P3D Re: What did I learn last night...

[George Themelis <gthemelis@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Oleg Vorobyoff <olegv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> George Themelis wrote:
> >Horizon splitting the picture in 
> 
> I must strongly disagree.  

Your strong disagreement is recorded Oleg.  What we like and
don't like is very personal so there is no point trying to
change each other's likes and dislikes, but let me reply to your
points:

> Most of my best sunset pictures have the sun right smack in
> the middle.  

What is around them?  Are they framed by anything else?  Did you
try more than one compositions of the same scene to see if you
like something else better?  Have you asked your friends what
they like?
 
>If you need to follow rules to "improve" a composition you 
>probably do not have adequate raw material to begin with.  When

>the material is right the picture snaps into being in the 
>viewfinder, usually breaking some rule or other.  
>A professional, of course, does not have the luxury of waiting
>for the right material, but why should us amateurs waste film?

I don't understand this point.  Can you please clarify?  

You are watching the sun go down and getting ready to take a few
pictures.  The first intuitive reaction (especially of the
unexperienced photographer) is to center the subject.  With a
little experience or training you move the camera around,
studying the various elements via the viewfinder.  Lift the
camera down to emphasize the sea (I assume sunset over water),
or lift the camera up to emphasize the sky.  Look around for
tree branches or other elements to frame the sunset. 
Experiment.  Take a few pictures.  Study the results and see
what you like.  A professional will certainly take more pictures
than the amateur but the thought processes are similar.

If the subject is fleeing then take the picture as fast as you
can and think of composition later. Ever heard of masking?  It
applies equally well to 2d and 3d.  Mask the picture down to
bring the different elements where you want them.  (It certainly
helps if you start with a wider image but there is a lot that
can be done with a Realist frame too.) Flip it front to back,
(right to left), up and down, looking for possibilities.  This
process of improving the image after it was captured has a lot
to do with composition...

> Secondly, the conventional 2D rules are yet more useless in 3D
> since the stereo window is a much weaker frame of reference 
> than the border of a 2D photograph.

Weaker in general, yes.  Much weaker, no.  "Watch your borders"
applies for 3d too.  If you cut a person in half at the edge,
the brain is bothered both in 2d and 3d.  The eyes are trying to
view past the border but they can't.  The fact that the picture
has depth and the person is really hiding outside of the window
offers some consolation but not much... the eyes are still
looking for him/her.  Bright objects right at the edges distract
both in 2d and 3d.  They lead our attention out of the frame. 
They bother our sense of balance...  Some conventional 2d rules
might not apply with equal strength in stereo but they are far
from being useless.

> Accordingly, a 3D photograph should not be composed in a
> viewfinder at all, unless it is a twin barrelled one like on
> some RBT cameras.

I could say I strongly disagree, but let me just say that I
disagree.  The stereo picture has the extra element of depth
(controlled by the placement of objects at various distances
from the camera but also from placing the stereo window during
mounting) but everything else falls in the realm of 2d
composition.  Leading lines, rule of 3rds, odd number of
objects, when to center, when not to center, fill your frame,
watch your borders... apply equally well to 2d and 3d.  

I think that a good 2d photographer can become a good 3d
photographer by applying what he already knows about composition
and enriching his/her knowledge with the element of depth, how
it is controlled, manipulated, make work for his/her advantage.

Many good 3d pictures (but certainly not all, not even the
majority) can make great 2d pictures.  Depth is eliminated but
all the compositional strengths are maintained.

So, Oleg, what is your take in 3d composition rules?  They don't
exist at all (possibly because the medium is just recording what
we see)?  If they exist, what are they and how do they differ
from 2d?  Are you working on the book of 3d composition rules? 
I would like to see it!

George Themelis

=====
George Themelis, DrT-3d@xxxxxxx
http://home.att.net/~drt-3d/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com