why flip?

[ncredneck]

OK, here's a question that continues to puzzle me. On many occasions a comment has been made that a particular photo would be improved by flipping the image from right-to-left to left-to-right (or vice versa). Why does the flip make any difference?

It seems to me that the composition is the same either way - the same elements are present with the same relationships and proportions. So why flip?

Bob

[Punwit]

Bob,

The thought is that our eyes prefer to move left to right. With that consideration in mind some images will flow more naturally with a left to right comp especially leading lines that move diagonally.

Darren

[ncredneck]

Like most of the members of this forum, I am the product of a western educational system where we are taught to read from left to right. Might this eye movement preference be an artifact of our early training?

Mideastern languages such as Hebrew and Arabic are written right to left. Far eastern languages such as Chinese and Japanese are written top to bottom. Do people who grew up in those systems have the same eye movement preference for pictures? I'd be interested to hear from natives of those areas of the world.

Bob

[northbeach]

Bob, that's an interesting idea and I hope someone posts who has one of those languages as a first language.

However, there are people who have English as their first language who don't prefer the flipped image ~ but they simply may not know good composition from bad

I have long known that a a simple flip will often improve an image which raises the question that if left to right is natural why didn't those people naturally compose their image that way?

Sheila

[pippafox]

this thread is really interesting and I must admit, I am also puzzled by the flip theory. I too have wondered whether its our trained western eye that reads from left to right that has a bearing on this.

while trying to understand the concept better I had a quick browse on the web and found a couple of links.

the first uses an example which is pretty straight forward and easy to comprehend. (see number 3). I do understand the ’‚’‚…‚’‚¦…“open’‚’‚…‚’‚‚� and ’‚’‚…‚’‚¦…“closed’‚’‚…‚’‚‚� concept used in this particular example of a bench, but find it more difficult to comprehend when applying the concepts to a landscape. (also included in the article are handy tips for photographing)

http://www.philmalpas.com/pages/artcomp.asp

the other is a pretty lengthy debate touching on the ethics of flipping. its lengthy so i dipped in and out. you may find it interesting. (it also debates boudaries of photography and digital art, which has been discussed here on byte before.)

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FP3w

[northbeach]

Pippa, thanks for researching this. Very interesting discussions. The second link is very lenghty and gets a bit combative here and there and also repetitive but, nevertheless, I enjoyed reading it and plan to check out Photo Net.

Flipping for me is simply in issue of composition and what my eye likes. In general I agree about fooling with landscapes but I certainly won't say I wouldn't do it. I rarely shoot landscapes so it's not a big issue I deal with.

There are also times that a flip is the only way you're going to get the angle you'd really like because you simply aren't able to stand in the right place. I wish I could think of an example.

Sometimes I've had a shot of a person and really wished I could get them looking the other way...well, if I flip I can

Interesting thread this.

Sheila.

[ncredneck]

Pippa - Yes, thanks for the research. The first link falls in line with my "learned preference" theory. I found my reaction to the two versions of the bench picture different. I'm trying to analyze why I do so, given that it's 'only' a flip.

I find the second link an interesting debate on the ethics of flipping or any other manipulation.

Sheila - I find myself in the same group as you: flipping is part of composition. If I like the image then I like it, regardless of whether it complies with some set of (often arbitrary) rules.

It's my opinion that the "rules of composition" are simply an attempt to codify what it is that makes an image pleasing to the eye. The eye already knows what it likes; we're just trying to figure out what that is.
Bob

[northbeach]

I'm with you, Bob.

Some photographers talk about the "rule of thirds" ~ it's their mantra and it sometimes gets in the way of creativity I feel. Ansel Adams, probably the most quoted photographer of all time, said "there are no rules for good photography, only good photography"> He also said "the art of good photography is knowing where to stand."

My criteria is this. If I can't find a good place to stand I flip it

Sheila

[ncredneck]

Sheila,

I have book with a photo by Andreas Feininger. It breaks all the "rules" of composition. The main elements of the picture are 2 crossing lines that divide the photo into 4 equal-sized square sub photos. Nary a rule of thirds in sight. No leading diagonals. No triangles. Yet it is a compelling image.

I guess what I'm saying is "Don't let the rules get in the way of a good picture."

Bob

[pippafox]

i've been meaning to get back to this thread all week but have been rushed off my feet. its now late, i'm feeling catatonic and ready for my bed .
i think i'm in agreement about whatever pleases the eye.
i only posted that thread about the ethics of flippingt to show different points of view and that some people feel strongly about it. it is not my standpoint as i've much to learn about the subject.
pippa

[Majik Imaje]

well needless to say, if there is any writing visible in that image, then flipping is not an option !

[northbeach]

Andrea Feininger - I'd love to have his book. Interesting work.


Sheila