Book Club Topic: Composition - The Photographer's Eye, Chapter 1, The Image Frame

The Photographer's Eye

Welcome to the book club study group! Our first book deals with photographic composition.

Purpose:
We're here to study, practice, and collaborate. If you enjoy learning with a group, you're in the right place. We'll do that by reading, discussing, and taking photos that illustrate a concept or technique. We'll critique each other's images and debate ideas but only to the extent that we maintain a positive atmosphere and stay on topic.

Joining:
It's simple; just get a copy of the book and join in the discussion. We'll try to cover a chapter a week, but feel free to skip around. Our first meeting will start 3/19 and we'll be discussing the book The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos by Michael Freeman . We want this to be a fun and open discussion, feel free to post comments, photos, and links relative to the thread's topic.

First Step:
Order the book here or here or check your local Target or Walmart. Also available on Kindle from Amazon. Most of the first chapter is also available as a free preview at Amazon.

We were originally going to do a new thread for each chapter but several of us have fallen behind and/or didn't see clear divisions between the topics. So, this thread will be the sole thread for the entire book. Feel free comment or post examples regarding any part of the book but please describe the concept (or chapter) that you're commenting on.

The book club study group idea comes from POTN member Mafoo (Jeremy) and our first start quickly showed that we had too rigid a schedule. Jobs and family got in the way and not everyone was able to follow along at exactly the same rate. We're starting over but had many interesting comments and photos in our "false start". Click here to take a look at the first comments and photo submissions.

Grumpy_one wrote in post #14047383
Ok, here's mine. This was taken downtown. What I got out of the first lesson is how the frame interacts with the image. I cropped this so the angles line up. The corners repeat numerous times in the image.

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

Lowner wrote in post #14049653
My book arrived and I'm just starting to read chapter 1.

While I'm digesting it, I thought I'd post what I think is the image that most relies on the frame I have. It goes without saying (but I'm saying it anyway!) that peoples thoughts are werlcome because thats why we are all here.

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

cacawcacaw wrote in post #14046477
Freeman's frame dynamics include a few ways that the frame influences the image but I was hoping to come up with an example where the frame is an integral component of the image.

The frame becomes part of the image:

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

and, the image is supporting the frame:

IMG NOTICE: [NOT AN IMAGE URL, NOT RENDERED INLINE]

(Excuse the cell-phone camera but I'm trying to concentrate on composition as opposed to technical skills. And I realized I was running daylight today and had to get the dogs out on a walk. )

wuzzittoya wrote in post #14046542
The frame within a frame was the subject for the end of this chapter, and I think there's one about the shadow play later, too. Nice image.

On the second... hmmm... interesting to turn the horizon so drastically to get the "upright" tree. I wonder what it would look like as a horizontal instead of portrait orientation and the tree going, as much as possible, diagonal on the frame?

You end up with a definitely unbalanced feel to the second photograph. Depending on your intention (is it to create that feeling or to create a sense of peace and balance?), it either is a good or a bad thing.

cacawcacaw wrote in post #14046895
Edit: Just thinking about your comment about the unbalanced feel to the tree, I had considered the angled background as something I normally don't like but thought I could get away with by showing the tree and the frame as the key components and the background as the variable. But, your comment about peace and balance struck home, because familiarity is the most compelling initial part of any design.

When I took the photo, my intention was to find an image that had anything at all to do with the dynamics of a frame. (The first photo was from the weekend, before reading but knowing that a frame-photo was going to be needed soon. Dang it, should have saved it for another night's homework.)

As a newer amateur, I keep looking for the rules that can be applied to composition. "Fill the frame" and "tell a story" are two rules that I can usually apply to any photo. So what are the rules (or design principles) to take from this first section?

Freemans first tip, to try aligning secondary outlines with the frame, was interesting. Everyone tries to align a primary outline (like the edges of a building or the horizon) but it's clever to do the same thing with a less prominent line.

The Diagonal Tension idea just feels like a juxtaposition of angles that conflict with the frame - doesn't appeal to me as a design concept because it's unsettling. Freeman's example of the geometric shapes in the heavily cropped church also doesn't appeal to me. Seems a little trite, more like a "guess what that is" intrigue that leaves me a bit disappointed to find out that it's a church. Oh.

...

Good idea! I read that book some time back, so maybe reviewing your study group's contributions will be a good refresher course.

I just found this thread, and was looking for something to get back into shooting again. I can order this for my B&N NOOK. Do you think that version will work as well and the print version?

Hey Dawn. I'm reading the book on my PC using Amazon's free Kindle reader and it looks pretty good. There are lots of color photos in the book but even if you have the black and white Nook, the book will still make sense (I think). For a book like this, the print version is always the best.

I'm here!

Speaking of frame dynamics... I played around and took this today, doing my best to have a flat "horizon" along the bottom of the sign. However, the angle of the roof, plus the vertical pattern of the siding all interact with the frame and the horizon to make things seem a bit less level than they should be.

wuzzittoya wrote in post #14115490
I'm here!

Speaking of frame dynamics... I played around and took this today, doing my best to have a flat "horizon" along the bottom of the sign. However, the angle of the roof, plus the vertical pattern of the siding all interact with the frame and the horizon to make things seem a bit less level than they should be.

All of those angles give it a very dynamic feel. I don't think absolute "levelness" is critical here.

stsva wrote in post #14115851
All of those angles give it a very dynamic feel. I don't think absolute "levelness" is critical here.

Funny thing is, the bottom of the sign is exactly parallel with the frame. (I measured it on my screen!) The optical illusion created by the diminishing width of the shadow makes the effect even better than if everything was perfectly parallel.

Two nice photos, Wuzzi. D'ya get your mojo back?

Okay, let me be ultra-critical for a moment. To my eye, the meandering river might have been even more interesting if it weren't the main subject. A cow, or a person, in the grassy field would have made the composition much more complex, and perhaps made the river background the absolute best icing on the cake.

As I'm reading this chapter, I'm looking for rules. Your picture of the sign really demonstrates the clearest and easiest tip in the chapter: line up something that would normally be angled with the frame. (I also liked the square aspect ratio you posted in the first thread. I'm not a fan of portrait orientation and I'll try to keep in mind that a square is a good alternative.)

good book this is but i have read nearly half of the whole book now lol

jonneymendoza wrote in post #14118039
good book this is but i have read nearly half of the whole book now lol

I am only now starting to read chapter two. But I admit I am trying to get deeply into each and every word!

I'll play. I picked up the book this evening and just polished off chapter one. I am looking forward to the discussion.

I actually got this book through Amazon and it came in two days ago without having any knowledge of this thread, LOL. I'll start reading it today.

cacawcacaw wrote in post #14116712
Funny thing is, the bottom of the sign is exactly parallel with the frame. (I measured it on my screen!) The optical illusion created by the diminishing width of the shadow makes the effect even better than if everything was perfectly parallel.

Two nice photos, Wuzzi. D'ya get your mojo back?

Okay, let me be ultra-critical for a moment. To my eye, the meandering river might have been even more interesting if it weren't the main subject. A cow, or a person, in the grassy field would have made the composition much more complex, and perhaps made the river background the absolute best icing on the cake.

As I'm reading this chapter, I'm looking for rules. Your picture of the sign really demonstrates the clearest and easiest tip in the chapter: line up something that would normally be angled with the frame. (I also liked the square aspect ratio you posted in the first thread. I'm not a fan of portrait orientation and I'll try to keep in mind that a square is a good alternative.)

Strangely I didn't feel like I got "mojo" back. These images were interesting, but not necessarily amazing or special. They definitely don't have an extra added element to stop you still and make you look harder.

They do demonstrate, though, that human beings feel calmed, etc., by looking at curves (not sure why, but we do enjoy them). Since I was shooting from the road and there aren't livestock kept in the field in front and it was private property, I had to take what I could get. We do think it's a very beautiful view. It's actually a lake, not a river, but by framing and the size of the lake itself (I could have shown where it ended, but I thought that the shot was more pleasing mistaking it for a river) you get a better sense of motion through the frame.

On the other, the various "lines" and their interaction in the photo make for an interesting composition, and kind of address the interaction of parts of the image and the frame. The "true parallel" between the bottom of the sign and the bottom of the frame, coupled with it not looking parallel is something that is fascinating to contemplate if you're thinking about what our eyes see vs. what our brain tells us about it. Trompe l'oeil is kind of fun...

But... neither of these pictures feel especially compelling to me. I took both of them with information from the first and second chapters of the book in mind.

I'm really struggling with trying to find anything I look at to be an especially amazing, breath-taking moment. Maybe right now I'm depressed, or maybe my standards are too high?