A composition on composition

[athena]

Opening discussion on composition:

This is really just me telling you what I think works as far as good composition. It is easiest for me to show some simple "illustrations" so we don't get bogged down in judging the caliber of those illustrations.

I was going to show how composition is best if it is "uncluttered" and to a degree, I think that is still accurate. But let's take a look at what I played with when I was starting to "illustrate" my ideas.
[list=1]
<LI>http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp1.jpg

Admittedly unremarkable. But, here is point #1.

Size relative to your canvas, does matter. This is why one of those important image editing skills you must master is cropping (cutting unwanted parts of an image . . . parts that distract from what you want to focus on. . . . or what you want the message to say)


<LI> http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp2.jpg

Placement of your object also matters.

here you can see I changed both size and placement. And even with this simple sphere, the placement can lend itself to all sorts of imaginative things to follow. In the top right, is it a black sun of a negative unverse? If we move it to bottom left corner, is it a hole in the ground with some alien shining a light from the inside? I have no horizon line, so many things are still unknown [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .


<LI>

Is it true? Do I have to keep it uncluttered?

Umm this is where I had to step back from my previous assumption. And in retrospect, maybe it's not true. . . take a look. . . the focus and the story simply change if you choose to add more elements (there is a lot of trial and error here --in figuring out what is cluttered and uncluttered). The Where's Waldo images many of us have seen at some time in our lives are good examples of what I consider fun and funny but cluttered. . . but the purpose is to make you search for Waldo. . . . there wouldn't be any fun if you were asked to look for Waldo and he was right there in plain sight. (but most of the time, people aren't trying to do a where's waldo? image)

Take a look.. . .
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp3.jpg


I've added many more spheres. When I was setting this up for jpeg export, my first inclination was to shrink the group of spheres to make them fit the canvas. . . . ye olde "color inside the lines", "make it fit inside your box" mentality. But I realized, that I had stumbled onto another interesting twist on composition. . . .. letting the object fall off the edge of your canvas, adds more interest. . .


<LI>
adding contrast of space also adds interest

this is ok . ..
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp4.jpg

but I think this is better . . .
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp5.jpg
a greater contrast of empty and not empty (saying full in this instance is a stretch) (or positive and negative space)


<LI>
this one is ok . ...
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp6.jpg


but I'm having trouble focusing on one thing in the image. . . . having too many things to see at once can be disconcerting.


<LI>
So we fix it with color. .
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp7.jpg
. ... (yes I cheated and changed the number and placement of elements [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] . I get to have fun too [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

and now interest and focus have been restored. (everyone in Star-ville cheers. .. .I never particularly liked the name Mudville)

And here I think is the essence of good composition. . . perhaps even a definition in words.

The combination of size, constrast, placement, and color that enhances the interest that an image has to the viewer.


By using simple spheres I hoped to avoid us worrying about artistic technique. Hopefully allowing us to focus on thinking about composition.

I am a fan of japanese comics (manga. .. for comic books and anime . ... for animations . . . I think that's right. ) One of my favorite things to do sometimes is turn on an episode of Dragonball Z (especially if it is one I've seen before . .. otherwise I have to pay attention to the story) and admire the composition of their frames. Everything I've ever seen them do is dynamic. (granted, there are lulls in the dynamics of the composition. ..there have to be to allow for contrast) But record one of those shows then take your VCR remote and pause the scenes at various parts. The screen shots are great! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

When you can start noticing the screen shots in animations, then you can graduate to admiring the screen shots of TV ads or movies. I once read a graphic design book that told you to cut out 2 L shaped pieces of posterboard and use those to help you envision a frame around what you are looking at.

Ok, well, I digressed a bit but tell me what you think of composition. What tidbits did I miss? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] What insights would you add?


Thanks for visiting,

Athena

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[This message was edited by T. Athena Hatton on July 02, 2001 at 18:09.]

[athena]

Opening discussion on composition:

This is really just me telling you what I think works as far as good composition. It is easiest for me to show some simple "illustrations" so we don't get bogged down in judging the caliber of those illustrations.

I was going to show how composition is best if it is "uncluttered" and to a degree, I think that is still accurate. But let's take a look at what I played with when I was starting to "illustrate" my ideas.
[list=1]
<LI>http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp1.jpg

Admittedly unremarkable. But, here is point #1.

Size relative to your canvas, does matter. This is why one of those important image editing skills you must master is cropping (cutting unwanted parts of an image . . . parts that distract from what you want to focus on. . . . or what you want the message to say)


<LI> http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp2.jpg

Placement of your object also matters.

here you can see I changed both size and placement. And even with this simple sphere, the placement can lend itself to all sorts of imaginative things to follow. In the top right, is it a black sun of a negative unverse? If we move it to bottom left corner, is it a hole in the ground with some alien shining a light from the inside? I have no horizon line, so many things are still unknown [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .


<LI>

Is it true? Do I have to keep it uncluttered?

Umm this is where I had to step back from my previous assumption. And in retrospect, maybe it's not true. . . take a look. . . the focus and the story simply change if you choose to add more elements (there is a lot of trial and error here --in figuring out what is cluttered and uncluttered). The Where's Waldo images many of us have seen at some time in our lives are good examples of what I consider fun and funny but cluttered. . . but the purpose is to make you search for Waldo. . . . there wouldn't be any fun if you were asked to look for Waldo and he was right there in plain sight. (but most of the time, people aren't trying to do a where's waldo? image)

Take a look.. . .
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp3.jpg


I've added many more spheres. When I was setting this up for jpeg export, my first inclination was to shrink the group of spheres to make them fit the canvas. . . . ye olde "color inside the lines", "make it fit inside your box" mentality. But I realized, that I had stumbled onto another interesting twist on composition. . . .. letting the object fall off the edge of your canvas, adds more interest. . .


<LI>
adding contrast of space also adds interest

this is ok . ..
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp4.jpg

but I think this is better . . .
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp5.jpg
a greater contrast of empty and not empty (saying full in this instance is a stretch) (or positive and negative space)


<LI>
this one is ok . ...
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp6.jpg


but I'm having trouble focusing on one thing in the image. . . . having too many things to see at once can be disconcerting.


<LI>
So we fix it with color. .
http://www.nol.net/~athena/paintutor3/aurorab/comp7.jpg
. ... (yes I cheated and changed the number and placement of elements [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] . I get to have fun too [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

and now interest and focus have been restored. (everyone in Star-ville cheers. .. .I never particularly liked the name Mudville)

And here I think is the essence of good composition. . . perhaps even a definition in words.

The combination of size, constrast, placement, and color that enhances the interest that an image has to the viewer.


By using simple spheres I hoped to avoid us worrying about artistic technique. Hopefully allowing us to focus on thinking about composition.

I am a fan of japanese comics (manga. .. for comic books and anime . ... for animations . . . I think that's right. ) One of my favorite things to do sometimes is turn on an episode of Dragonball Z (especially if it is one I've seen before . .. otherwise I have to pay attention to the story) and admire the composition of their frames. Everything I've ever seen them do is dynamic. (granted, there are lulls in the dynamics of the composition. ..there have to be to allow for contrast) But record one of those shows then take your VCR remote and pause the scenes at various parts. The screen shots are great! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

When you can start noticing the screen shots in animations, then you can graduate to admiring the screen shots of TV ads or movies. I once read a graphic design book that told you to cut out 2 L shaped pieces of posterboard and use those to help you envision a frame around what you are looking at.

Ok, well, I digressed a bit but tell me what you think of composition. What tidbits did I miss? [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] What insights would you add?


Thanks for visiting,

Athena

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[This message was edited by T. Athena Hatton on July 02, 2001 at 18:09.]

[inkings]

Thanks! I like different ways of seeing things.ê

[dawnre]

Athena, this is getting very interesting. It's like a mini classroom. I enjoy seeing all those visuals too.

[Thelonious]

Hi, it's a bit bright up here.

I must admit 4a felt better than 4b, for me.

There is a Japanese board game called go, OK it's really chinese. It starts off with an empty board and each person places stones on the intersections of a grid. All the pieces are the same, one player is black and one is white. There are only three rules and pieces once played are not moved. You can play anywhere. It is zenlike in its simplicity.

However it is many times more complex than chess, in fact it makes chess look like tiddleywinks. It's very big in Japan where students live with the master.

In chess if you asked a master why a particular move was played he/she would be able to give a rational explanation. However if you asked a go master the same question it would not be unusual for him to reply something like "feels right". Only very recently has a westerner reached the highest level of go. 9 dan, and only one.

I feel that composition has this instinctive element as well as a learned element. Where one starts and the other stops is difficult to say.

thelonious

[athena]

I've played GO before. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

and while I was writing this I kept remembering the fascinating shape of the GO pieces. It is fun.

And saying that it makes chess look like tiddlywinks is just about the way I would have said it too [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] .

I can see what you mean about 4a and 4b . Between the two I do like 4a better also but it's hard to give words why (and here I can see why you attribute some of this to intuition). I have tried to force the images to fit what I was trying to define. I mean, the contrast in positive and negative space between 4a to 4b is more pronounced in 4b. .. . ahhh i see what it was.

Ok the contrast in positive and negative space in 4a vs 4b is present in both . . . actually the reason I thought 4b should be better was because the positive and negative space shared half of the canvas diagonally. Meaning, if I drew a line from one corner to it's diagonal corner, 99% of the positive space is in one half. In my head, I thought that should be better. It sounds tidier.

But maybe (and here I'm just musing ) you have left us a clue in your 2nd discussion on observation and composition under fishes. When you talked about the rule of 1/3 . When I go back and look at 4a again I can see that if I draw 3 diagonal lines to divide it into 1/3s that way. . .no that's forcing it too (we'd have to toss out the little rebellious go piece in the bottom left part, to make it fit 2/3 . It really seems like 1/4 negative space, 3/4 positive space.

*******

Ok let me drop that for a moment. Looks like I'll have to agree with you. There does seem to be two elements: the learned and the instinctive/intuitive.

I think your write up on observation is an essential step in an indidual's quest to find good composition.

When you mentioned that the GO master would say, it "feels right" odds are there are so many factors and moves and counter moves to be weighed, and each game of GO is unique (you can't write a GO game down like you can a chess game) with so many variables it would be hard to explain. It IS hard to explain [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] . Many of the good, solid GO decisions have become second nature to him. And second nature IS hard to explain. Each person picks up their individual patterns. So what makes sense to me may be incomprehensible to another.

And maybe it should be left unexplained because once we have a definition then programmers will try to fix that definition on a pin and make a computer that follows the definition. I can't help but think of BIG BLUE vs Kasparov . . .

I imagine we could say that each person has to learn it on their own. There aren't 20 steps to understanding composition. But as you pointed out, (in your post way down deep in the bowels of the fishes thread) good observation skills can be learned.

Thank you so much for pointing these things out.

It HAS to be something to do with the patterns we see. It's neat to know that you are familiar with GO too. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

Cheers,

Athena
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[This message was edited by T. Athena Hatton on July 03, 2001 at 16:39.]

[HerFredness]

I liked 4a better as well. I think it has to do with the motion of the (heck this is what I want to call them) thingy-ma-bobbers. In 4a the little guys say, "we are travelling yonder, come follow us....". In 4b they say, "you're missing the boat, buddy". Also might have something to do with the "rule of thirds".

Tracey

[Jinny Brown]

Dearly beloved lower levels dwellers,

Today's offering to the discussion on arranging space...

http://www.pixelalley.com/painterfor...den-mean-2.jpg

According to my small amount of research, the Golden Mean has its roots in Ancient Greece and is still used in today's design as an aesthetically pleasing method of dividing space. It's said that these proportions can be seen everywhere in nature.

As I understand the Golden Mean, the rectangle of specific proportions is broken up into three basic sections, then the smaller of these sections broken into three sections, and so on. A section created this way is sometimes called a Golden Section or Devine Section.

To arrive at the rectangle's shortest measurement, the longest measurement is multiplied by 0.618.

The longest measurement of the rectangle is then multiplied by 0.618 and a division made at that point. This creates two unequal sections. The longest measurement of the smaller section is then multiplied by 0.618 and a division made. This adds a third section and completes the basic Golden Mean proportions.

In the illustration above, these steps were repeated until the sections were too small to divide further. Once the sections were established, I drew a curved line beginning at the lower left corner, and intersecting with the upper right corner of the largest section, then with the lower right corner of the next smaller section, and so on, following this curve until the line ended at the smallest section.

Another version of my Golden Mean, that's easier to see:

http://www.pixelalley.com/tutorials/goldenmean.jpg

For anyone who's interested, this is a mathematicians dream, or so it would seem from reading some of the websites devoted to studying the Golden Mean. A search for "Golden Mean" at:

http://www.dogpile.com will offer up several sites to pursue. One, for example, is located at:

http://www.mathsoft.com/asolve/constant/gold/gold.html

(.... that is if you want your mind boggled).

Jinny Brown January 15, 2000
last modified October 9, 2000

(original published at PixelAlley in the Tutorials list)

Jinny Brown
http://www.pixelalley.com
_______________________

[This message was edited by Jinny Brown on July 03, 2001 at 19:31.]

[athena]

Jinny,

what a fantastic concept! Arranging space.

my initial thought was, "well space is intangible". How could you arrange space without handling it?

But when I thought more about it, I have to admit, that if you accept that space is intangible, then the only thing we can handle and arrange are the objects in space. That arrangement of objects can direct the flow of space around them. (kind of like the flow of chi or is it qui? ) And this very tidily adds to the discussion on composition and arranging positive and negative space.

Now here I have to confess, I had to read this particular post more than once. The first time my eyes glazed over at the mention of math. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

So I came back when I was more in a mood to analyze [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img] . Then for some reason, I kept arguing in my head with you that the line was not 1/3 down the rectangle. . . I still had 1/3 on the brain [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

then, DUH, I realized .618 is not 1/3 (.3333ad nauseum) nor is it 2/3 (.6666ad nauseum)

hehe I wonder how the curve looks if you use the same division of lines trick with 1/3. and now I'll have to go follow the link to find out why they chose .618 in the first place.

thanks for taking the time to post this here.

[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Athena

[athena]

and for those of you who haven't seen Thelonioius' fantastic tutorial on elements of composition, please visit this link.

page 3 of fishes thread where Thelonious gives many fantastic insights

It is worth reading again and again. From his lessons, I have learned new ways of analyzing images. If any of it is old hat to some of you, [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] it's still a fantastic refresher!

Thank you again, Thelonious. It was a wonderful tutorial.

Athena
[img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]