Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #2 · Hare Krishna, take two |
I see you followed the advice to move around and align the elements in the composition one behind the other.
#1 - 3: Nice shots to establish context. Of the three I like the third with the woman in the background the most, but wish it had been shot wider like #1 to include the entire white board without chopping it off. Such a simple song, they can't remember the lyrics?
#4 - A nice "change of POV" close-up but one that would have more interest if the figure in the background wasn't totally blurred. The camera focused with the aperture wide open and in situations like that are where the DOF preview button on the camera is very helpful in finding the ideal balance of background sharpness before shooting. After shooting you can check the playback and adjust.
#5 - Here the POV of the camera has cut off the musician's left hand and woman in the background is "out in right field" separated from the other elements in the composition. If instead you had been about 5-6 feet to the left looking over the shoulder of the guy on the left side the camera will see an unobstructed view of the musician framed by the two guys in the foreground with the woman in the back seen in the photo directly behind the musician, stacking all the elements of the photo: foreground frame, middle-ground action, and background context vertically front > back in the composition.
#6 - The wide spacing between the musician and dancing woman creates what I call a "ping-pong" dynamic. Our eyes and brain only focus attention on the center 2° of our visual field
about twice the width of your thumb held at arm's length. So to process all the information in the photo the eye must rapidly jump from point A - the musician, to point B - the dancer. That rapid jumping around of the eye in the scene or photo translates into a sensation of movement /action/ in the photo.
In terms of cause and effect, by applying the "rule of thirds" grid to the shot you can see the musician is sitting at the lower left node but the dancer is far to the right of upper right node.
Now compare what happens if you had moved to the left more when taking the shot, which would have parallax-shifted the dancer closer to the musician from the POV of your camera.
Or even further to the left...
Crop the shot above and where do the two important elements wind up?
Unified together with the face of the musician in the center and the dancer's near the upper right ROT node with more harmony and balance. Even more optimal? Being able to unify the foreground, middle ground and background elements with parallax alignment:
(the third lines are from the previous edit)
I'm not suggesting you alter the shots in PP like above, only illustrating the next step to take to refine your eye when shooting, taking spacing how that translates into the implied sense of tension or harmony between the elements.
In terms of compositional cause and effect moving the dancer closer unifies the two centers of interest. The physiological/psychological / emotional reaction to the difference in composing the elements is that on a physiological level there is less eye movement, which on a psychological / emotional level in the mind of the viewer translates into a sense that the elements are in opposition or more dynamic with widely spaced forcing the eye to zip around, or more in harmony when both can be seen at the same time without much eye movement in the photo.
It's not a matter of one being bad and the other good, but understanding how that framing of elements with parallax will affect how the viewer is likely to react to the content. Either can work, depending on whether you want to create an atmosphere of frenetic worship or peaceful bliss in the shot. When in doubt shoot it both ways by changing your POV, first so the musician appear far apart, then moving to the left to stack one in front of the other for a more "connected" vibe.