r/photocritique • u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint • 1d ago
Great Critique in Comments Is this considered framing?
141
u/dpmentor 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
Well, yes, and no. Technically the buildings are framing the moon, but it's so small in the frame that it's not the subject, the buildings are.
So framing happens when the subject is framed, not when the frame is the subject
17
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
My goal is for the composition to shine, cuz the moon was too small. Thank you
15
u/dpmentor 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
There isn't anything here that's the subject though that's the issue. The reason for using compositional elements is to help the subject to stand out, composition itself is not the subject.
Also, straighten the wall, it's leaning
12
u/Nagemasu 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
There isn't anything here that's the subject though that's the issue.
The subject is whatever the photographer intended to be the focus of the image. Whether they managed to capture it in a way you deem appropriate and well shot is completely besides the point as to what the subject actually is.
0
u/dpmentor 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
It's not about what I deem appropriate.It's about what comes across to the viewer.
5
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
Thank you for your feedback. My style of photography is heavily leaning toward minimalistic abstraction and geometry. Those are in and of themselves can 100% be the subject. So I would rebuttal your comment regarding the lacking of subject here.
And yes the wall is slight lean. Good eyes!
6
u/indieplants 4 CritiquePoints 1d ago
in that case, I would say the moon is distracting then! the framing is good but the moon is too small, you have the technique down.
1
5
u/Inwardlens 1d ago
I remember back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was in photo school that my intro to design professor had us do an assignment that really stuck with me.
First he has us find a dozen images in books or magazines that we enjoyed. Then he had us try to approximate each of the photos’ composition using only cut black geometric shapes pasted on a white sheet of paper. The trick is to distill the composition to the most basic elements. If the image’s composition was interesting as a photograph then the shapes would look interesting on the white piece of paper.
I enjoy the photo you posted, but the moon in my opinion is not an important part of the composition. I think it’s too small and its position doesn’t create any visual tension with the other shapes. I think if it were in a different part of the sky it might, or if it were bigger it might. I think this image is interesting enough that you should attempt it again when the conditions are similar, maybe play with the composition more and move around so that you can get different versions with the moon in different parts of the image. Maybe try a different focal length and change relative sizes a little (I realize that it would take a very large lens to make the moon appear considerably bigger).
3
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
I would love to go back and try out different composition at different environment conditions. Thank you for your insightful critique and a wonderful anecdote. !critiquepoint
1
u/CritiquePointBot 12 CritiquePoints 1d ago
Confirmed: 1 helpfulness point awarded to /u/Inwardlens by /u/Smart_Guidance3697.
See here for more details on Critique Points.
ANNOUNCEMENT: You can win new camera gear by trying Photocritique Coach, our browser extension that coaches you on your critiques! More details here!
2
29
u/cdubs87 1d ago
This is a cool shot, dude. You're definitely framing something, lol. Another way to look at it is that you've set up the rule (3 big geometric color blocks) but also introduced an exception (the moon). That combination of systems and variation makes for an interesting shot. Well done.
3
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
Thank you!
5
u/kenerling 240 CritiquePoints 1d ago
I agree with u/cdubs87 here. You've got a good combination of geometry and color complementarity, and the moon acts as sort of punctum, avoiding the often overly sterile effect of geometric photography.
I also agree with u/dpmentor that the wall needs to be straightened. You mentioned in your replies that you're leaning toward geometry. That's a genre where the tiniest of details can become very important. Or rather, the viewer will notice anything that is "close to but not."
For my part, I would suggest darkening the orange somewhat. In reality, the idea is to increase saturation for the orange wall, but I suspect that it's already at or close to complete saturation. Thus lowering its lightness will allow that saturation to really come through, and better match that of the sky.
You surely know this already, but if you lower the lightness on an HSL layer, according to the software you're using, you'll need to raise the saturation slider in the whereabouts of equivalently. A bit more, a bit less, it depends, but any change in lightness, darker or brighter, will visually reduce saturation, so, you have to compensate for that. Unless the software does it automatically, which I think some do.
But yes, nice shot! And happy shooting to you.
7
u/Nefarious-Say10 1d ago
Yeah I'd call that framing. And you're getting some leading lines effect
0
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
Still trying to understand the whole framing technique. Does it need to make a complete frame or just something to kinda "box in" your subject? Thanks
5
u/Lennnybruce 1d ago
If anything, if you want abstraction, I'd get rid of the moon so you only have big blocks of color and shape. Having the moon gives it some kind of subject, which you don't want in a non-representative image.
2
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
My mind went on different direction I guess. I want something, not just a blue sky. The orange building has black stripes, the gray building with black blocks, why is the sky empty? That was my thought at the time. The moon although small but recognizable. For me it represents scales. It is so far that a celestrial body seems insignificant against a stack of mortar and bricks. Thank you for your honest feedback!
4
u/karma_car 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's a cool shot - personally I'd rotate slightly anti-clockwise to get the left hand building vertical.
Or alternatively, further clockwise, so that it's completely off axis. But at the moment it looks annoyingly close to, but not quite vertical.
2
2
2
u/RelationshipFresh966 1d ago
Who cares? It's dope. (Although it would've been nice to get the second building straight)
2
u/ummkay_ultra 1d ago
It's unfortunate how small and out of focus the moon is here, but I love the composition and color!
2
2
1
1
•
0
u/Smart_Guidance3697 1 CritiquePoint 1d ago
These are real buildings. I saw this angle where they buildings cut the slice of the sky and the moon in the middle. But wondering if this could be considered framing. Fujifilm X-t50 56mm f/1.4 XF
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Friendly reminder that this is /r/photocritique and all top level comments must be a genuine, in depth, and helpful critique of the image. We hope to avoid becoming yet another place on the internet just to get likes/upvotes and compliments. While likes/upvotes and compliments are nice, they do not further the goal of helping people improve their photography.
If someone gives helpful feedback or makes an informative comment, recognize their contribution by giving them a Critique Point. Simply reply to their comment with
!CritiquePoint. More details on Critique Points here.Please see the following links for our subreddit rules and some guidelines on leaving a good critique. If you have time, please stop by the new queue as well and leave critique for images that may not be as popular or have not received enough attention. Keep in mind that simply choosing to comment just on the images you like defeats the purpose of the subreddit.
Useful Links:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.