keymaker's composition studies

[keymaker]

Here are some of my photoshop studies... I'll try to add new studies as they come...

Oliver Knott knock-out study (how simmetry kills this particular scape):

2009 ADA winner and Bubbles Aquarium comparision (who's copying who?):

Nature, and its perfect compositions (a photo taken by a friend of mine):

 

[keymaker]

original image

 

[flygja]

2009 ADA winner and Bubbles Aquarium comparision (who's copying who?):

For the first tank (Bubble's Aquarium?), it looks like you are analysing the reflections on the side panes of the tank?

Oliver Knott did mention in the video that he scapes by feel and less by compositional rules

 

[Dave Spencer]

Oliver Knott did mention in the video that he scapes by feel and less by compositional rules

Absolutely... I 100% agree with this. . I have toyed with ratios, etc including with photography where many of the same principles apply. There are no rules as far as I am concerned. If it looks right, it is right. A scape can have something slap bang in the middle if it works, and some of the greatest photographs ever taken are blurred. Rules schmules.

This a good thread to start Keymaker. It will be interesting to see how others adhere to/ignore rules.

Dave.

 

[Dan Crawford]

No rules for me, i just do what i want/think looks good!

 

[George Farmer]

I view 'rules' more as guidelines, especially for beginners and/or for those that aren't very creative.

They're certainly a good starting point until you get more confident and begin implement your own styles and compositions.

I am the first to admit that my strength is not with creativity or imagination. I still use the the rule of thirds/golden ratio for positioning focal points in most of my aquascapes (and photography for that matter). It now comes naturally though, rather than having to think about it. Like an instinct.

 

[JamesM]

No rules for me, i just do what i want/think looks good!

Amen brother.

 

[keymaker]

Glad I finally have this topic up and running.

OK, so here's how I see it. If we are to categorize there are two types of creators in art (and aquascaping is trully a form of art):

1. There are the "naturals", those for whom creative instinct comes from within, they do everything from an "inside creative inspiration" pov. - without thinking if you wish - and the end result is spectacular. Many artist, painters and compositors alike fall within this group.

2. There are the "engineers", those who act along learned and transformed rules, who think analitically. There also were many famous creators who fall within this category. Just think of music like a mathematical formula. Many great musicians were also great mathematicians. Think why.

For me it is simple. Know the rules, use the rules, and break the rules if necessary - just try to create something that you and viewers like. I obviously am a member of the second group, but I never actually "think" of the rules when making a composition. I just make it... The whole rule-thing has become a second nature. But to know the aquascaping rules one has to study all the tanks he or she likes. Determine why things work and why they don't.

I fully understand and accept the approach of those much appreciated leaders in our hobby - take Mr. Knott or Mr. Barr for example - who state that occasionally there are other considerations than contest-type aquascaping. We had an interesting discussion about this here.

For the first tank (Bubble's Aquarium?), it looks like you are analysing the reflections on the side panes of the tank?

Yepp, it's like that. I see no problem in that.reflection is part of the image and impression - so it is part of the analisys.

Oliver Knott did mention in the video that he scapes by feel and less by compositional rules

Yepp again, and even Tom Barr has once stated that he has other priorities in setting up tanks than to comply with aquascaping competition requirements.

I have toyed with ratios, etc including with photography where many of the same principles apply. There are no rules as far as I am concerned. If it looks right, it is right.

You are obviously one of the "naturals". I always want to know the why-s. If something looks right, I want to see why. Sometimes you can say, sometimes you can't. But I try, invariably.

A scape can have something slap bang in the middle if it works, and some of the greatest photographs ever taken are blurred. Rules schmules.

Agree. This is why you have to know the rules. Take japanese-style nature aquariums for example. Amano comes up from time to time with the 1-2-3 rule (main stones and supporting stones composition). I have spoken to one of our experts in japanese gardens' design. He told me that for us, Europeans, the main problem is that we do not have the in-depth knowledge of centuries of japanese gardening history. He also told me that they have strict rules. You show a stone-composition to an educated Japanese person and he "knows" what you have showed him. He can have examples from the nature, famous rock formations, etc. How about that for tradition and formation rules?

Thing is that he also told me that many aquascaping competitions judged by people educated in this culture unwantedly favor those how KNOW these rules, their rules if you wish. So you are kind of required to "be there" in your mind. Even with the growing numbers of European and US judges in the list. Anyway, that's his opinion.

This a good thread to start Keymaker. It will be interesting to see how others adhere to/ignore rules.

Thanks, Dave. We'll see where it takes us.

 

[NeilW]

For me 'rules' such as the golden ratio, Fibonacci series and odd numbers are articulating with words something we already instinctively know as human beings from nature. The fact that these 'rules' were theorised in places as far apart as ancient Greece and Japan proves this visual language is universal intuition. What can make something look 'good' or 'right' is because it can appeal to our existing experience of the world in our everyday environment. In contrast things that break these 'rules' can look 'right' because it can make something look dynamic and exciting.

Other rules exist in aquascaping that are more obvious/logical such as having rocks that are all the same colour, because in nature compositions of rocks usually come from one geological area (with exceptions such as river beds where material is moved from elsewhere). Its also important to remember that we are also applying visuals from our experience as a terrestrial species. To some 'fantasy scapes' these rules obviously can't apply but still some kind of order, composition, rule or logic is needed in even the most abstract of any fine art piece, for example Jackson Pollock still worked within a set format (the canvas) using set colours.

Despite my pro-creative ramblings I can see the merit of guidelines that are written down however, as in the modern urbanised world many people are disconnected from nature so may need to be reminded by someone who is emersed in it all the time such as Takashi Amano (who is a photographer of nature and also comes from a visual culture that distills nature more obviously than the West). This is no bad thing to be reminded.

I think creatives are more visually aware of the world as a whole and therefore are more likely to know 'the rules' instinctively. If you got any of this kind of person to place a rock in a given empty space it would be unlikely that they would place it slap bang in the centre.

On the other hand having the knowledge, experience and skill to grow plants to realise your ideas is another thing

 

[keymaker]

A study of my friend's, Viktor's tank:

 

[keymaker]

I am going to quote two studies from the IAPLC topic here, just to have these together in here ...


(....)It really does not matter if the focal point is in the centre or at golden ratio... Take island compositions for example. Strong and stunning visual effects can be achieved - and that is usually done by using the gifts of the scaper that you call "a lot more to composition". I guess that's where the "secret lies".

While there are many ways to "construct a view" I personally always use the analytical approach - the "know your lines" way. (We had a discussion on this before and I said there that respect to those who for example operate with gut feelings. I'm just not the type, but let's leave that out for now...)

Focal points in red, triangles in black, golden ratio grey:

Please excuse me for the quality of the quick photoshop work, I only did it for illustration purposes!!! Very important: I do not consider the "new" version better, more balanced, finished or anything like that. I only wanted to let you know what I meant by "know your lines".

For me every picture is a series of anchor points when I watch it, my eye wanders between these points and this movement will give you a strong impression when you evaluate something you see. Subconsciously.

Do the big guys bend those rules, play with them? Obviously. But in virtually every case I can prove you with the same lines that the viewer was "compensated", "conforted", "got explained" somewhere on the picture for the visual glitches the creator has placed over the image.

----

Keymaker, you have an interesting theory, and I'm sure the more experianced scapers will adopt some of your ideas naturaly.
I can quite figure out what you saying about the lines. How are the lines you have drawn relevent to your idea of composition? Are the black lines the path of your sight and the red dots where your sight lingers?

Exactly. Every picture has points (areas) that attract attention. You almost invariably have a central point of focus.

Amano has stressed many times on the importance of A-B-C points, A being the main anchor, B being the second and C the third most important element. We have seen many basic examples from him about that, most of the "A" points being central or on the golden ratio points.

The above example is a classics. The golden ratio on the right is tricky It goes exactly in the middle between rock A and C. Both rocks lean to the right, "pulling the composition" to the right. OK, so we have the biggest and the smallest focus point dragging us to the right, that is tension! So if we want to create something calm, we need to pull this whole thing back into balance by rock B. But we have the strong and the small guy pulling us to the right... How can we balance that with only one element? Easy. Distance that third element further away from the two, thus you"ll have a triangle connecting A-B and C (not drawn on the picture) - a perfect idea. Just like with force vectors in physics.

Also, observe that the central axis (yellow) of all three rocks goes into one point. Oh, and actually that one point is exactly the same distance from the vertical center of the tank like the focus point A. Is that an accident? :idea:

So thing is that triangles are really important in compositions with multiple focus points. Somehow the mind is programmed to consider a scape "calming" if it's constructed like a bridge in real life, it can stand by itself, does not "fall down". When you look at that particular Amano example, you first spot rock A, then you move your gaze to rock B and then you spot C. But there you are, back into the vicinity of A, the main focus point where you want to be.

So what I say is that if you have clear eye-movement lines (black lines in the prev. example) your job is easy in constructing a balanced, calming underwater composition - if that's your goal. I know it's old-school too...

To stress the importance of the eye-movement just observe how feature films are edited. If the hero (or car, or anything) exits the otherwise static shot on the right side, and the editor cuts, he (it) will almost invariably come in from the left in the next shot. Why? Because your eye will bounce back from the right side of the image frame, and it gravitates towards the middle, so if something now comes in from the left you only have to go on with your movement to meet it. This will register in your mind as "flowless editing", you don't even register, that the guy actually had a cut there. Editing 101.

Cheers,
Balazs