From across the river

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeros

They are both good in their own right. :) Even though there are rules, this shouldn't stifle experimentation by not trying to creatively challenge the rules. I applaud the OP for trying the second crop, it creates a very strong image. In my own work I can get very aggressive with cropping as cropping is a very powerful methodology. One just has to accept that not all choices re: composition, cropping or lighting will always get one a consensus, to which I exclaim...Vive la difference!

---

Richard - when I first started in photography I took crappy pictures. I then heard about the "rules of composition" and found that I was shooting slightly less crappy pictures.

I then started looking at pictures by the masters. both the old and new and discovered that they were getting great images and in most of the shots they were often ignoring the "rules of composition". I then began to suspect that the rules should not be followed, but instead, it made more sense to come up with compelling images that drew the viewer's eyes into the image and had kind of emotional impact on them.

Now that I ignore the so called "rules" I'm taking a lot better pictures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Richard - when I first started in photography I took crappy pictures. I then heard about the "rules of composition" and found that I was shooting slightly less crappy pictures.

I then started looking at pictures by the masters. both the old and new and discovered that they were getting great images and in most of the shots they were often ignoring the "rules of composition". I then began to suspect that the rules should not be followed, but instead, it made more sense to come up with compelling images that drew the viewer's eyes into the image and had kind of emotional impact on them.

Now that I ignore the so called "rules" I'm taking a lot better pictures.

---

\

I'm glad for you.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flashback

Greg, definitely #1. Visually much more interesting with the lights on the LHS, the building (which I'm assuming is a condo/apartment bldg?) and the marina. With the reflections and all the interesting things to look around at #1 is the far better image.
#2 looks like the back end of some kind of trawler/fishing vessel of some sort, and as it is there's not really much there to keep my interest.
To me both appear to be very good technically, but compositionally it's #1.

---

Here are some facts on composition #1 has no composition other than the constraints of the frame. Only one line, flat and one dimensional (still a pleasing shot though) # 2 has converging lines that show cognitive compos....ition and create (compose) converging lines that lead the viewer into the picture. This is recognized and taught at university level of Art and Design for very valid reasons. Jack, your comments reach beyond your knowledge and go nowhere. Take a look at the two images showing what is composition and what is not. If you prefer #1 over # 2 there is no rule saying you may not, you are responsible for what you like and what you don't like and you don't have to explain why. A caveat though, don't try to explain composition, you're not qualified.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8848/1...9a1c1544_o.jpg2n21vzc by Richard Jones, on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/347/18...a0377178_o.jpgcomposition-1 by Richard Jones, on Flickr

Richard - I do have a formal design background (a professional degree as well as 35 years of working as a designer / design manager) plus a number of college level credit courses in photography. One of these was in composition and design. I probably know more than most how to put something together so that it works; and that includes images.

I find that going through an image and identifying which "rules of composition" have or have not been followed is not particularly useful; primarily because it ranks all of the compositional elements equally. In reality nothing is further from the truth. In a given image, certain elements will have a greater impact than the other ones. Picking the ones that are important and discounting the ones that are less so is can be a daunting task. Not every strong image needs to follow the rule of thirds, not must it have a foreground, middle ground and background. Having the horizon running through the middle of the image is not necessarily fatal to it.

If it were as simple as picking a number of compositional rules and applying them, just about everyone who has taken a course on composition or read a good book on the subject should be turning out absolutely compelling images every time he or she clicks the shutter. This obviously does not happen, so perhaps this approach is incorrect. An image is far more than the sum of its parts or the number of composition rules that have been applied.

As for the much vaunted "rule of thirds", I've always wondered if this is something we have been told works, therefore an image that uses the rule of thirds has a good start. In spite of its long history, I have never found any compelling evidence that it actually works. In fact I ran across an abstract on a scientific paper, in the Journal of Vision, that suggests it is a far weaker "rule" than we have been lead to believe. http://jov.arvojournals.org/article....icleid=2144235 It even has a catchy title; "Why the "Rule of Thirds" is Wrong"

Every course I have taken on composition and every book I have read on the subject makes the same suggestion. The "rules of composition" are not really rules at all; at best they might be called "suggestions on composition". Every book and lecture I have attended has had the following disclaimer "a good photographer has to know when to break the rules".

I think what is really being said is that a good photographer has to recognize a good photograph, and the rules of doing so won't actually get you there. I think Ansel Adams said it best; "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

Manfred, read what I wrote about challenging rules, reconsider preaching to the choir. I won't parade my credentials here as I consider it only useful for defending a fragile ego. BTW I did cut you a lot of slack by not pointing out the huge black hole you created with your crop. I probably will refrain from posting here and on other forums as it all seems to be the same old rhetoric of egotistical rants by self appointed gurus who get all hissy when someone disagrees with them.

Getting hissy with people who post opinions that disagree with me is a certainty when that person has no idea what they are saying, have only unqualified opinions (which they are entitled to) which remind me of what Abraham Lincoln said "Better remain silent and only be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt". I'm tired of it, don't need it, I'm gone!

Richard - my ego is hardly fragile (quite robust is much closer to the truth), so let's agree to disagree on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Richard - my ego is hardly fragile (quite robust is much closer to the truth), so let's agree to disagree on this one.

---

Agreed.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aeros

Here are some facts on composition #1 has no composition other than the constraints of the frame. Only one line, flat and one dimensional (still a pleasing shot though) # 2 has converging lines that show cognitive compos....ition and create (compose) converging lines that lead the viewer into the picture. This is recognized and taught at university level of Art and Design for very valid reasons. Jack, your comments reach beyond your knowledge and go nowhere. Take a look at the two images showing what is composition and what is not. If you prefer #1 over # 2 there is no rule saying you may not, you are responsible for what you like and what you don't like and you don't have to explain why. A caveat though, don't try to explain composition, you're not qualified.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8848/1...9a1c1544_o.jpg2n21vzc by Richard Jones, on Flickr

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/347/18...a0377178_o.jpgcomposition-1 by Richard Jones, on Flickr

---

Richard, you're welcome to draw as many lines as you like, it still makes no difference in terms of which image I prefer. To presume that your knowledge supersedes my preference is arrogant, at best. Ultimately, your method of communication is annoying, condescending and frankly confusing as to why you would make such negative comments towards me and what I wrote regarding the two images. Henceforth, let me run my comments past you first so as not to offer bad opinion nor confuse anyone who might read my comments. (Mods - where is the sarcasm font please?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregj1763

Yep, you're right Manfred, much stronger image.

---

I have to disagree, I liked the composition in the original.

Love #1 by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebel

I have to disagree, I liked the composition in the original.

Love #1 by the way.

---

Thanks Matt, there are are a few different opinions regarding the #2 image, that's good it makes it interesting.

Hi Greg :) I like your original edits as they are. Lovely colors and reflections in #1.