoughts on the topic. I noticed many threads that span many years on composition when I was searching for existing threads on this topic.

I'm re-reading about composition now. Read/heard lectures on it maybe a year back. Re-doing it now after learning about the elements of design (what you pointed out) in a basic art class.  I found those aspects eye opening! The class was good, it introduced these elements and case studied a few paintings.

I collected a few books/vids in TPF threads and will spend time with them.

While I agree with you about 1/3rd rule not being a guide ages back, it doesn't mean it should be included in today's literature on composition. Its similar to getting people started with a DSLR in Auto mode, just to get them onto an equipment with greater potential. Folks interested in photography will soon outgrow that mode. Same with rule of 3rds/grid.  

Currently, my post processing workflow consists of cropping images and some will be fit to the rule of thirds. 
I try to compose in the camera as much as possible, but not there yet. I'm still very new to composition, especially after seeing the amount of literature out there yet to be read... !


----------



## Evan55T (Jan 17, 2017)

So i've been reading some books about composition and from what i've learned that it has nothing to do with framing a shot (well not really but composing a shot just means using different factors/aspects that make it more appealing but i think it's sort of intuition idk)... as in the angle or getting like the *physical technique* of say holding the camera a few inches off the ground to get a shot solely of wheels on a car or to get a different perspective/POV of the scene which would fill the frame etc.

From what i've been reading it talks about a lot of rules, guidelines, and principles like people have mentioned here as well as color, lines, shapes, etc. Some of the stuff appeals to me and i find useful for the stuff i'm doing such as colors and depth, but i feel like it's way too general but i guess it depends on your subject and other factors obv.


----------



## DriedStrawbery (Jan 18, 2017)

I have been seeing this course. It's been good so far, am half way through it. 

Talks about many subtle aspects of the approach and habit of working a shot and "seeing". 

Useful tips we can apply when shooting with any camera. 

Foundations of Photography: Composition

Subscription required. Check if your employer has an org wide registration. 




Sent from my iPhone using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app


----------



## unpopular (Jan 18, 2017)

I think of framing as the whole and composition as the parts. Composition makes up the frame.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 18, 2017)

Oh. 

And screw the rule of thirds.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 18, 2017)

Take a look at this TPF member's photo post.  While waiting at the Dr. office

Look at the image in B&W first. He posted it a day or two later, in color. But the B&W version is very useful when we talk about 1) framing and 2) composition.

Look at the image, and lay a "rule of thirds" grid over the top of it...see how useless that is. See how the rule of thirds grid really is not a panacea. Then, if you've seen *the elements and principles of design* detailed on one of a hundred art or painting websites, note how MANY elements and principles of design this image uses.


----------



## Evan55T (Feb 18, 2017)

*BUMP*

Didn't want to create another thread asking about something related to this topic ha.

How do i make all my shots straight/centered like do i just try to align my camera/viewfinder with lines or does it just take practice. Sorry if this question is unclear what i'm talking about is how most of my shots will tilt off to a slight angle instead of being completely flat, even, or leveled.

Such as when i'm taking some architectural pictures in a church or something is where this issue stands out the most, as the shot won't be completely level/symmetrical because of the way i'm holding it?

---

I think i can fix this with a tripod or by going into post-process and cropping it to make it so that everything is aligned straight.
^
But is there another way (besides PP or tripod) like a technique i can use to make sure i get leveled/flat shots all the time or does it just take physical practice to get clean leveled/centered/straight shots where all the lines are symmetrical.

I'll post some pics here in a bit of what i'm talking about.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 19, 2017)

Both my cameras have built-in levels which are a godsend. Without a level, line the camera up with a dominant vertical or horizontal.


----------



## Evan55T (Feb 19, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Both my cameras have built-in levels which are a godsend. Without a level, line the camera up with a dominant vertical or horizontal.



How do ik if my dslr has a built in level (it's a d700).

Yeah that's what i've been trying to do been shooting some architectural stuff to try and get the hang of it/practice but it keeps looking lopsided every time.

Also i'm still a  beginner so sometimes i take a shot i start *heavy breathing* sometimes... the *heavy breathing* obv doesn't help.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 19, 2017)

Evan55T said:


> Also i'm a beginner so every time i take a shot i start *heavy breathing* sometimes...



I try to get as close as possible in camera but I don't stress out about it because it's not that difficult to correct post.


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 19, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> Evan55T said:
> 
> 
> > Also i'm a beginner so every time i take a shot i start *heavy breathing* sometimes...
> ...


The trouble with levelling in post is that you lose the edges of the picture. If you are photographing in a confined space (i.e. a church) that can be very important.


----------



## Evan55T (Feb 19, 2017)

So the most important thing(s) i should do is...

-try to line up the camera/viewfinder with lines within my frame so that would be my base for trying to get things even or level within the shot/frame/photograph.
-move back + use a shorter focal length lens

So in general i guess a lot of people use post-process to fix the leveling issue via cropping was always curious about this, coz i figured some people were naturally good at getting things to line up/level out perfectly lol and that it was a big deal to get things to be level in a shot *all the time*.

---

Thanks everyone for their responses really helps me out a lot thank you again


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 19, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > Evan55T said:
> ...



You missed the part where I said "I try to get as close as possible in camera". And, unless you have a miracle lens that I'm not aware of, you'll end up losing some of the top and bottom on a horizontal correction. My comment was more to the OP who stated_ " i'm still a beginner so sometimes i take a shot i start *heavy breathing* sometimes... the *heavy breathing* obv doesn't help"_ It's hard enough for a beginner to try to remember the elements of good composition without stressing out over things that could be fixed post. Rather than have a beginner stress out over having a camera perfectly level both horizontal and vertical I would advise them to move back or use a shorter focal length lens, so they have room on the edges to either rotate the image or adjust the perspective.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Feb 20, 2017)

You can also correct/ alter perspective distortion in post. Very useful even for portraits.


----------



## beccaf91 (Feb 20, 2017)

Evan55T said:


> *BUMP*
> 
> Didn't want to create another thread asking about something related to this topic ha.
> 
> ...


I've found that its easier to find settings that have natural lines if you want your photos to be level. Like the photo below; I'm still working on composition and getting level images as well. *Oh and if all else fails, hit your photo with a rotational crop in LR. 





Edit: is this better?


----------



## goooner (Feb 20, 2017)

I don't want to rain on your parade, but the fence has a slant from top left to bottom right-negating your comment. Compositionally I would also have liked to see the boy more to the right, with the fence stretching in front of him.


----------



## beccaf91 (Feb 20, 2017)

goooner said:


> I don't want to rain on your parade, but the fence has a slant from top left to bottom right-negating your comment. Compositionally I would also have liked to see the boy more to the right, with the fence stretching in front of him.


Oh not negating it, I said I'm still working on composition and getting images level. I never said this was perfect. Just that finding lines like that would be helpful.  I know the image looks heavy on the left.


----------



## Gary A. (Feb 20, 2017)

beccaf91 said:


> Evan55T said:
> 
> 
> > *BUMP*
> ...


I like this as a thought process ... a work in progress.  I think the pose ... is unnatural and works against the all that is good.  THe placement of the child against the left edge is uncomfortably close, but, his eyes looking into the blank/empty space helps balance the image,  The results are an uneasy, 'edgey' balance, which I like, a yin/yang thing. I can see a purpose to the empty fence ... what distracts to my eye is all the sky.  The sky and trees add very little to the primary subject of the kid, they distract more than they add to the image.  What is interesting is that if the kid turned around and faced the fence, then the primary subject could, arguably, be the fence.  I like images that make you think. Turn this image into a B&W and the kid would blend into the fence giving both nearly an equal footing with an edge to the kid.  I'd crop it right above the kid's head, but I like tight.

There is absolutely no reason to maintain a final image which is proportional to your sensor format or the format of print paper and frames.

Style is important for a pro.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2017)

Positioning a person so far off to the edge of a frame will usually cause some tension, either a huge amount if the person's gaze goes to the short side, and somewhat less tension if their gaze looks toward the majority side of the frame. The big issue though is the lighted tree, and also the other tree, and the large expanse of the fence. Considering the elements and principles of design that have been around for a long time in the visual arts, this composition breaks almost every normal rule, and does so without much positive gain. Gary refers to this as creating an "uneasy, edgy balance".

If you think about this as a see-saw, as a teeter-totter, we've got just one person on it. The balance is very heavily skewed toward the very,very short side of the frame, a short side that is so close that it looms. Why? What is the rationale? The fence takes up the majority of the space, and two trees and a large amount of sky overpower the boy. A slight bit of fence-post tops being minutely out of level is not the issue that needs fixing. What is it that this composition is trying to convey, or to show or illustrate? As Gary mentioned--had the boy been turned toward the large expanse of fence, normal thinking might easily lead the viewer to conclude that the fecne itself, was the subject of the image.

It's not all that common to offer C&C that has any bite, but Gary offered a summary I'd agree with, right at the opening of his C&C, when he said "I think the pose...is unnatural and works against the all that is good." This photo is breaking a lot of basic design ideas, to the extent that it's not improvable, unless it is basically cropped heavily and the right 80% of the frame discarded, and even then...his body position will be unnatural.


----------



## beccaf91 (Feb 20, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> beccaf91 said:
> 
> 
> > Evan55T said:
> ...


I thought the curve of the branch above his head helped sort of frame him and draw your eye more to him. He wasn't posed, this was a candid of him being goofy. He just turned 5. Lol. Being that you think the sky and the trees add nothing; it would be better to include only the things a subject is directly interacting with in a portrait? Or seems to have an interaction with? (Like if he were looking at something?)


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2017)

Here's a more-basic question. If the subject is taller than it is wide, what would be the most-natural way to orient a camera that shoots in a 3:2 aspect ratio? What is the subject of the photo? The child? The child in his environment? Was he wearing crazy kid shoes, like the orange Crocs my son loved when he was 4 and 5? Silly rubber boots? His first pair of Nike Air shoes?

How about the "him" as the subject? What about showing him, head to toe? Him as an entire personage. Him in his overall "smallness". Or as I used to joke about my son, "His Regal Tinyness". I think you gave in to the most-common trap for beginners, which is shooting the way the camera, or the phone, makes it easiest to grasp and click the shutter release.

It's instructive to note that MANY medium-format, square cameras had a shutter release button that was located on the front of the camera, on the lower left corner of the body, since the camera was often supported underneath with the left hand, and there was NO proper or improper way to frame. Camera orientartion is immaterial on a 6 x 6 aspect, square-format camera--but it is HUGELY critical on the *wide-but-not-very-tall 3:2 aspect* ratio cameras.

I think the real issue of the shot of the boy and the fence is that the picture was neither framed nor composed in the best or ideal camera orientation. The basic idea is that if the subject is taller than it is wide, the natural framing is as a "tall"... a vertical framing...with a 3:2 camera this is a HUGE decision! Many,many images cannot be corrected by "cropping" a 3:2 original down.

Television and cinema never uses a vertical framing.Computer displays favor the horizontal image. But NEW, smartphone displays look great with "talls".


----------



## dasmith232 (Feb 20, 2017)

I've long been biased towards verticals even in landscape work. But another factor is that our eyes are situated horizontally. Is that a real-world factor that pushes us towards horizontal orientation? On web pages, a wide picture in a scrolling browser window (going back to your comment about computer monitors) can be more impressive as a horizontal.

I fully agree with your points above. I also recognize that in today's world, there are (new, and not-necessarily-photographic influences) that push us towards horizontals.

On top of that, lenses don't favor any of those! Circles anyone?


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2017)

dasmith232 said:
			
		

> I've long been biased towards verticals even in landscape work. But another factor is that our eyes are situated horizontally. Is that a real-world factor that pushes us towards horizontal orientation? On web pages, a wide picture in a scrolling browser window (going back to your comment about computer monitors) can be more impressive as a horizontal.
> 
> I fully agree with your points above. I also recognize that in today's world, there are (new, and not-necessarily-photographic influences) that push us towards horizontals.
> 
> On top of that, lenses don't favor any of those! Circles anyone?



Verticals convey action, movement, dynamism, power, activity, and so on. Horizontals convey tranquility, repose, restfulness, stability. These are very basic, deeply-rooted psychological frameworks (biases?) for evaluating and categorizing pictures, shared by hundreds of millions of people. These are the types of built-in biases that are shared by the vast majority of people on this planet. This knowledge is out there, but many people operate in the visual fields without being expressly aware of these biases/views.

Michael Freeman has a nice book example that shows a crouching worker in a rice paddy, with about 20 different framings/croppings of the person, in various placements within the frame, and in vertical and horizontal pictures. This is a great book for a person who wants to understand how to use design principles, and how to most effectively arrange design elements to make good digital images. Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos (9780240809342): Michael Freeman: Books

The idea here is that in **digitial imaging**, we often will capture shots with the intention of doing fairly extensive post-processing of the images we capture in the field; this, more than anything, is the critical difference between digitial and film-based photography.


Reason to Favor Verticals: Here is a post that I originally saw here on TPF on my desktop computer. Be aware that this has *several B&W Not Safe For WORK type images*

Fishnet Fantasy (NSFW) *Lots of Images*

Anyway, I saw it first here on a horizontal display. Later that day, I saw it on my phone, and on that tall,narrow, vertical display, the entire series was much stronger! The majority of the images were verticals, and the post displayed on a vertical phone layout in a much better way than it did on a horizontal computer screen!

This example might be the most clear example of how a good "tall" image, or a series of them, can make an excellent photo essay on a phone and in a web browser formatted display vehicle.


----------

