What makes "strong composition"

I showed someone my work tonight and the person tore me a new one.

 

This guy looked at my work and said that I did not have an eye for composition

at all, and called most of my work bad. It was pretty discouraging.

 

I showed him Jeremy Cowart's work one of my favorite photographers and he

called most of it good, and showed me a lot about his composition. This guy

talked about the natural lines that draw you to the focal point...

 

He also had a really big problem with me cutting off the tops of heads of

people. I shoot how I see things, and sure there is always room to improve, but

I think a lot of it is my 'style.'

 

So where do we draw the line between 'style' and artistic freedom, and

composition? And how can I effectively improve the two?

 

Can you please review some of my work and show me where I can improve on

composition?

 

Thank you,

Jim Baker

I'm curious as to who this person was. Was he/she a photographer? Is this person any good and do you respect their opinion?

 

I looked at your photos and although I'm not really into the subject matter some of them were quite good. I do know that portraiture is very difficult and full of pitfalls and can take many years to master. I will say that I agree with this person about cutting off the heads. It seems that there is a fine line to doing this and in some of the cases you appear to have gone over it and have probably done it too much in general.

 

Have you taken courses in portraiture before? The problem with looking at someone like Cowart is that he's manipulated the crap out of many of them and has an army of assitants, wardrobe people and make-up artists, whereas you are working with a very basic set-up and without all of the bells and whistles. However you could probably use his basic composition as a blueprint for your own to see if that adds to them. Good luck with it, you are certainly better at portraiture than I am.

Ahhhh, it don't matter what anybody thinks but you. I won't even try to evaluate your images as I don't have a clue to what your photographic think is.

 

It seems you like to emphasize the eyes when there's only one individual in the shot. Where there's two, this isn't a consideration.

 

If the individual ripped you a new one, then they're a very insecure person who needs some serious stable mucking stalls so as to get a chance to rethink their behavior. Maybe they'd like me to critique their images, I can be really mean and insensitive if the occasion calls for it:)

 

Wishing you luck with your photographic effort.

Composition is everything to formalists, to the point that the subject matter is almost completely unimportant.

 

Like who wants to be there, eh?

 

It is hugely difficult to find situations in real life, especially candid images with people which satisfy composition fanatics.

 

A few of your pictures have apealing composition. The rest are just very good to view. What's wrong with that? It's a big world. Enjoy your special place within it.

Jim , What do you want from your photography? Are you looking to get the viewer to change, so that they like your photographs, or are you looking to make your photographs more pleasing to the eye of the viewer. If you like "your style" and you are happy with it , then I say don't change, or listen to what others might tell you about your work. There is always a chance that your audience will find you, and your photography and everyone will be happy.

 

On the other hand, maybe finding a critic that will honestly give you a opinion ,will help you to grow as a photgrapher.

 

In most cases in life , 50% of the people like you and your work for the exact reasons that 50% of the people don't. If you change who you are, all you are doing is exchanging 50%'s.

I think it comes down to what you would like to do with your photographs Jim.

 

If you want to decorate a wall in an office with an image, then the office walls, colour, dimensions, might suggest a particular "style" is needed. Your home may be different. Your gallery different again.

 

A composition can look out of place in one space and great in another.

 

Imagine a statue of 'David, six inches tall sitting on your desk. And then the original, 20 odd feet tall, positioned in a space which puts the light in all the right places (for you), and you in an environment to suit.

 

You can take a picture of a baby and bring a tear to the mothers eye. She will love you for what you did. And your friend will tell you it's rubbish.

 

"Naural lines that draw you to a focal point..."? I'd be more concerned with the focal point of your lens creating perspective you like, and may want in your picture.

 

Your camera is a tool. Use it to make an image you want to make. You can compose while you expose the image and you can compose after.

 

There is no reason to not listen, but you are making your pictures. Make pictures you like.

 

Go shoot yourself with a smile.

For me, a portrait is all about the subjects. I've always liked the straight on shots of Sander, Arbus, and Model. After looking over your gallery I saw a number images that I felt may have been better if taken vertically. This is just my taste so take it as you wish.

Other then that I have to agree with the others here and say that you alone should have the final say on how you produce your work.

Jim,

 

I'm sorry you received such a discouraging critique.

 

Read a couple of good books on composition. Take a photography class or an art class and do some drawing or painting.

 

Go to the library on a regular basis and check out some books that show off the work of some first class photographers.

 

Ask for constructive (not destructive) critiques from "helpful" photographers that you know and appreciate. If you don't know any, join a camera club and figure out who you really admire.

 

Have fun and keep taking pictures!

 

Jim

 

P.S. Don't cut off the tops of so many people's heads.

Jim, looking at you portfolio, I see that you have quit a particular style (especially your portraits) and you violate systematically what most would refer to as the rules of composition (what ever that is).

 

However, your photos also show that when you have a strong subject in front of you, your style calls our attention to exactly what is interesting.

 

For me respecting rules of composition can present even uninteresting scenes in an agreeable way whereas the lack of respect of such rules of composition demands much stronger scenes and subjects and often serve such subjects even better.

 

Keep to and improve your personal style, is my recommendation.

Thank you all for commenting and leaving your feedback, I'm going to be responding to the comments soon, I'm at work right now, and trying to finish up some paper work... but I'll get to it before the day is over (hopefully)

 

thanks again,

jim baker

<i><blockquote> So where do we draw the line between 'style' and artistic freedom, and composition? And how can I effectively improve the two?

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Where do you draw the line between 'artistic freedom' and a good photograph? <p>

 

If you don't know, then you need to learnmore about photography, and composition in particular. <p>

 

Do you understand the elements of composition? When you are photographing something do you recognize lines as compositional elements, lines as contours, as patterns, as texture, as structure? Do you recognize and take advantage of perspective, grometry, colors, hues, tones? Are you shooting something just because you want to remember it and you're just trying to keep it centered, lkarge enough and in focus, or are you looking onto your viewfinder and seeing the three dimensional scene as a 2D plane, and are you adjusting your POV to strengthen the image?

Hey everyone... thanks for the overwhelming amount of responses... I'm not quite sure how to respond to all of them, I posted the comment went to bed and woke up to a bunch of them... so I guess I'll just go through and answer or respond to each question as it came across. I'll respond to as many as I can get to right now... I probably won't be able to get to all of them....<p>

 

<b><u>Andy</u></b> you asked who the person that critiqued me was and if they were any good and if I respect their opinion. <p>

 

Well I was at a local cafe where my friend works at and have had a few conversations with this older gentleman named "badger" (i'm starting to realize why he identifies with this animal) and my buddy told me that he was into photography and showed him his work, and then I showed him my work. He was pretty much silent about my friends work, and then took a liking into tearing me up. I haven't seen any of his work, and do I respect his opinion... this guys seems like he enjoys proving his superiority over others and has a complex like that, I've heard from some of the regulars that he's got a bumper sticker on his car saying he's part of a club that you can only be part of if you have a certain IQ and he comes in and orders stuff in greek and doesn't understand why the high schooler behind the counter doesn't understand. I'll give it to him, he does appear to be a smart guy, but he doesn't always have a way with people. <p>

 

I think I'm coming to understand the idea of 'cutting off peoples heads' as more of an effect. I'm a musician too and it'd be like hitting a china cymbal constantly (a loud cymbal) or using a certain obnoxious effect on guitar like a flanger constantly. Or constantly using the same chord patterns, It looses its 'effect' if its used constantly. I want to go through my photos and revamp them all and leave a much smaller portion of pictures up there for people to see. I do that periodically it looks like its time to do that again. <p>

 

I haven't taken any courses in photography at all ever, I tried to skip art I to get into photography when I was in high school and the teacher said I could but then the class filled up to fast, so I took art one and then graduated early so I didn't have time for the photo class. <p>

 

Good look about Cowarts work and his access to a lot more 'professional' things than I have.

<p>

Thanks Andy,<br>

Jim Baker

<b><u>Thomas</b></u>...<p>

 

Thanks for not trying to 'evaluate my images' I enjoy the fact that you look at art as art, completely subjective, and that it comes down to what the artist likes. I didn't quite understand what you meant by 'photographic think' though. <p>

 

I do definitely try to emphasize the eyes in portraits, i've noticed that myself lately, when I'm working with people i try to get as natural as a shot as I can. 'candid' <p>

 

I've noticed in a few of the last shoots when I'm not really directing the subject, and just telling them to act natural (oxymoron, i should stop using that term, it just makes them freeze up anyway), that they will turn their face away from the camera from time to time, and i have to remind them that a portrait is about the eyes. And thats not a blanket statement but for me taking a portrait, i want my portrait to be about the eyes. <p>

 

Maybe I'll get this guy to sign up for photo.net so you can critique his work... you can read what I wrote about his personality above, maybe he does need a 'mucking stall.' Or maybe someone just needs to tell him that they love him and give him a hug... i dunno <p>

 

 

<b><u>Pico...</b></u><p>

 

yeah, i've never been much of a formalist, i play music and learned piano traditionally, forget it all, don't read music, went back learned to play by ear and i play now and I love it. So i guess its how I approach things, not very traditionally. I have since gone back to learn some music theory when I decided it was time, and I guess this is my reawakening with photography and this is why I'm asking for some tips on composition. <p>

 

Thanks you both for your time and thoughts

<b><u>Michael</b></u><p>

 

what do I want from my photography. I want to be able to look at my work and say I like it, I want the people I do photography for to be happy, and I want to continue to improve. <p>

 

I posted here, because i really wanted to face the harsh critique I was given... and you guys are helping me process it. <p>

 

Your right about the 50/50 thing... I'll just keep shooting what I like, and try to incorporate more 'technical' composition, I think that will help me like it even more. <p>

 

<b><u>Anthony</b></u>, <p>

 

Yeah... your right, composition does change for the location, thats a good observation, something I hadn't much thought about. And your definitly right about things being subjective the mother and friend story... Just like composition changes for location, I guess it changes for your audience too... I guess in a working sense, you shoot till your client is happy and if its personal work, you shoot till your happy. <p>

 

"make pictures you like." I like that... thanks<p>

 

as to me and a picture of me smiling... i'll have to do that soon... <p>

 

thank you both for your time... <p>

 

peace<br>

jim baker<p>

 

and speaking of time... i'm done for now... i'll be back later though to finish responding to these comments.

Jim:

I�ve taken a look at your portfolio & feel your composition is pretty much on the mark observing the �rule of thirds� & using angles & face direction to keep the eye bouncing fluidly around in side the border. The lighting is ok but could be more dramatic but that is just my taste. I cut of tops of heads all the time as it helps frame the face & breaks flow over the subject drawing your attention back to the face.

"...who needs some serious stable mucking stalls so as to get a chance to rethink their behavior."

 

I wish we had an edit feature so as to correct oversights. The above should read...

 

"...who needs some serious stable time, mucking stalls so as to get a chance to rethink their behavior."

 

-------------------------------

 

"I didn't quite understand what you meant by 'photographic think' though."

 

Photographic think is what one thinks, philosophically, before, during and after a shot.

 

Me, I'm a soulful kinda guy. I give thanks at night before I go to sleep and that kinda stuff. I want my images to reflect this soulfulness. Each person has their interpersonal think and this think plays out in their creations. Without knowing this think, it's hard to evaluate one's images. There is no right or wrong, good or bad when it comes to art; there's only how successfully does a piece of art, reflect the artist's internal intentions and does this intention accurately reflect the artist's interpersonal think.

There are rules to this that are repeated in nature. If only you can see them.

"There are rules to this that are repeated in nature."

 

When did what happens in nature become "rules" to be followed by artisans other than to look out for falling rocks and keep your hands away from the fangs of venomous snakes?

<b><u>Marc</b></u>, <p>

 

I'm not familar with any of the photographers you listed... but I will have to look into them. When I shot film I used to ALWAYS shoot my portraits vertical, but I just stopped doing it and went for angles... I always get yelled at for crooked horizon lines... but on that issue, i could care less. I think i might even make it a point to put up a folder in my portfolio called "Crooked Horizon Lines." :) <p>

 

<b><u>Jim</b></u>,<p>

 

I do have people that I trust to give constructive criticism, but I try to also learn what I can from the de-constructive ones and grow from them. As for cutting off peoples heads... I don't do it on purpose, its just how I see things, so I guess in that case, I do do it on purpose, subconsciously. <p>

 

<b><u>Anders</b></u>,<p>

 

Thanks for recognizing my style, I'm glad that I'm not like everyone else, and reading through all of these comments, just helps me reaffirm who I am, I guess violating systematic composition... is the way I am, i've never been one to really fit inside the box. Thanks for encouraging me to improve my personal style. <p>

 

<b><u>Z</b></u>,<p>

 

Where do we draw the line between artistic freedom and a good photograph? What makes something a 'good photograph' simply good technical composition? Arts subjective... so 'good' is a relative term. <p>

 

Do I understand the basis of composition, I know some basics, rule of thirds, basic color schemes, looking for lines... as to the other things you said... no not really, and thats why I'm going to spend some time learning more about composition. <p>

 

Thank you all,<br>

Jim Baker

<i>I'm not familar with any of the photographers you listed</i><p>

 

The photographers that Marc listed are essential to an understanding of photography. Please take this as friendly criticism - before asking these types of questions, it would help to be knowledgeable about photography. I would recommend taking a Photo 101 course and studying the great photographers that have made photography what it is today. There are far more than the ones that Marc listed, but they are a start. I'd highly recommend <i>The Photograph</i> by Graham Clarke as a starting point.

<b><u>Karen</b></u>,<p>

 

Thanks for your comment, I'm glad that you appreciate my limited knowledge of composition. <p>

 

I like that you have a reason why you cut off heads, I said earlier that I do it because its how I see it, I like to get in close I guess.<p>

 

How would you suggest I get more dramatic lighting? <p>

 

<b><u>Thomas</b></u>,<p>

As far as my "photographic think" I want to provide people with portraits that they will happily display that are different than the average boring looking sears formal portrait. I also have a desire to show the world, more of the world... my travels are starting to allow me to do that, a picture speaks past language barriers, my work doesn't show that yet, because I haven't had the oppourtunity to travel as much as I'd like with this camera... but I'm thinking that in the future it will. So theres my photographic think... <p>

 

I'm interested in your "soulfulness" and what you give thanks about and to what. I don't mean that to sound trite or mocking at all, I felt that it might come across that way expecially since i put soulfulness in quotes... but this isn't much of a discussion for this forum, shoot me an e-mail if your intersted in continuing that conversation. <p>

 

<b><u>Jeff</b></u>,<p>

 

I accept your friendly critisim, but the forum is here for me to learn, I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time with stupid questions... but I learn better through relationship, and experience, forums are my way of learning... it helps me get a hands on learning experience... I stated earlier that I'm not much one for learning technically before I dive in, I dive in, experiement and learn through experience, then go back and fill in the gaps later with study, thats what I'm doing now... its how I learn best, and stay interested. I do plan to start reading more about photography... are these books people are listing A.D.D friendly? ::grin:: <p>

 

Thank you all again, I'm enjoying being involved on the forums... <p>

 

peace<br>

jim baker

<I>"I'm sorry if I'm wasting your time with stupid questions."</I>

<P>

Easy Jim, that's not what Jeff said. He directed you to a great book, which just may help you answer these questions. There are volumes written on this very subject, by some of the greatest minds ever to have thought about photography. They are another resource, that's all.

<P>

As for answering you directly, let me ask you this first: what is it that you don't like about your images? How do you see them as compositionally weak? And can you show me an image that you think has a strong composition as an example?

Jim: You asked how I suggest you get more dramatic lighting.

 

Back off on the balance of the fill in flash allowing the subjects main lighting to be available light.

I would agree with Jeff's friendly critism but on the other hand this threath is an example of how well PN can work when people are ready to help and give advice. Bravo !

"I haven't seen any of his work, and do I respect his opinion..."

 

Why? He sounds a bit like a troll.

 

Anyway, the formalists and pioneers bicker away in photography and just about every other creative field. Formalists lean on history, tradition, and the tried and true. The pioneers push the envelope and attempt to modernize the old and find the new. Friction.

 

The only thing that really matters is the audience. Is the work well received?

 

The thing about just about any form of artistic expression (be it photography, design, programming, architecture, etc.) is that the rules educate and provide a foundation for learning. If carried too far though, they also create a cage. The advances in any field are provided by the pioneers, those who see things differently and explore the unknown until they work out something that appeals to an audience (who can get pretty tired of tried and true).

 

The thing the artist must do is to create work that appeals to some inner sense of beauty of their own: develope their style, hone their techniques, perfect their own particular brand of the art. Maybe it will find it's audience and fly. Or maybe not. But that is how advances are made. Experimentation. The visions of those who do not see it the same as everyone else create the new styles of an art.

 

How can you improve on your composition? For any given artist I think the best method is to look, really look hard, at work that strikes you (yours and the work of others). Figure out just what it is about the work that stops you, makes you look twice or three times. The work is talking to you and your own sense of style. Try to decipher what it is that appeals or disturbs. You'll find patterns. When these things become conscious they become usable, to emulate or to intentionally violate. In this way one develops their own particular take on the "rules".

 

Maybe then your work becomes more classic, or it begins to really push the edges. Who knows? Some will like it, some will dis' it. But who really cares if you find your audience?

 

Rick