Front 3/4: Left, right or center?

[Fritz Kloepfel]

While I was at Watkins Glen speaking with John Thawley the question of whether you need to leave "room in front of the car" on a front 3/4 shot came up. It was also raised in John's thread regarding one of his shots from Watkins Glen.

I think we all agree that on a side pan we need to put some space in front of the car, but do we always need that same space when shooting from the front?

1. Here's a shot of a car coming up through the esses, and I left space to the right "for the car to go into." This is probably what many of us feel is the correct way to compose this shot.

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/520/medium/Red_Bull_Riley_Porsche.jpg

2. But here's a shot at the same spot, but with the car to the right with "nowhere to go." But for me, this photo is about where the car came from, not where it is going. So, .... does leaving some room behind the car do a better job of allowing our eye to follow the path of the car?

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/520/medium/Crown_Royal_Crawford_Porsche_Front.jpg

3. Same spot again, but with the car in the dreaded "centered" position. However, in this shot we have a car in the background which helps tell the story of where the subject car came from even better. Is this the best of the lot even though the car is centered?

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/520/medium/Playboy_Riley_Lexus_Front1.jpg

Thanks once again to John, for making us think.

[Paul Hansen]

I wouldn't call the car in the last shot centered, actually. Compositionally, it is in one of the thirds regions. Centered is exactly that, right in the center. And it works best because it has space in front of it still to go into, and more space behind it that it came out of.

The first two shots are so tight, it's hard to rate them as going into or coming from somewhere. A bit looser and they would feel that way.

Cheers

[Daniel Buck]

I think the first and last shot work alot better than the middle shot. To my eyes, the middle shot looks like you were tracking the car, and then it took a turn on you and your kept going a bit, lagging behind. I realize this most likely isn't the case, but I'm trying to think of a reason why I like the 1st and 3rd shots better. Maybe I'm just used to seeing space where the car "will go" instead of where it "has been".


on a different note, would these be called 3/4 shots? Wouldn't they be more on the line of 7/8?

[Todd Corzett]

I think the second shot would work better (the whole "where the car is coming from") if you could see the whole path the car takes. In the first shot, unless you know the area behind the car is another section of track leading-up to this corner (which I don't think many non-fans would know), there is a total disconnect. The car is composed nicely, and the shot works... but compared to the third shot (with a car in the background on that track) it's not even close. Like Paul said, the last shot is no where close to being centered (there is at least 4 times as much room to the right than to the left of the car). The first and third shot are nearly identical... accept for the car in the background, which... as you point out... makes the shot.

The second shot alone doesn't seem as strong composition wise as the first to me. That being said... if you took the second shot with a car in the background (at the top left of the frame) it would work quite well. The car in the background would give balance to the image.

I like to look think about where my eyes wander when i look at the images. With #1 my eyes go straight to the car (the driver specifically), then move to the bottom right of the image (the direction the car is moving) and off the frame. I then look back at the car, and move up the image (to see a bunch of empty track). With #2 I'm again drawn to the car, but don't have any room to moving in front of the car... and then see a big blank space behind the car, which distracts me from the car itself (this may be because I'm trained to look for room in front of the car though). Now, if there was a car in the background of the second shot... it would give me something to look at and a reason why there isn't room in front of the car. With #3 I start the same as #1... but then rather than seeing empty track I see another car and am entertained.

The more I think about it... I'd rather see #2 with a car in the top/left of the frame on the track in the background. That would create a cycle (first car, around to back car, back to first car) and a well balanced image.

They are all very usable shots, and which is better has much to do with the person/use (imagine placing text, the first shot may be best if you needed to put a title on the page).

-Todd...

[Jim Sykes]

IMO, if you are going to leave room behind the car, you need to have a reason to do that. There needs to be something significant in that "room" that tells the story and makes it work. Simply leaving room behind the car does nothing for the image and in that case, by the nature of how we look at things, having room in front would be better.

In this case 1 and 3 work, 2 is pretty much a missed shot in my eyes.

[Michael Chu]

This makes me wonder...does this shot work?

http://mc-photography.net/gallery/Formula_D__7-8-06/Picture0068.jpg

IMO, if the car was placed with space in front of the car, the overall effect would not be as dramatic. By showing space behind the car (on this shot), it shows that the car didn't travel through the frame traditionally, but sideways. Combined with the smoke and crowd, I think it works well. What would you guys think?

I think leaving space in front or behind the car really depends on the context of the shot, like what is being told.

[John Thawley]

I don't think 2 is the correct example. In truth, this image is not a for or aft question. The car is simply to far to the right of the frame. And, to be honest, I consider the samples Fritz posted to really fall more in the category of a head on shot.

Actually, I think this three car shot demonstrates my "position" (though rules are meant to be broken).

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/albums/albuq10/aas.jpg

To my mind, if you consider the individual positiion of each of the three cars, starting at the back, I would say... wait, wait, shoot. I think if we removed two of the cars systematically to create 3 single car images, the front car's position is ultimately the strongest shot.

At least that's the point I was trying to make.

JT

[Daniel Buck]

This makes me wonder...does this shot work?

http://mc-photography.net/gallery/Formula_D__7-8-06/Picture0068.jpg

IMO, if the car was placed with space in front of the car, the overall effect would not be as dramatic. By showing space behind the car (on this shot), it shows that the car didn't travel through the frame traditionally, but sideways. Combined with the smoke and crowd, I think it works well. What would you guys think?

I think leaving space in front or behind the car really depends on the context of the shot, like what is being told.


I think that one works, because of the tire smoke behind the car. With out the smoke, I don't think it would look near as good, and might need to be cropped tighter.

[Fritz Kloepfel]

I have to agree that #2 is the weakest shot of the bunch. I also agree that if #2 had a car on the track in the upper left it would dramatically improve the shot.

What if I had been able to shoot from a little higher, and pulled back a little. This would reveal the path the car had travelled a bit more. Would that then justify having the car to the extreme right?

I don't feel there are any right or wrong answers here, but as the question had been posed, and I had these three shots, I felt it might be interesting to discuss it a bit.

Hopefully John will offer his thoughts here soon. Anybody else?

[Fritz Kloepfel]

I don't think 2 is the correct example. In truth, this image is not a for or aft question. The car is simply to far to the right of the frame. And, to be honest, I consider the samples Fritz posted to really fall more in the category of a head on shot.

Actually, I think this three car shot demonstrates my "position" (though rules are meant to be broken).

http://gallery.johnthawley.com/albums/albuq10/aas.jpg

To my mind, if you consider the individual positiion of each of the three cars, starting at the back, I would say... wait, wait, shoot. I think if we removed two of the cars systematically to create 3 single car images, the front car's position is ultimately the strongest shot.

At least that's the point I was trying to make.

JT

John,

What a great shot as an example!

I can see that even absent the two "following" cars, this would be a strong shot, and the lead car would look correct in the right third of the frame.

Nice clarification of your position.

Thanks!

[Fritz Kloepfel]

This makes me wonder...does this shot work?

http://mc-photography.net/gallery/Formula_D__7-8-06/Picture0068.jpg

IMO, if the car was placed with space in front of the car, the overall effect would not be as dramatic. By showing space behind the car (on this shot), it shows that the car didn't travel through the frame traditionally, but sideways. Combined with the smoke and crowd, I think it works well. What would you guys think?

I think leaving space in front or behind the car really depends on the context of the shot, like what is being told.

Michael,

I definitely think this shot works, but again, it's about telling the story. As pointed out, the smoke does that for you, and for that reason I think this is composed perfectly.

[Fritz Kloepfel]

Here's a different example, and perhaps one that is more in line with John's thinking.

Is this shot composed correctly?

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/521/medium/AAA.jpg

[John Thawley]

I think so.... might have been a "touch" looser... and a slower shutter. But for the most part, that's where I like the car.

JT

[Todd Corzett]

Here's a different example, and perhaps one that is more in line with John's thinking.

Is this shot composed correctly?
I think this one is a great example of when you can/should put the car closer to the front edge of the frame. The grandstand in the background is something that balances the location of the car, and isn't just an empty frame. It is (like the smoke in the drifting photo) something that is interesting.

I think this three car shot demonstrates my "position" (though rules are meant to be broken).

To my mind, if you consider the individual positiion of each of the three cars, starting at the back, I would say... wait, wait, shoot. I think if we removed two of the cars systematically to create 3 single car images, the front car's position is ultimately the strongest shot.

If the two cars were not behind the No.3, there would be nothing but a green hill. To me, the hill doesn't add anything to the image... and would leave me looking around for something. If you take the image and cut-out the No.3 and move it to the right of the frame I think it makes for a stronger image (of the two variations). Personally, I'd rather see it in a vertical... since neither a bunch of grass in front/rear of the car adds much. But, it's really six of one or a half-dozen of another... why split hairs on this?

I think there are MANY examples of why you can put the car towards the edge of the frame (with little/no room for the car to move out of the frame), but most of the time it's because there is something going on behind the car:

http://www.unitonestudios.com/gallery/motorsports/2006/06_LeMans/1/images/lemans-2006-24h-tc-0975.JPG

But, in the end... who cares if there is anything going on behind the car. Sometimes it's nice to just break the rules!

http://www.unitonestudios.com/gallery/motorsports/2005/IRL/Race/images/050826_10068.jpg

-Todd...

[Morgan J Segal]

Here's a different example, and perhaps one that is more in line with John's thinking.

Is this shot composed correctly?

http://community.automotivephoto.net/photopost/data/521/medium/AAA.jpg


I don't think so, because you're not showing where the car came from, there is no story being told. If you want to put the car off to the exit of the photo, you need to shoot wider
Additionally, I feel the shot is in complete chaos because the colors, logos and paint scheme of the car compete too much with the background, which needs either more blur (car barely looks like it is moving) or less focus to make the car separate from the background

[Fritz Kloepfel]

Morgan,

Excellent comments.

I certainly agree with the "chaos." There is an awful lot going on in that photo, and it would certainly benefit from a slower shutter speed, and more separation between the background and the subject.

In truth, the photo was shot wider, and I cropped it, largely because there was even MORE chaos out beyond this crop.

My intent was to set the photo in a location. I wanted to show the valley and the stands behind the car to "place" the shot at Watkins Glen. But with the extreme paint jobs and incredible jumble of stickers on these cars all my photos look very "busy" to me.

Sure appreciate your input. It will help the next time I'm out there.

[Jacob Leveton]

This makes me wonder...does this shot work?

http://mc-photography.net/gallery/Formula_D__7-8-06/Picture0068.jpg

IMO, if the car was placed with space in front of the car, the overall effect would not be as dramatic. By showing space behind the car (on this shot), it shows that the car didn't travel through the frame traditionally, but sideways. Combined with the smoke and crowd, I think it works well. What would you guys think?

I think leaving space in front or behind the car really depends on the context of the shot, like what is being told.

Mike -

like everyone else said, this shot works solely because of the smoke. Without the smoke (aka with a car with less than 500 hp ;) ), the shot is not as powerful.