What is "star composition"?

[Magnatic]

My photography instructor is asking for a shot with "a star composition". What does that refer to?

[Pete]

If you don't understand a photo assignment, it might be a good idea to ask your instructor what he means. It might be a little embarressing if you took photos of stars when he actually wants a composition of objects arranged in a star shape.

[Magnatic]

Point well taken. I was just wondering if "star composition" was a term referring to a common method of composition.

[Pete]

It's not one that I've heard of, but others here may have. I ran a google search which didn't return anything immedaitely obvious.

[Magnatic]

I had done the same with similar results before I posted here. It's obviously not that common. I thank you for your help though.

[PhotosGuy]

If you don't understand a photo assignment, it might be a good idea to ask your instructor what he means. And if he gave you an assignment without explaining what it was, then you need another "instructor". ;)

[Pete]

Or maybe this instructor is instructing in the art of clarification or is interested in different interpretations of the request.... :D

Either way, you wouldn't get marked down for asking for clarification.

[canonnoob]

What ^^ said.. just send him/her and email and see what they exactly meant by "star composition" I have never heard of it before..

[Radtech1]

It might be a little embarressing if you took photos of stars when he actually wants a composition of objects arranged in a star shape.

My assumption was a photo with the light sources that have "stars". If the students don't know how to create that in camera, it would be a good compulsory skill to teach.

Rad

[chauncey]

If you assume something, you make an ass-u-me.

[Magnatic]

I asked for clarification and he wrote:

"Think of what the linear pattern of a star is. It happens quite frequent in nature. I'll explain more on Saturday if you can't figure it out."

I can't figure it out.

[chauncey]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[RandyMN]

I asked for clarification and he wrote:

"Think of what the linear pattern of a star is. It happens quite frequent in nature. I'll explain more on Saturday if you can't figure it out."

I can't figure it out.

Photographic composition is all about shapes. I think your instructor just wants you to look at shapes and start visualizing.

Stars are somewhat complicated, but when you start adding dimaonds, squares, circles and combinations of all of the above, I would think that somewhere you can find a composition that shows a "STAR" shape within all points of interest.

[RandyMN]

And if he gave you an assignment without explaining what it was, then you need another "instructor". ;)

And I disagree. I think the instructor is trying to stimulate thinking! If someone tells me STAR compostion then I'd assume shape.

I think the instructor is more artsy than technical.

[Magnatic]

I think the instructor is trying to stimulate thinking!

You're spot on with that one. At the first class he informed us that although it was an advanced photography class, he was really there to teach us to "process our thoughts". Last night he delved into the Four Levels of Learning.
He really is a very intelligent and gifted man. I'm just not sure I share the same gifts.

[RandyMN]

You're spot on with that one. At the first class he informed us that although it was an advanced photography class, he was really there to teach us to "process our thoughts". Last night he delved into the Four Levels of Learning.
He really is a very intelligent and gifted man. I'm just not sure I share the same gifts.

He is there to teaach so learn what you can. I have not always agreed with every teacher out there, but it's wise to learn what you can because you never really can undertsand those things you think you knew but never did!

Only those who know can teach you that, The alternative is experience but why learn from failure when you can do so from someone who already failed and learned.

[LBaldwin]

Sorry - but my BS -"0"- Meter just went off. If I google linear star pattern, or linear star composition it brings up this thread. Star patterns are not linear, they are symetrical, and even that is 100% correct. If it requires serious deep thinking to aquire, than it is probably not an assignment that belongs in advanced photography - but maybe the physics lab.... lol

[RandyMN]

Sorry - but my BS -"0"- Meter just went off. If I google linear star pattern, or linear star composition it brings up this thread. Star patterns are not linear, they are symetrical, and even that is 100% correct. If it requires serious deep thinking to aquire, than it is probably not an assignment that belongs in advanced photography - but maybe the physics lab.... lol

Linear is lines and a star is made up of many lines.

I disagree strongly with your opinion as wedding photography benefits greatly by shape compositions and this is what photographers need to learn.

You may state a circle also belongs in the physics lab, and that's the most complicated line you will ever find if you look at it from a mathematical perspective!

Photography is about shapes. Composition is made up of shapes pleasing to the eye and no photographer ever needs a PHD in geometry to understand that...

[LBaldwin]

Please do the research and find for me and the rest of the class and locate a referance to "star composition". I have hundreds of photography books, some nearly a hundred years old, and I don't ever remember seeing this statement.

Photography is a one dimensional representation of a two or three d object or subject. In portraits, landscapes, weddings (not sure why you brought that up), or just about any other situation I don't remember saying Gee I wish I could shoot a star pattern here...

Because to me that would leave a large empty space in the center. HMMM could be fun, perhaps I will try that on my next commercial gig...

"W's" - "U's - and "M's" sure, but stars? More than a little esoteric - methinks.

[RandyMN]

Please do the research and find for me and the rest of the class and locate a referance to "star composition". I have hundreds of photography books, some nearly a hundred years old, and I don't ever remember seeing this statement.

Photography is a one dimensional representation of a two or three d object or subject. In portraits, landscapes, weddings (not sure why you brought that up), or just about any other situation I don't remember saying Gee I wish I could shoot a star pattern here...

Because to me that would leave a large empty space in the center. HMMM could be fun, perhaps I will try that on my next commercial gig...

"W's" - "U's - and "M's" sure, but stars? More than a little esoteric - methinks.

Maybe that's where the artist becomes separated from the technical photographer that needs a book to teach him compositional techniques and needs a label for that technique.

I have a library also and I don;t expect "STAR" compostion to be found as it's only a reference to multiple points of interest found within one photograph.

Maybe you feel all compositions require a name, but creative photography doesn't require someone inventing or even writing a book about what you think is good photography...

[RandyMN]

Because to me that would leave a large empty space in the center. HMMM could be fun, perhaps I will try that on my next commercial gig...


Oh yes, composition done properly will find a way to fill that large void in the center. Otherwise the star pattern will be tight enough to eliminate the void.

[Radtech1]

MIGHT be of some help:

1. http://www.usefilm.com/image/282053.html

Relevant text: "You have to love that warm late-afternoon fall light: it really adds something to the interesting "star" composition of the girders."

2. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?topic_id=1721&msg_id=00POEe

Relevant text (From the comments by Matt B, about 3/4 the way down): "Basically it's a very simple composition - a bit like a star with all branches leading to the same center...The tree, to me, is therefore an element of asymetry that breaks the potentially monotoneous "star-composition", and I don't see it as conflicting with the structure."

3. http://www.flickr.com/photos/obsessivephotography/441366817/

Relevant text: "Excellent - the star composition really worked beautifully!"

4. http://books.google.com/books?id=2rYaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=%2B%22star+composition%22+%2Bphotograph&source=bl&ots=DcUHcefVcL&sig=XggSC4hMWzjbnM2V41nAejrVMZs&hl=en&ei=qkOvSY-MMJnMsAPl1pWNAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

Relevant text: (Should come up highlighted, just under the sample photo.)*

So, there, not a LOT of references that pertain to this discussion, but it should get the point across.

Rad

*BTW - that is from a book called "The Practical and Junior Photographer", Percy Lund, Editor - Copyright 1902!

[number six]

Sorry - but my BS -"0"- Meter just went off.

You too, eh? :lol:

You may state a circle also belongs in the physics lab, and that's the most complicated line you will ever find if you look at it from a mathematical perspective!

Sorry, Randy, but you're getting too mystical for me.

From a mathematical perspective (to use your term), a circle is perhaps the simplest geometric object to describe: all points in a plane that are equidistant from a given point, which we call the center.

Not the least bit complicated...

-js

[hollis_f]

You may state a circle also belongs in the physics lab, and that's the most complicated line you will ever find if you look at it from a mathematical perspective!

for a circle with center (j, k) and radius (r):
(x-j)2 + (y-k)2 = r2

Er, looks pretty simple to me.

[PhotosGuy]

"star" composition of the girders." OK, so how about a kid making a snow angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_angel)? Try a slow shutter speed to blur the hands & feet a little. You do have snow there, right? :D

[Radtech1]

The more I read (and, yes, you can Google it - I used [+"star composition" +photography]), it seems as though a "Star Composition" is one where there is a center, and the periphery components seems to radiate from - or point to - that center.

If that is in fact the definition, then I would guess that THIS SHOT (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=223621) would qualify as a "Star Composition".

Let us know if the professor says essentially the same thing.

Rad

[tonylong]

I asked for clarification and he wrote:

"Think of what the linear pattern of a star is. It happens quite frequent in nature. I'll explaincan more on Saturday if you can't figure it out."

I can't figure it out.

That seems like a straightforward explanation -- if he would have given that explanation at the beginning, most of this discussion would be pretty irrelavent!

You can be simple -- a common daisy shot with your focal plane parallel to the opening or a dandelion shot, or a bright light at night shot with a narrow aperture would give very basic star patterns, but to be creative and original you would look for patterns/compositions that are not quite so straightforward but have the effect of a "burst of lines emanating from a center", right?

[number six]

for a circle with center (j, k) and radius (r):
(x-j)2 + (y-k)2 = r2

Er, looks pretty simple to me.

Even simpler in polar coordinates: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/1/8/8/1883adf1e8c507ae499dc2a7853f47db.png

:cool:

For a discussion of this very useful alternative to Cartesian coordinates, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinates

[Bill Boehme]

The "linear pattern of a star"???

My BS-O-Meter has gone over the red line and pegged.

As any astronomer will tell you, a star is a point source of light (except for the sun, of course), so I am not sure what the "linear" part is all about.

[DAMphyne]

Get a "Star Filter", I'm sure that would cover it.

[Andrushka]

i barely got through algebra 1 and geometry myself and failed miserably at alg. 2 - i do however feel pretty enlightened now about circles and stars, very interesting...
but since this guy is trying to help explore the inner sanctums of your brain maybe just go all out and take any random photo and crop it into the shape of a star in PS :-) bam!!

[Magnatic]

You do have snow there, right? :D

I'm in the Niagara Region of Ontario and our snow has all melted. It would be more like a "dirt angel".

[adam8080]

I'm thinking a picture of this thread would probably fulfill his assignment nicely. Make sure you include the star equations.

[alduin]

Get a "Star Filter", I'm sure that would cover it.

Or learn how to do it without the filter. =)

[Spacemunkie]

I'd be submitting pictures of my chocolate star for this assignment. What a load of cobblers!

[Radtech1]

I asked for clarification and he wrote:

"Think of what the linear pattern of a star is. It happens quite frequent in nature. I'll explain more on Saturday if you can't figure it out."

I can't figure it out.

So, it's Saturday - what was his definition?

Rad

[LBaldwin]

Patience young paddywhack, hehe the teacher needs to to make something up er explain the 'process". You probably already have the answer in which case I'll slink off in the corner and wipe the egg off my mug.... lol

[Gentleman Villain]

Sounds like the instructor might have made up some personal terms to describe an aspect of composition.

Most photographers do this over their careers or learn from someone else who made something up. For example, somebody that taught the instructor might have made up the term...so the instructor might think everybody knows it since that's how he learned it...

I've encountered a few situations like that myself. I'll describe something and everybody will look at me like WTF? Nobody seems to understand what I'm talking about when I say "2/3rds lighting" ...but somebody taught me how to light using that term. So maybe he made it up? I don't know...but I thought everybody used the term 2/3rds lighting until recently :p

[adam8080]

What is 2/3rds lighting?

[Andrushka]

What is 2/3rds lighting?

i've watch a fair amount of tutorials, read a few books, read every strobist post and still don't know what that is...

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks for making my point :D

Ok I'll try and explain 2/3rds lighting for anybody that might be interested...

Ya'll know split lighting right? Split lighting in portraiture would be lighting half of a subject's face and leaving the other half in shadow.

And ya'll know broad and short lighting right? Broad lighting is a term used to describe lighting the side of a subject's face that is turned towards a camera. Short lighting is used to describe lighting the side of a subject's face that is turned away from the camera.

2/3rds lighting expands on those concepts. Split lighting describes lighting half of a subject's's face....2/3rds lighting will light about 2/3rds of a subject's face. 1/3rd lighting will light 1/3rd of a subject's face.

These terms could be used in conjunction with broad and short lighting. For example: a photographyer might say, "I'm going to use a short lighting 1/3rds lighting scenario for a portrait." That would mean the mainlight is going to be pointed at the side of the subject's face that is turned away from the camera and the light will cover about 1/3rd of the subject's face.

Hope that makes sense...1/3rds and 2/3rds go right along with split lighting. It doesn't have to apply just to portraiture...it could apply to product shooting or any kind of subject.

[Gentleman Villain]

Do people still know the phrase "sunny 16?" That one actually used to be popular.

[Wilt]

Thanks for making my point :D

Ok I'll try and explain 2/3rds lighting for anybody that might be interested...

Ya'll know split lighting right? Split lighting in portraiture would be lighting half of a subject's face and leaving the other half in shadow.

And ya'll know broad and short lighting right? Broad lighting is a term used to describe lighting the side of a subject's face that is turned towards a camera. Short lighting is used to describe lighting the side of a subject's face that is turned away from the camera.

2/3rds lighting expands on those concepts. Split lighting describes lighting half of a subject's's face....2/3rds lighting will light about 2/3rds of a subject's face. 1/3rd lighting will light 1/3rd of a subject's face.

These terms could be used in conjunction with broad and short lighting. For example: a photographyer might say, "I'm going to use a short lighting 1/3rds lighting scenario for a portrait." That would mean the mainlight is going to be pointed at the side of the subject's face that is turned away from the camera and the light will cover about 1/3rd of the subject's face.

Hope that makes sense...1/3rds and 2/3rds go right along with split lighting. It doesn't have to apply just to portraiture...it could apply to product shooting or any kind of subject.

"I'm going to use a short lighting 1/3rds lighting scenario for a portrait."

Concept is sorta clear from the description, but it raises questions because there are two interpretations with discernable differences...

1. Light A covers full visible (seen from the lens) area of the face. Light B covers 2/3 of the face farthest from the lens. If Light A is f/4, and light B is f/5.6 intensity, the ratio (A+B:Aonly) is 3:1

2. Light A covers only 1/3 of the face seen from the lens. Light B covers 2/3 of the face farthest from the lens. If Light A is f/4, and light B is f/5.6 intensity, the ratio (A+B:Aonly) is 2:1

[Gentleman Villain]

Yeah...that's the right idea...but you're talking about ratios between the intensity of light sources and I'm talking about ratios between the coverage of the main light source as compared to the coverage of the shadow

For example, split lighting is a term used to describe lighting that covers half of a subject. But it doesn't refer to the intensity of light between highlight and shadow. The ratio between highlight and shadow could be anything 1:2 , 1:3 etc

A photographer could have a 2/3rds lighting scenario....and there could be a 1:2 or 1:3 (etc) ratio between the highlight and shadow....But hte lighting scenario would still be called a 2/3rds lighting scenario because 2/3rds of the subject is covered by the mainlight and only 1/3rd is shadow.

Maybe the reason that people don't describe lighting this way is because it's easy to confuse with ratios. But to me...it goes right along with the concept of split lighting. So I think it's valid and use it all the time...once people are around me long enough they usually start to use the term themselves LOL

[Magnatic]

So, it's Saturday - what was his definition?

Rad

The instructor was surprised that we still couldn't "get it" so he explained that a star composition occurs when the subject has elements that radiate or spread out from a center. It could be as simple as a wagon wheel or spoked automobile rim or, as someone suggested in this thread, a flower such as a daisy whose petals branch out from the center. Better yet, the whole daisy plant with a number of daisies growing outward from the centre root system or a the tip of a fir tree branch showing the needles sprouting from the branch. It all seemed so anticlimatic.
I really appreciate the help of those on this forum.

[Radtech1]

The instructor was surprised that we still couldn't "get it" so he explained that a star composition occurs when the subject has elements that radiate or spread out from a center. It could be as simple as a wagon wheel or spoked automobile rim or, as someone suggested in this thread, a flower such as a daisy whose petals branch out from the center. Better yet, the whole daisy plant with a number of daisies growing outward from the centre root system or a the tip of a fir tree branch showing the needles sprouting from the branch. It all seemed so anticlimatic.
I really appreciate the help of those on this forum.

OK, so I wasn't too far off base when I posted the above comment:

The more I read (and, yes, you can Google it - I used [+"star composition" +photography]), it seems as though a "Star Composition" is one where there is a center, and the periphery components seems to radiate from - or point to - that center.

If that is in fact the definition, then I would guess that THIS SHOT (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=223621) would qualify as a "Star Composition".

Let us know if the professor says essentially the same thing.

Rad

[Andrushka]

yeah - that is anti-climatic... all the guessing, speculation and mystery for that! :-)

[LBaldwin]

Yup we were lookin for a deep meaningful explaination and got kibble.... Advanced? HMMMM

[birdfromboat]

just remember he is your employee, without you in his classroom, he's talking to empty chairs with the nagging feeling in the back of his intelligent and gifted brain that getting paid for this is not going to be a reliable source of income.
make him work for your money, you did. Ask questions and insist on clarity and complete answers, or get used to the idea that your final grade will depend on how well you play this little game he is making up as he goes along.
If I seem a little callus or insensitive, I apologize. It is just that I have been in your boat so many times with so many instructors. I am sick and tired of these guys that think it is our job to please them, when the real job is for them to earn our money by teaching us. My current photo class instructer is working hard at helping us, being clear, patient and fair. I will pay him gladly, even if he will just blow it all on Nikon gear later.

[newton]

The instructor was surprised that we still couldn't "get it" so he explained that a star composition occurs when the subject has elements that radiate or spread out from a center. It could be as simple as a wagon wheel or spoked automobile rim or, as someone suggested in this thread, a flower such as a daisy whose petals branch out from the center. Better yet, the whole daisy plant with a number of daisies growing outward from the centre root system or a the tip of a fir tree branch showing the needles sprouting from the branch. It all seemed so anticlimatic.
I really appreciate the help of those on this forum.

I was about to tell you to write "A STAR COMPOSITION" on a piece of paper and take a picture of it.

But not knowing if your instructor has a sense of humor, he might have just failed you.

[LBaldwin]

Just use a cross screen filter on EVERYTHING. Or use plain ol' window screen - same diff.