Composition, Verticals & Flash Use

NeverSatisfied · 01-06-2009, 11:01 PM

I have a couple of observations, looking for comments, especially concerning people shots, vertical composition, and use of accessory flash.
I prefer bounce flash, but of course that's not always possible. If you shoot straight on in a vertical composition, then there is the undesirable side shadow. So a possible solution is to use a Stroboframe device (with a cord, or in wireless mode). Well, that works, but that's getting to be kind of a big, unwieldy contraption. ..
Now, too often I'll get a shot all lined up, nice and tight, and find out later that the framing was TOO tight. I've found out the hard way when ordering enlargements- darn, can't do an 11x14 without some unappealing crop, better make that a 10x15 (then try to find a frame to match

).
Soooo, I was thinking, with the resolution of something like the K20D, why even bother with all that nonsense? Take the shot a little wider, do them all in landscape orientation, and then when it's time to print, crop accordingly, to the proper size, vertical, horizontal, or whatever.
OK, I admit that sounds pretty lazy, but has anybody else considered this? Any comments are appreciated.

CalendarGuy · 01-07-2009, 08:21 AM

I'm brand new to dslrs after putting down my 35mm and medium format equipment 12+ years ago. I filled void since with digital point and shoots for personal photos and put the idea of ever charging for my services again out of my mind.

Anyway...

I think I'm in the same boat with digital. The ability to shoot everything in horizontal orientation, then do the final composition on the computer is amazing. I shot a lot of 6x6 medium format, and the shooting style was similar. I would take the shot knowing that the final print was dependant on my collection of cropping cards.

Maybe I'm lazy too, maybe I just haven't learned the proper techniques of digital yet. But at the end of the day, I'm happy with the final product.

emalvick · 01-07-2009, 08:29 AM

I often shoot a little wider than I intend and this becomes especially the case using primes (choose one wider than I want).

It is much easier to crop to your desired composition or print size than to add back later. That is part of the beauty of having the large sensor, 10 or 14 MP, to begin with. I do try to get it close to what I want so as to keep the resolution so that I can print at 300 dpi or better.

However, I don't shoot exclusively in landscape. Cropping a landscape shot to a portrait orientation loses resolution I find, especially if it is intended to make prints larger than 8 x 10 (print would get less than 300 dpi). I have cropped that way for some smaller prints just because I realized after the fact that an image would work better in portrait orientation. I also realize that prints larger than 8 x 10 will work ok with less print resolution, < 300 dpi, but I usually don't go for prints that large, so I haven't tried it out.

In the end, if it works for you then it works. I don't think what is suggested is laziness, rather I think it is efficiency.

NeverSatisfied · 01-07-2009, 11:11 AM

From the events I've been at as part of the "audience", most wedding photographers use a Stroboframe Flip-Flash type device. But the only reason I even thought about this "question" was because of a company-sponsored event that I attended. There was a guy there using an accessory flash on his Canon, as the "official photographer", and I never ever saw him shoot anything but landscape orientation. Although I suppose for something like that, the requirement for the shot to have any "artistic" value would be minimal.

emalvick · 01-07-2009, 11:24 AM

Well, again as I stated before, there is a certain amount of efficiency gained in what you are describing. I could see this gain being of bigger performance for a wedding photographer or other professional photographer.

I should have made a disclaimer before that I am just an amateur hobbyist, and my previous comments were really just with respect to that.

I mostly shoot a little wider than the final composition I end up with because I am not very well experienced at the art of composition (and I mostly shoot landscapes), I find that in handheld shots I always need to tweak the rotation a slight bit, and I find it a lot easier on my computer monitor to find the composition I really want... A 20 inch monitor is a lot easier to look at than a tiny viewfinder.

As for always shooting landscape... I have that tendency just because my mind seems to think horizontally. In that regard I can see an advantage to cropping for portrait orientation later in the process. However, I try to force myself to see compositions in portrait, so I try to take shots in portrait anyway. In terms of people, gatherings, weddings, etc, I find I mostly shoot portrait. It keeps my resolution high as I said before, and I have a better feel for what a final image might look like.

However, if I was getting paid to take photos and was working for efficiency, I would probably consider shooting exclusively landscape (never thought about it until you mentioned it). There is definitely a lot of time savings and with a good camera and good software all of my previous concerns would be moot... Plus, if I was in that position I'd probably be more comfortable/confident with my photography that composition concerns wouldn't bother me either.

George Lama · 01-07-2009, 04:24 PM

I could never just shoot horizontal... nothing to do with final product - I just think it's boring from my creative standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I've cropped landscape out of portrait and viceversa, so if the shot is sharp and there's enough resolution for the crop you want, why not.

As far as the side-flash shadow cast, I have become very comfortable bouncing my flash every which way, and using white indexcards and the diffuser to redirect some light (Promaster 7500 EDF). Best thing is my flash has a secondary, front flash, which helps cover the front while the main flash goes for the bounce. And if I need to get crazy, I put the flash in wireless mode and let the on board flash be the boss.

Most times I can get rid of or lighten up the shadow. Sometimes, it's just part of the photo, and why not? Just more variety to enjoy

HGMonaro · 01-07-2009, 08:26 PM

Have done this when I know the intended use is small enough to not worry about how many pixels are left. An example would be pics my wife is going to use scrap-booking, she never uses prints bigger than 6x4". Another one was headshots of Grade6 kids at school for a yearbook (taken by the wife). We knew they were going to be about 1x1.5" so I instructed her to shoot them 'landscape' as it's easier for her to hold the camera with flashgun on hotshoe), worked out great.

For 'normal' shooting, I wouldn't shoot something intended to be portrait as landscape as I wouldn't want to give up all those pixels.

Nige.

01-06-2009, 11:01 PM	#1
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688	Composition, Verticals & Flash Use I have a couple of observations, looking for comments, especially concerning people shots, vertical composition, and use of accessory flash. I prefer bounce flash, but of course that's not always possible. If you shoot straight on in a vertical composition, then there is the undesirable side shadow. So a possible solution is to use a Stroboframe device (with a cord, or in wireless mode). Well, that works, but that's getting to be kind of a big, unwieldy contraption. .. Now, too often I'll get a shot all lined up, nice and tight, and find out later that the framing was TOO tight. I've found out the hard way when ordering enlargements- darn, can't do an 11x14 without some unappealing crop, better make that a 10x15 (then try to find a frame to match ). Soooo, I was thinking, with the resolution of something like the K20D, why even bother with all that nonsense? Take the shot a little wider, do them all in landscape orientation, and then when it's time to print, crop accordingly, to the proper size, vertical, horizontal, or whatever. OK, I admit that sounds pretty lazy, but has anybody else considered this? Any comments are appreciated.

01-07-2009, 11:11 AM	#4
NeverSatisfied Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: S.E. Michigan Photos: Albums Posts: 688 Original Poster	Just based on what I've seen... From the events I've been at as part of the "audience", most wedding photographers use a Stroboframe Flip-Flash type device. But the only reason I even thought about this "question" was because of a company-sponsored event that I attended. There was a guy there using an accessory flash on his Canon, as the "official photographer", and I never ever saw him shoot anything but landscape orientation. Although I suppose for something like that, the requirement for the shot to have any "artistic" value would be minimal.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Point & Shoot Contest #31 - Composition	toylas	Pentax Compact Cameras	32	06-08-2010 02:54 PM
Verticals and Diagonals	Rense	Monthly Photo Contests	4	01-13-2010 03:31 PM
For Sale - Sold: Tamron 18-250mm, 2X TC, SMC 50mm f1.4 & f2, Grip DBG2 w/remote & Batt. Flash A	Peter Zack	Sold Items	8	12-26-2009 12:58 PM
For Sale - Sold: ist DS camera & Quantaray 28-90mm lens & accessories, Promaster 7000m flash	rockmaster1964	Sold Items	10	01-30-2009 05:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K200D Body & SMC DA 16-45mm Lens and AF540FGZ Flash & Canon 40D All Br	walay	Sold Items	11	07-29-2008 10:57 AM

01-07-2009, 08:21 AM	#2
CalendarGuy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 46	I'm brand new to dslrs after putting down my 35mm and medium format equipment 12+ years ago. I filled void since with digital point and shoots for personal photos and put the idea of ever charging for my services again out of my mind. Anyway... I think I'm in the same boat with digital. The ability to shoot everything in horizontal orientation, then do the final composition on the computer is amazing. I shot a lot of 6x6 medium format, and the shooting style was similar. I would take the shot knowing that the final print was dependant on my collection of cropping cards. Maybe I'm lazy too, maybe I just haven't learned the proper techniques of digital yet. But at the end of the day, I'm happy with the final product.

01-07-2009, 08:29 AM	#3
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I often shoot a little wider than I intend and this becomes especially the case using primes (choose one wider than I want). It is much easier to crop to your desired composition or print size than to add back later. That is part of the beauty of having the large sensor, 10 or 14 MP, to begin with. I do try to get it close to what I want so as to keep the resolution so that I can print at 300 dpi or better. However, I don't shoot exclusively in landscape. Cropping a landscape shot to a portrait orientation loses resolution I find, especially if it is intended to make prints larger than 8 x 10 (print would get less than 300 dpi). I have cropped that way for some smaller prints just because I realized after the fact that an image would work better in portrait orientation. I also realize that prints larger than 8 x 10 will work ok with less print resolution, < 300 dpi, but I usually don't go for prints that large, so I haven't tried it out. In the end, if it works for you then it works. I don't think what is suggested is laziness, rather I think it is efficiency.

01-07-2009, 11:24 AM	#5
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Well, again as I stated before, there is a certain amount of efficiency gained in what you are describing. I could see this gain being of bigger performance for a wedding photographer or other professional photographer. I should have made a disclaimer before that I am just an amateur hobbyist, and my previous comments were really just with respect to that. I mostly shoot a little wider than the final composition I end up with because I am not very well experienced at the art of composition (and I mostly shoot landscapes), I find that in handheld shots I always need to tweak the rotation a slight bit, and I find it a lot easier on my computer monitor to find the composition I really want... A 20 inch monitor is a lot easier to look at than a tiny viewfinder. As for always shooting landscape... I have that tendency just because my mind seems to think horizontally. In that regard I can see an advantage to cropping for portrait orientation later in the process. However, I try to force myself to see compositions in portrait, so I try to take shots in portrait anyway. In terms of people, gatherings, weddings, etc, I find I mostly shoot portrait. It keeps my resolution high as I said before, and I have a better feel for what a final image might look like. However, if I was getting paid to take photos and was working for efficiency, I would probably consider shooting exclusively landscape (never thought about it until you mentioned it). There is definitely a lot of time savings and with a good camera and good software all of my previous concerns would be moot... Plus, if I was in that position I'd probably be more comfortable/confident with my photography that composition concerns wouldn't bother me either.

01-07-2009, 04:24 PM	#6
George Lama Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Buffalo/Rochester, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,133	I could never just shoot horizontal... nothing to do with final product - I just think it's boring from my creative standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I've cropped landscape out of portrait and viceversa, so if the shot is sharp and there's enough resolution for the crop you want, why not. As far as the side-flash shadow cast, I have become very comfortable bouncing my flash every which way, and using white indexcards and the diffuser to redirect some light (Promaster 7500 EDF). Best thing is my flash has a secondary, front flash, which helps cover the front while the main flash goes for the bounce. And if I need to get crazy, I put the flash in wireless mode and let the on board flash be the boss. Most times I can get rid of or lighten up the shadow. Sometimes, it's just part of the photo, and why not? Just more variety to enjoy

01-07-2009, 08:26 PM	#7
HGMonaro Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Melb. Aust Posts: 840	Have done this when I know the intended use is small enough to not worry about how many pixels are left. An example would be pics my wife is going to use scrap-booking, she never uses prints bigger than 6x4". Another one was headshots of Grade6 kids at school for a yearbook (taken by the wife). We knew they were going to be about 1x1.5" so I instructed her to shoot them 'landscape' as it's easier for her to hold the camera with flashgun on hotshoe), worked out great. For 'normal' shooting, I wouldn't shoot something intended to be portrait as landscape as I wouldn't want to give up all those pixels. Nige.