how does one differentiate 'good' from 'bad' framing?
what kind of things are you judging when you look at cinematic photography
is it mostly a case of 'know it when i see it' or are there specifics to consider?
If it's interesting to look at
If it knowingly draws your attention to specific things
If it fits the mood or atmosphere or context of the movie
At the most basic level I think good framing is framing that is harmonious with what is being depicted. e.g. if you frame a low-key intimate moment like an action scene, you fucked up. If your characters are getting further apart (as in your pic), the framing should emphasize that.
But of course it can be more than that, the framing can be a thing that stands on its own sometimes. ITMFL is a great example of this, where everything is framed as if the camera is some sort of peeping tom, from behind corners, behind windows, etc.
>>64174202
Something something rule of thirds
>>64174202
I get a little bit of vertigo from this image, it looks like he could fall into the ocean at any minute and she is clinging on to the rocks.
Guessing their relationship is on the rocks so to speak?
I have no idea what the movie is. But that's the impression I get. If so, that's pretty excellent framing and scene composition, given how much information it conveys without any dialogue or context.
>>64175816
>Guessing their relationship is on the rocks so to speak?
GODDAMMIT CARLOS YOU FUCKING MEXICAN
>>64174202
There are ways to find out about this OP, and there is theory and there are rules as well as brilliant examples of breaking those rules and ignoring theory, but asking about it here is like asking a crack whore how to know when you're in love. Look up composition, read about cinematographers like Vittorio Storarro, Gordon Willis, Roger Deakins, Vilmosz Szigmond, Conrad Hall, etc. and watch their work. Photographers and painters too, look up different ones, find ones you like and compare their work against scenes in movies. Don't neccesarily go by who gets Oscars, especially lately. But seriously, while you might get some good answers here, this is not the place.
>>64174202
Camera angle and lens choice are the most important considerations when it comes to the psychological effect of a shot. You can communicate different meanings from looking up at a character, vs. looking down on them. Facing them directly, or looking at them from the side. Closeup or wide shot, the spatial distortion of a wide lens or the shallow focus of a telephoto.
From there, I think the actual framing is mostly just intuitive. You want to clearly depict and focus on the action or purpose of the shot, framed with a "nice-looking" image of the set, or backdrop, or landscape.
I'm reminded of some of the later episodes of Poirot. The cinematography is very stylized and showy compared to the older ones from the 90s. The production did change dramatically over the years the show ran but not for the better. The cinematography in the later episodes often have shots that look great on their own and would look great on a reel but have no regard for story. Sometimes, not even any regard for how each shot fits with the others and the cuts are jarring. It's really obnoxious and sophomoric. A lot of other BBC shows have this problem.
It seems really obvious to say this but apparently some cinematographers don't realize (or don't care) that aesthetics aren't the only element that makes a shot look good. What the shot tells you is far more important.
you guys are mostly addressing visual metaphor though
what about non narrative films noted for having 'good framing'
>>64177372
you mean like documentaries?