# Are you THAT good?



## abraxas (Nov 2, 2007)

How important is composition in *your* photography?

Are you careful and mindful about it- or just click away?


----------



## ann (Nov 2, 2007)

it is critical.

i rarely cropped with film and so rarely with digital. My training and background and years of experience allow the technical side to be running in the background. After 60 years of working hard this whole process has become a Zen exercise.


----------



## skieur (Nov 2, 2007)

Photography is 50% technique/technical excellence and 50% composition.  That is how photography is evaluated for either contests or professionally for publishing or inclusion in a show or display.

skieur


----------



## Helen B (Nov 2, 2007)

ann said:


> it is critical.
> 
> i rarely cropped with film and so rarely with digital. My training and background and years of experience allow the technical side to be running in the background. After 60 years of working hard this whole process has become a Zen exercise.



Perfect. I'd say the same, except that I've only worked at it for forty years and I'm very reluctant to put it into words, or to even hint at it. Eugen Herrigel's _Zen in the Art of Archery_ is one of the best books on the mental practice of photography there is.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Snyder (Nov 2, 2007)

It is very important this is what I believe will set us apart from amauter photogs. A well composed photo will go further in news/magazine publication and so on or at least that how it is in my career field of photojournalism. When I doucment events I make sure to cover the events getting all the angles, wide, medium, close up, looking for emotion and lighting. Making sure what is in the background works and the people in the photo look natural and following the sequence of events unfolding before me.


----------



## JHF Photography (Nov 2, 2007)

I always strive to get the composition right in camera.  It gives me a personal sense of satisfaction to know that I got the shot then and there, that it doesn't need to be fiddled with later.


Jason


----------



## LaFoto (Nov 2, 2007)

I at least try with each and every single one of my photos to get the composition done in the camera. Sometimes I already see and know that I cannot crop as closely as I would want to and need to move back a bit or zoom out a bit, KNOWING that I will have to apply the "digital scissors" later, but all in all I plan to get the composition right before I shoot. (Back in the film-and-print-days I also sometimes had to order a print one size larger than I really wanted and cut it back to its size in order to help composition). 

When I get really low for a very low POV, I sometimes have trouble aligning, and that is when I am happy for the chance to realign my photo with the help of PS. But all in all I seem to have got better at not producing slanting horizons or slanting lines these days. 

Of my most recent cemetery photos, I had to crop only about 20 % of the lot, the rest was composed to my liking in-camera. Makes me happy!


----------



## Buszaj (Nov 2, 2007)

I think that composition is one of the most important aspects when taking pictures. But thinking about it depends on what you are shooting. If you are shooting something that is still or will be there for a while, then you have time to follow the rule of thirds, exact subject placement, etc. But when shooting fast moving subjects like sports or wildlife, then I just try to get it in the centre of the frame as best as I can. Then I crop or leave it.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Nov 2, 2007)

Composition is the meat, technique is just ... uh... technique. 

Wow, I died mid-metaphor there...

Anyway, composition is what defines the shot. 

Back to the metaphor... you can always tell people "I had Fish for dinner"... but you'll only say "I had something salty" if it _wasn't_ right.

Hmm... I guess picking a decent subject helps, too. 

I love winter, when we talk about photography a lot more because most of us are too lazy to go out and shoot in the cold dark.


----------



## ann (Nov 2, 2007)

great book Helen. Another that might interest you  "THE Inner Game of Tennis"  they were both on a required reading list for a photo class i took in the 70's.


----------



## dpolston (Nov 2, 2007)

I too think composition is key. Having said that; I also think it's flexible and relative to who is looking.

I do a lot of commercial work for churches and organizations that do tons of print advertising (albeit mostly for handouts and posters and such) and I notice myself taking 3 or 4 photo "sets" at different compositions of the same subject. 

I'll take one for a "portrait", one off the the left for "text on the right" then vice-versa, then one in the upper third for "lower third text", and the list goes on and on.

So I think that you HAVE to be aware of composition. It'll make or break you.

Come to think of it, I usually take sets of 6 or 7! (gosh, I take a lot of shots)


----------



## abraxas (Nov 3, 2007)

I used to draw a lot when I was a kid.  I'd draw complicated landscapes and spend days and days on them.  There was nothing worse than finding out I'd screwed up about 3/4 of the way through--Tear them up and start another.  I got to where I'd spend some time figuring out what I wanted and drift on it a bit, then start.  I got better- I could spend more time and concentrate on the details more- The technique.

I should remember that I suppose, and put more care into the composing.  I think I get too much in a hurry.  I want a shot of it all.  The light changes so fast.

I'll give it a shot this weekend...  Can't wait to see if it works


----------



## craig (Nov 3, 2007)

I try and think that my shots are well composed and my goal in life is to never crop in post processing. I put a lot of thought into each shot. After 30 years in it I still make major flaws. Sometimes I just get caught in the moment and not the photograph. Luckily sometimes these moments make for amazing photos. 

Love & Bass


----------



## RacePhoto (Nov 3, 2007)

Back in the dark ages, before I owned a zoom lens, it was a little harder, but now it's easier to compose a photo by cropping with composition, in camera. Doesn't mean I get it right all the time, or not even most of the time. But it's much closer than having a rangefinder or twin lens reflex with a fixed lens! :thumbup:

My 35-105 on the AE1 is still my favorite general lens/camera combination. But since I moved to digital, I'm learning to use the 10D and 28-135 as my walkabout/travel/car camera.

As some above, I may take a couple with one composition, then try another angle, or at least look at the shot portrait and landscape, to see if that does anything for me.

I think that after time, one just looks and has an idea of what the shot is going to be, visualizing it before the camera is even up to the eye, or out of the bag. Sometimes I see photos, that I never take, because I'm riding along in the car and can't stop.

I did some shots two weekends ago, that I had in my mind for three years. Finally drove back out to the place and took an afternoon. Found something better that I hadn't seen when I drove past before. Found that one shot I imagined I wanted, didn't work at all, so I never took it.

Exposure is important, and can set the mood, but composition is the larger message that jumps out of the picture in the end.

I don't want to get into "what is art" or anything approaching that. But a snapshot captures content, composition makes it more meaningful and tells the story.

Percentage? Depends on the subject. Composition can be almost everything and sometimes, it can be less important when the subject lacks flexibility.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 3, 2007)

I compose in photoshop.


----------



## JerryPH (Nov 3, 2007)

I think that you can consider yourself above your average basic beginner once you start to consider composition, light, aperture, shutter speed and a goal for a final picture in your mind's eye before you snap that shutter.

Anyone thats used a camera for more than 20 minutes will tell you composition is important. How well you compose... that is the real key.

Asking someone how important composition in photography to me is akin to asking a pro race car driver how important is it to hold and use the steering wheel in a race. It has a certain level of importance in both instances. :mrgreen:

Having said that, there are moments that I just snap away... like when about 2 hours ago, our neighbor came to visit his father who lives across the street from us in a 1922 Ford Model A.  By the time I got my camera, he was already starting to roll away (thank goodness top end on those things is about 20 MPH... lol).  I was snapping without consideration for composition but did manage to get 3-4 keepers out of a dozen shots.


----------



## skieur (Nov 3, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I compose in photoshop.


 
Mmmm...interesting!  Certainly not impossible, if your photoshop skills are really good.  Would you elaborate, please?

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Nov 3, 2007)

My PS skills _are_ really good.

But I was poking fun.


----------



## JC1220 (Nov 3, 2007)

"One does not choose composition strategies, style, or vision. Those things emerge as a function of the working process and certainly nothing that one tries to adopt. After you have been working for a number of years, you look back on what you have done and you see, readily or not, what all those things are. To intellectually choose one or to follow so-called compositional "rules," would be fine for a commercial photographer, but not for an artist or for an aspiring artist. These things come from who you are in the deepest sense. They choose you, You do not choose them."


Composition, etc. should be all intuitive--never analytical.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 3, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> "One does not choose composition strategies, style, or vision. Those things emerge as a function of the working process and certainly nothing that one tries to adopt. After you have been working for a number of years, you look back on what you have done and you see, readily or not, what all those things are. To intellectually choose one or to follow so-called compositional "rules," would be fine for a commercial photographer, but not for an artist or for an aspiring artist. These things come from who you are in the deepest sense. They choose you, You do not choose them."
> 
> 
> Composition, etc. should be all intuitive--never analytical.



Say it ain't so! You just killed a lot of peoples' dreams with that one. Oh wait-- everyone with technical ability but no creative mind will continue to shoot anyway...


----------



## skieur (Nov 3, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> My PS skills _are_ really good.
> 
> But I was poking fun.


 
If your PS skills were really good, you would probably be shooting digital rather than with a 4 X 5 film camera.  Nothing wrong with film but scanning film negatives is a round about way to go about editing and postprocessing.  It also requires a lot of top and very expensive equipment as well as a heck of a lot of technical knowledge to get the best results.  Not impossible, but I am not sure how efficient and effective  it is in terms of time/money and profit.

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Nov 3, 2007)

skieur said:


> If your PS skills were really good, you would probably be shooting digital rather than with a 4 X 5 film camera.  Nothing wrong with film but scanning film negatives is a round about way to go about editing and postprocessing.  It also requires a lot of top and very expensive equipment as well as a heck of a lot of technical knowledge to get the best results.  Not impossible, but I am not sure how efficient and effective  it is in terms of time/money and profit.
> 
> skieur



I do not want to see this turn into a film vs. digital argument.

I was going to PM you because to be completely honest I think that your post is clouded with a bit of ignorance and is really a bit disrespectful of my art. But I'd rather dispel some of its myths for others to read. Perhaps they'll take it from someone who both shoots film in four different formats, and also shoots digital and teaches university seminars on both 4x5 shooting and development and digital post-processing. To be clear, they aren't mutually exclusive, either.

I'll just go line-by line here. 


> If your PS skills were really good, you would probably be shooting digital rather than with a 4 X 5 film camera.


1) The format has nothing to do with post processing-- I shoot 35mm, 645, 6x9, and 4x5. Neither does the medium-- I shoot black and white, c41, E6, and K14. 
2) The sheer pixel count of a scan from a 4x5 negative will make your average APS-C digital shooter shxt themselves. That's a hell of a lot more to work with in PS. I'll say the same about 6x9, and my 645 when I'm shooting slide or slow black and white films (ISO 50 to ISO 6).



> Nothing wrong with film but scanning film negatives is a round about way to go about editing and postprocessing.


1) Film does a lot of the hard work for you if you're scanning and processing negatives or slides in photoshop. I feel that it's actually much easier than processing from RAW in almost all cases where you expose correctly. Film and Photoshop are not mutually exclusive.
2) That's only true if you believe that film and digital are media that yield fundamentally identical results. That's really very far from the truth as far as I'm concerned. There is no digital camera on earth, for example, that can match the resolution of shooting an orthochromatic film at ISO 6. Conversely, there is no digital workflow that will make a RAW file look like Tri-X pushed 3 stops. 
3) I should ask, round-about of what? Perhaps if you're thinking you need to find the fastest way to get it into the computer. The logical extension of that would be that it would be ideal if you could just take the photo with Photoshop instead. Does it take extra time? Sure! Thankfully, I don't have any deadlines. And as far as I'm concerned, the use of film simply presents me with extra processing opportunities (either into the computer or back into the darkroom, or both).



> It also requires a lot of top and very expensive equipment as well as a heck of a lot of technical knowledge to get the best results.


1) This is patently untrue. My 35mm and 6x9's were hand-me-downs. Were I to buy them, the 35mm kit would be $150 CLA'd. The 6x9 would be $250. I paid $300 for my 645 kit. I paid $35 for my 4x5 (the eBay seller thought it was broken because they didn't know how to operate it). Those are all much, much cheaper than their equivalent digital counterparts. In fact, film shooters have the upper hand when it comes to equipment costs because we aren't required to buy AF bodies and sometimes lenses. God forbid you want tethered strobes to complement your tethered camera. My tripod cost the same as yours. I didn't have to buy a stupid remote trigger whatever. All of my cameras use the same $5 cable release. Digital shooters often have lots of stupid financial investments in order to make the most of their equipment. Granted, my ME Super can't flash synch up to infinity with some special overpriced flash, but I don't really care. Not to mention, the use of such an apparatus would require technical knowledge that I, as a film shooter, would not have unless I shot an F6 or an EOS 1v.
2) I'll grant that film adds up in terms of cost. Then again, I'm a pack rat. Anyone who's seen my list of films I own that aren't made anymore will attest to that. I also think that if you know what you're doing, you waste a lot fewer exposures than one might imagine. 
3) Film and digital shooters have roughly equivalent technical requirements for actual shooting. One might argue that a film shooter's adeptness in the darkroom has to be rivaled by a digital shooter's proficiency in Photoshop. Printing adds a whole other level. I've personally been to hell and back over inkjet printing. Nick Brandt's horror stories in his emails to me about his experience with inkjet printing (he shoots film) made me feel like a rich kid complaining in front of a refugee. You would be absolutely astonished at the amount of time and money it costs to digitally print really well. I do both. You might just say that I r0xrz. 




> Not impossible, but I am not sure how efficient and effective  it is in terms of time/money and profit.


Fortunately, I don't have to worry much about efficiency or profit. What few photographic ventures I pursue to actually make money I do on my own time. Ironically, I don't have time to try to make money by being a photographer. 

I hope that clears up some misconceptions about film and digital post processing. If it hasn't then I give up. I really. give. up.


----------



## tbsdphotog (Nov 5, 2007)

I shoot thinking that cropping is not an option. I try to shoot so that compositon is in camera.


----------



## Battou (Nov 5, 2007)

Well, I don't just click away (unless I am looking to finish off a roll or something) but I have found that if I think composition, I screw composition. example

I just kind wiggle around till it looks good to me in the viewfinder.


----------



## dpolston (Nov 5, 2007)

You know, I've been thinking about this. The original past had to deal with composition not necessarily cropping. I am teaching my daughters (12 and 15) about things like composition, rules of third etc. but I have also told them to leave themselves a little room for post processing cropping. Plus every now and then the are my second and third shooters on an event (more or less just for practice). 

I suppose that is because of the ease of post processing programs like photoshop but I think it's more because of the various print sizes. I don't find myself printing standard 8x10's anymore because I prefer the look of an 8x12. My favorite print size now is a 12x16 and I just don't think you can process all of that information ("what's this going to look like on the wall") in your brain and crop during the taking of the shot through the viewfinder.


----------



## ann (Nov 5, 2007)

with all due respect there is a whole "school" of tradition and thought where we do know what the print will look like on the wall.  It is called pre-visualition.

It takes a lot of hard work to reach that level of working. However, that doesn't mean that one can't change their mind or expland on that particular vision.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 5, 2007)

ann said:


> with all due respect there is a whole "school" of tradition and thought where we do know what the print will look like on the wall.  It is called pre-visualition.
> 
> It takes a lot of hard work to reach that level of working. However, that doesn't mean that one can't change their mind or expland on that particular vision.



:hugs:


----------



## dpolston (Nov 5, 2007)

No offense taken. =o)

For the record. I do get it close in the camera... but I also allow a little room.


----------



## The Phototron (Nov 5, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I
> 2) That's only true if you believe that film and digital are media that yield fundamentally identical results. That's really very far from the truth as far as I'm concerned. There is no digital camera on earth, for example, that can match the resolution of shooting an orthochromatic film at ISO 6. Conversely, there is no digital workflow that will make a RAW file look like Tri-X pushed 3 stops.
> 3) I should ask, round-about of what? Perhaps if you're thinking you need to find the fastest way to get it into the computer. The logical extension of that would be that it would be ideal if you could just take the photo with Photoshop instead. Does it take extra time? Sure! Thankfully, I don't have any deadlines. And as far as I'm concerned, the use of film simply presents me with extra processing opportunities (either into the computer or back into the darkroom, or both).
> 
> I hope that clears up some misconceptions about film and digital post processing. If it hasn't then I give up. I really. give. up.


That's a really informative post, thanks for sharing. Although your ebay ventures are making me very jealous!


----------



## Alpha (Nov 5, 2007)

Thanks a lot. It's not like I got a Sinar P2 for $35 though. It's an orbit. Quite a clunker but boy do I love it anyway.


----------



## Sweetsomedays (Nov 5, 2007)

Yeah no, I don't get it and still suck at composition. I crop in PS. I'll get there one day...come heck or high water


----------



## skieur (Nov 5, 2007)

Well, I guess I messed up on my communications skills.  I was not trying to suggest that digital was better than film.  Certainly the tone, colour and resolution on many top films particularly in large format cameras is unsurpassed.

What I did not understand was why anyone would shoot in large format, scan to a computer, edit in Photoshop and then go to print.  Yes, you have a high quality original, but to retain that quality you need a high quality scanner.  My perspective is obviously not yours, but in Canada I cannot even find a store that handles a medium quality slide scanner, let alone a high quality film scanner.  How much did you pay for yours?

Even with one, it would seem to me that the size of the file, once scanned, again to retain the quality of the original would be gigantic.  Then there is the time it would seem to take to scan multiple film shots to huge files.  You are also compressing about the equivalent of a 46 bit+ original down to a 16 bit file.

Then without a very fast computer, I cannot see how you would load and postprocess huge files very efficiently and even if you do, how much quality is lost from the original to the final product.  Considering your skill in camera work, and darkroom work too, I'm sure, I wonder why photoshop?

Also, if you did one shot through film, scanning and photoshopping and another through digital to photoshop, I wonder whether the difference in quality would be worth the effort and time involved.  Maybe it would!?!  Since I have not done it of the same shot, I honestly don't know.

skieur


----------



## Alpha (Nov 5, 2007)

The file sizes are roughly comparable between digital and film for color. You have to bear in mind frame size. 35mm FF is roughly equiv to 35mm scanning. MF and LF digital are not, because they're not full frame. For black and white, they're obviously smaller for film.

It does take a long time to scan, depending on what kind of quality you're going for and white size neg you're scanning. A single 6x9 can take between 5 minutes and 45 minutes depending on the precision that I want. That's on a Super CoolScan 9000. I'm fiending for an Imacon FlexTight. The Nikon is a couple grand. The Imacon is $5k-10k. I do work on fast computers...a quad processor G5 with 2 gigs of ram on each processor. 

My style of shooting doesn't necessitate that I use digital. I don't need autofocus, I don't have client deadlines to meet, I love developing film and printing in the darkroom. Because I don't shoot AF, I just can't rationalize spending thousands of dollars on really great AF glass. If I had that kind of money, though, I would be more than happy to spend it on exceptional manual focus glass.

As Brandt mentioned, he feels that he can get more detail out of shooting film and scanning [than from shooting digital]. I tend to agree with him entirely except for contact printing onto AZO and developing in amidol (if you've ever seen those prints in real life....the tone range is absolutely mind-blowing). There are certain applications for which PS is better suited, for sure. Color shots that require any retouching are better suited to PS IMO. When I shoot models in color, it's always color neg or chrome and then scanned. When I do this architectural gig coming up, I will scan.


----------



## Alex_B (Nov 5, 2007)

I only try to enhance the composition by cropping if I failed composing while taking the shot (or simply changed my mind). 
Of course I never compose in postprocessing if i shoot slide film


----------



## kundalini (Nov 5, 2007)

abraxas said:


> How important is composition in *your* photography?


Very.  I try very hard to visualize the shot before I get the camera out.  Until my skills are where I want them to be, I do pad just a bit.



abraxas said:


> Are you careful and mindful about it- or just click away?


On shots where there is no movement, I take my time.  I will take several shots at different settings at this location because I feel it has the strongest impact.  Then I may move over, up, back and take several at each position.  There is this thing called serendipity.

Then to go back to the original question of if I'm all that - simply, NOT YET.  Will I keep trying - ALWAYS.


----------



## Jestev (Nov 5, 2007)

I learned photography using film developing everything myself in a darkroom and became adept at doing whatever I needed to do to crop things and many of my classmates did crop, but I never did. I would always use the full-frame negative carrier (the one that would leave a black border around your image on the print) to show that I composed that shot the way I wanted when I took it, and didn't need to rethink/crop it. Of course, I could crop it if I needed to, but I can't recall a time when I did.

I take this same approach to digital photography: I can crop and manipulate the image if I must, but I feel so much more rewarded when I am able to say that whatever is in the final image was in there for a reason. I edit digitally the same way I print in the darkroom: tweak for best color/contrast in the final print and that's about it.

Composition is key; if it's not interesting and arresting, no one's going to care. Granted if it's terribly exposed they won't either, but a perfectly exposed poor composition won't get you much farther.


----------



## |)\/8 (Nov 6, 2007)

abraxas said:


> How important is composition in *your* photography?
> 
> Are you careful and mindful about it- or just click away?



Every time I release the shutter it is my goal to capture the image I see in my head.


----------



## jon_k (Nov 6, 2007)

Composition is absolutely necessary to tell the viewer what to focus on. With poor composition you'll confuse the viewer and they wont have a clue what they're suppose to be looking at.


----------



## gizmo2071 (Nov 6, 2007)

Well it depends on how you break down the word composition.
There are many aspects of composition that you just cannot adjust after you have taken the shot.
Composition can be broken down into many layers:
compression
colours
layers
framing
positioning

Compression is going to be the choice of lens and angle.
Alot of people think with landscape photography a wide angle is essential, well in some aspects it can be, but wide angle lenses will also give alot of depth to the shot. Sometimes you want things to appear more compressed, which is why you'd use a telephot lens. Something that you can't change after you've shot and something you need to consider before you take the shot.

Colours play a huge roll in photography, even in black and white. You need to consider how the colours in the shot react to each other. Are they complimentary or do they clash. Is there an angle to shoot at, which will put the different colours in different places. Are there filters you can use to enhance the colours or totally change them. (polarisers, graduated filters, tabacoo filter for a sunset for example, which in digital photography can be done afterwards)
Again in B&W photography different colours take on different tones, and tones can make all the difference with B&W work. (again you may choose different filters, red, yellow, orange, green, blue)

Layering again is a key part of composition. Do you have a foreground, midground and background. How do these layers work together, where is your main point of focus. Are you using zone metering throughout.

Framing kinda speaks for itself. are you using anything in the shot as a frame. Maybe foliage or buildings, all key aspects to draw your eyes into the center (or where ever your point of focus is) of the shot.

I guess positioning is the main thing that people think of when they look into composition. Are you trying to follow any rules? (thirds, leading lines, golden triangle, golden mean(square))
Is the rule your trying to follow suitable for the shot? In a busy shot how are things positioned around your main subject?

So if you think about composition as just being positioning of the subject at hand, then think again. Nothing is set in stone in photography, but taking these different aspects into consideration can usually help to make a more visiually pleasing shot. 


I guess after writing that... I'm very much aware of my composition in all areas of photography.


----------



## JC1220 (Nov 6, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> As Brandt mentioned, he feels that he can get more detail out of shooting film and scanning [than from shooting digital]. I tend to agree with him entirely except for contact printing onto AZO and developing in amidol (if you've ever seen those prints in real life....the tone range is absolutely mind-blowing).


 
Damn skippy right you are on that one, hard to touch an Azo/Amidol contact print. If any one has any, I'll buy it.  Hopefully we will have a new silver chloride contact printing paper soon!  If anyone lives in southern Maine area and wants to see what he is talking about, PM me.


----------



## tbsdphotog (Nov 6, 2007)

> I love developing film and printing in the darkroom.


 

Hallelujah! I love B&W film and the darkroom. Although I do shoot digitally, film is my baby. It's what I learned on. It's what I'm still learning on.You cannot match the beauty of an image captured on film.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 6, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> Damn skippy right you are on that one, hard to touch an Azo/Amidol contact print. If any one has any, I'll buy it.  Hopefully we will have a new silver chloride contact printing paper soon!  If anyone lives in southern Maine area and wants to see what he is talking about, PM me.



You know you can still purchase AZO from Michael and Paula AFAIK (http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/Azo_Prices.html) It's not even that expensive.


----------



## skieur (Nov 6, 2007)

gizmo2071 said:


> Well it depends on how you break down the word composition.
> There are many aspects of composition that you just cannot adjust after you have taken the shot.
> Composition can be broken down into many layers:
> compression
> ...


 
Sorry, but you are way, way, off base about what composition is.  It is based on the elements of design in art.  Take a look at this website which will give you a much clearer idea about what compostion REALLY IS:

www.photoinf.com

skieur


----------



## Mesoam (Nov 6, 2007)

the title is misleading...i was looking forward to adding my comment of one of the best compliments i have ever received


----------



## JC1220 (Nov 6, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> You know you can still purchase AZO from Michael and Paula AFAIK (http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/Azo_Prices.html) It's not even that expensive.


 
Yes, but there is much background info on that, including a change in grade 2 that is just horrible to deal with, including the stock that was set aside for them at Kodak was sold out from under them, so thier stock is quite low from what it should be, not sure if they have any grade 3 left, but I would contact them directly on that. Not to mention it is not even made any more. So, the older stock, no matter how old is better. Michael and Paula are good friends and working on a new Silver Chloride paper, I already have commited funds for a pre-order and looking forward to it getting made, as with them involved it will probably be better than Azo was.

Cheers!


----------



## Alpha (Nov 6, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> Yes, but there is much background info on that, including a change in grade 2 that is just horrible to deal with, including the stock that was set aside for them at Kodak was sold out from under them, so there stock is quite low from what it should be, Not to mention it is not even made any more.  So, the older stock, no matter how old is better.  Michael and Paula are good friends and working on a new Silver Chloride paper, I already have commited funds for a pre-order and looking forward to it getting made, as with them involved it will probably be better than Azo was.
> 
> Cheers!



I've been following the threads on APUG about it pretty religiously. Have you heard bad things about the Grade 3 that they have, as well?


----------



## Hill202 (Nov 6, 2007)

skieur said:


> Sorry, but you are way, way, off base about what composition is. It is based on the elements of design in art. Take a look at this website which will give you a much clearer idea about what compostion REALLY IS:
> 
> www.photoinf.com
> 
> skieur


 
Thanks for that link, lots of good stuff there :thumbup:


----------



## gizmo2071 (Nov 7, 2007)

skieur said:


> Sorry, but you are way, way, off base about what composition is.  It is based on the elements of design in art.  Take a look at this website which will give you a much clearer idea about what compostion REALLY IS:
> 
> www.photoinf.com
> 
> skieur



I looked at the website and the larger majority of guides use parts of what I wrote, but worded differently and easier to understand/follow.
I know I'm not great with wiriting things for people to understand, but my knowledge is pretty good and that link you posted shows me that I knew what I was trying to get across. :blushing:


----------



## JC1220 (Nov 7, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> I've been following the threads on APUG about it pretty religiously. Have you heard bad things about the Grade 3 that they have, as well?


 
Grade 3 this is pretty much the same as it was, no problem with that at all.  Grade 2 is much softer, not as much contrast, where 30-40% of my negatives would fit on old grade 2, now maybe 10% go on it.  This can be adjusted for with exposure and development, and some slight changes in the Amidol formula, but I still find the color and contrast not what it was.


----------



## Alpha (Nov 7, 2007)

JC1220 said:


> Grade 3 this is pretty much the same as it was, no problem with that at all.  Grade 2 is much softer, not as much contrast, where 30-40% of my negatives would fit on old grade 2, now maybe 10% go on it.  This can be adjusted for with exposure and development, and some slight changes in the Amidol formula, but I still find the color and contrast not what it was.



Well damn. This is spreading me thin. Oh well. I guess my Ektalure supplier can hold out longer than Michael and Paula. Time to buy some azo!


----------



## sergeo_syd (Nov 18, 2007)

I think its about 1/3 Production value, 1/3 photographer and 1/3 subject. As a photographer you need to and responsible to bring all of these together. If you are working with Art director or the like that is a little different, but still on your head.


----------



## eravedesigns (Nov 18, 2007)

I shoot away if im doing sports but in the back of my head I am thinking about the orientation of my camera and the composition i want but when I do portraits or just any other shooting I try to plan out as much as I can in my head thinking that photoshop dosent exist. Photoshop will take longer even for me a very experienced user than just adjusting certain things on my camera.


----------



## Neuner (Nov 18, 2007)

ann said:


> After 60 years of working hard this whole process has become a Zen exercise.



I can't wait to get to the point where I'm not concentrating as much on the technical aspects but more of the composition.  Lately I've been getting more stressed wondering what setting I have wrong b/c I didn't think of it.  It can take away from some of the enjoyment but I guess it's part of the learning curve going from some automatic to mostly manual.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Nov 19, 2007)

eravedesigns said:


> I shoot away if im doing sports but in the back of my head I am thinking about the orientation of my camera and the composition i want but when I do portraits or just any other shooting I try to plan out as much as I can in my head thinking that photoshop dosent exist. Photoshop will take longer even for me a very experienced user than just adjusting certain things on my camera.


exactly.


----------



## Skyhawk (Nov 19, 2007)

Don't leave out the element of sheer luck.

Composition is vital, but often times you need the photo god smiling on you.

AND . . .  we were taught a long time ago that luck is where opportunity meets preparedness. So when you have the opportunity for that perfect shot because the light is just right, the clouds just broke or are in a spectacular array or pattern, the people just happen to be dressed just right and standing just right, etc etc, composition skills are what will make your picture spectacular rather than only slightly above ordinary.

And as an old college photojournalism professor once told me, "you can't get a lucky snapshot if you never keep a camera handy."

Jeff


----------



## ann (Nov 19, 2007)

or "luck favors the prepared"


----------



## ksmattfish (Nov 19, 2007)

"Now to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection..."

-Edward Weston


----------



## Rchang (Nov 20, 2007)

Sorry, I'm getting lost. 

Composition = Cropping ?

I do crop sometimes since the VF of my cameras are not 100%. I do crop since I don't have panoramic camera. I do crop since I don't have the necessary focal length at the shooting moment. 

Cropping should involves composition inside itself.


----------



## JC1220 (Nov 21, 2007)

If you know you are going to crop ahead of time, there is nothing wrong with that. 

Cropping has nothing to do with composition, at least in the sense that it is so commonly used.

ksmattfish: one of my favorite essays by Weston, what he said then is even more true today.


----------



## Rchang (Nov 21, 2007)

Composition is a summarization of what makes people feel comfortable and artistic. Somebody may break old rules with creativity. Anyway, ask yourself what really make you feel comfortable and artistic.


----------



## crownlaurel (Nov 23, 2007)

My camera only has three focal points, so sometimes when I have what I want as the composition, I have to shift for focus.  My eyes aren't good enough to manually focus so I have to be willing to crop some pictures.  But I generally have in mind how I will crop when I take the picture.


----------



## Oblivious (Nov 25, 2007)

A photographic image is, by it's very nature, a composition. It's not necessarily a _good composition_, but it is a composition.


----------



## skieur (Nov 25, 2007)

Rchang said:


> Composition is a summarization of what makes people feel comfortable and artistic. Somebody may break old rules with creativity. Anyway, ask yourself what really make you feel comfortable and artistic.


 
Composition is definitely not subjective.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 25, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> My camera only has three focal points, so sometimes when I have what I want as the composition, I have to shift for focus. My eyes aren't good enough to manually focus so I have to be willing to crop some pictures. But I generally have in mind how I will crop when I take the picture.


 
You don't seem to know what composition is either.  Look at www.photoinf.com for articles on the nature of composition.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 25, 2007)

Oblivious said:


> A photographic image is, by it's very nature, a composition. It's not necessarily a _good composition_, but it is a composition.


 
You do not really seem to know what composition is either.  Look at www.photoinf.com and read the articles on composition.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Nov 25, 2007)

Rchang said:


> Sorry, I'm getting lost.
> 
> Composition = Cropping ?
> 
> ...


 
Nope, composition does not equal cropping!

skieur


----------



## Aquarium Dreams (Nov 25, 2007)

crownlaurel said:


> My camera only has three focal points, so sometimes when I have what I want as the composition, I have to shift for focus.  My eyes aren't good enough to manually focus so I have to be willing to crop some pictures.  But I generally have in mind how I will crop when I take the picture.



Just a suggestion: Try leaving the focus on the middle point, so you'll always be accustomed to finding the focus with the same part of the viewfinder.  Once the image is focused, turn autofocus off (very gently) and compose the image as usual.


----------



## Oblivious (Nov 25, 2007)

skieur said:


> You do not really seem to know what composition is either.  Look at www.photoinf.com and read the articles on composition.
> 
> skieur



Whenever you frame an image, you create a composition. You either do so wittingly and with skill, or in a naive manner, but you have made compositional decisions and crafted an image. One could make the argument that an image taken at random can be well-composed with no input from creator, but in this instance there is a curatorial element to it: compositions are typically chosen based along aesthetic choices.


----------



## 'Daniel' (Nov 26, 2007)

I compose subconciously with a thought process that makes me take a photo or not.  I don't just click at anything.  I edit my photos before they are even taken.  Only the ones I think will work are taken.


----------



## crownlaurel (Nov 26, 2007)

skieur said:


> You do not really seem to know what composition is either. Look at www.photoinf.com and read the articles on composition.
> 
> skieur


 
Uh, the composition is the make-up of the image you intend to produce.  It is the whole of the elements that produce the image.


----------



## crownlaurel (Nov 26, 2007)

Aquarium Dreams said:


> Just a suggestion: Try leaving the focus on the middle point, so you'll always be accustomed to finding the focus with the same part of the viewfinder. Once the image is focused, turn autofocus off (very gently) and compose the image as usual.


 
That's an interesting point.  Thanks.


----------



## Antithesis (Nov 29, 2007)

I try to compose my shots through the viewfinder and try out as many different angles, focal lengths and shutter/aperature combo's as possible. Take a long time on the shot you have pictured in your head, bracket it, then fire away. I think everyone can attest to the fact that 99% of images we take are garbage. 

Also, being of the digital age I have nothing against using PS to adjust some things that you'd be able to do in the darkroom.


----------



## gmarquez (Dec 4, 2007)

abraxas said:


> How important is composition in *your* photography?




Very.


----------

