The Art of Composition

For years, I have studied the science of Photography. I suppose it's expected that a Civil Engineer would follow that route, rather than thinking of Photography purely as an art-form. I know that I will never be a HCB, (or probably an Appleby, or a Collier for that matter)

<p>

What are the last things you guys think of, just before you release the shutter? In other words, you've already determined the subject, and taken care of the EV work; so how do you do the last bit that makes the difference between "ordinary" pix and an HCB? Or am I really just asking, "what is talent"?

<p>

P Nelson

For a long time I always centered a person's head/face within the

frame too much. Lately, then, I've been trying to remember to adjust

my composition to avoid this.<p>

Some people merely "react" to a situation as they're making the

exposure and may find this question very difficult to answer because

whatever goes through their heads at the time the shutter is released

may long be forgotten.

I look at the light. I always look at the light. To me, it's far

more important than composition, because in good light, I can find a

good composition, but if the light is not right, there is no good

composition. That doesn't mean there's only one good light either, I

shoot at mid-day a lot of the time. But if the light's not right for

the subject, there is no picture, the quality of the light is always

in the image. If you look at the "masters," or any great

photographer's work, you will see that the light is what makes it

happen.<p>

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/viewbeyond.jpg"><br>

<i>X-Files, copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

Just like anything else, for example music, there are a couple of

levels that you have to go through. After watching people like Eric

Clapton and BB King, I wanted to "be a guitar player"... I was

stupidly watching the highest level of achievement, and forgetting

the fact that these guys were at point "B", and I haven't even

entered the threshold of point "A". Trying to be at "B" without a

firm grasp of all of those basics, fingering for chords, scale

position in seven different keys led to great frustration. I had to

be realistic and go back to square one, (or square negative one in my

case), and very systematically go through all of those boring basics,

the ones that you couldn't figure out how they will come into play

later... but everything you learn is part of a bigger picture (pun

intended). Many of my friends learned songs right away, while I

learned the basics. The result was that my friends could find their

way through that one song... but over time, I could use my basics to

play dozens of songs.

<p>

Using this analogy with photography, yeah, you can go out an try for

that grand landscape, or perfect portrait, but if you are working on

the end result without the beginning and middle basics, any positive

result would be luck. If you took a great shot on Monday... could

you go back and take the same shot on Friday? If the shot was the

result of utilizing all of those basics... f-stop as it applies to

depth of field, big light source versus small light source as it

applies to shadow harshness, compressed or expanded perspectives, and

the other litany of compositional tools, then you should not be

surprised by good results, but expect them. Take care of the

basics, and the pictures will take care of themselves. A person with

an autofocus, auto exposure camera can shoot ten rolls of film, and

while they will have a high percent of technically good shots,

(exposure and focus), could they articulate how a certain shot came

out good? I'd bet most of the people on this forum could pull out

any random handful of slides or prints, even from over a decade ago,

and tell you the f-stop and shutterspeed used to within a single

stop. And they could go back out and take the same shot tomorrow.

For all of the "limitations" of a small manual camera with only a few

lens choices, this total immersion into the process is an intangible

benefit that can't be blown off. You will become a photographer or

you won't, but if you do, the computer won't be in the camera, it

will be in your brain. That computer will not be rendered obsolete

by the next model.

<p>

While in college, one of the things we learned in photography class

was to work on any single task completely. We didn't go out and do

36 lessons on a single roll of film, we had to go out and work a

whole roll (or more) for each thing. For example, the lesson might

be "Leading Lines as a Compositional Tool". We did the class time,

saw some examples and then hit the streets... shooting nothing but

the leading lines. The next lesson might be "vertical versus

horizontal compositions". It was amazing how many of those shots had

leading lines. Each step led to the next, but you didn't just stop

thinking because you were looking for something else. The last week

in that course was interesting... we shot slides and everyone

reviewed everyone else's work. You couldn't see a single slide that

didn't have at least three of the compositional tools we worked on.

Many of the photographers were surprised when these things were

pointed out... they were on auto pilot, but the previous lessons were

not lost. I recommend getting a good book on composition, pick a

topic, "Repeated patterns", study the examples, and hit the street.

When you feel your eye has become attuned to the patterns, move on.

Not every shot lens itself to every tool, but you will be better at

figuring that out. This takes time, and assumes a certain competency

with your camera... but the pay off is worth it. It is certainly

better than shooting randomly and wondering why the shots didn't work.

<p>

Good Luck.

I have believed that part of composition is innate and intuitive and

some of it is learned: the rule of thirds and the flaunting of the

rule of thirds...

Regarding what you think about just before you release the shutter, I

digress to a sports anology: I think it was Reggie Smith of the

Balimore Orioles, he was a good hitter in his day and when asked how

many times he saw the ball hit the bat during the season he said,

"Maybe once or twice at the most". Out of 600+ at bats, thats not

much. To me, it speaks of practice, intuition and some talent.

<p>

Good luck.

I feel compelled to answer this as I am in the same boat as Paul.

All my professional life I have been taught to view the world

objectively and rationally. To strip away the non-factual, the

subjective and the noise (or error). While an artistic viewpoint or

rendering does not imply that all those things are added back in,

there is something about the sensibility of a 'artistic' image that

invokes an emotion such as pleasure, or uneasiness or even revulsion

that a scientific image does not (except for boredom).

<p>

I think rules are good if you have none and don't know how to handle

a situation. The danger is that no rule can be complete enough to

work well in all situations. eg. the rule of thirds. Most images

are improved by having the subject off center. Some are definitely

not (like Alfred Krupp's portrait by Newman). Some static images are

made dynamic by adding a diagonal. Would a formal portrait be

improved by tilting it 37 1/2 degrees?

<p>

As you get more experience you will find balances or imbalances or

even tensions being formed by the relative positions & sizes of the

subject(s). Colors, blurriness & framing acquire interesting

properties and capabilities. At this point you're not simply taking

a picture you are composing an image and have some tools and

techniques at your disposal to direct the viewers attention to the

important parts.

<p>

A book I can recomend is "Photographing the world around you" by

Freeman Paterson. He calls it a "Visual Design Workshop". It doesn't

cover everything by any means but it helps you identify your style

and shows you some ways to use the techniques. It's not about formal

composition but rather about pleasing (or displeasing) composition.

<p>

Cheers,

<p>

Duane

<p>

BTW, IMHO HCB was more of a photojournalist with his adage of

the "decisive moment". His images have a certain look & feel but are

not necessarily 'properly composed' - how could you in a split

second? I think he did have an inate sense of how to place his

subjects to give the desired effect. I think HCB's compositions are

more in the temporal than the physical 3 dimensions. My 2 bits

anyway.

What needs to happen before I press the shutter isn't so much a

thought as a feeling. There needs to be a feeling of excitement that

tells me this is a good shot. There is a sense of urgency to it.

<p>

The subject alone doesn't make a picture. The light doesn't. A good

picture happens at the point of intersection of the light, the

subject, and the photographer.

<p>

Some things that don't look like much, photograph well. Some things

that look good, don't photograph. We learn to know the difference.

Like other rules, this one doesn't work a lot of the time, but I think

the most common problem I see from people who could improve their

approach to taking pictures is to move closer, and fill the frame

more. Working at a newspaper really helped me tighten my compositions

as soon as I realized the editor would chop a column off the edges or

my photos and use it for text, if he could :-) (We did everything at

100% then--no computers.)

<p>

I think the main effect of following this concept is that it teaches

you (forces you?) to use the available space more effectively, and

results in being more conscious of what's going on in the finder.

I think there is a lot of intuition involved in good composition, but

intuition can be trained to some extent by studying great photographs

and great art. Composition cannot be learned from books, but it

doesn't hurt to read a few either. I can recommend "Pictorial Effect

in Photography" by Henry Peach Robinson (Helios, 1971); "The

Structure of Dynamic Symmetry" by Jay Hambidge (Dover, 1967);

and "Art and Geometry" by William M. Ivins (Dover, 1964).

The most interesting aspect to me is camera-to subject distance and

its affect on perspective, proportion and the relationship of the

subject to other elements. I suppose you can tell I've taken up view

camera recently).

<p>

Subject distance is also the area most often forgotten by fans of zoom

lenses. I've read that Ansel Adams worked on distance and viewpoint

constantly, visualizing photographs even when he didn't have a camera

in his hands, and didn't intend to actually take a photo.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. When I got a zoom lens my

pictures immediately changed for the worse because I didn't use my

feet to get the picture I'd seen in my mind. So I stopped using the

zoom.

Yes, one of the earliest directives from a typical photography

instructor is to move in closer and eschew the superfluous. The rule

of thirds is frequently cited. One of my instructors at the junior

college said that most people will choose to place the subject in the

right side of the frame, which he said evokes a calm feeling. He

felt that one could evoke a more unsettled response in the viewer by

placing the subject to the left of center.

<p>

I think it may be that the rule about moving in tight on the subject

might have been inspired by the limitations of 35mm or MF film, and

small enlargements. I think so because in studying the work of

master painters like Degas and Renoir, they didn't seem to

necessarily place their subjects according to these rules. One of

Renois' paintings is of a young girl and her older sister seated

outdoors. The entire upper half of the painting is blue sky. Degas

usually placed his ballerinas near the right edge of the frame, with

empty stage filling most of the frame. So much for the rule of

thirds, or moving in close on the subject. I wonder what the photo

instructors would say if we took photos to class that precisely

recreated these classics, without initially letting on what we were

up to; and later pulling out reproductions of the paintings. And I

wonder how many of our ideas about composition are culturally

conditioned by these teachings, until they begin to look right to

us. I do find Degas' off-center compositions unsettling. Is this

because the "right" way has been ingrained into me until anything

else looks wrong? Or did Degas intend to go beyond a pretty picture

to convey something more? Do we know better thsn he did, now? Does

correct composition, and what looks right, change with the times?

I agree with a lot of what Bob says here, I'd just like to add that

IMO one of the limitations of the 3:2 negative format is that it

constrains you to place the subject off-centre because otherwise it

looks dorky and in consequence the "rule of thirds" is pretty much

self-imposing. The square format allows far greater freedom of

composition, I believe. However this is a Leica forum, right?

<p>

One more point - when I first saw Garry Wino's snaps of parties and

demos in the 60's I was very struck by the _absence_ of a central

subject - the interest was uniformly distributed over the entire

visual field. I think this makes for a much more dynamic style. One

example that comes to mind is a picture of a fight between (I think)

Norman Mailer and someone else at a cocktail party which has _four_

points of interest, all of them equally powerful and witty. In my own

snapping I often try to distribute interest in this way. A wideangle

lens is especially useful for this, of course.

<p>

As for thinking, that doesn't come into it much for me - I just wait

till the frame looks well-balanced (often intentionally _not_

concentrating on any one thing in it, even defocussing my eyes) and

fire the shuter.

<p>

Rob.

Placement within the frame also has to do with the size of the final

image being viewed. Central placement, close-in composition (tightly

cropped shots) and the rule of thirds all seem almost essential in a

5x7 or 4x6 print. But hold a board mounted 16x20 in your hands and

the need for these classical approaches to composition is much less

apparent. An even, all over placement (ala Winogrand), or

idiosyncratic approaches to distributing the picture elements over

the space work just as well.

<p>

Try blowing up some of your boringly composed pictures to 16x20 or

larger and look at them from close up. They will work very

differently, and may well succeed where they fail in the smaller

version.

Mani, it's true that size is generally impressive, but I don't think

that just enlarging it more will make a bad picture good. I shoot

slide, and one of the beauties of slide is that the picture is right

there for you to evaluate. Of course you can always crop, but on the

whole if the slide looks good then so will a screen-size scan, and on

the other hand, if the slide is ugly, then the scan will simply give

you a larger ugly thing. That's how I see it anyway.

<p>

About the famous - and I think, totally crap - rule of thirds:

although I said in my previous post that the proportions of the 35 mm

frame tend to enforce it, I think there are many powerful pictures

which exploit the rather unsettling look of a centrally-placed

subject in the 2:3 frame. It's a default reaction for me to off-

centre my subjects, but often i resist it, and I find this can give a

certain tension, paradoxically, to the snap.

<p>

And another thing! ;-) Despite the fact that HCB built his career or

at least brand around the Decisive Moment, many of his snaps are not

at all decisive. They are often static, built around a strongly

designed frame in which someone happens to have placed themself at

the moment he went click. Which is decisive in a way I suppose. But

the strength of the image comes mainly from the static framing of the

subject - the person is often just the cherry on the cake. Of course

I'm not talking about his terrific wartime pictures, more his

personal work, which is what he's mostly known for. I think he was

very much a formalist, despite his statements about hunting for the

essence of life. Definitely not very interested in people. My

opinion, anyway. But now we're getting into the ethical side of it,

perhaps.

<p>

And now... back to work!

<p>

Rob.

Rob, what wartime pictures? The only one I'm aware of is the dead

soldier lying by a bridge with the top of his head blown off.

<i>About the famous - and I think, totally crap - rule of thirds:

although I said in my previous post that the proportions of the 35 mm

frame tend to enforce it</i><p>

The problem is that the "rule of thirds" isn't a "rule", it's a

dumbed-down version of a concept in art called the Golden Mean or

Golden Secion. It's more complex than the "rule of thirds" and has a

mathematical connection, but somewhere along the line, it was

discovered that most people with cameras didn't want to bother with

art concepts, so the "rule of thirds" was invented.<p>

Also, it's worth noting that the Golden Mean is not considered

a "rule" in art, but simply a common way of dividing the frame (it's

not about placement either)that produces a specific result, but it

has always been considered just one way of dividing the frame. If

the Golden Mean was the only way to "compose" a painting, I suspect

we would all be bored with paintings. Same thing with photographs.<p>

One other irritation - it seems that HCB is always treated in Leica

groups the way Adams is in large format groups. This elevation leads

to ignorance of the vast numbers of other photographers, equally

influential and creators of great photographs, and reduces the

universe of photography to two or three names. Check out someone

like Fosco Maraini, for instance, to see a totally different

perspective on the world by someone who happened to use a Leica.

"One other irritation - it seems that HCB is always treated in Leica

groups the way Adams is in large format groups."

<p>

I totally agree. Although he could be brilliant, many of his snaps

are pretty hohum today, I think. (Wartime pictures, I meant stuff

like the woman being denounced as a collaborator - or was that

Capa?!). Another Leica man (who tends to annoy people for no reason I

can understand) is Eggleston - brilliant, IMO. But then he _is_ a

colourist...

<p>

As for the Golden Mean and all that, I'm not unaware of it, it's just

that I think these things are completely useless in actual picture

taking.

<p>

It's like the lengthy discussions about colour as an "element" in

making a picture - how is it an element? Either what's in front of

you turns you on or it doesn't, either the colour goes or it doesn't,

that's all. It's a holistic thing. Clickinyourhead/snapinthecamera!

On to the next one.

<p>

Rob.

"Wartime Collaborator" - believe you're thinking of Alfred

Eisenstaedt. He did a bunch during WWII. I know, they start running

together in my head, too.

I figured the golden section would show up in this discussion. The

way I learned it, it's supposed to be a mathematical determination of

the most pleasing proportions for a rectangle. 1: 1.618, as I

recall. So theoretically the best dimensions for a picture frame

could be 10 inches by 16.18 inches. Now, let's see how this could be

translated into the rule of thirds. One third is 0.33. Two-thirds

is 0.66. How to get from 1.618 to .66? How about taking the

reciprocal of 1.618. Pardon me while I hunt for my Hewlett-Packard.

Ok, the reciprocal comes out--whadda know--0.618. Interesting

result, but not exactly 0.66. So I dunno. I do know that one of my

favorite photos is Edward Weston's "Nude, 1937." Or is it 1934.

Somewhere in there. You know the one, where the center of interest,

or focal point, is the oval shape of the model's dark hair. Then the

oval shape of her arms leads my eye all the way around the picture,

and smoothly back to the final resting point, her head again. It's

not easy to see the rule of thirds at work here. Wait a minute. It

could be that her right arm is 0.66 of the way from the left edge.

Or is it 0.618 of the way? I may post the measurements later, but

only if somebody asks. I doubt that the success of the picture can

be traced to the location of one arm. It probably has more to do

with everything coming together to form a gestalt. I think it's in

the sense of closure that I get from going around the ovals. Still,

she's off-center to the left, in a way that seems to have something

to do with thirds. I think you could say that the rule of thirds--or

any other-- is a helpful, but not sufficient condition for a

worthwhile picture.

"I figured the golden section would show up in this discussion. The

way I learned it, it's supposed to be a mathematical determination of

the most pleasing proportions for a rectangle. 1: 1.618, as I recall.

So theoretically the best dimensions for a picture frame could be 10

inches by 16.18 inches. Now, let's see how this could be translated

into the rule of thirds. One third is 0.33. Two-thirds is 0.66. How

to get from 1.618 to .66? How about taking the reciprocal of 1.618.

Pardon me while I hunt for my Hewlett-Packard. Ok, the reciprocal

comes out--whadda know--0.618. Interesting result, but not exactly

0.66. So I dunno. I do know that one of my favorite photos is Edward

Weston's "Nude, 1937." Or is it 1934. Somewhere in there. You know

the one, where the center of interest, or focal point, is the oval

shape of the model's dark hair. Then the oval shape of her arms leads

my eye all the way around the picture, and smoothly back to the final

resting point, her head again. It's not easy to see the rule of

thirds at work here. Wait a minute. It could be that her right arm is

0.66 of the way from the left edge. Or is it 0.618 of the way? "

<p>

Confused? You will be...

<p>

BTW, it ocurred to me while reading all of the above that the Golden

Mean is of course a kind of early version of fractals: the proportion

of the smaller to the larger division is equal to that of the larger

division to the whole. And so on. Seems this idea has been

fascinating people for a long time. Also features in the Fibonacci

numbers, of course.

<p>

Now, think hard of the fifteenth term in the fibonacci sequence, take

a deep breath... click! Damn, I really wanted the 23rd term! No

wonder that picture's crap!

<p>

Rob.

Paul, You stated that "you will never be a HCB." Thank goodness.

The only true artists are those who create their own art form and

refrain from replicating what has already done in the past.

<p>

By the way, right before I press the shutter, I usually say to

myself, WOW.

~Tom

HCB is one of the greatest photographers ever.The portraits,the

scenics,the journalism and the droll are all rendered superbly.In an

age of more and more equipment,my bag is so heavy!!,what a joy to see

what could be done with a Leica M3 and 50/35 mm lens.The trouble with

HCB there are decisive moments not necessarily moments of impact.

An understanding and knowledge of art/painting and French/European

history is reqd to truly appreciate the Photographs.

I´m provably slow, when I say wow the picture is gone, snapping shall

be more part of the process of seeing than an effect of it.