The art of framing.
 

I rarely see much about info or discussion about framing. If there are standards that everybody just "know" I'd love to know them too! ;-)

Please help me with all the "rules" that you take for granted.
Eyes of a talent 1/3 from the top et.c.

Thanks.

Just to state the obvious. I don't follow any rules. I just do what
looks / feels good to me. If you want to show a reaction of someone
it might be better to show a closeup than a wide shot etc.

I took a lot of fine art and drafting when I was younger, so I guess that helps; and then there's my photography experience, which helps also. I would suggest reading some photography books. That would certainly give you some ideas for framing.

Watching movies, looking at published photographs would also give you some good ideas.

This applies to about everything involving art.

First, learn the rules. Next, ignore the rules, it is art.

For example, there are all of these forms and 'rules' involving bonsai (baby trees :) ). But the best statement I heard from an American master was to find some way nature could have created that as the explanation for what you plan. Really kind of simple.

In video, the best rule is make sure your subject is in the frame. All the rest are not important (said with an Italian accent as seen in Gumball Rally.)

After that, I try to follow the rule of thirds, but find it cumbersome and sometimes distracting while filming events. It seems to work better when you have lighting and planned shots.

Stepping into nature, I like to fall back on the still technique of framing with some natural structure to open, but after that, it is a pain to drag a tree around to keep that going. ;)

Rules are good to follow unless you have reason to break them. The rule of thirds has been around for centuries and for good reason. It is pleasant to the eye and it works.

I always try to give my shots direction. If you have a close up of one person talking to another or telling a story don't shoot them front on in the middle of the frame. Position them so you have a slight profile and then frame so they are slightly to one side of the shot looking into the frame. The same can be used for action with the, lets say snowboarder, trailing the centre of the shot. What this does is give a sense of direction or some place to go to the shot.

Adrian is talking about a rule or rules. Famous painter Robert Bateman breaks those.

Jeff is totally correct.

Everyone who talks about art in 'framing' has the right idea. Framing is the same as 'composition'. Where to place objects within the frame.

The best books I've seen on the subject studied art. Few photography books do a good job discussing this, though there are some.

The rule of thirds, the golden mean, geometric abstraction, etc. They all work well and should be followed most of the time. What's good enough for Renoir and Michaelangelo is good enough for you.

At least till you get comfortable with it. Many people would, correctly, place a horizon in the upper third of the frame but Andrew Wyeth might give you only a sliver at the top edge. Bateman's main subject might be in the upper third but is only a small object compared to the whole while giving you a huge foreground.

I see more and more "point and shoot" films at the theatre nowadays. No artistic composition at all. If you are shooting a story, nothing helps more than storyboarding with an artist who understands these things.

I could go on and on and most of what I said about art applies more to stories than interviews but that doesn't prevent anyone from using them.

Thanks for your replies!

"the golden mean, geometric abstraction"??

What are they?

As Rob alluded to the rules I spoke about are basic rules that can be broken but you have to know the rules and how to break them, that is the art. Anyone can break the rules but you need to know when to break them and how far to go and that only comes with experience and experimentation.

As for my use of rules I like to bend them rather than obviously break them. If you set out to break the rules your work will generally look like it, ie disjointed and reaching, especially if you go too far as many people often do. "Less is more" I think some kinda famous artist once said.

There is a very good book that covers the rules of Hollywood movies. It expains the frames and the relationships of people and objects in the frames.

"Understanding Movies"
Louis Giannetti
Prentice Hall

That I found invaluable. I was already making commercial videos when I decided I lacked training in the Art of making video. This book was the text for the introductory Cinema class at the local community college.

These are the rules I remember:

The hero always comes from the left of the frame and the villain from the right.

Never frame the horizon so that it splits the frame in half, always have the horizon positioned below the mid point.

Position the single character off to one-side, rather than in the center (unless the character or subject is coming straight on).

Follow movement logically. If a character walks off to the right, in the next scene, he should walk in from the left. This is the opposite for villains :)

Try and keep the boom mic out of the framing :)

From now on, I'm always entering a building from the West side.

One thing may be useful to consider when discussing composition as it relates to moving images; with a still image (photograph, painting) the eye has time to take in the whole image and absorb the composition at its own pace. With a moving image, the observer is "brought along" with the flow of the presentation to a greater extent. This means that what would simply be an interesting composition for a photograph could create a whole different tension in the context of a long form motion picture.

As an example; imagine a scene where an assailant stalks an innocent character. If the innocent is then shot standing around quietly on the edge of the frame, say the right edge and looking out to the right, the audience expects and anticipates something terrible to happen from the left. That same composition reprinted as a still photo may not convey the same emotion. The observer might sense that there is a tree on the left which balances the frame and move on. The observer of the film version might never see the tree, or wonder if the assailant is behind the tree, etc.

For this reason, there is a different responsibility in framing when one is telling a story. Being aware that the viewer can be led or misled purely by framing choices means that the photography should complement the mood, whether that be pleasing or jarring, and service and advance the story being told.

If you want to see some great composition/framing, rent Tarkovsky's "Mirror". Well scripted, deep focus, moving camera images. Astounding to say the least.

Turn the sound down and don't read the subtitles. Just watch.

"the hero from the left... villain from the right.."

When they are introduced? Is that right?
Never thought of it..

Not sure I understand your question, Alfred...

In my example, right and left can be interchanged. It's more about which direction the hero is facing relative to where he is in the frame (in the example given, we are "short-siding" him).

Keith wrote "These are the rules I remember:

The hero always comes from the left of the frame and the villain from the right."

It was this I was commenting.. your post, Charles, made perfect sense to me!
Thanks.
Soon to wite your 1500 post.. (better make it special:-)

yeah, but who's counting?

Sorry, I missed Keith's post somehow--weird.

Regarding having single figures in the frame not being centered: yes, normally. On "American History X", the director insisted that I center-punch to such a degree that he would call for another take if the crosshairs were not between the eyes. I wish I were joking, but I'm not. Never really figured out what he was going after with that. I think he read somewhere that Kubrick was fond of this and decided to make it a law.

<<<-- Originally posted by Alfred Okocha : "the hero from the left... villain from the right.."

When they are introduced? Is that right?
Never thought of it.. -->>>

I just read that somewhere but when you think about it, for some reason it always seems to be the case. This is especially so in fighting movies.

I think perhaps part of the reason is that side scrolling games were like this. But then maybe they themselves were influenced by film.

Think of western gunfights.

I really enjoyed American history X!
Edward Norton at his very best. Can't remember any odd framing.. I better pick it up again to see what you mean. :-)

I can remember nice light though! Was it you?

A good book on composition, framing and storyboarding (which is the art of "framing a film" on paper)

Setting Up Your Shots
by Jeremy Vineyard, Illustrated by Jose Cruz

<<I can remember nice light though! Was it you?>>

No, I did some second unit shooting which didn't end up in the film. The director, Tony Kaye, was also the DP and operator (although I got the credit). The film was shot largely unlit and mostly handheld, sort of like a low budget DV shoot yet on 35mm and with a full crew standing around!

The weird thing about his insisting on how I frame was that I noticed when the movie came out that he didn't hold himself to the same criteria. He was an odd duck. The stories surrounding Tony and his theatrical nature are now Hollywood legend.

Tony Kaye.. I can't remember I've seen anything else by him.. What has he done?

"He was an odd duck." Has he passes away?

Thanks.

Rules, Rules, Rules.

The one about the eyes is one of the most important rules. My rule about the eyes is the eyes need to stay above the bottom 50% of the screen. That would be a guideline. If they person being interviewed has a birdnest in their hair then you probably break the rule.

One of my favorites is don't let the person being interviewed nose extend out farther than the more distant cheek unless you are doing a profile.

Always wear headphones.

Use a tripod with a ball socket center column.

Make sure you have balanced your camera on the tripod to the point where you can let go of the camera handle and the camera won't dip forward or backwards.

Check for white specks on your clients who are dressed in dark suits BEFORE you put them on camera.

People being interviewed should not be chewing gum unless it matches the mood of the piece.

Use Zebras!

Lower your camera & tripod if you have to leave it unattended. Don't leave your camera & tripod unattended.

If you are using an external television monitor for a live event always place the monitor in peripheral view so you can instantly see what is actually going on on stage without having to turn your head.

When framing an active performer, take into account if they stretch their arms and try to anticipate those stretches.

Cue cards don't work as well as telemprompters. Teleprompter services are not that expensive.

If you don't have a make up person, at least bring one powder puff for each person to be interviewed and some fleshtone powder.

Listen and disable if possible air conditioners. RADIO'S, refrigerators etc.

Remember to put everything back the way it was when you are done.

REMOVE the Lens Cap.

Charge your batteries.

Make sure the time code is rolling and you are recording.

The Tony Kaye subject probably deserves it's own topic, but basically what I've heard/read is that on American History X his cut of the movie was much shorter and faster paced. But the studio recut it into what was released, Tony fought against losing creative control of the project, tried to get his directing credit replaced with "Alan Smithee", which didn't happen and he's been trying to fight Hollywood ever since and hasn't directed another movie there yet. IMDB lists "Snowblind" as being another movie he directed in 2002 but no information besides a brief plot and the screenwriter are listed.

Here's a site with some info

Don't know how much of what I related is correct, just what I've gathered from what I've read about him. Hopefully Charles P. will have some insight on the subject!

Cheers,
Brian

Thanks for your many pointers. very noteworthy.

ON the subject of Tony Kaye I found this interview with him.

http://www.fadeinmag.com/kaye/interview1.html

More or less what Brian's stated.. He seems to be a character alright.. or a "odd duck". ;-)

Here's a link to a useful website:

http://www.jamesarnett.com/sections.html#anchor130335

Go to the Production section and click Camera Works and Composition.

Also look at the "Cross the Line" interactive demo section at the top of the index page...
Lots of info about all aspects of film making or video.

Have fun!

Tony's IMDB link for more info on his "films"

mmm, don't want to hijack this thread further but as I recall, Tony's application for "Alan Smithee" status was rejected because part of the extensive set of criteria for that designation is that the director does not publicly denigrate the film, the producers or the studio. Tony did all of that. He actually wanted his credit to read: "Directed by Humpty Dumpty".

And he is still alive and making commercials, as he always has.

Wow, I've never read so many "instructions" on framing. To be frank, inquiring about the "rules" of aesthetics nullifies its essence, don't you think? What looks good is visceral, not based on technicalities. Yes, there are basic understandings of what can be pleasing (e.g. centering is not always interesting) but composing is completely subjective. You can recite Death in the Afternoon until the covers are worn but it still would never compare to attending a bullfight.
I'm certainly not trying to put anyone down but villains, left, right, up, down... Geez!

Eric, if everyone had good taste, there wouldn't need to be rules or textbooks or education. Even if the beginning filmmaker already has an innate sense of aesthetics, at least knowing what the 'rules' are will help avoid early mistakes and speed up learning.

And of course, rules are meant to be broken .. etc. etc.

The 'villain always enters from the right' was tongue-in-cheek. But see if this isn't mostly the case the next time you watch a film.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Reese : Wow, I've never read so many "instructions" on framing. To be frank, inquiring about the "rules" of aesthetics nullifies its essence, don't you think? -->>>

Not at all. The whole idea is to have the rules become so automatic that they are as easy to follow as breathing is automatic.

However, once you master that, then you are free to make instantaneous changes and modifications.

<<<--
You can recite Death in the Afternoon until the covers are worn but it still would never compare to attending a bullfight. -->>>

And yet how many times does the bull win and the matador die.? And, how many times after a very rare occasion where the bull has won will the audience cheer?

As a matter of fact, does the audience ever cheer for the bulls victory and freedom?

Keith...

I understand the "villain principle" and wasn't implying its non-existence. Was simply stating that as viewed in this discussion, a relatively useless "rule" was being cited as criterion for framing when there are so many other things that can be pointed out for a beginner.
My intentions were not in trying to condescend a novice, but in encouraging him to just go out and shoot. Yes, a canon of useful information is out there (and on this forum) but I think exercising the eye in a viewfinder would be exponentially more helpful. That's all, folks.

Alessandro...

Precisely... not. Aesthetics are subjective, based on feeling. And that's what's automatic, not the rules, even to the "seasoned" aesthete.

My goodness, how do your questions have anything to do with my analogy regarding Death in the Afternoon? Comparing direct to indirect experience was my intent, not examining the elements of an actual bullfight.

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Reese : You can recite Death in the Afternoon until the covers are worn but it still would never compare to attending a bullfight. -->>>

That was your quote, was it not? I'm pointing out that for a bullfight to follow your edict of spontaneouty, the crowd wouldn't cheer for the same result each time.

But unless someone wants to give me some good news, the crowd is only happy if the bull dies. So what you perceive to be a wild and spontaneous event is in fact every bit as stodgy and predictable as the criticism you seem to be aiming at those who know the rules about framing.

You wanted to know what the rules were, but then you ridicule the rules as being non-creative even though several people have basically said "you must learn the rules and then learn how to break them".

Race car drivers follow rules when they race, that doesn't mean they don't add a level of grit and ingenuity that uses the rules they have learned with their own signature alterations attached.

Eric: (edit, Alfred)

Your topic question may have overlooked one key component. There is a big difference between videotaping an event organized by others and one that you are in charge of yourself.

When you are in charge and it is your own production, then basically you can do whatever you think is right, (you probably still want most of what you shoot in focus, you probably want undistorted audio, etc...) and up to a certain point as you say, the rules can be broken or not even known.

But when you are being hired to shoot someone elses event, you'd better know all the rules and be sure to get a "get out of jail free card" from the client BEFORE you break any of the known rules.

My mistake was in not separating that analogy from the first paragraph and by not being clear (now that I review my post). For that, apologies...
Let me make it simple one last time as to what I meant: Exercising your eye in a viewfinder will do much more than reading about framing, composing, or anything in the category of aesthetics. As in reading "Death in the Afternoon" is no match for attending an actual bullfight. I was not stating anything about being spontaneous or wild. (Even though so much about the relationship between a matador and a bull is spontaneous. It's the first time the two meet, for God's sake; but of course this is not the forum to discuss bullfighting)

Auto racing is not analogous in this discussion. The argument of drivers and cars holds nothing in the aesthetic realm, although some might state that steering a car safely at 200mph is an art. He/she is at the mercy of a machine and its mechanics and must calculate every turn within the certain parameters of physics. Rules are followed and cannot be broken.

Again, condescending or ridiculing is not my intent. Of course there are basic elements (fine, rules) in framing, etc. but I still feel you don't necessarily need to learn them to achieve an aesthetically pleasant picture.

Everyone, join in!!

I concede to the argument of being hired for a project. Alessandro, you're right. But only in the sense that, then, the ideas of aesthetics become convolluted by someone else's opinion/ideas, essentially being bound by someone else's "rules."

I thought the thread was about a personal project (Alfred Okocha).

The art of framing the dollars a client puts in the palm of one's hand may be different than the art of framing one's artistic vision.

Then it's the client's "artistic vision." Either way, we're reduced to aesthetics, and to the original argument.