Composition question

[Rachel Foster]

I've actually picked up my camera again! I think my muse may be returning.

I struggle mightily with composition. Sometimes the correct crop is obvious. Others, not so much. I know "rules are made to be broken," but I don't always know when or why. This shot from yesterday is one example. The first image is uncropped. The second is cropped using the rule of thirds. I perfer the first.

I was wondering what others think.

Jacob Eliana: Sundown, Lake Michigan, uncropped

Jacob Eliana: Sundown, Lake Michigan, cropped​

Then, hearing Asher's voice behind me (no, not literally!) I went to the next image that I had framed wider. I followed the rule of thirds again vertically. It's better than the first crop, but I still prefer the first image. For now, anyway (my opinion changes as the time since the image was captured increases.)

Jacob Eliana: Sundown, Lake Michigan (wider frame, cropped)​

I realize that none of the crops are quite "it," but was hoping we might explore some of the issues so I can figure out what it needs.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Yes!!!!!

Jacob Eliana: Sundown, Lake Michigan, uncropped​

Then, hearing Asher's voice behind me (no, not literally!)

You were so right, Rachel. This is God-given planet and its beautiful. Don't fall for those who want to rip things from their amazingly tranquil context. There's no detail in the zoomed pictures that adds any measure of improvement.

I went to the next image that I had framed wider. I followed the rule of thirds again vertically. It's better than the first crop, but I still prefer the first image. For now, anyway (my opinion changes as the time since the image was captured increases.)

Jacob Eliana: Sundown, Lake Michigan (wider frame, cropped)​

I realize that none of the crops are quite "it," but was hoping we might explore some of the issues so I can figure out what it needs.

Well, Rachel, both this and the first one are satisfying! and tranquil! Still, the extra width here gives us so much more. Allowing the top of the hills to curve all the way down is pleasing. It might not be necessary to give up the rich golden reds of the sky.

I must admit, sentimentality, the smile of a child or a picture of a family around the dinner table with grandma blowing out the candles, always works!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Well, children and babies...no contest! Landscapes are tougher, though.

I started out very wide, but felt this one was missing something.

Jacob Eliana: Lake Michigan, Wide View​

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well, children and babies...no contest! Landscapes are tougher, though.

I started out very wide, but felt this one was missing something.

Jacob Eliana: Lake Michigan, Wide View​

Rachel,

With such a wide view, another element, such as a passing bird, person walking or a dog would make the picture more captivating (.... and also move it up one notch, I'm embarrassed to admit, in overt pandering to sentimentality, that we're supposed to avoid)!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Yes, it either needs a focal point or a much, much wider view.

 

[Jerome Marot]

I know "rules are made to be broken," but I don't always know when or why.

The rule of thirds is not a rule, actually. Real rules of composition deal with shapes, lines and how to guide the eyes of the viewer from one element to the other in the frame.

The rule of thirds is simply a trick to teach the beginners to avoid the obvious error to simply point their lenses at the main subject, thereby forgetting the frame completely.

Taking your image below, why does it work?

Jacob Eliana: Sundown, Lake Michigan, uncropped​

This image needs the horizon to be at the middle because of the symmetry between the subject and its reflection. In turn, this symmetry works because it is not perfect: would the water be a perfect mirror, the symmetry would be too obvious. Here you have enough of the reflection to bring your eye to it, but it is incomplete enough so that the viewer needs to imagine the reflected subject. So the eye will go up and down comparing the two and thereby stay in the frame. The vertical line of the tower acts as a guide for this eye movement, so it works very well.

The subject and its reflection together form an equilateral triangle. The movement of the eye is guided vertically to stay in that triangle, but there is also a way out following the sides of the triangle. And when one follows the bottom side, the eye is guided to find another subject: the birds. And this is a composition which works, with a strong subject (the triangle) which is balanced by a counterpoint (the birds).

You see, there is no "rule of thirds", even if your image actually follows it with 3 subjects being placed on the strong points: the top of the tower, its reflection and the birds. But the underlying reason is not because 3 or 1/3 would be a magical number, but because of the way the eye of the viewer is guided.

Crop anything and you lose the balance. Stamp out the birds in photoshop and the picture won't work either. Go back for a wider picture, and the triangle will be too small to trap the eye.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

I like the super wide actually though it would have been nicer to see the curve on the right side. The colour palette in that one is so gentle. To be honest none of the others work for me.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thank you, Jerome. That analysis helps a great deal!

Thanks, Ben. To be honest the widest angle is my favorite of those. I like the colors, and lines. It has a soothing feeling to me. Most people would find it too bland.