On composition - again

I hope you don't mind another question on composition. I've been

wondering about this one for a long time and I just not getting

something. Here goes:

 

Why do you think it is that learning and talking about composition

and image design has turned into such a negative thing among some

photographers?

 

Every time I mention it online I get some sort of negative remark

that says something like: composition can't be taught; learning about

composition is a waste of time; just go shoot and feel your way;

composition stifles creativity, etc. I don't understand this

attitide, especially from those who have never taken the time to

learn and know nothing of the matter.

 

I understand that many talented/seasoned/experienced photographic

artists are far beyond anything that design principles can do for

them. And I understand that there are those who can intuitively

design cohesive, stunning works of art without having studied image

design a bit. But I don't understand this dismissive attitude by

those who simply refuse to consider learning about image design

principles.

 

I have a serious interest in this matter because I write about

composition and image design. I want a better understanding of this

attitude and I'd like to address issues that are important to my

readers' work.

 

Thanks in advance for your replies.

 

Moderators: if you feel the need to move this, please go ahead. I

didn't know where to put it and I know some folks in this group :)

When I first started photographing in the late 1960's, correct composition was pounded into your head by the teachers in whatever photography class I was taking. Nowdays, you have way too many photographers who feel that composition is not that important and their photography suffers because of it. Rules are made to be broken as the old saying goes, but a sound knowledge of compostion and design can only increase your art. I am constantly amazed now at some of the stuff I shoot today. I am a street shooter and just yesterday I was making some contact sheets and noticed that I had really nailed a few really good shots with great composition. But the funny thing is, is that I cannot recall having framed the shot that way. This leads me to believe that the rules of compostion and design that I learned those many years ago have become second nature to me and I am a much better photographer for it.

I personally am a strong believer in composition, the technicals. To me, it represents the

final harmony of an image and others perception of it--like a piano in tune. Having a

strong composition, in some way, forces the viewer to see the things you want them to

see, and in that order.

 

Oftentimes, when I photograph, I think of composition first and subject matter, or content,

second. If I cant find an interesting way to compose it, I will walk away from the shot.

 

But most photographers may not like it when you bring up things like composition,

because in photography there are no rules, yet there are guidelines. Most photographers,

including myself, have their strong points and points that they need to work on. Others

may not want to stunt the growth potential of anyone asking too many questions about

photography, and they do have a point--or they just dont know the answer.

<p> I don't think that the issue at hand is that composition is irrelevant, but rather that the use of graphic design principles has been greatly overemphasized in photography. From the beginning of the twentieth century up through the 1970s, photographic composition was taught in terms of "rules" such as the rule-of-thirds and associations such as diagonal lines being dynamic. Most books about photographic composition are based on this approach although they generally counsel against rigid adherence to rules. These rules and associations were originally justified using scientific-sounding explanations that have long since been found to be contrary to the how people actually perceive scene(e.g., lines leading the eye to the subject).

 

<p> I believe the backlash against compositional rules comes in reaction to judgmental critics who expound on whether a photograph is good or not based on whether the rules have been followed and not on the overall effect of the image on the viewer. In addition, the "rules" come mainly from the graphic design field. The other pictorial arts such as drawing and painting tend to speak about composition in terms such as balance. In other pictorial media, it is assumed that compositional skills develop naturally as the artist becomes better at perceiving visual elements. Because cameras takes care of matters such as perspective automatically, it is possible for a photographer to take photographs without developing the perceptual skills needed to become proficient at drawing or painting. However, the photographers who hone their perceptual skills are the ones who consistently come up with good compositions irrespective of whether they follow the rules.

Gloria,

 

The issue has to do with "who you ask", case and point I do wedding photography where I applied some guidelines to my photography but in which I relied greatly on my "artistic eye" and composed my pictures based on what I have in front of me, be that the bride and groom or the general scenery.

 

If I ask one of the "self profess masters" they will probably tell me that I'm doing everything wrong because many have a "my way or the highway approach" to do things while many new photographers don't want to be bother with guidelines because they consider them to restricted or they are to lazy to learn them.

 

Best way to work is by finding a happy medium.

 

Ideally if someone is really interested on photography they should learn about the guidelines and step out of the box from there, sadly most people don't take the time.

 

Regards

 

Hugh

I find that people are in such a rush for 'instant expertise' that they no longer want to take the time to learn the basics. Instead they want to define a world where there are no basics to learn; there are no 'dues to pay' and there is no work associated with success.So, anything goes and my shot is as good as your shot which is as good as any old 'master' photographer because...since there are no rules...who is to judge?

 

If there are no objective criteria, then everyone is an 'expert' and nobody is a 'beginner'.

 

Learning the basics is part of being a beginner. Young pianists and violinists have to practice their scales...over and over and over so that when they become proficient they will not have to spend time thinking about how to play a certain note...they will just play it! The principles of composition (like all the basics of photography) may seem to be restrictive but you have to have a firm grounding in those principles before you can set out on your own.

<blockquote>

Every time I mention it online I get some sort of negative remark that says something like:

composition can't be taught; learning about composition is a waste of time;

</blockquote>

I suspect it has nothing to do with what's importamt in photography changing but the

effect of being on-line. The people who

have the most time or desire to respond have the least value to add - it's called "The

Internet Effect.":-)

<p>

Seriously - I think you may be misinterpreting the results.

<p>

Digital photography (either straight or through scanning) has allowed more bad

photographers to command a worldwide audience than before - when their photographs

were quietly self-destructing in a shoe box in a closet or a garage.

<p>

Unfortunately, I think the random noise factor that comprises most of the feedback on the

net probably makes serious contributors to the conversation you want to have pause in

engaging. Sad.

<p>

That I'm responding to this should make you pause:-)

<p>

P.S. By the way, one of my feelings of the rules of composition is: how can you know how

to break the rules if you don't know what the rules are?

I agree that there is a tendency here to dismiss discussion of composition as being of no value on the basis that there is nothing to say. You either have it or you don't. You can't teach it, or get it from books. Discussion is futile. We hear that view about all sorts of things, singing, playing musical instruments, Even 'being mathematical.'

 

It's very defensive I think, borne out of a fear of some sort. Discussing more graspable things like exposure or the merits of various pieces of equipment seems safer, more objective, less prone to dispute (dispute??? here?? surely not!). The thornier issues of where you position the camera and when you press the button are so mind boggling complex, and the choices are literally infinite, that its easier not to think about it at all.

 

When I was getting interested in photography, I took a picture I was quite pleased with. Beautiful evening light, good depth through the foreground, mid-distance and background, nice colors and texture. But there was something wrong with it, though I didn't know what. My wife immediately pointed out that the subject was bang in the middle. I didn't know that was wrong. Nobody ever told me. When I opened the Velvia the leaflet said something about f8.0 at 125: it didn't mention that I might want to think about the position of the elements in my pictures and their relationship with each other. Another person (my wife, say) would automatically have thought about that. To her it would have been obvious, but I had no artistic talent at all. Everything I ever had done in life had used the medium of language, but I was illiterate where images were concerned. To some extent I knew this anyway. I used to walk around art galleries looking at paintings by famous artists wondering what all the fuss was about. It was obvious that if I was ever going to take any decent photographs I would have to learn about composition. So I did what I always do in this sort of situation - I started reading everything I could find. Very basic stuff, Rule of Thirds, Leading Lines and so on. but gradually my pictures improved. I started to think about what I wanted to accomplish with a photograph rather than merely point the camera and click before having any real chance to assess the image.

 

So the idea that composition can't be learned or taught needs to be unpacked a little. What exactly does it mean? You can't teach a toddle how to walk but you can show them and guide them and encourage them. In my life the ability to read and visualise images had never been unlocked and developed. It was as if I'd never learned to walk. Just reading simple books and websites gave me a framework for studying an image, or looking at a scene and working out how an image could be created.

 

I know that no amount of teaching will turn me into a brilliant photographer. Maybe the skill or talent of the genious is inborn. But, at the same time, I know that consciously concentrating on the rules and techniques of composition has enabled me to become a better photographer than I was before. not brilliant but one whose pictures occasionally get published. Whatever your starting point you can learn to be better, and guidance, mentoring and teaching help.

I agree that maybe there is some degree of 'artistic backlash' against rigid rules of composition. I guess some view it as an 'old-school by-the-book formula' thing vs. the free creative spirit (whatever that may be). Afterall, if you consider yourself an 'artist' (again, whatever the hell that is) it sometimes seems to be a point of obsession to be different from anyone else.

 

Personally, I see 'rules' of composition as methods of creating visual hooks. Sure, you don't have to use any compositional rules if you don't want to, but what might you be able incorporate in order to get someone to explore your work? I would argue that anyone being dismissive of any thing or method is shutting themselves off from creative and artistic development.

 

Solid design principles can be used with elegance AND creativity, at times without the viewer even being aware. Then again, they can deliberately NOT be used to great effect as well.

 

Therein lies true artistry.

Bert makes some very interesting points, although I'm not sure it's the graphic design industry that is at fault. There has been an accumulation of years of simplification of composition to a single "rule" that is supposed to teach people something.<p>

 

The problem with this approach is that it doesn't work at all. First of all, the "rule" is an over-simplification itself of a mathematical construct. Second, lots of great compositions don't follow the "rule," so there is little validity to it. Third, application of the "rule" leads to a lot of look-alike photographs that carry little impact. The "rule" does help beginners to avoid stupid mistakes, but it's hardly even a guide to composition.<p>

 

The best exposition of composition specific to photography that I have seen is in Michael Freeman's <i>The Image</i>, which is now out of print but in some libraries and used bookstores. Freeman spends much of the book on what can be called "composition," and goes into great detail about a variety of aspects in ways that are rarely considered in the popular magazines or typical beginner's books. He doesn't even mentioned the so-called "rule" that often is given as the sum total of composition here.<p>

 

Freeman has a very concise statement on composition: <i>In composing the image, the poles are symmetry and eccentricity." </i> He then goes on to discuss the mathematical constructs and a variety of other compositional aspects, but the underlying message is that composition is about placement relative to the goals of the image rather than an adherence to any specific "rule" or set of "rules." And after discussing the golden mean (from which that devolved "rule" is derived), Freeman makes the fundamental point - <i>Intuitive composition is the only practical approach for the majority of photographs.</i> It is this simple statement that is behind much of the criticism of the "rule" or "rules" - to make great photographs, it is necessary to have an intuitive view rather than a bookish view. He contrasts this with painting, where it is possible to use mathematical constructs to build grids before painting. Unless one is creating the composition (e.g., a studio set up), it is unlikely to be constructed the way a painting is constructed and hence requires a strong intuitive grasp.

Steve: If you don't mind me saying, I think that was a really insightful response.

<p> I want to make clear that I am not blaming the graphic arts industry for the rules of composition. Graphic design principles work very well in graphic design where the goal of the designer is to evoke an emotional response from expressionist or abstract designs. I suspect that these principles garnered favor in photography back in an age when science was believed to explain everything and had an aura of reliability that caused people to forego questioning. The composition books I have read from the 1920s and 1930s view composition as scientific and rigid. This was a time when even artists such as Kandinsky wrote books espousing the science underlying art. This approach only became a problem when some people made the principles into guidelines by which art is to be judged instead of using them as starting points for perception and visualization. All that being said, once an artist acquires a certain level of proficiency in perception, composition becomes intuitive and guidelines are no longer needed. Many intuitively-created compositions will reflect the guidelines, but that does not mean they were made by consciously applying the guidelines.

<p> Contrary to assertions that composition and perceptual skills cannot be taught or acquired, modern methods of art education have demonstrated that they are reasonably easy to learn. The practical barrier in education is that they cannot be learned in the conventional manner used to teach subjects such as reading and math. Instead, they are best learned by doing exercises that engage the parts of the brain responsible for perceptual cognition. Betty Edward's "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" was the first popular work that showed how to do this.

I've studied design and composition, have a degree in photography from one school and a degree in graphic design from another school. I've taught design and photography classes at two universities, and have studied a variety of art from all over the world and have, during the course of my studies, made the following observations.

 

Composition is as much cultural as it is a formal set of guidelines. Far eastern composition (Chinese, Japanese, etc.) is totally different than European compositional styles. This is because composition is part of the cultural aesthetics that are handed down and learned by each generation of artists and reflect the biases of the culture as to what is pleasing and looks "good."

 

Formal rules of two dimensional composition were developed by artists producing graphic arts (painting, drawing, prints) - not photographers. The problem ensues that graphic arts have the distinct advantage of being able to ignore some physical aspects - which photography cannot. A single vanishing point being one example. Paintings, drawings, etc. can have multiple vanishing points, while single viewpoint (or exposure) photographs cannot.

 

As an illustration of this, look at DaVinci's "Last Supper," and count the the number of different vanishing points within the composition.

 

Also, within any graphic art composition, one has the ability to arrange elements in a relationship that enhances the overall composition. Again, look at DaVinci's "Last Supper" and count the number of triangular relationships (or arrangements) of the compositional elements.

 

Therefore, compositional guidelines don't always work as well in a photograph as they do in a drawn or painted graphic art piece. In fact, in some cases they don't work at all; and composing according to devices or formulas can become counter productive to the photograph.

 

This is because, in general, for photographers working with found subjects, the subject has to be placed within the constraints of the outside framelines by the photographer through adjustment of viewing position.

 

Any change in the viewing position immediatley alters the relationship of primary and secondary elements within the image. (Of course, those photographers doing studio-based work have the control of moving objects to optimize composition - just like a graphic artist.)

 

So while it's good to know about different types of formal design aesthetics, any relationship between formal aesthetics and a successful photographic image are, in most cases, purely coincidental.

 

After awhile, the image either "feels right" within the frame lines or it doesn't. The successful image relies on the placement of the main subject and secondary subjects within the constraining outline of the framelines - a viewpoint and relationship of elements that is unique for each image.

 

No amount of formal compositional techniques will rescue a boring, poorly seen photograph. Unless, of course, you're judging the success of the image as to how well it follows a set of rules contrived specifically for graphic arts composition within a certain culture - and not how well the photograph actually works for the subject chosen.

Conformity and creativity are diametrically opposed.

<i><blockquote>Conformity and creativity are diametrically opposed.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

And everyone must conform with this opinion.

<i>"And everyone must conform with this opinion"</i><p>Well, if you say so Bailey, but I'd rather they didn't.

Thanks very much everyone, for your thoughtful and helpful replies. You have offered some fantastic insights and made many very good points. It is not my desire to agree or argue with any ideas, so I will simply thank you and contribute my own observations.

 

I personally don?t qualify image composition as good or evil, useful or a waste of time; it simply is. If we have an object within a frame of reference, such as in a photograph or painting, we have a composition. Like it or not. Whether we choose to ignore the elements of that composition is individual preference, and sometimes ignorance.

 

Composition is not always about following rules and it irks me when someone sees the word and automatically assumes I am talking about following some tired old rule. For example, learning about image design and composition teaches us about different kinds of light, textures, color, lines, perspectives, angles, shapes, forms, depth, symmetry, balance, mood and many other things. As visual artists, these are the words we speak with and tell our stories. How proficient a story-teller we are is dependent on our understanding and use of these elements.

 

The popular design techniques and so-called guidelines are helpful for rank beginners, absolutely. But as we grow artistically they, like training wheels on a bike, can be slowly abandoned and called upon when appropriate.

 

Thanks again everyone. I am touched by time you take to help a fellow photographer :) Have a wonderful evening.

 

Gloria

I kind of hacked around with photography for a number of years and never got into it because I thought that you had to be born with tons of natural talent and spend years working at it to produce anything decent. Then I decided to take a non-threatening photo course and in one of the classes the instructor taught basic composition - this made a huge difference to my photos and confidence.

 

What made the difference was that after a brief lesson of the basic rules, the instructor opened up a large book of Cartier-Bresson photos and illustrated how often they showed up on HCB's images. Sometimes it was obvious, sometimes it was subtle and occasionally it was absent but there is no doubt that HCB's photos used good composition as a backbone. Hey may have done it naturally and without having to think about it but it was there and it made for stronger images.

 

In order to break rules you have to know the rules. Breaking rules just to be rebellious is a sign of immaturity. Knowing when to break rules and by how much takes experience and talent.

It's late (for me), and I haven't had time to read everyone's post, so sorry if I'm repeating...

 

Composition for me is very much about finding your voice. Do you want a shot that's balanced and harmonious? Compose it that way. Find the balance in your composition. Trying to convey discord and strife? Great. Say that in the way you compose the shot.

 

Trying to jam everything at an intersection of thirds, or trying put put a golden triangle in every shot is extremely limiting. How are you going to create something completely new if you're always following the rules?

 

Free your mind. Expand your vocabulary. Let go. It's OK.

<p>The issue that strikes so often is that beginning discussions dish out rules that could help a terrible photographer achieve mediocrity and transform a great photographers into a mediocre one. Rules in and of themselves do not lend themselves to learning and developing a feeling for a task. This is what mathematians are tought after you finish the first few years of study rather than the blind memorization that turns so many off from the subject.</p>

 

<p>So often silly things like the 'rule of thirds' are discussed instead of what is really occuring. It all starts and ends with human beings and anything that does not correlate with that fails to correlate with images. Any "rule" that is broken by a great image is a rule that hinders the development of feelings/intuition about composition. Take for example, the rule of thirds from a physiological perspective.</p>

 

<li> The human eye's distribtion of rods and cones (<a href="http://www.sapdesignguild.org/editions/edition4/vision_physiology.asp">see figure six</a>) dictates that our field of sharp vision is roughly a mere 5 degrees wide and outside of that arc of sharp vision our view is blurry and has poor color perception. But outside of that arc we are very sensitive to change. Hence, by moving <i>the subjects of an image</i> (ROI or Region Of Interest henceforth) in from the edges we shift the edge of a frame into our peripheral vision which is not very functional in normal light (remember, it can take 30 minutes to develop your night vision). And by shifting any ROI within an image far enough we can ensure the edges of the frame are not clearly seen when a ROI is viewed. This helps us retain suspension of disbelief and lets as feel we are seeing a 3-D scene.

 

<li> The next item is creating a balanced image with energy in it. Now instead of using a silly concept like thirds points, we can instead use our primary audience (the human mind) and look at the image and balance the body language of the subjects within the frame.

 

<li> Note how this invokes feelings. This is something that is often missing from discussions of composition. Yet it is a fundamental element of it.

 

<p>While this may sound more complex, it is in truth simpler. For the next idea people bring forth is that one should not follow the rule of thirds for symmetric subjects. Yet, lo and behold, we have already covered that as the body language of a symmetric subject is balanced at the center.</p>

 

<p>Beyond this is a concept that is not present in standard graphic design, the third dimension. Here, we can see that by zooming in and out and stepping backwards and forwards that we can keep a subject the same size while changing their relationship with the background. At times a slight shift in position can make the background more uniform and make it less distracting. At other times we might want to make an area of the background more distracting from out primary subject to balance with their body language (perhaps creating a visual circuit rather than a fixed point of interest in the composition). </p>

 

<p> A way to understand more about the preceding topic is by looking at the lines of a composition and relating it to how camouflage works in regards to human vision (or why deer find a neon colored hunting jacket to be any more noticeable than a green one). Beyond that, by looking at the lines of an image we can begin to get a feeling for crafting a flat 2 dimensional image withe the camera. We can look at how to tweak a composition to fool the eyes into making an image appear to have more depth by subtly chaning the composition. Again, this approach brings forward two things.</p>

 

<li><b>Understanding Things Constructively</b> - By this I mean there are not rules to break, instead there are feelings we work with. We can make it feel more one way or less of another way. With this approach, there are no images that break the rules, only images that craft different visions of a scene crafted by a photographer's mind.

 

<li><b>Feelings</b> - I cannot stress this enough, we feel with our eyes and any attempt to teach composition without relating it back to what we feel with our eyes is only making the subject harder to understand. I have seen this time and time again with people first learning basic algebra and how they are just bewildered and feel confused. Feelings do matter, and unlike mathematics and physics we have an easily used measurement tool, the feelings from our eyes.

 

<p>Anyway, I came at photography the hard way. I started with computer vision and worked my way out from pixel peeping and the behavior of the numbers that represent photons to finally tie it into my own physiology. It was a long journey to learn to fully envision what I was capturing before pressing the shutter (about 5 years with a lot of hard study and practice). I am one of those people who criticize the silly and blind teaching of rules that is continually done and continually hurts people's understanding of what they are doing. I am a mathematician and I hate the silly and absurd reduction of our visual feelings (and their emotional ties) to a number of overly simplistic and contradictory rules that in the end hinder the development of understanding in someone who wants to learn. Any rule that has exceptions is not a rule at all (or it would not have so many outstanding exceptions in art).</p>

 

<p>I do find that many authors say everything that should be said, but it is so often just a paragraph or two buried in so much other text. I really find the approach used by Freeman Patterson and Charlie Waite with many images and only the needed text more powerful for teaching composition. Remove the gear head story and talk about the images and how they feel. </p>

 

<p>some thoughts from one who is critical of maiming people's understanding of design,</p>

 

<p>Sean (who is competent but not consitently outstanding)</p>

In my opinion, composition is a step in the making of a photograph. There are many steps needed to be completed, before taking the photograph. Besides understanding your equipment, you must first decide on what it is you want to convey with you image. This starts with content or subject matter. What will be in the image and what will not be in the image. Composition is about combining select elements and their relationship to each other. The photographer uses light to emphasize certain elements and de-emphasize other elements. Composition is also about the relationships of the elements through, distance, focus and size in the final composition. I equate this to music, where certain notes go together well, certain notes are louder or softer, and all the notes are combined into a performance. Some folks are out to create perfect harmony and others are moved by creating disharmony. It all comes down to intent and is the artist successful in achieving their intent. Unfortunately, many photographers are either unclear in their intent, fail to state their intent or underachieve their intent. The great photographs are ones that have the right amount of information, organization and clarity in the image to convey the artists clear intent. Sometimes called a great composition. This can happen by design or accident, but more often by design. A photograph may be annoying to a viewer, but that could very well be the intended response and therefore still be a good composition, even though you do not like it. Lastly, I agree there can be a lot of negativity on this site, but like anything, you may have to dig through a lot of coal to find a diamond.

"Conformity and creativity are diametrically opposed."

 

Or, if you need to ask, you won't understand the answer.

It's important to understand composition and it's basic principles. It's an excellent

guideline, especially for those who are starting out. The eye and mind/eye combination,

work in a specific way that is common to all people. With knowledge of design you can

learn to control the movement of the viewers eye around an image, this can be useful at

times. However strict adherence to rules or guidelines makes for predictable images. Once

a photographer gets a feeling for composition he/she should go with what their gut says

as this is the most intuitive and expressive way for them. However I feel that this should

be after the fundamentals of design and composition have been taught and understood.

Going with your gut alone can work for those with an inherent design sense, for those

without design sense some basic education is required.

 

Different areas of photography have differing reliance on composition. While all genres

can benefit from good composition some are more reliant than others. Still life and

landscape for instance are far more reliant on composition than say documentary which

might have a more direct human and emotional subject. In a documentary photo you can

have an image with poor composition and poor lighting, that can still convey intense mood

and emotion to the viewer.

"But I don't understand this dismissive attitude by those who simply refuse to consider learning about image design principles."

 

Your answer is in your comment.

 

The simple, dismiss the fools for what they are and get on with it.

Well, I think the BIG problem - and the key to the Weston quote that you

inquired about (that WAS you, right?) - is simply that rules applied blindly

result in somewhat blind pictures. I think, for example, that a 'rule of thirds'

is only useful to those who have no good feel for any sort of composition

whatever. And if you're paying heed to such things - then you're very likely

to miss out on some far better possibilities that may be around. And, in fact,

I think that any such rules, formalized or personal WILL CHANGE according

to the tonal and SEMANTIC content of the potential image. I think this says

a lot! But don't be bummed. We all have an amazing eye inside us

somewhere. If you're capable of choosing any given image as being BETTER

than another - then you can compose. Just move around the camera and

treat it as a large selection of possible shots and choose the one that speaks

to you the loudest. Or the softest. Depending on your inclination. Good luck.