Help for the Compositionally Disadvantaged

I'm struggling with composition, aesthically so. Maybe this is a

plea for some of our more accomplished bretheren to point me down

the path of aesthetic righteousness.

 

I feel I'm starting to get a handle on the craft side of this art,

but good composition continually alludes me. I'm not a trained

artist by any means. I've always been immersed in the technical

side of things. I don't have time nor patience to fool around with

classes, even though there is a state university nearby with an art

department. Besides, I'm a 50 years old and a vetereran who probably

wouldn't mesh too well with art school students or professors (maybe

this is a bad assumption).

 

So, is there a good, concise book I can read? Understand this whole

subject is subjective, but it seems to me there's something more to

good graphical arrangement than the rule of thirds.

Do you have a primary area of interest?

Alex,

 

Some would say that you don�t have the time not to take a class. However, I�m not much on �art classes.� I�ve made an effort to stay away from them in order to preserve my own artistic vision and to avoid making images that look like everyone else.

 

However, you can work on your own, or better with someone whose work you like. Sit and look at pictures, pictures of all kinds. Sort them by like/dislike. Then look very carefully at each and work out in your mind what you like about the one�s you like. What makes them work? What is their appeal? Then think of details: Where is the light coming from? Where was the camera? What�s going on with the background? Where is the center of interest? Where is your eye going, what attracts it, how does it move? What would have made it an even better image? What was the photographer trying to do? Did he or she succeed?

 

Even when watching television�not that any of us would engage in so plebian an activity�you can see what is going on with the camera and think about what was done and shy.

 

For the images that don�t work for you, consider why: what would make it be a good, or at least a better image?

 

Do this kind of structured viewing a lot. Don�t just look at images; study them intently and with conscious awareness and purpose. Do this process alone, and if possible, with an experienced photographer whose work you like. Get them to tell you what they think about the image.

 

And, if possible, try and get an experienced photographer to let you assist them, or at least work beside them. A good workshop would fit in here. I try to do a workshop every summer, and have learned a tremendous amount from them. The opportunity to work with other advanced photographers is very helpful.

 

Developing photographic ability is akin to developing musical ability. Some people have more natural ability than others, but everyone can develop whatever ability they were born with. People say that I have a good eye, and it�s somewhat true, but it�s also true that I�ve worked hard for a long time to improve my photographic vision, and continue to look at my work and that of others in a very careful and structured way. It�s not something you can do over night. It�s the hardest and most important part of being a good photographer, and is open-ended and ongoing.

 

 

Good luck,

 

Joe Stephenson

Good question Bill. Landscapes, still lifes, small details, machinery, ect. Take a look at my portfolio. I haven't done portraits, probably won't ever do nudes.

 

To add to my first post, I realize studying a reference won't enact an ovenight miracle, but I'm sure thirsty for some basics to build upon.

The simplest and most basic rule of effective composition is to frame your subject

directly and to eliminate as many distracting elements as possible. especially watch

the edges and corners. Forget about using things like "rules of thirds' and "leading

lines" <I>unless</i> they help the viewer pay attention to the prime subject of your

image. <P> A fine and intelligent book o read about composition & framing is

<U><B>"The Nature of Photographs" </U></B>by Stephen Shore. It is short, well

illustrated and powerful and speaks to the heart of your problem, which is as I see it:

how to find your own way to visually organize your image.<P>The simple rules I

would say to follow are (and in this order: <P>Satisfy your eye. <P>Eliminate visual

clutter. <P>Really think about what you are really looking at both before you set up

the camera and when you are looking at it through the viewfinder or on the

ground-glass.; think about what about that subject is important<I> to you</I>. <P>

Like Bob Seger once sang about the craft of songwriting, the secret to a good

photograph is to figure out "what to leave in/what to leave out."<P>In general, the

best photographs are not mere graphic formulas: they have an idea underneath that

surface. This is a true for Ansel Adams, Paul Strand and Edward Weston as is it is for

Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Elliot Erwitt, Robert Adams, Nan Goldin, Diane

Arbus, RichardAvedon, Irving Penn, or Annie Leibowitz. <P>I hope this

helps.<P>And yes that is probably a bad assumption unless the professors are bad.

Alex:

Ellis' quote of Bob Seger sum it all up. Rules and guidlines are useful but can result in making you wary of "breaking" any lest you sin against the composition gods. Good reading and excellent images are available at http://www.mcitret.com/. "Where to stand and where to put the edges" is Citret's take on composing strongly and simply.

As other have said look at images. Direction and nature of lighting, placement of subject , placement of items in the image that support the subject. How close was the photographer? WhY? Why did he/she include/exclude material that would give the viewer a sense of scale?Why isn't there a center of interest but instead patterns, repetition of value, etc.? A workshop teacher i had once suggested a quetsion/answer approach made you think. And he thought firing neurons were a start.

If you seek out books, websites, where photographers who are interesed in the same kind of subjects, architecture, not macro, landscapes, not nudes, exhibit their work you get a sense of the way they handle their subjects. So now you can see how they compose and light and wait. Continue to shoot. Imitate! There is nothing wrong with seeing how close you can come to the composition of someone whose images you admire. You may learn you do not like his/her take on a subject. You may learn something about camera height, vantage point, the joy of moving a tripod with canera exactly 3.25 inches to get the "right" comporsition.And one polaroid later and you can compare.

Good luck,

 

Bob

Although the "rule" of thirds is often a good place to start, I think good composition really boils down to a trade-off between visual balance in the image (reducing the image elements to graphical shapes, and balancing them), and guiding the viewer's eye into the image with things like leading lines and such, and keeping it there. Most of the how-to books include basic composition chapters. One that I found particularly interesting is the National Geographic Field Guide, which includes comments and tips from a number of their top shooters. There's also some useful basic info on the Agfa site at http://www.agfanet.com/en/cafe/photocourse/cont_index.php3. In contrast, many of the art books tend to belabor the points.

Alex, I have a book called 'Photographic Composition' by Tim Grill and Mark Scanlon. Its pretty good book, but I also learned alot by looking at the online galleries (like the one here) and paying attention to what works and what doesnt work, and why.

 

Some magazines are pretty good too. Some have a photo review section where readers send in photos and ask for advice. The editors critique the photos and give advice for improvement. Photography monthly and practical photography are great publications.

 

Darin

My favorite 101 reference book on composition is "Composition in Art"

by Henry Rankin Poore. It is only 95 pages and a simple text on all

the fundmentals of visual composition. Composition is not about formulas, rules, or 'breaking' them. It's more like learning a visual language as a tool and using it creatively. After the effort in learning and constant practice, the 'language' will become more unconsious and intuitive. You don't want to be thinking in formulas

like 'rule of thirds' when you are composing. Somewhat analytical,

but more sensing/feeling the weights and movements in the viewfinder frame. If you want to take a class, go for it. People of all ages who

study art tend to be open minded. I'm sure you would be welcomed.

Rules and guidelines are nothing but the new and imaginative ways of doing things that became standards, they mean nothing in themselves, they're to be used or not used, as a counterpoint to the opposite, and eventually replaced by new ideas which will become popular/en vogue/standards/admired and practiced by other who like the idea.

 

Get some Artbooks, looks at the compositional techniques of the masters, from any number of styles, how they used the so called rules, how they broke 'em, go to an art appreciation class, audit, I think you'll like that, 50yrs old doesn't mean nuthin, I don't think you'll stand out or look silly, you'll probably be appreciated.

 

Get some Artbooks particularly of the masters whose ability to compose scenes and pose figures/subject matter is simply timeless, I never fail to be awestruck by the work of some masters at how they manipulated their compositions and poses so effortlessly, made them at the same time intricate and yet so simple, a lot of what is considered to be 'old school' is if you really look is fresh, innovative, thought provoking and is a never ending source of inspiration.

 

The rules and guidelines mean nothing in themselves, they're to be considered, used or not used, 10 photographers shooting a sunset all using what they consider to be the 'rule of thirds' will still come up with 10 different photographs, everybody does everything differently which is the point of why anybody gets into photograph because they figure they can add a different slant.

 

The 'rule of thirds' and 'rules and guidelinges' are monikers that really diminish what is behind their intended use, what you are really talking about in terms of what came before is old ideas that use to be new that'll be used until somebody comes up with something better and/or different which will then make the old stuff passe'.

 

Check out the different styles of painting which never ceases to amaze me, it'll spur you on to some ideas.

Had a look at your portfolio. You are NOT Compositionally Disadvantaged, IMHO. Perhaps a temporary lapse of confidence in your own ability. Keep working -- it will pass. Bill

Thanks for the encouragement Bill and you may be right. And thanks for all the suggestions so far. As many have suggested, I'm looking for my own way but I get befuddled. I've been perusing occasional issues of B&W Magazine and Lenswork. Both are full of excellent examples to emulate and aspire to. Seems like I should be able to photograph a barn as good as Morley Baer but when I make the print, I think I fall far short of that aspiration. Part of this beffudlement I think, is that I don't really have the understanding of composition; so, I can't really say why one photo works and another one doesn't. I'm almost shooting blindly; once in a while it works, mostly it doesn't.

 

I know several artists build their settings; that's great and I and admire them highly. But I'm mostly a weekend shooter trying to take ordinary, plain things and present them such that it catches the eye and perhaps tells a small story. If I have a vision, its more in line with Walker Evans (I think!?).

 

Oh well, onward and upward. Thanks again for everything so far, especially the book suggestions.

Jeeze Alex. You stuff looks pretty good to me. Stop whining and go take some more photos :-).

If you don't want to go to art school, why not a workshop or two? One possibility is Freeman Patterson: www.freemanpatterson.com/

Try and art class or 2 on composition - you may find you like it, and learn more than by reading a book.

I happen to be talented in music and plucked around on guitar for several years not really going anywhere until I decided to make the time to take private guitar lessons. I learned more in 1 year of lessons than in my previous 40 years of trying on my own. Sometimes there's no substitute for instruction. As far as "compromising" your artistic vision - a good solid foundation in basic compostional theory will do more to help achieve your vision than not.

Good luck

Alix,

 

You'll save time and money by taking the class at the local community college. You can make the experience easier by auditing the class. This will relieve you from homework and tests. You can just be there to soak up some basics.

 

I was an oil painter long before I started LF and disagree with those who say the classic composition concepts get in the way. There are some basic concepts that have worked for centuries and still work today. They've worked because they tune in on the way the we process images mentally.

 

Keep in mind that what the brain sees is only lines, angles, areas and a grid to establish a relationship between them. There are some prewired things that seem to make viewing more interesting and helps the artist direct the viewer. To those who say rules are old hat, even Picaso followed the most basic of compositional rules in his work. He was a good classical artist long before cubism raised it's head. Rules are made too be broken, but even then, there is usually another rule that isn't being broken in art that grabs you.

 

I admire anyone who has a natural knack for composition, but if you don't, a class is a great way to close the gap. Once you start seeing images that have natural composition you'll have a much easier time capturing them. If you still don't want to take a class, look in the art section for books. Painters can add anything they want to an image and tend to have a lot of compositional tricks that work well for photography too. Like others have said don't obsess on it. Take photos and learn from your mistakes.

One other idea: Join a good camera/photography club, and actively participate.

Alex, I agree with Bill Mitchell; I don't think you are all that "compositionally disadvantaged."

 

In a nutshell, I think effective composition is an arrangement of image elements that keeps your eye engaged and visual brain stimulated, not letting the eye drift off the edges/corners.

 

Look at photos that you really like. Where do your eyes move as you look at the photo? Why? I think you are already doing this to some extent as you compose in the ground glass.

 

I think composition is more of an awareness and sensitivity to visual stimulation, tension and balance, than rules and numbers.

Ellis,

 

I think you are right about avoiding visual clutter.

 

That is the single thing most wrong with my photographs. My problem is that I like clutter. It seems to me that if you point the camera in a certain direction, you have to accept what is there. And what is there often surprises you when you look at the developed slide, a print, or a scan. I've always like the idea of taking photographs which look as if they would show something interesting at all scales.

 

But again I have to agree that the results of this prediliction are often disappointing. After all, clutter is clutter. So how do I balance my preferences against my visual sense?

I suggest you get the book by Feininger shown here. Thames and Hudson, London 1973, then 1.25£. It is outstanding. I have learned a lot from him, and even I met him personally when I was teaching at ICP in New York in 1981. He was Artist of Residence at ICP that Fall, Lisette Model was still alive, and a bunch of us would go out together on Madison Avenue drink coffe and discuss photography. Those were the days...

 

Or if you are interested in photographs designed by means of a �ruler and a compass� look here:

 

http://www.users.nac.net/wieslaw/Patrialab/skyscrapers/index.html<div></div>

You've received some great responses. Here's a useless one but maybe the most honest: There is absolutely nothing that anyone else can do for you. What you are talking about is the photographer's eye or vision. You have yours. Everyone else has theirs. It's what makes us unique. Too many photographers are going around trying to shoot like ______ (fill in the name of a famous photographer here) and aren't doing their own work that is honest to themselves. You simply take the pictures that you are capable of taking and if they please you, or at least prompt you to take more, then stay with photography. Don't try to take pictures to please someone else (unless you're a pro commercial photographer). If photography gives you pleasure, continue, and as you do you will develop your style. If the art community likes your style, you may become rich and famous but it's not something to count on. This response is not meant to be discouraging, just truthful, and this is just my opinion.

I bought a book on watercolor composition a few years ago after leafing through it in the bookstore -- and I don't paint. I found it very helpful for photography. Lots of information about leading lines, about bright and dark tones, saturated and pastel colors, where to place the subject, and generally about the things that lead your eye around a scene.

Alex,

 

LOOK.

 

Look at photographs. Look at a lot of photographs. Look at the world around you.

 

Don't stop looking.

 

-Will

I disagree entirely with Frank -�there is absolutely nothing that anyone else can do

for you.� Yes, others can do much for you. There have been fine art schools which helped to produce outstanding artists, also photographers.

 

In contrast to technique, art in photography is a most elusive concept, intangible and subjective. It involves the application of taste, discrimination, and sensitivity in conjunction with technicalities such as camera position, angle of view, subject distance and image scale, contrast range, color arrangement, etc. The whole concept of art is very intuitive and subjective one, but instead of art in photography one can talk about composition. That directly leads to one point every photographer agrees with: A well composed photograph is more effective than badly composed one. Composition is usually the most effective and often the only way in which a photographer can express his individuality. Look for example at two forms of graphic rendition which derive their justification solely from composition. These are still lifes and abstractions. Two art forms specifically created to evoked the aesthetic pleasure that can be derived from good composition. I suggest, keep studying good abstract and semi-abstract paintings.

Thanks for everyone's very good suggestions and help. Its always reassuring to know there's a place to turn to for help.

 

Best Regards,

Alex