Where should I point the camera?

[ed_pierce2]

This is related to Per's thread on how we see, and whether

composition can be taught.

 

If composition can be taught, then help me out. Give me some guides.

The only thing I didn't like about art classes in college was the

subject of composition. The discussion was always look at this image,

look at that image. There were many concrete guidelines, but every

one of them was successfully broken over and over. The rules of

composition almost seem like they are tacked on after the print is

made to explain why it worked or didn't work. Pay attention to the

corners. Use near-far relationships. Use the juxtaposition of

positive vs negative space. Use tension points. Pay attention to the

area between the subject and the frame. Any more out there?

 

When positioning my camera, these 'rules' cross my mind, and I check

them out to see if they work. Ultimately, it is my gut reaction which

determines the composition. I move around, up and down, closer and

farther away, until it 'feels right'. For me it's an excersize (sp?)

in paying attention to my inner aesthetic sense, my own 'taste'. Or

is it something else?

 

I'm also interested in why I choose what I choose to shoot. Why are

some things more visually interesting, emotionally engaging, than

others? Why do I like to do landscapes...why not dogs? I love dogs.

Are we really conditioned to appreciate some images more than others

because we've been told that they're good? Edward Weston wrote that

the hardest thing in photography is to forget everything you've seen

before and follow your own inspiration. Or is it just another example

of personal 'taste'? An acquired, refined taste perhaps?

 

I just want to know...where should I point my camera?

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>The rules of composition almost seem like they are tacked on after the print is

made to explain why it worked or didn't work.</I><P>If that is what you learned in

that class, then you learned well. the point of composition is to make an image of

what you see very clearly with none to few distractions. Everything must work

together as a whole. I don't think I 've ever thought about composition in terms of

rules of where things need to be placed. I try not to waste space in the film and I try

to see clearly and that is about it. If I miss something that doesn't work when I make

the photograph, I'll catch it when I edit.<P>

<I>I'm also interested in why I choose what I choose to shoot. Why are some things

more visually interesting, emotionally engaging, than others?</I><P> That is a good

question. I think everyone who takes their art or craft seriously wrestles with that

continuously. I know I do.<P>

<I>I just want to know...where should I point my camera? </I><P>Point it at what

engages

your psyche & intellect, at what moves you... for what ever reason! <P>Can emotions

be disengaged from yur aesthetic sense? I

dunno...<P> Can your aesthetic sense be disengaged from your intellectual history? I

dunno. Does it matter? That I really don't know!<P>Let me suggest a book: <B>The

Nature of Photographs</B>by Stephen Shore. No goobledygook artspeak or

photojargon, no arcane philosophic deconstructed language. Robert Adams has also

written some very fine books on beauty and photography.

[leonard_evens]

I have many of the same problems you do. Sometimes by trying to follow one of the rules of composition I do worse than I would do by just doing the naive obvious thing. Also, I find that the realities of feasible camera positions often require one to compromise with what might be ideal for composition if one had complete freedom to place the elements of the scene where one wanted. I hope there is a lot more discussion of the issues you raise.

[paul_coppin]

Maybe the answer is just, "out there" (or even, "in here"). We've gained a visual and emotional sense of colour and spatiality from a million or so years of evolution, then layered an awful lot of cultural esoterica on it from every conceivable direction. Strip away the cultural filters and I suspect we see the world much more alike than different. We regulate our interactions by rules, all kinds of rules, and generally move in lockstep, so if one of us sneaks a vision pass the filters, we sit up and notice. Having acknowledged that however, who says we have to be different? There are 7 billion of us out there, God knows how many cameras, only so many vistas. I've never quite come to terms with the concept of if I take a picture in Yosemite near where AA stood that I'm somehow plagiarising his work. I can create a body of work that will be <em>like</em> any number of people who have went before, without ever having seen or heard of them, because I use largely the same biological and photographic filters (metaphorically) as AA, EW, the Curtis's or anybody else. What <em>is </em> different is the cultural filter, and that may or may not make the vision sufficiently unique to stand apart. Why do you like to shoot landscapes more than dogs? Maybe you like landscapes better than dogs. Maybe you've read too much and believe landscapes are photographically more important than dogs. Maybe you don't feel consciously or subconsciously competent to shoot dogs. Maybe you should be shooting dogs <em>in</em> landscapes! Maybe you should just go shoot pictures and forget about the rules:).

[bruce watson]

I asked this same question myself on this forum a few months back. It's in the archives somewhere...

 

You ask "Why are some things more visually interesting, emotionally engaging, than others?" Other people have been interested in this same thing. Two excellent books that will answer at least some of your questions are:

 

Richard Zakia's "Perception and Imaging"

 

Margarite Livingstone's "Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing."

 

Both books are aimed at art (the Livingstone book uses paintings for examples while the Zakia book is more about photography), and what the human perception system does when confronted by a scene, and what it does when confronted by art.

 

So, if you want to know *why* you like what you like (that is, why you like certain scenes and certain compositions), these books can give you some clues.

 

Oh, yes, you left out my favorite rule to break - the rule of thirds! Although, that rule is often harder to break than it seems it should be...

[per_volquartz1]

Don't follow the "rules" of composition.

 

Instead follow your "gut" feeling. When you see something that attracts you set up your camera and work with it until the image communicates what you feel. Only if you have a problem or difficulty in an area bring out the compositional "rules" from the back of your mind and see if they will help you accomplish getting the image you want.

 

Don't get caught up in theoretical knowledge - nor in technical problems. Start with what you see and feel and use compositional "rules" or "tools" if you need them - this goes for the use of the Zone system too!

[alec1]

If you're looking at the lens, either you, or the camera, is pointed the wrong way. One of you has to move.

[john_cook1]

A few random thoughts, if you will permit:

 

(1) I find landscape composition easier than still life because there are fewer choices. I must work with the tree where it is and the building also cannot be moved. With studio still life I can use any object or group of objects I like, in any arrangement. Infinite choices cause me to go into artistic overload and melt-down.

 

(2) When setting up the camera, Fred Picker�s rule was to begin with the assumption that no matter where you are, it�s the wrong place.

 

(3) Photography is the least important part of photography. Over the last four decades in advertising work, I have routinely agonized over lighting and composition in the studio for up to twelve hours. Late in the evening after everything has been tried and everyone is satisfied, we then get out the camera and take a quick �snapshot� of what we�ve finally accomplished.

 

John

[graphicjoe]

After more than 40 years of photography I have learned to trust my eye and not much else. I stay right away from art schools, people that hang about in galleries spouting art babble, and most of all, rules of composition. To paraphrase Duke Ellington, If it looks good, it is good. The only reason to learn about the rules is to be sure to bend and break them as needed.

 

In the end, all we really have is our eye. Anyone can have the hottest photographic gear, so the thing that makes the difference is the photographer�s eye. Thus, I take your question to mean, How do I develop my photographic vision, or �eye?� It is a difficult thing. It takes a long time, a lot of looking at images (not just photographs), a lot of active thinking about what makes good images successful, and how an image could be stronger than it is. One must learn to analyze; where is the light, where are the elements in the image with respect to one another, where was the camera, etc. Practice helps, so does going back and looking at your old work. I am always amazed at how different my present work is than that from five or ten years ago.

 

I�ve actively sought to develop a style, successfully, I think. My work has a definite look, and this is proving helpful in marketing as there are a few (too few) people who like my work in general, and that is helpful for them and me in terms of marketing.

 

As you see, there is no simple answer to your rather broad and deep question. We all have to arrive at our own answer over time and with experience.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

[sandy_sorlien]

Ed, you asked your question well and so you are getting good answers. A few more thoughts:

 

Subject matter is neutral; that is, a compelling photograph can be made of any subject. Same for a poor photograph. There are more bad landscape pictures out there than anything! If you love dogs try dogs! Last night I went to a student show and one of the Juniors had done a series in color (MF) of garbage she found in various swampy areas -- wet garbage. Absolutely gorgeous pictures. And important, too -- they are saying (to me, anyway) that in spite of the degradation of the world we can find beauty everywhere.

 

- I agree with Joe about looking at other pictures. What is it about the ones you respond to that makes them affect you? Analyze those, don't go out and use abstractions or formulas learned in a classroom. I believe you carry the pictures you love around in your head with you for the rest of your life. I carry several Edward Hopper paintings around with me in my head; I think you can see them in my work sometimes. Now I am taking Jerome Liebling pictures around in my head. The act of photographing has to be so very intuitive, you just have to soak up good pictures and good places until making good pictures yourself comes in brilliant spurts when all those influences come together, along with the light, of course.

 

- I think it helps to work in projects or series. I heard Keith Carter (now there are some fine dog pictures) speak at the SPE conference in Austin last month, and he said his best advice for students is: GET A PROJECT! It is too overwhelming to think that you could be photographing anything at any time. As a practical matter, you will have a harder time getting exhibited or published if your work is not "about" anything, and as an artistic matter you will not communicate persuasively to anyone if you do not have anything to say. Physically and mentally, you want to avoid spreading yourself too thin, exhausting yourself with constant picture-taking. Pursue obsessively what fascinates you, choosing not just an object/thing as your subject, but also a genre/issue -- I mean, are you fascinated by politics or poetry or suburban sprawl or astronomy or psychoanalysis or baseball? Can you make a photographic work incorporating your passions? (Sometimes it helps to be a writer too and combine those media.)

 

I never learned the rule of thirds or any other standards of composition specifically for doing my own artwork, but I soaked them up in high school looking at the masters of fine art with a teacher who could point out what was going on in those pictures. The books suggested above could be helpful for that.

 

Cheers,

Sandy

[ian_greant]

Ed and everyone else, <p>

 

I had a recent experience you may find interesting: <p>

 

1)I recently found my first photo portfolio that I began showing around to my friends a few years ago. Just 35mm shots of rock climbing and other adventures. If you had asked me before opening it if the images would be recognizable as mine in any way I would have said no.. Boy was I ever surprised! Despite all the time I've spent studying composition, 20,000+ photos over the last three years, all the critiques from friends, photographers, etc. I still take photos basically the same way. I'm a bit more sophisticated but my basic sensibilities remain the same. <p>

 

Moving to Large Format has really been interesting. I thought my composition would be become more complex. Au contraire! Since everything lines up straight I don't have to get cute anymore. My photos have gotten simpler.<p>

My favorite quote on inspiration comes from a Sally Mann interview. I don't have it handy so I'll have to paraphrase it. "it's not that I really wanted to photograph children.. but they were there so I took pictures of them... and with the Dog Bone series, one day the Dog left a bone in the house, so I took a photo of it. It made a good picture so I took another one."<p>

 

sometimes we just think too much. <p>

Cheers,

[steve_rowell]

Hi Ed,

 

I agree with something that both Per and Sandy mentioned. Per (I'm paraphrasing) said to continue to work with something until it is the way you want it. Sandy mentioned the idea of a project. How often have we all made a poor image and just left it alone. One of the things I'm just beginning to really understand is how important it is to work on something until it works. I think photography like any other craft is something that requires a lot of work. When we think of the masters, we often focus on their talent and ignore the hard work and dedication.

 

Steve

[d_poinsett]

Experiment with all approaches (not neccessarily in this order):

 

1) For several sessions, compose using all your knowledge of formal design; symmetry, balance, tension, point of interest, field & ground, shape, line, tone, etc.

 

2) For several sessions emphasize and explore only one design element at a time.

 

3) For several sessions go totally intuitive. Forget everything. Just go with your gut.

 

4) For several sessions, pick subjects that require "decisive moment" shots. (I realize this can be challenging with large format but there are often many conditions which change rapidly enough to fulfill this excersize. People are the obvious choice but even a day when the light or clouds are changing quickly will work.)

 

Analyse you results. Which images call to you? Which images call to others? Which approach(es) produce results that answer your question: where should I point my camera? Your own visual "voice" will eventually emerge.

 

(This is not a comprehensive list of excersizes but definitely could get you started.)

[bill_laidley]

<p>"Following rules": I'm going to leap in here from so far out in left field that it will seem absurd.</p>

<p>There is a fascinating book titled "Aaron's Code" by Pamela McCorduck that tells the story of Harold Cohen - a highly successful abstract painter from England who left painting in the late 1960's and has spent most of the time since then developing and enhancing a computer program that draws and paints.</p>

<p>I'll pause here to let that sink in - a computer program that draws and paints.</p>

<p>Mr. Cohen has created a program that, in a sense, is his apprentice. He taught it the rules and the thinking process that he follows when he draws and paints. I'm not a huge fan of abstract art, but the drawings by the program are surprisingly good. I'd buy one if the opportunity arose.</p>

<p>I'm not saying that just following the "rules" will guarantee a good photograph - but they might help you during the apprenticeship. Once you have internalized the rules and techniques you move on to the next level. You may not explicitly think about the rules, but the odds are that you are using them.</p>

[ann_m]

Ed, I am probably the least experienced photographer of this forum but here are some thoughts....I personally am tentative about rules & prescribed methodologies. I worry that I will become enclosed and bounded by them. I feel that by dissection I may exile myself from what I most need to comprehend. Throughout art history there have been various even contradictory theories of composition... Certainly no absolutes. I also feel that I must always try to question and be aware of constricting cultural boundaries that I impose on what I see and consequently photograph.

Although mastery of craft is essential... what is irreplaceable in any work of art is never the technique or method but the individuality of the artist and expression of their unique conception and feelings... I think you should listen to Weston and follow your inspiration.... Cheers Annie

 

PS.. "Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing. Taste is the enemy of creativity."... Pablo Picasso

[paul_coppin]

To re-address your question - yes, we <em>are</em> conditioned to appreciate some images more than others because we <em>are</em> told what is good. Then those that tell us have to go fumbling for reasons to validate their opinion, hence the rules.<br>

If you want to find out what you think is good in what you shoot, or what your vision is, go buy a good paper cutter. Print Big. Cut away till you've got your good picture. Repeat. You'll know you've found <em>your</em> vision when you find you rarely need the paper cutter. The only rule should be to print twice, you may have more than one vision. Read the books <em>after</em> you've found your vision. Maybe <em>long</em> after.

[sjmurray]

I am in agreement with the others who are emphasizing trusting your intuition. Without any conscious rules you already see certain images/forms in the real world that excite/stimulate your eye/brain. Practice your technique and get it good enough to expressively capture these images/forms to your satisfaction. If you don't know where to point the camera, you have to do some serious "looking" and feeling before the camera even comes out of its case.

 

When doing landscapes I just wander around in a kind of "trance" in which I become totally "visual" (receptive only to visual input). Eventually something "pops out" of the randomness, and then I set up the camera to capture it.

 

Afterwards, looking at the prints I have noticed that I tend to like images that can get my attention from across the room, I suppose this it why it popped out at me in the field. Then as I approach the image there is additional detail, texture and smaller units of compositon that hold my attention and continue to stimulate my eye/brain. Using large format helps capture the small stuff, as you know.

 

Good question to post, BTW. Great discussion.

[brian_ellis3]

I've always liked the axiom that if you're comfortable when you're making the composition you're probably in the wrong position.

[tito sobrinho]

I always carry the Linhof universal finder in my bag. It has marks for 75-360mm lenses (4x5).I added my own set of markings for my most used 8x10 lenses. This way, I find it easier to compose. The cut off cards as proposed by AA, do not work for me.

[huw_finney]

I also carry a Linhof finder, for 5x4 (saves all that marking). My approach is to get in just that bit closer, or a lot closer. DOF OK with 35mm, bit dodgy with 645, but 5x4 with all the movements, great!

As an engineer the tech bit of photography is easy, composition a lot more difficult, I have found that using the 5x4 makes me think a bit more IMHO I am getting better. People say my photos should be bigger to get the outside missing bits in ('cos I shoot close) but still like them. A bit of the engineer creeps in, this is what I have photographed not the background. As an aside, what I want is a black and white focussing screen, so I carry a digital camera with a B/W mode just to test filters etc..

 

Huw

[ed_pierce2]

Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. Very interesting. Helpful? I don't know. Sounds like most of us ask the same questions of ourselves...it's nice to know you're not alone. Went out at dawn today and visited a gorge I hadn't been to in awhile. Made six or seven quick easy images; nothing important really; 'pretty' pictures. Just as the sun came through the trees I stumbled (literally) on the wildest pair of old trees; a white birch and a pine. Somehow they had lifted up out of the ground, and were both standing on a few feet of roots like fantastic tripods. Even better, the roots reached across and intertwined with each other.

 

I spent an hour looking at this, struggling to find the spot which revealed the essence of the scene. I started getting a headache. I was concious of only one compositional trick...otherwise purely involved with these trees. I think I found the spot, but by then the light was all wrong, harsh bright spots on the forest floor. I'll be back. This is what really matters.

[julian_svedosh]

I can't top the many good suggestions that have been made, but in my own experience a personal critique by someone whose photographic eye you respect is a priceless growth experience. I have gained enormously from seminars given by Bruce Barnbaum. You can find them on the web at www.barnbaum.com, but before you sign up, check out his work and see if it resonates with you. If it doesn't, find someone else whom you consider to be an artist, and who does teaching, and try one of their workshops. Bruce happens to be a great teacher as well as a great photographer, and one reaction common to most of his students is astonishment at how effectively a great teacher can show you to "see the light."

[sandy_sorlien]

Ed,

About your tree root experience -- sounds like you waited too long. Remember your medium is light. If it looks good when you see it, go ahead and take the picture!

 

Cheers,

Sandy

[www.graemehird.com]

<i>"I just want to know...where should I point my camera? "</i><p>

 

At the part of the scene that made you unpack the camera.

[michael_chmilar]

I forget who said it, but there is the famous idea: "First you must learn all of the rules, and then you must forget them."

 

It is a good idea. In the short term, being obsessed by the rules will probably harm your creativity. In the long term, you might find that, when you are exploring a subject, a "rule" might come into play that helps you set up a better composition than you would choose without being aware of the rule.

 

I also think it is a good idea to study photos taken by other people. Personally, I especially try to seek out photos where I don't understand how they "work". I will look at them, and say, "Wow! that's a great photo, but why?" In the short term, you may think you are copying someone else's style, but in the long term, you have hopefully expanded your vision.

 

Finally, I have occasionally done this exercise out in the field: Pass by the "obvious" shots; wait until you see something that catches your interest, but you are baffled how to make an image of it; then, try to get an image that portrays what caught your eye in the first place. These are often the most rewarding (or most disappointing) shots from an outing.