Where you place the subject in the frame clearly matters, and for the purpose of (creating) argument, I have provided some rather extreme examples. The point is to remind us to make a choice.
These days, final framing tends to take place in the computer, but the photographer is not at all absolved of responsibility. You can't always "bracket" the framing if it is a one-time photo, like a first kiss at a wedding or a gymnast winning the gold medal. So you usually have to think about what you are trying to achieve and frame the photo accordingly. And these days, it seems wise to shoot a bit loose, then crop in a bit in computer later on.
Bottom Line: You can make a lot of different choices about placing the subject in the frame.
100mm, f2.8, studio flash
(Photomatters trivia: All of these 7 images are actually different shots taken just about as you see them, tilted, inverted, etc. Two of them are simply the same photo re-cropped in computer. If you can guess which two, good for you. No prizes awarded. Answer: panels 1 and 2.)
Left
Right
How tight should you frame the subject? Easy answer: closer and tighter. Professional photographers tend to come in closer and frame tighter than amateurs almost across the board.
There are other factors to consider, like do you need room to add text for an add, can you crop later in computer?
But as a rule, a loose cropping like this one is pretty dull.
Why not just put the subject in the middle of the photo, as close as possible, but with just enough space around it so that it feels comfortable?
Why not? Mostly this IS what we do, and mostly it is a good choice, but it is not the only one.
Why not get closer and fill the frame with the subject? As I mention elsewhere in this site, getting closer is one of the dividing lines between professionals and amateur shooters: pros get closer; closer is more powerful.
What if you get playful and let the subject hang mostly outside the frame? Good solution if you need room to add text for an ad, and a quirky image is appropriate. Bad idea if your intention is a general use portrait — you need the nose and mouth to qualify as a portrait.
How about a bit less playful, but still extreme? Still looks like it wants to be in an advertisement, since the background doesn't say much — it is dominant by the amount of space it eats, but doesn't add much of interest to the conversation.
The thing about any kind of more extreme framing is that the framing itself becomes part of the subject. You might want that, or you might not. The viewer is going to wonder why they are not being allowed to see both eyes, and the photo, as a whole, has to to provide a good answer to that.
Tilt the camera? Sometimes it works, but often distracts. The human eye does NOT tilt the image when you tilt your head - which is a miracle in itself. But when you choose to tilt the image by tilting the camera, the eye can not correct for that. Hence tilted camera tends to be used a lot in movies like Psycho and not so much for high school graduation photos.
Total inversion? Like tilting, we are not good at dealing with images - particularly of people - that are inverted. Some subject might benefit from being seen in a new way, but we are trained from a few minutes after being born to see momma's head right-way up, and deviating from that is annoying.
How tight should you frame the subject? Easy answer: closer and tighter. Professional photographers tend to come in closer and frame tighter than amateurs almost across the board.
There are other factors to consider, like do you need room to add text for an add, can you crop later in computer?
But as a rule, a loose cropping like this one is pretty dull.
Why not just put the subject in the middle of the photo, as close as possible, but with just enough space around it so that it feels comfortable?
Why not? Mostly this IS what we do, and mostly it is a good choice, but it is not the only one.
Why not get closer and fill the frame with the subject? As I mention elsewhere in this site, getting closer is one of the dividing lines between professionals and amateur shooters: pros get closer; closer is more powerful.
What if you get playful and let the subject hang mostly outside the frame? Good solution if you need room to add text for an ad, and a quirky image is appropriate. Bad idea if your intention is a general use portrait — you need the nose and mouth to qualify as a portrait.
How about a bit less playful, but still extreme? Still looks like it wants to be in an advertisement, since the background doesn't say much — it is dominant by the amount of space it eats, but doesn't add much of interest to the conversation.
The thing about any kind of more extreme framing is that the framing itself becomes part of the subject. You might want that, or you might not. The viewer is going to wonder why they are not being allowed to see both eyes, and the photo, as a whole, has to to provide a good answer to that.
Tilt the camera? Sometimes it works, but often distracts. The human eye does NOT tilt the image when you tilt your head - which is a miracle in itself. But when you choose to tilt the image by tilting the camera, the eye can not correct for that. Hence tilted camera tends to be used a lot in movies like Psycho and not so much for high school graduation photos.
Total inversion? Like tilting, we are not good at dealing with images - particularly of people - that are inverted. Some subject might benefit from being seen in a new way, but we are trained from a few minutes after being born to see momma's head right-way up, and deviating from that is annoying.
