Composition, what is right.

[manut]

I am confused with one subject in particular "composition". The rule of thirds

has been emphasised upon by everyone and everywhere and I see that in many

photos. The same photo is different with and without rule of thirds. But I

have also seen nice pictures (specially landscapes) not following this rule

and still looking splendid.

 

So the knowledge I seek by posting this thread is "What is the right

composition and how do you decide it". Is it a matter of choice, situation,

scene, the resulting photograph OR are there some unsaid rules that have been

established and endorsed by photographers.

[spanky]

Like most rules there are certainly times when the rule of 3rds can and should be broken. How do you know? For me it's usually when I hang a roll up to dry and get my first look at the images. Of course by then it's too late but this is the best way of learning. Instinct comes into play as well...sometimes when I'm focusing the lens somehow what I'm about to shoot just doesn't feel right and I either go on to shoot something else or I move and re-compose. Sorry to be so vague but that's really all there is to it. Since I'm using a wide lens much more then usual these days this is a concern but not too much. I still like filling my frame with my subject so it's just a matter of getting in closer to achieve this element. It gets easier with time.

[leicaglow]

Enforcing rules will only break the laws of Art<g>. What look right to you? What is pleasing? What tells the story the best? An image isn't just about filling a space (medium) with an image, it is about using space to tell the story of the subject. The rule of thirds is a "composition for dummies" sort of rule that often works. But ultimately it's what conveys your message. When you forgo your feeling for the subject, you give in to conformity.

[johncrosley]

Vice President of the United States John Nance Garner once said of the Vice Presidency that 'It isn't worth a bucket of warm spit'

 

Only since he was an earthy man and swearing was quite common, we believe that historians have changed one letter in that last word to make it printable in textbooks. But we can figure that one out, can't we?

 

There are some so-called 'rules' in photography, but like the vice presidency, if those so-called 'rules' were followed by everyone all the time, they'd be just like that bucket over there and as useless (he had meant in his inimitable words to say the vice presidency was 'useless'.)

 

So are so-called 'rules'. If anyone faults you for not using a 'rule' of composition, they are as full of stuff as that bucket referred to by V.P.Garner.

 

Yes, there are certain 'rules' of composition -- I once picked up a beginning book on photography of the 'Idiot's Guide' sort and it had a wonderful, illustrated guide to various 'devices' of composition, and all those devices are useful.

 

I have my own: I try to place all the elements of my photograph within the photos boundaries, and to keep all the rest out. Sometimes that can mean tight cropping, sometimes loose cropping . . . it depends on the subject being depicted and what I as a photographer/artist want to 'say'.

 

A couple of years ago, my photos in a single folder broke into the top 1,000 views for the year, and I rejoiced, in part because up to that time I had never had one lesson in photography, and had developed all my knowledge on the subject by looking at photos, taking them, and discussing them.

 

While I had once been in early adulthood a photo editor for Associated Press, not once did I ever hear the 'Rule of Thirds' referred to in their NYC headquarters where I helped head a part of the photo department in my early years.) (and I worked sometimes with Pulitzer winning greats as well as less celebrated photographers).

 

Now, one of my folders is at the No. 1 position in 'yearly views' and soon probably will drop off, or I will re-organize that and other folders.

 

But I still haven't taken a course in photography, and I haven't memorized any so-called 'rules' of photography.

 

In fact, in comments under my photos, I have jokingly refered to the 'rule of fourths' (where the photo was divided into four elements' the 'rule of fifths' (same idea) and even the rule of the 'irregular pentagon' as one of my photos has an irregular pentagonal shape in it.

 

It's all in good fun.

 

The fact is that good composition is whatever works best in communicating your vision to your audience. Hopefully, it's what you intend to communicate for starters. If it acccomplishes that, it's got a good start. Your 'vision' is entirely subjective; some may value it; others may consign it in their evalution to Garner's warm bucket. Just be true to yourself and your vision.

 

Good composition does not have a formula. I crop usually rather tightly, but there are some artists who are prominent in galleries who set out to portray the vastness and emptiness of the country, and they have filled their photographs with lots of empty space.

 

In that vein,also, I am thinking of one photographer from Colorado who is featured in a prominent New York City gallery, who has taken photos of landscapes glorious natural, beautiful landscapes filled with urban and suburban 'spit' in front of them, for purposefully non-pleasing photos, but which document our times very well.

 

Such photos can sell for what seem like outrageous sums, but would get 1/1s and 2/2s on Photo.net if PN would count such low scores (it doesn't).

 

Life is different outside Photo.net's peer rating system than inside it -- it is a fishbowl.

 

Early on, one member (Pogue Mahoney - Andy Eulass's pseudonym) urged me to move beyond that fishbowl or at least look outside it, and I urge you to do the same.

 

Instead of JUST looking at the high-scoring photos on the top-rated photo sorting 'engine', look for the most interesting or the ones that are most unusual, or for different things.

 

One thing is certain: our photos here are first seen in thumbnail and those photos must have certain elements to attract attention of raters or they'll get passed over.

 

It would be different if you were in a place where very large photos were being displayed. For instance, in a photo store I was at the other day, there is a brilliant giclee printer (a guy, not a machine) who takes landscapes and probably they are gallery quality . . . but if he were to put them on PN, since they are not extensively Photoshopped and don't have spectacular originality, they might get good but mediocre good scores.

 

If you saw them in person, you'd be stunned at how good they really are.

 

So, posting first in thumbnail and having only a computer screen on which to view the photos is the medium, and it favors certain compositinos.

 

I urge you to go to Borders and/or Barnes and Noble and look through ALL the photo magazines and see the vast variety of photos that never get posted on Photo.net

 

One noteworthy periodical is 'B&W Magazine', which is devoted to photos showing black and the grayscale, and printed exquisitely.

 

The format is different, and it favors a different kind of photography that would not generally do so well on Photo.net.

 

That magazine has an 'annual edition' in which they print all sorts of different photographers' portfolios, and it's pretty amazing how alike some of the work seems, consdering they rate and post for originality, too, and some work is quite disparate. Nevertheless that format has its own cliches must as this site has had its oversaturated sunsets or its post-sunset time exposure over a rocky seacoast with the moving water becoming amorphous through that time exposure and forming a sea surface that appears evanescent.

 

I recently had the interesting assignment of viewing the world's photo gallery's web sites (not the Internet web sites, but those actually selling photos from physical locations to collectors), and it's a most unusual journey, with all sorts of different and unusual photography being shown -- some of it does not to me appear worth much, but then I'm pretty undereducated about such things.

 

Other galleries have stunning displays of photographs I find pleasing. Each gallery is different and caters to a different audience.

 

But in gallery sales 'pleasing' is not always a word they are looking for, as historical importance, documentary photographs, originality, trueness to one's style, being a style innovator, and myriad other factors are taken into account. This is not even a representativce list of important things they take into consideration in judging what is 'important' in work such galleries place for sale.

 

There is one common denominator in most gallery sales: They must bring the gallery owner money (or prestige) or they wouldn't be there, and it's an interesting journey through those galleries web sites to see 'what sells' to the true aficionados of photography (read that: those who have big enough bucks to buy gallery photos).

 

I once was in NYC at a famous camera store that rents to NYC pros, early on, and they looked at my (few) PN photos and they said to me 'your photos are really good; 'the work of most professionals around here is crap; most serious amateurs can beat the pants off them, except the top 10%.'

 

I think they were greatly exaggerating or simply misunderstood what constitued a 'good' or 'great' photograph -- 'aesthetics' is just one element.

 

Sometimes it is not an important one.

 

Other times it is all there is.

 

We have a two-part grading system here on Photo.net but it might also be a ten-point scale or a five-point scale. In the end it is entirely subjective; there really is no tutorial on rating other than seeing how others rate and rating on how much one 'likes' or 'dislikes' a photo on two scales over a five-point range.

 

When I joined Photo.net 'street' photography was considered a poor stepchild,and it still is as far as ratings go, but who cares. If getting ratings is important, that is fine, but soon it should be about improving your photography to standards that are not so hidebound as found on this one site. But some of the photography here is really very good, entirely original and quite stunning, don't get me wrong -- I'm not a detractor of this site at all.

 

When I like a photo I take, I post it, and the ratings be damned.

 

I learn a lot from ratings -- especially about popularity, as the ratings are mostly a popularity contest . . . while the critiques, when they are more than 'attaboys', can be most helpful if the person giving the critique is observant and skillful (and needn't necessarily be skillful at photography or the sort of photography being rated -- skill wins out over experience in most cases I've seen).

 

In other words, critical skill is a somewhat different skill set than creating or taking photographs, though the former skill sometimes develops as the latter skill is enhanced.

 

Learn all you can about 'classical' composition, and that includes looking at classical works of art, so you recgonize and know the themes raised in classical art works, as the early photographers often were traioned in classical art which placed great emphasis on formal composition, and thus there appears to be a 'classical' influence on many early professionals, since they were formally trained in 'art' especially since photography then was not considered an 'art' and even now barely is breaking out as one. There still is disagreement on how much of it is 'art' and how much is otherwise.

 

The worth of a particular photograph is is entirely subjective. You might think 'everyone knows how wonderful Ansel Adams was as a photographer, he is a God of photography', and indeed there is truth in that.

 

But at the same time, Ansel Adams' popularity may be seen to have derived not only from his qualities as a great photographer of the outdoors, but also from the rise of the ecology movement, and the growth, for instance, of the Sierra Club and ecology as a political and social force.

 

Since this is an era that has grown up on rock stars, and entertainment personnality, can you think of any one (female) photographer, perhaps, who has helped document that rise . . . and thus whose works chronicle an important part of American history?

 

Answer: Begins with the intials A.L.

 

Photography can be good and not be valuable or less than the greatest photography may rise to historical importance because of what it documents or how it documents it.

 

These are only a few random thoughts, as I approach my four-year anniversary here.

 

Learn that there are so-called rules, know what they are, if you must, but don't be a slave to them.

 

Learn to be yourself.

 

As the famous trial lawyer Gerry Spence, that guy in the homemade buckskin suits, once told an audience of young trial lawyers who were seeking his wisdom about how to win cases like he was legend for doing:

 

(paraphrased)

 

'If you try to be Gerry Spence and think what I would do and how I would do it then try to emulate me, then probably I will win over you in the courroom almost every time. But if you are true to yourself, you develop your skills to the best of your ability, learn all you can about what you do and apply that with great energy to the task at hand, then you have a sincere chance of beating Gerry Spence in the courtroom, and that may be your only chance.'

 

Message: Don't try to copy any photographer, famous or otherwise. Maybe your work can 'derive' from somebody's or a group's collective vision, but it should be entirely your own.

 

I post all sorts of different photographs; nearly every one is a different subject -- almost none repeats. Yet members tell me they can 'tell' when it's a photo I've posted, because of something that's hard to define in my style of photography.

 

With time, you will also have your own style.

 

And if you keep pleasing yourself, and keep raising the bar, so you're not too self-satisfied, this should be a pleasant place to experience your art and to grow.

 

John (Crosley)

© 2008 all rights reserved

[Leonard-just-Leonard]

Photography is an art form, therefore there are no rules.

[Hector Javkin]

Following John Crosley's answer, in evaluating the "rule of thirds," I don't care whether the stuff in the bucket is warm or not.

[rory_burns]

You have to feel the space carving along the Z-axis

 

Unless you are Siskind

[christopher_graham1]

Not every scene is right for every rule. Only a small part of art is making something that speaks to other people. Yet so many people feel that it is the whole of art to make an image that speaks to other people. The primary rule of art is to create an image that speaks to you, and if in doing that you create an image that speaks to others then so be it. Most times if you succeed in the former the later will come. If you want to develop as an artist don't look for a formula to make you successful. Learn the tools and use the right tools at the right time to make images that speak to your own heart and experience. It is like writing. Write what you know they say. Photography is communication as well so compose what you know. Use the guides as starting points and adjust from there.

[hal_simonetti]

When you need guidance on a complex subject, it is almost always a good idea to search out a German professor. Fortunately, we have a few devoted to photography, one of them Andreas Feininger. He was an American, born in France, but he was German educated, including art and architecture, so I make him German for our purpose here ? you will sense the Teutonic cast of mind: every detail considered and carefully worked out. His list of things you should consider when pondering your question (from his ?The Complete Photographer):

Things photogenic, more likely to result in good photographs:

1. Simplicity, clarity, order.

2. Contrast between light and dark,

3. Forms that are large, simple and bold,

4. Outlines that are distinct,

5. Detail that can be rendered sharp,

6. Texture, to give character and identity,

7. Pattern, rhythm, and repetition,

8. Motion, where appropriate,

9. Spontaneity.

He suggests strong consideration of long-telephoto lens, close-ups, and backlighting.

 

Things unphotogenic:

1. Insipidity

2. Complexity and disorder

3. Distinctive color

4. Posing

5. Faking

 

He doesn?t favor flash on-camera, multiple lighting, overlighting and indiscriminate shadow fill, shooting from too far away, printing too soft.

 

His book fleshes out these points, and is exhaustive in many other areas as well, for example, the fundamental difference between photographic and natural ?seeing,? which goes directly to your question. Good luck.

[frank uhlig]

Go visit an art museum and list those paintings with rule of thirds in their composition and

without. What will the numbers tell you? Which pictures do you like better, regardless of their

rule of third orthodoxy or not? Think.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Vice President of the United States John Nance Garner once said of the Vice Presidency that 'It isn't worth a bucket of warm spit"

 

Only since he was an earthy man and swearing was quite common, we believe that historians have changed one letter in that last word to make it printable in textbooks.</I><P> Spit is what the man actually said. In those days, spittoons for cigar smokers were still quite common, so as a metaphor for near worthlessness "bucket of warm spit" is a pretty good one.<P>

 

Oh did I have a point to make that's relevant to the topic? I think I just did.

 

Rules in art are a good place to start from but but not to be enslaved by except for this one: Is it a good photo? If it's good you can dissect it down to its marrow bones to explain why you think the photo works but good bones alone don't make up a living beast.

[Allen Herbert]

"What is the right composition

 

What is the wrong composition...the one that does not work.<div></div>

[aplumpton]

Try to describe the motion of a gas molecule in the air, or the weather a week from

now. Composition has as many variables and relationships as the wild trace of a gas

molecule or a weather system. Any one can be important in determining the result

(or aesthetic success), and similarly, the many factors of successful composition are

seldom as simple as the so-called law of thirds.

[eddie_sung]

Try this the next time and see if you like it...

 

Have a subject. Have a predicate. Have a message.

 

Show it to your friends. Did anyone get your message? Did you wow anybody? No, try again.

 

Be creative. Good luck.

[colin carron]

I think Edward Weston's definiton of composition is the most helpful. He said, 'composition is the strongest way of seeing.' I think that helps in concentrating on the visual aspects of what we photograph raher than any rule.

 

I suspect the rule of thirds is a device used simply by authors of books on art and photography so that they have something to say that is easily understood by what the Victorians called 'the meanest understanding'.

[david_schwartz6]

I sometimes find rules helpful, but I usually ignore them in the end. What is most important for me is how my eye reacts to the space within the four edges of the image. If I see an image that causes my eyes to dance -- to move around with energy -- that is my definition of great composition. And it is VERY hard to make generalizations beyond that. IMHO.

[keith selmes]

thirds rule isn't really a rule but a useful guideline. its a bit crude and simple but it works mostly, and is easy to explain, so we hear a lot about it. it isn't the only useful guideline or factor in a composition, so an image without it isn't too surprising.<br>

one of the things i like about photography, when people get up lists of rules, they nearly always include one that says you should break all the others when it suits you. Except the one about taking the lens cap off.

[nozar_kishi]

Assume there were rules. Enough of them in every aspect and regard.; and successful ones.... In such case, then why would you want to photograph at all? The product will not be yours in such case; would it? It would belong to those who made the rule.

[d_s31]

I go one better and use the rule of forths! And when I master that, the rule of fifths! And one day, one day, the rule of tenths! Then, all of you will bow down to my artistic greatness!

[fullmetalphotograper]

Learn the principle, abide by the principle, and dissolve the principle. In short, enter a mold

without being caged in it. Obey the principle without being bound by it. LEARN, MASTER AND

ACHIEVE!!!

 

The rule of composition are a starting point at best, and a way of communicating about what

we see. They are not laws.

[steve_swinehart]

There is nothing wrong with learning the classic graphic composition devices. However, use of them does not ensure a successful photograph.

 

I would suggest you look at "Perception and Imaging" by Richard Zakia. It deals with visual concepts and how people perceive images.

[qi_peng]

There is no wrong composition. One needs to look at photos taken by the Lomo group or even ones which are taken by cheapie approaches like Gerry Winogrand (who shot from the hip) or even Sarah Lucas who photographs herself then collages it.

[aplumpton]

Defining a "right" composition is not straight forward, it is a multivaried thing.

However, it is more easily perceived. A "wrong" composition, or one that doesn't

convince, also stands out.

 

In adition to Zakia's book, mentioned by Steve, a classic book is that of Rudolf

Arnheim of Berkeley, "Art and Visual Perception - A Psychology of the Creative Eye"

(1974 - ISBN 0-520-02613-6 - University of California Press).

[lucas_m]

If it looks right, it is good.

[roosevelt_grier]

I think you kinda answered your own question IT IS a matter of choice, situation, scene, ( and more importantly to me anyway )THE (Intended) resulting photograph, the rules should serve your intent not direct it. I had an instructor, in another disicpline< tell me about rules....Learn them, become them, forget them