Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 207231" data-attributes="member: 13090"> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Closed Composition</li> </ul><img src="http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa13/wineeeee.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Here we have a fairly basic shot of a wine glass and bottle of wine along with <a href="http://www.personal.psu.edu/afr3/blogs/siowfa13/2013/09/can-a-glass-of-red-wine-a-day-help-you-live-longer.html" target="_blank">the website I found it on</a>. This shot is a textbook example of a "Closed" composition. Why? Because everything is isolated within the frame itself. Nothing touches, or exceeds, the outer limits. No "coloring outside the lines" in this shot and nothing we see leads our eye out of the frame. All is contained and all is static. Not that this is a bad thing, mind you, it just IS. Closed compositions, generally, are static though you can add dimensionality to a Closed composition by using other techniques such as motion blur. But we're keeping this simple for now and speaking broadly. In a Closed composition the subject is frequently located more towards the center of the frame.Closed compositions are going to be more static by virtue of the fact everything is neatly contained within the frame. The strength of a Closed composition often stems from simplicity. Simple can be powerful, simple can informative. In the above example we have two elements and, while I have issues with the placement and resultant "forced perspective" (that's either one tiny bottle of wine, or the largest wine glass I've ever seen) the important thing to note here is the utter lack of anything contextual except for the casual relationship between bottle and glass. Putting a little wine IN the glass ties these two elements together but the background is empty except for color and shadow. No wistful, misty background shot of the vineyard at sundown, no tools of the vintners trade, just a bottle and a glass. Clearly, the "trash" has been taken out.I use Closed compositions when I'm after what I call the Zen Aesthetic: simple, isolated shapes that reflect nature or have an organic feel to them even if man-made.  I don't know if I'm coining that term or mislabeling another and frankly, I don't care. This particular aesthetic lends itself well to close ups though the opposite is just as true: Negative Space is a compositional tool I'm coming to really appreciate... We'll get into Negative Space, though, another time.Closed composition takes your subject and, typically removes context so the subject needs to be able to stand on its own and communicate without contextual support. It's pretty hard to misinterpret wine. So our example is strong and well composed. It is, technically, an outstanding shot. Sharp, well exposed, etc. It's also static and, if I may say so, boring. Simply put there's nothing going on here though what we do have is a calm, stable photo. It has a nice "finished" feel to it, with no loose ends to consider. Closed composition lends itself to landscapes, portraits and stills primarily but of course there are always exceptions. That's why I insist on calling these "guidelines" and not "rules".<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Open Composition</li> </ul><img src="http://www.myessentia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/redwine1.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" />Okay, this shot, borrowed from <a href="http://www.myessentia.com/blog/red-wine-health-benefits-glass-per-day/" target="_blank">this little ol' website</a> demonstrates Open composition. Why? Because the elements, both of them in this example, break out of the frame and create a sense of motion. The wine pour really IS in motion, but everything about this shot conveys a SENSE of motion. We can not SEE the bottle the wine is being poured from, but we can imagine it. We don't SEE the stem or foot of the glass, nor do we see the hand of the person holding it, but we can extend our vision outside of the frame and imagine them being there. Who is holding this bottle of wine and why is it being poured? Look at the flow of the wine in the glass... Is it going to overflow, or fold back in on itself in a "perfect pour"? Look at the angles in this shot, how they're on the diagonal, lending a touch of the dynamic, a sense of motion, as opposed to the first example where everything is straight, sitting on a firm surface and obviously going nowhere fast. But in this second shot we have no supporting surfaces showing and we have elements that lead our eye OUT of the frame. There is a lessening of constraint. These things are what make for an Open Composition. Open Composition makes us wonder, or imagine or visualize; it conveys movement or a sense of movement via a dynamic.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">In Conclusion</li> </ul>In conclusion I guess I should mention those pesky In-Between shots; those that comprise elements of both Open AND Closed composition. These happen. They happen frequently and most likely they happen to piss off people who are trying to learn basic compositional techniques, and/or write tutorials about  such matters. So yes, I'm prepared for a barrage of, "Oh yeah, what about THIS SHOT, smarty pants?! Open or Closed? " type of posts. And yes, as with most things in life there are those shots, those compositions, which contain elements of both open and closed composition. In fact, I invite you to find some of your own shots and post them in this thread. Show us some shots you think contain elements of both Open AND Closed composition in one shot. Please explain your thinking to the rest of the class. Shots that clearly demonstrate one, or the other, technique are welcome as well.........</blockquote>

Verification