Why is centered not good?

[ChowChi-Ching]

This is probably a post for the help area but since I figured you are all critiquing, I would ask you. I have seen many posts that say do not center the subject, do not center the horizon, etc.
Why? I am not sure I am seeing why everything should be off center? I am a very symmetrical person and so it is harder for me to off center things. I have done a few and posted them on here with good response but my centered ones are not liked as much.....I am just curious as to what makes the picture better by having it off center?

(BTW, I realize that this is all oppinion, but as photographers, I would like to know your opinion)

[GB1]

That is a good question. I guess the # 1 reason is that people like it better.

I believe that design classes teach 'odd' number repetitions, in general. That is, 3 is better than 2. The idea here is that when you split the image into two equal parts, the viewer doesn't know where to look, left or right, so it can create an unsettling feel. They also call this tension. This is why splitting a landscape shot into foreground/sky halfs is "generally" bad ... Rules are made to be broken, and breaking them on occasion does work.

Btw, there's a number of design compositional rules out there. Have you ever heard of the Golden ratio? A split that results in a 0.618 is it. Can be used in architecture, art, and photography, though I find that the viewer generally cannot detect it in a photo unless they look at it many days in a row.

GB

[ken1953]

As a newbie to learning photographic technique...here's what I've been told. Depending on what you are trying to achieve, usually centering something is less aesthetic. There are a couple of accepted norms to add a little pizzazz to your shots. One of the biggies is "The Rule of Thirds". This entails setting up your main focus points along imaginary lines that divide you picture/viewfinder in to thirds both horizontally and vertically. This is very symmetrical...when done correctly...and adds dynamics to your shot. The use of leading lines, contrast, etc., are other rules that add pizzazz...
Depending on what you are trying to show or highlight in your photo depends on which rule you use. Centering can be used very effectively, the thing to think about is...what will offsetting it do for it. If it will distract...then by all means "center" it, if offsetting adds to it...then offset it.
This is a very basic description and others will correct any errors I may have made...but that is my basic understanding...because...like you...I tend to get a lot of comments about "centering"!!! hehehe
Ken

[dbutler]

A good example of the golden ratio is found in spriral staircases and nautilus shells and it really packs an impact. I like to compose the rule of thirds in diagonals every so often. Folks are left feeling like something is off, but can't always put their finger on it. Or they may note that my horizon is too centered but not realize that my purposeful composition was done in another direction altogether. And sometimes there is simply no rhyme nor reason to be found in my images. That's very me too.

I do like to set things off center. When I open an image, I don't necessarily want to be smacked with the subject right off the bat. I like, most of the time, to look into the image, and find the subject elsewhere as my eye wanders. That said, rules truly are made to be broken and you are the best judge as to what effect you want to create. If centering is what you want, then gosh dang it, center. Just keep in mind that many of us may still gripe about it.

As for your need for symmetry, the rule of thirds gives it to you perfectly, as does the golden ratio. Think about it: You take a photo of a barn. You place it, perhaps on the 3rd left portion of the frame. And the sun in the center, and perhaps a tree to the right. From top to bottom, perhaps you have a beach, with the darker blue waters in the middle third, and the glorious pinks of the sunset in the top third. There is definite symmetry in NOT centering. And it's a lot of fun trying to find that balance. Of course, I hardly ever pay attention to the rule of thirds but I'm a strange cookie!

[readingr]

Of course, I hardly ever pay attention to the rule of thirds but I'm a strange cookie!

D: I don't think so, many of your photos do abide by the rules its just like most of us who have been snapping away for eons we get used to it and instinctively stick to the rules when needed and break them when its right to do so.

I have many photos that would look wrong if not centred and many in the rubbish which shouldn't have been centred.

The best thing to do when you start and for me even now, take a photo of a subject centred and also obeying the rules and see the difference for yourself and then you'll start to understand what works and what doesn't in composition.

Obeying the rules doesn't mean your not symmetrical, it just means your using symmetry to achieve your goal, the elusive 'perfect photo'. Take some expert photos and apply the rules by drawing lines on them in mags etc. and you'll see what I mean

Roger

[Chunk]

For some subjects and purposes centering is the best choice. Placing it there ensures it holds the attention and can give a formal feel to the shot especially if combined with symettry. An off center subject can lend a more dynamic feel to a shot especially if combined with angles and negative space.
Strong photos will often have interesting things for our eyes to land on in different parts of the frame with things that lead our eye through the picture or prevent it from leaving the frame. With a centered subject it's kind like "BAM - There's what you are supposed to look at" and that's all. (Not always the case)
Take a look at some painting and drawing instructional books and magazines at the library since their articles seem to discuss composition a lot (it's much easier for painters to manipulate composition than it is for photographers).

Google searches on "eye path", "negative space", "golden section", ought to give lots of interesting discussions of composition topics.

[Photo-John]

Good - great discussion subject! I moved it to the Art forum. It seems appropriate. Hope you don't mind.

[dmizer]

i like to think of centering versus 2/3 as the difference between man made and nature. man (or mankind if you prefer) imposes order and symmetry on an otherwise chaotic landscape. too much order can create a lifeless and artificial feel ... like a planned or staged shot. but if the subject is properly composed with the 2/3 rule of thumb, it feels more natural and pleasing.

as has already been mentioned, this is not always the case ... just a rule of thumb. sometimes it's good to impose order on a shot. the "public servants" submission by gary here: Public Servants ( Pay Phones) is (i think) a good example of how splitting it in half can have a positive effect.

[Sebastian]

There's a scientific reason, there is much less brain activity when looking at symmetrical things as opposed to non-symmetrical things. It would seem that our brains are really good at recognizing and dealing with it, and therefore compositions that rely on it can be boring to the viewer.

[SmartWombat]

Oooh, oooh, can Science 'explain' Art ?
I feel another thread coming on - that's a good point Seb.
I'd like to go to the original research papers though, all the brain function work we did was based on pain receptors. NO we didn't torture patients while in the brain scanner, honest

[opus]

There is something to do with the way our eyes move across the page when we look at something. I don't remember which way it is but it's something like right to left or in a counterclockwise circle or something. If someone knows please correct me.

I took a course once where we analyzed the filming techniques of the movie "Casablanca". There was definite thought to the placement of the characters on the screen and the cameramen/director had to know exactly what they were doing and why. For instance, when they placed Ingrid Bergman to the right of the screen and Laszlo to her left, it made Ingrid more powerful in the scene. Whenever they centered someone, that scene was static and the character has no power. The interrogation scene uses a lot of centering, if I remember. It's all subconscious but when you're made aware of it and start looking for it, it makes all the sense in the world.

There's a lot more and I can't remember all the details, but learning it was absolutely fascinating. (If anyone wants to take the course, it's the STORY seminar by Robert McKee. Look for it advertised in SCREENWRITING magazine.)

[Asylum Steve]

CCC, looks like you're getting a nice assortment of comments, including a few wise folks that realize that the notion of centering being bad is not true at all.

readingr put it best with this comment:

"I have many photos that would look wrong if not centred and many in the rubbish which shouldn't have been centred..."

That's the absolute truth. The general rule of thumb is this: try to have a purpose if you decide to center an element in your photo. This usually means an attempt at strong symmetry, or an obvious desire to direct your viewer's eye to the center of the frame.

Those are perfectly legitimate reasons to center subjects in your shot, and tend to work very well with square format images...

Another important point that no one's made yet is that a photo has TWO major axis: a horizontal one and a vertical one, and centering along one almost always works if you use an asymmetrical balance on the other.

For example, take the beauty shot below. I made a very conscious effort to center model Julie left to right (as well as symmetrical lighting), but top to bottom I was closer to the rule of thirds (eyes, chin)...

Yeah, I realize a headshot is not the best example to use (you almost have to center it, eh?). I'll try to find and post a better shot if I can find it...

[payn817]

Not that I know anything about it, but as an example here is one that the centered compostion worked well in. It was intentional,due to the starburst effect, and as Steve mentioned, it is nearly a square format. IMO, in this instance the rule of thirds may have ruined this one..

[Asylum Steve]

This image shows that PATTERN (both natural as well as man made) is often a good subject to try symmetry with...

[Asylum Steve]

Fished these two "centered" shots out of the ole archives. Both are good examples of what I said in my first post. Intentionally centered with a purpose...

They are both what you would call environmental portraits, showing subjects in their work place. In the case of the architect, strong body language and centering show a control of his space. The chef is centered between his two "workstations" of ingredients/prep and burners, the centering exaggerated by use of a fisheye lens...

Also note that each of these shots is centered left to right but asymmetrical along the vertical axis...

[CLKunst]

I have been watching this thread closely as I have gotten a wide range of reaction to a series I have been working on to get into a gallery around here. I've been told by other photographers that symmetrical is boring even if it causes an initial WOW factor which is usually the reaction I get from non-photographers when viewing (the WOW not the Yawn). Does that make my art Good Centering or Bad centering? And when is it too much?

[gahspidy]

hmmm, such a simple question with exhausting efforts to try and answer. For me, this is one of those things that just must be felt, or understood with no explanations. However, to attempt an explanation I think I like to go with the simple, scientific approach as Sebastian gave. Also, the questioned should be posed as "Why is centered not usually good", because as others stated and have given fine examples of, sometimes centered is good.
It is about having a sense of balance, or harmonious proportions. It also depends on what the intent of the photo is. If your merely using a photo to show friends and family your new dog, for example, then your composition would not be important so long as it is fairly sharp and can give the viewer a good look at the subject.Then you could say " here is my dog, isn't he great?" It is not about the photo, it is about the dog. However, if you wanted to show someone the picture and ask, "what do you think of this photograph?" now it is something other than just the dog. The viewerr should feel compelled to continue viewing the photograph because of qualities and interesting elements that you bring to it through your composition. That might be having the dog to one side of the photo with the surroundings visible in the other side bringing an interesting element being the environment. Or, it could be a dead on centered shot with incredible sharpness depicting the very texture of the fur, the warmth in the eyes, the wetness on the nose, and ideally a great moment of expression that may bring the viewer a feeling to smile, or perhaps sadness. Centered could work in that way.
There is a balance that can be had by putting things "off" balance and positioning them in such a way that can bring a harmony to the big picture as a whole, an overall working balance.
Making a picture better than the sum of it's parts can be done with the proper placement of those parts.

[readingr]

Hmmm! There is a big difference between symmetry and centred photography,

E.g. the photos posted by CL are symmetrical around a central plane, which are not necessarily centred photos, whereas Payn and Steve present centred photos which are not symmetrical.

This is not to say they are bad or good its just different presentation of a photo or art. An example people really liked of mine was a shoe floating in the sea, now the shoe is not symmetrical, but the shoe is centred in the photo, see link http://www.readingr.com/My%20WEB%20G...0-04-2005.html

In fact there is very little or no symmetry in this photo if measured accurately but the shoe is centred in the frame.

I still hold that forget the science and look at the photo through the viewfinder and if you like it then its ok, if not you need to recompose. Predominantly even in snapshot photography the rule of thirds benefits the photo, e.g. dog running into frame, or the head placed in the top third and the rest of the body in the lower third, etc On occasions this does not work and you want to show the dog exiting the frame so the dog will be close to the edge not running in, so the rules are guidlines and are open to interpretation by the creator.

I think most people instinctively understand and know when a photo is right and they like it, and not everyone will agree, all you have to do is look in the critique forum to see the different opinions, and some photos which get the sticky obey the rule of thirds, some are centred and some are symmetrical.

Science will never give you a deffinitive answer for a subject; its given us the guidelines but in the end its up to the creator to look and judge what works.

Roger

[swmdrayfan]

There is something to do with the way our eyes move across the page when we look at something. I don't remember which way it is but it's something like right to left or in a counterclockwise circle or something. If someone knows please correct me.

I took a course once where we analyzed the filming techniques of the movie "Casablanca". There was definite thought to the placement of the characters on the screen and the cameramen/director had to know exactly what they were doing and why. For instance, when they placed Ingrid Bergman to the right of the screen and Laszlo to her left, it made Ingrid more powerful in the scene. Whenever they centered someone, that scene was static and the character has no power. The interrogation scene uses a lot of centering, if I remember. It's all subconscious but when you're made aware of it and start looking for it, it makes all the sense in the world.

There's a lot more and I can't remember all the details, but learning it was absolutely fascinating. (If anyone wants to take the course, it's the STORY seminar by Robert McKee. Look for it advertised in SCREENWRITING magazine.)

Not to mention it was a damn fine piece of work.

[Alison]

Is this a good example of an off centre portrait?
I don't even know the basics about 3rds etc. I've never had any training.

[JSPhoto]

Is this a good example of an off centre portrait?
I don't even know the basics about 3rds etc. I've never had any training.

Alison,

Personally I do not like chopping people apart in photos, but your photo looks fine. I think the rule of thirds is for the birds ;) and I think you, or any photographer needs to use your own ideas and not some rule to take pictures, or they all start looking the same.

JS

[Ronnoco]

Alison,

Personally I do not like chopping people apart in photos, but your photo looks fine. I think the rule of thirds is for the birds ;) and I think you, or any photographer needs to use your own ideas and not some rule to take pictures, or they all start looking the same.

JS

It sounds like you are not into artistic photography JS. The elements of design which include the rule of thirds form the basis for art and have been extended to include photography, film, and television production as media for artistic expression. They are based on how the eye sees colour, lighting, texture, shape, line and how the eye moves within an image to view content.

The way it works in high level photographic competitions is that you can ignore one of the rules of composition or technique but if in so doing, you have weakened the effectiveness and impact of the image then you have goofed big time. The result is that artistic pros and very advanced amateurs seldom intentionally ignore the elements of design and the "rules" of composition and technique.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Is this a good example of an off centre portrait?
I don't even know the basics about 3rds etc. I've never had any training.

Actually, that is one of the best examples of a portrait that I have seen around here so far.
Lighting is excellent, a problem I have noticed in numerous other portraits. The model also creates an interesting diagonal line in the frame. There is separation from the background by the model which is also good.

One minor problem not related to off centre is that in portraits there should only be one light reflected in the eye of the model. More than one distracts the eye of the viewer.
That can be photoshopped out quite easily and further improve the portrait.

Ronnoco

[Arlene]

Hi All. My bf just referred me to this thread because of the discussion of the rule of thirds and centered compositions. Let me first state, I'm not a photographer. I am a fine artist and I teach colored pencil drawing and composition is one of the things I focus on.

Centered compositions can work very well at times. I think a few of the examples shown here do just that. One of the reasons for the guideline (I hate the word rule) of not centering and instead using the rule of thirds, or the golden section is to create a photo (or in my case a painting) that is not static.

When you pull something off center the subject suddenly has movement. I've taken one of my photos (I do shoot photos for reference for my drawings) and cropped it two different ways to show you. These images are SOOTC except for some slight sharpening.

The first image is cropped so the focus of the photo is centered. Notice the look is static. In the second photo, I cropped so my center of interest is in what's called the "golden section." Notice how in the second we can feel the movement?

BTW: a quick way to figure very close to golden section is to use a 5:8 ratio.

[Ronnoco]

Actually because of the direction of the pistils in the flower, I would have moved them more to the right of the frame and leave more space of the left hand side. Apparent direction of the subject and off centre placement are inter-related.

Having said that, I will readily admit however that with some flower photos, centering is unavoidable.

Ronnoco