Help for the Compositionally Disadvantaged

[bruce watson]

Not a book on composition, exactly. But since you say you are technically minded, you might find this book as interesting as I did:

<p>

<i>Perception & Imaging</i> by Richard D. Zakia (Focal Press, 2nd edition 2002)

<p>

This book will teach you why you like some things. It'll tell you why you are drawn to certain subjects. It tells you how you perceive things - how light and dark play together - how line and form work.

<p>

A very informative book. Taken with some of the others mentioned, and with Ellis Vener's sage advice and quotes, you should be heading in the right direction, which ever direction you decide that to be.

[per_volquartz1]

Look at art in every form and shape!

 

In most works of art there is compositional structure, which can be discovered, analyzed and dissected.

 

Knowledge about composition and content is as important as knowing your film emulsion and how it reacts to developers.

 

If you are on the West coast plan to be at our Free Red Rock Canyon or Mt. Shasta workshops later this year.

Composition and content are two important subjects we discuss.

 

 

If interested email me at volquartz@volquartz.com

[frank_scheitrowsky]

"I disagree entirely with Frank -�there is absolutely nothing that anyone else can do for you.� Yes, others can do much for you. There have been fine art schools which helped to produce outstanding artists, also photographers."

 

You can be taught technique and the mechanics, but can anyone be taught vision? I think it can be developed with practice to the degree of natural ability someone has, but I really think it's an inate tallent. For instance, I really wanted to learn to play the guitar so I learned all the chords and can play them pretty clean, but practise as I might, I can never even begin to approach the artistry of well known musicians (David Wilcox, BB King, __________ fill in the name of a famous guitar player here). I don't have it in me. I think a "photographer's eye" is the same. Again, just my opinion.

[emile_de_leon9]

Somehow I think it is about time and space. If we put in enough time(many hours a day for many years) then the space(composition) takes care of itself. Evolution....

[jay_de_fehr]

Hi Alex. I think that I understand your position. I am certainly not among the "more accomplished" of the bretheren, but I think we all have to make sense of the way we compose our photographs at some point before we can relax and go about our work with confidence and purpose. Of the many honest and informed posts, I relate most to Gary's. I think we are all more visually literate than we realize, but lack the terminology to make sense of our preferrences. The familiar statement " I don't know about (insert art form), but I know what I like" is very telling. A book that I've found interesting and informative is A Primer Of Visual Literacy, by Donis A. Dondis. In the end I agree with those who've stated that overthinking our work can be counterproductive, as well as those who've maintained that there is much to be learned from the masters and the history of all of the visual media. Like so many things, it comes down to finding the right balance. Good luck, and don't lose any sleep over an imagined shortcoming.

[struan_gray]

Define "Good".

 

I find I learn more from going to art galleries and museums than

I do from looking at photographs. With my head full of

photographs I find myself simply framing the world so that it

looks like what I've already seen. There is an almost magnetic

attraction that drags the ground glass towards a tidy and

comforting sense of the picturesque.

 

My favourite ways to break out of this is to look at Asian art and

the abstract expressionists. Much Asian art doesn't have strong

centers of interest and instead fills the frame with a series of

equally important elements, often depicted on a scale much

smaller than the overall image - a situation ideally suited to LF.

Abstract paintings like Pollock's pourings do a similar thing, but I

also learn a lot from more minimalist works (Roth's blobs,

Newman 's zips) which are a great way to see how the most

basic graphic elements work together (or don't) to fill a view.

 

So if "Young Dogwood" and the clouds image in your portfolio

are recent images, get thee to a gallery. If, on the other hand,

you regard them as your youthful mistakes, you're headed for the

tranquil pastures of C19th academia, for which there is no cure.

[ed_pierce2]

Gene: With your permission, I'd like to quote you in my teaching "stop whining and go take some more photographs".

 

Alex: The hard part of photography (or anything else) is deciding what is good and what is not so good. A satisfying image is the result of many small aesthetic decisions. Listen to your gut on every one. Nothing is trivial in art.

[guk]

I would try The Art and Color of Design by Maitland Graves

(McGraw-Hill 1951.

plus http://www.guidancecom.com/alphabet/

[ken_schroeder]

Alex, my "one book" recommendation would be Betty Edwards' "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". I also think you would find a kindred spirit in the books and photographs of Wright Morris.

 

Your work and postings exhibit a proficiency in craft. You have chosen a very able seaman camera. I think your portfolio is well seen. More importantly, you are not content, and feel the need to grow. You are certainly not alone in feeling this need.

 

I suggest contacting the local art professor and asking him/her to look at your portfolio. Hopefully this person will offer constructive criticism. The critique of your work may or may not prove useful. If the person is cutting or full of BS, you are only out some time, and maybe a fee. A good teacher will help you appreciate your level of artistic development, while encouraging you to continue growing.

 

I took some pencil sketching lessons years ago. I found the experience rewarding. I think you might, also.

 

The path to artistic development has detours. My two main detours have been lusting after equipment and being too focused on technical matters. (I think they are common problems.) At 53, I am finally listening to my inner voice which says the less hardware between the photographer and the image, the better. A technical background is a fine thing, as long as it is in the background. The real journey is self discovery.

 

I recently made some pretty postcards during a trip out west. Some could most probably do well in the local show. Making them was enjoyable. However, I feel the real vision I have to share is of my life in Ohio. I sense a similar passion for life in Kansas in your work. If we were content, we would not grow. In pursuit of your goals, do not forget to enjoy the journey, fellow traveler.

[chris_hawkins]

<i>Besides, I'm a 50 years old and a vetereran who probably wouldn't mesh too well with art school students or professors (maybe this is a bad assumption).</i> If you, the students and professors can approach each other in the spirit of "respectful candor" and "thoughtful inquiry," the possibilities for growth and new learning are boundless. All you have to do is be willing to listen, truly listen, and you'll be surprised by each other's knowledge and perspectives.

[bruce_wehman]

Composition is like acting, in that you shouldn�t be able to see it. Often by studying an image from the standpoint of content, you may find that the frame places itself. When that happens, IMHO, you have good composition.

[tim_atherton2]

I'd echo what others have said - look at photography that draws you to it and try and see what makes those images "click" for you - you may have yopur own list of photogrpahers whose work attracts you (people on here know I have mine...!) - and it depends on what kind of photography you like. But also find some that challenges you. If you don't quite understand why people would photogrpahs cities or the suburbs, then look at some Basilico or Meyerowitz or Robert Adams etc. vice versa for landscapes.

 

BUT look outside photography - if you have any good museums nearby look at their paitings - from all periods - old masters to impressionsist to post modernism - see how things go together. And look at some good films too. See how a great cinematographer frames scenes and uses light.

 

tim

[shawn_kielty1]

Hi --

 

I think this is a fascinating conversation. Initially -- my thought is that looking at photography is not a very interesting place to learn much about composition. And -- I agree with Tim that museums and *movies* are excellent.. As are Japanese gardens. There's an excellent book about Isamu Noguchi's garden that is worth browsing for examples. Make sure to look at the composition of the garden - and not necessarily the photos.

 

I disagree completely with the previous post which equates "vision" with "composition" these are distinctly different things -- and both can be taught. However - teaching vision might require teaching some things other than art - so that the person needing training in "vision" might find something exciting to become empassioned about saying. Composition -- is a bit simpler and might even be fomularized - until at some point it is like riding a bike -- Technique and composition are both sublimated by the "vision."

 

I have a set of "rules" that I use to create (hopefully) effective compositions. I can't recall any book on composition that I can honestly recommend, although I've read several -- so I'll try just describing my ideas around it.

 

First -- Select a format. Don't omit this step just because there's only a 4x5 - Make a decision to use the whole format (or not) - and how to orient it. Leave the camera in a vertical format sometimes - to learn not to shoot every thing horizontal. Part of this step is going to be deciding angle, lighting and size of the stuff in the frame.

 

Don't center your subject in the frame -- (Skip the rule of thirds please - it's a shortcut to teach the "novice" artist to get out of the center of the frame) -- instead learn the golden rule or mean or whatever you want to call it. Dividing the "space" into thirds is only a little bit better than dividing it in half. Missing the rule of thirds by a bit is a whole lot better. Moving the subject - or main focal point off the center to a point that isn't spaced equally from anything (including the edges of the frame) will make the composition interesting -- close to a third is a good starting point.

 

Fill the frame with the intended subject(s). If the subject is a landscape it is usually (almost always) filling the frame. Eliminate the extraneous stuff - so move in to reduce the clutter. Don't plan to crop the image later - crop it now - try to create it to stand on it's own.

 

Keep the composition simple - Large, bold lines and objects will have more impact.

 

Try to create movement that steps or sweeps the viewer into what is important to show him (the "vision") and to keep him in the image. There is a general tendency toward "reading" the image from top left to bottom right, at least in the west, so the top left is often the entry point for the viewer. Items or objects within the composition that are related will tend to pull the viewer's attention around in the frame. Relationships can be based on content, color, intensity, value, size, etc. The viewers eye tends to follow linear elements - like the horizon - breaking these lines tends to keep the viewer looking at the image, rather than following it right off the page into the next room.

 

Break the edges and spaces of the composition into different sizes so as to make the composition a bit more dynamic. The "Vision" may want to supercede this -- If the vision asks for a static image, make the differences more subtle - but make them just enough out of equally spaced to assure that it looks confidently placed.

 

Seek a balance between the weight, color and/or patterns of the objects -- that is relative to their importance, or in some way pleasing (feels right , how subjective this will seem -)) or in some way matches the vision and/or maintains interest.

 

Simplify your composition.

 

Focus, click. I hope this helps a bit.

[justin_ames1]

Perception and Imaging, Richard D. Zakia. a book written by the instructor of composition at the Rochester Institute of Technology. very few pictures; a lot of gestalt methods applied to, and discussing the eye, and what produces visual order. interesting stuff.

 

I have lately been thinking that the composition is a word we use when we do not understand that the camera is a frame about an event, or a relationship. i have also noticed that i can see a really great composition, but the camera does not; or i can see a mediocre image, and the camera sees it otherwise. and finally, i think that "technique, composition, and vision" are words that dissect a fundamental unity, and it is this unity that we as photographers seek to command. this unity is another word for "camera". i'm not being facetious: i think it is very dangerous to impose one's ordinary perceptual matrix on the camera's, when what we need to do, is impose the camera's frame upon our perception. when you look at a photo, look at the frame: this structure is the fundamental ordering principle of what is contained within it. all relationships contained in that box or rectangle take their proper mathematical, logical, and aesthetic truths from it. hence the rule of thirds is a priority in the 35mm frame (this is the golden mean applied to all the corners in a rectangle in a ratio of 3 to 2); and is of little help in a medium format camera.

[sk_arts]

I assume that you are shooting black and white. If by chance you are not, read a book by Josef Albers on interactive color theory. Color can aid, or completely throw off a composition.