Sunday Evening Musings: the art of composition in photography

[Karim Ghantous]

Haydn said that Mozart was the greatest composer known to him. Composition in

music is very important (though I say that as someone who can merely appreciate

music and not play nor compose it). And that statement got me thinking about

composition in photography.

 

A great many great photographs are memorable because of the subject matter, not

because of any compositional qualities. In fact a lot of photographs that have

been made legend are not the best examples of composition at all.

 

But it depends: some great photos are documentary. The photographer did not sit

down and carefully plan what he was going to shoot. But OTOH even posed photos

don't tend to need a great deal of effort in terms of composition. Yes,

photography has rules of composition but AFAIK they are much more simple than

the methods used to structure hundreds or thousands of individual notes. And

indeed, the photographer uses only one instrument at a time - the composer may

have to write for over a hundred.

 

To some photographers composition comes naturally. Others may need to work at it

a bit more. And of course sometimes good composition comes accidentally.

 

Any thoughts?

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<I>Yes, photography has rules of composition but AFAIK they are much more simple than the methods used to structure hundreds or thousands of individual notes.</I><P>Actually, photography has no rules of composition. The rules of composition that most people feel are applicable to photography are really hold-overs from 18th century painting. Photographers who follow those "rules of composition" generally create static, predictable photographs.

[john sypal]

It would not hurt to watch <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?

docid=-4074157481455007235&q=photographer+type%3Asv_charlierose">this</a>.

[al_kaplan1]

Composition in music has another dimension - time, so I think it's more similar to motion picture production in that respect. We're capturing a moment in time and composition can be very important. Yet if you examine a movie frame by frame you won't find them all to have perfect composition.

 

Another difference is that a symphony does have a lot of musicians, and the concert hall's acoustics affect the listening experience far more than the lighting affects how a print might look on your wall or in your lap. Today, of course, few people ever attend a live performmance and instead they hear their music electronicly, several generations away from the live performance, recorded through multiple microphones and later "mixed" into what you'll get to hear through your speakers. Mozart might cringe at what we hear of his music today.

 

Leica photography, to me, is more akin to jazz, full of spur on the moment improvisation. We're not working with a bunch of people setting up and adjusting lights in the studio while others apply make-up and fix the hair on the models, making sure everybody and everything is in the perfect position perfectly illuminated. These days, of course, the visual equivalent of the mixing board will then come into play, "post production" removing that stray hair, smoothing a wrinkle, subtley lighting or darkening areas of the image to satisfy the art director's vision, not the photographer's.

 

I think that dynamic moments caught on film result in stronger photographs than perfect composition.

[Nowhereman]

<p>

<i>These days, of course, the visual equivalent of the mixing board will then come into

play, "post production" removing that stray hair, smoothing a wrinkle, subtley lighting or

darkening areas of the image to satisfy the art director's vision, not the photographer's.

</i>

<p>

You seem to be completely ingnoring photographic history: burning and dodging in B&W

photography has, and is, done to satisfy the photographer's vision -- or, as Anselm

Adams said: The negative is the score, while the print is the performance. With digital, one

just has to treat the file as the digital negative.

<p>

--Mitch/Bangkok

[johnny massey]

An innate sense of geometry never hurt anyone's photographs. Johnny.

[steve_dawson1]

It doesn't matter whether than sense of geometry is innate or learned so long as it is there. There's a lot of this stuff in photography - and art more widely - that you've either got it or you haven't. It can't be taught. It can't be learned. It's just in you. If it were true it would be very discouraging. Fortunately it isn't true. Of course some people have a much greater apptitude for it than others, but we can all learn to be much better photographers than we were when we started out.

[jtk]

I think "composition" is less relevant than Occam's Razor.

 

Include what's important, exclude what isn't...if your moment and lens allows it, or if you're willing to crop afterward.

 

Something may have caught your eye. Sometimes it's not clear just what that was until you've printed.

 

Ansel was a static photographer. Big tripod, little interaction with people. His thoughts are interesting but perhaps more relevant to digital photography than to 35mm.

[al_kaplan1]

I think that these photographs have decent composition, but I have no idea how. I certainly didn't put any effort into composing them in the viewfinder. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=489236

[________1]

"Yes, photography has rules..."<p>

 

Name them.

[leslie_cheung]

No rules in photography nor music composition though there are basic elements and

structure in both.

[brambor]

Karim. Your post is a 'broad brush'. Without specific examples it becomes a blabber and food for blabber.

 

'Take off the wide angle and put on a macro lens' (figuratively speaking) and show us one example supporting your idea. We can take it from there and contribute.

[dford]

HCB said something sorta kinda like, you can�t be a master violinist by picking up the violin for the first time so why do you feel that you can be an accomplished photographer when you first pick up a camera? It takes work and practice. But what does one practice at when learning to photograph? Basic equipment operation and presumably and perhaps the basic rules and fundamentals of photography, with the desired end result of facilitating and nurturing ones individual talent. And these basics include rules of composition. Or do you think it�s all innate? Show me where to push the button and every frame will be genius. If there are no rules in photography, what are you practicing when you first take up the camera? If there is no structure or rules of composition in photography, like there are in music, how can there be jazz? If jazz, as one of its characteristics, is a variation of the once barely recognizable melodic structure from which it initially references. For me HCB is visual Coltrane. But Coltrane didn�t just pick up the sax one day and produce Brasilia. Only through many years of practice and learning rules of musical composition and melodic structure could he then produce his own genius version of music. So my answer is yes there are fundamental rules of composition in photography but the question to each individual is how long do you want to keep practicing scales?

[bob in seattle]

I really have to agree with Al and Doug.

 

And it's not just Jazz.

 

Whether a Master of the Slack Key Ukelele (Somewhere Over the Rainbow - some of you

have heard this recording), Horowitz' Rach 3, Jimmi Hendrix, Maria Callas, any good East

European children's choir, etc. etc., there are moments in the performance that touch our

souls.

 

A Musically Decisive moment, if you will.

 

And as Al Kaplan and many others on the entire photo.net site well know, you also have to

be willing to "chance it". Push the damned button even if you are SURE it will be a crummy

shot, because there are always things going on out you may not be seeing at the Moment.

 

You may just capture the Shot Of Your Life or it may include something very special in the

frame you just didn't see.

 

Nothing happens until you take the shot.

 

 

Bob

[leslie_cheung]

Guys I think you all are confusing structure and elements with *rules*...big difference imo.

[Spearhead]

<i>These days, of course, the visual equivalent of the mixing board will then come into play, "post production" removing that stray hair, smoothing a wrinkle,</i><p>

 

Anyone who has even a faint understanding of musical production will immediately recognize the absurdity of this statement. It really helps to post with some knowledge of the topic rather than making wildy ignorant statements.<p>

 

The mixing board is used in a wide variety of situations, many of which have nothing to do with post-production. Any venue, including concert halls, with the ability to control multiple sources of music, must use a mixing board for live music. This has nothing to do with post-production. <p>

 

The proper analogy is probably to Pro-Tools, but that apparently isn't obvious to people who don't know anything about musical post-production. Pro-Tools, like Photoshop and high quality darkroom work, is about post-production. Without some sort of post production, most pictures look muddy (there are plenty of examples I could cite) or are not particularly interesting, just like most recorded music without post-production is a muddle or worse.<p>

 

<i>Mozart might cringe at what we hear of his music today.</i><p>

 

Can you give a few examples of things that Mozart said that would indicate this? Otherwise, it's just twaddle.

[Brad_]

<I>Leica photography, to me, is more akin to jazz, full of spur on the moment

improvisation.</I><P>

 

Huh??? I don't know what you've been smoking, but you shouldn't try to bring it through

customs...

[al_kaplan1]

Last time me be smokin' ganja was six mebbe seven years ago. Monkey don' be smokin' no spliffs either! An he sez "Hi, Brad", bye th'bye.

[peter_a__nyc_]

Thanks John Sypal for pointing out the HCB interview video. Anyone know when it was made?

[Brad_]

<I>Monkey don' be smokin' no spliffs either!</I><P>

 

OK. So now we know why they call it <I>dope</i>.

[nesrani]

Grow up - if you're still smoking dope after your thirtieth birthday, you must just love being stupid.

[al_kaplan1]

Yup, quite a lot of stupid people simply following their doctors' advice. It's really quite effective in combating nausea from anti-cancer medications as well as preventing seizures in epileptics.

[brambor]

and smoking cigarettes works to ward off mosquitoes.

[nesrani]

QED.

[Karim Ghantous]

For the record, yes, weed does help relieve pain from radio/chemotherapy. And it also helps AIDS sufferers keep up their appetite. But then I wouldn't have chemo in the first place but that's for a completely different type of forum in the first place... ::whistles::