Composition

[Barney]

Do you have any composition consideration when moving around formats

The reason I ask is that 4x5 looks strange and my lines do not go where they usually do, the negative space is different also. Is it something that you get used to or are there specific things to take into account?

 

[srichards]

Nope. I just look through the viewfinder and think does that look how I want. I've never really thought about negative space or anything else. I only think ' do I like that'. If I like it then I take the photo, if not I go find another. Sometimes I still do ones I'm not sure of because I'm just curious how it is going to turn out. Some come out a bit meh and others surprise me.

 

[LeeRatters]

Nope. I just look through the viewfinder and think does that look how I want. I've never really thought about negative space or anything else. I only think ' do I like that'. If I like it then I take the photo, if not I go find another. Sometimes I still do ones I'm not sure of because I'm just curious how it is going to turn out. Some come out a bit meh and others surprise me.

This ^^ Pretty much. But saying that, I will often shoot with my Sony with a crop in mind such as 4:3 or 4:5 vertical (I'm not a fan of 2:3 vertical, it looks too t a l l .....)

I always shoot film at the standard 3:2 though.

To add, I personally find it very satisfying composing (or looking for compositions) at 1:1 with the 124g though. I'm not sure whether it's the limited shots available, the reverse image, the square format.... It is very enjoyable though.

 

[StephenM]

For me, the subject (and how I want to show it) dictates how I place the elements and where within the frame. At printing, I crop to the correct proportions for how I want it to appear, without consideration of the specific aspect ratio of paper and negstive.

Personally, I prefer 5x7 to 5x4 for the format shape. But I never let the film aspect ratio dictate what I do. I am not Henri Cartier Bresson.

 

[Ian Grant]

Once I am are familiar with a format I shoot to it, it's quite rare that I will crop in printing. I can count to rolls of 35mm I've shot in the last 20 years on one hand,

These days I mostly shoot 5x4 & a little 10x8, alongside that a 6x6 TLR, a Yashicamat 124, while living in or visiting Turkey, or one of my two Rolleiflex cameras here in the UK.

To add, I personally find it very satisfying composing (or looking for compositions) at 1:1 with the 124g though. I'm not sure whether it's the limited shots available, the reverse image, the square format.... It is very enjoyable though.

Yes, shooting square format 6x6 is enjoyable, it us a different way of thinking, and composing, but quickly becomes intuitive. One thing I mentioned to the OP on Tuesday was the importance of what's at the edge of the frame, in choosing to take a shot you have already selected the subject. The fact that a TLR (no prism) laterally reverses on the focus screen, and with LF is also upside down as well, forces you to think a little more carefully at how you are framing the shot.

Although I have images of the same place shot 5x4 & 6x6, they were taken on different occasions, and more than a year apart.

I've only ever once composed and made an image using 5x4, and then used my Yashicamat 124 and recomposed using the square format, both prints are very nice, but have a different emphasis. I will see if I've digitised them.

Ian

 

[FishyFish]

I don't have any set considerations, but with experience I'm aware that compositions that work well in one ration, might not work as well in another.. It really comes down to eye though and, most importantly, making sure you're happy with what you can see through the viewfinder before firing the shutter.

There are manner of compositional rules that can be useful to know, but these should be used as guides, not laws, and you shouldn't be beholden to them.

There's a nice Jamie Windsor video on composition, with tips, that you might find useful. One of the tips is about using a phone camera with a frame guide as a way of pre-visualising a picture. This is particularly useful with large format given the time it can take to set up and take a shot.

View: https://youtu.be/VUg33pNa5zE?si=oxsVjBq7iNYlZwug

 

[myotis]

Do you have any composition consideration when moving around formats

The reason I ask is that 4x5 looks strange and my lines do not go where they usually do, the negative space is different also. Is it something that you get used to or are there specific things to take into account?

I believe there is an interaction between the subject and the format ratio when deciding on the composition. Sometimes the subject dominates, and regardless of the format ratio, you know a particular subject demands to be cropped into a square picture or a long thin one.

But most of the time my instinct is to "fill the frame" and I find that the geometry or spatial weightings within the frame are different with different format ratios.

For example, with square pictures, I often end up with the horizon running through the centre of the frame (not always) but hardly ever do this with a horizontal or vertical rectangular format.

Taking horizontal pictures with 5x4 means you need to think much more about what is going on with the top and bottom of the picture than you do with a 36x24 format, which is much longer and thinner than 5x4.

This means that if you only consider the horizontal angle of view, and use equivalent focal lengths with 35mm and 5x4 formats (or square) a composition that works with 35mm, may not work with 5x4 (or square) because you are including so much more of the vertical view with the 5x4 and square pictures.

It also means that in practice, "equivalent" focal lengths between formats aren't actually equivalent focal lengths when it comes to composition.

 

[Barney]

I believe there is an interaction between the subject and the format ratio when deciding on the composition. Sometimes the subject dominates, and regardless of the format ratio, you know a particular subject demands to be cropped into a square picture or a long thin one.

But most of the time my instinct is to "fill the frame" and I find that the geometry or spatial weightings within the frame are different with different format ratios.

For example, with square pictures, I often end up with the horizon running through the centre of the frame (not always) but hardly ever do this with a horizontal or vertical rectangular format.

Taking horizontal pictures with 5x4 means you need to think much more about what is going on with the top and bottom of the picture than you do with a 36x24 format, which is much longer and thinner than 5x4.

This means that if you only consider the horizontal angle of view, and use equivalent focal lengths with 35mm and 5x4 formats (or square) a composition that works with 35mm, may not work with 5x4 (or square) because you are including so much more of the vertical view with the 5x4 and square pictures.

It also means that in practice, "equivalent" focal lengths between formats aren't actually equivalent focal lengths when it comes to composition.

I always end up with too much foreground in any format so your comments on 4x5 resonate.

I will have to pay more attention, Rarely do i get the height of the subject in without a huge foreground.

It will be interesting to find out if rise and fall mitigates any of that problem

 

[myotis]

I always end up with too much foreground in any format so your comments on 4x5 resonate.

I will have to pay more attention, Rarely do i get the height of the subject in without a huge foreground.

It will be interesting to find out if rise and fall mitigates any of that problem

Rise and fall is a nice tool to refine composition, but you still need to have something interesting in the top of the picture.