The Science of Composition

Anouilh

A thread to show good, bad and indifferent composition.

And yes, I know..., the Rule of Thirds rules..

DaireQuinlan

Anouilh wrote: »

http://anouilh.wordpress.com/2007/11/07/in-an-oatfield/

A thread to show good, bad and indifferent composition.

And yes, I know..., the Rule of Thirds rules..

Should there be some text on that blog post that we're meant to discuss or something

Zascar

What's the rule of thirds? I think I can guess but just in case can someon explain?

melekalikimaka

Zascar wrote: »

What's the rule of thirds? I think I can guess but just in case can someon explain?

http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Michael_Fodor/Photo_School_-_Rule_of_Thirds/ruleofthirds.jpg

Nisio

I think we're to put up examples of good and bad composition?

melekalikimaka

i find that whole rule of thirds thing a load of crap tbh...

does anyone actually adhere to it

humberklog

The notion of people thinking that there's a science to composition sends a shiver down my spine in the same way as eugenics and scientology do.

Crispin

humberklog wrote: »

The notion of people thinking that there's a science to composition sends a shiver down my spine in the same way as eugenics and scientology do.

a tad extreme there ^^^^ I don't think it is even close to becoming as obscene as eugenics.
I don't really see the problem of people being methodical/ scientific about composition. Especially if it improves the aesthetics of peoples pictures! Not everyone can just "see" the picture.
Michael Freeman's The photographers eye is an interesting read on this subject.

melekalikimaka

Crispin wrote: »

a tad extreme there ^^^^ I don't think it is even close to becoming as obscene as eugenics.
I don't really see the problem of people being methodical/ scientific about composition. Especially if it improves the aesthetics of peoples pictures! Not everyone can just "see" the picture.
Michael Freeman's The photographers eye is an interesting read on this subject.

do you not feel adhereing by this silly rule...almost limits your creativity... its almost like instead of drawing a landscape, its nearly colour by numbers... you still can be somewhat creative....but within the limits of the lines

Crispin

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i find that whole rule of thirds thing a load of crap tbh...

does anyone actually adhere to it

I have in mind with landscape stuff quite often, but rules are there to be broken

Crispin

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do you not feel adhereing by this silly rule...almost limits your creativity... its almost like instead of drawing a landscape, its nearly colour by numbers... you still can be somewhat creative....but within the limits of the lines

I don't think it has to necessarily has to stifle creativity as I said rules are there to be broken

Many of my own favourite photographs break all the "rules".

Rather than sticking firmly to a rule I think about the concepts I feel work in things I see, whether it be other peoples photography, art, architecture etc. and try to incorporate these ideas into my own work. I am still at a very early stage in my photography so I am picking up ideas as i go along and keep these things in mind. I feel like a sort of ideas sponge

However these rules of photography (thirds, diagonals etc.) have been developed for a reason . In general they work. And not everyone is creative and following this basic rules can help them get better photos than they usually would then I say "good for them".

Scarlett68

In todays digital world does the "science of composition" really matter at all. If your compostion is bad/absent, recify it later. If your composition is perfect but stale, manipulate and adulterate it later. After all, the credibility of any image as a vehicle to "bear witness" to our world is gone forever. Harsh but true (in mind at least). :eek:

Crispin

Scarlett68 wrote: »

In todays digital world does the "science of composition" really matter at all. If your compostion is bad/absent, recify it later. If your composition is perfect but stale, manipulate and adulterate it later. After all, the credibility of any image as a vehicle to "bear witness" to our world is gone forever. Harsh but true (in mind at least). :eek:

:eek::eek: Harsh and untrue IMO. any image? :eek: yes you can fabricate images but thats not what everyone does. Daily news relies almost entirely on the capture of images on digital cameras. I think most of these are pretty credible.

Post processing was very much apart of the film era anyway, many of the digital techniques are developped from the darkroom techniques!

And lastly photography is not just documentary, it's also art. For the purposes of pure art, manipulation is no more than painting a picture the artist wants the viewer to see.

Just my 2c on that debate

Scarlett68

Crispin wrote: »

:eek::eek: Harsh and untrue IMO. any image? :eek: yes you can fabricate images but thats not what everyone does. Daily news relies almost entirely on the capture of images on digital cameras. I think most of these are pretty credible.

I think by definition you have proven my point. You say "most are pretty credibile". Can we or will we ever, as consumers of the imagery, know beyond a shadow of a doubt, the truth behind the image....the only one who knows that truth is the originator. But dont get me wrong I love and respect photography as a documentary tool, as a art form, as an expression of who we are. But i reiterate, we are all taking a leap of faith in trusting any image!

melekalikimaka

Crispin wrote: »

Post processing was very much apart of the film era anyway, many of the digital techniques are developped from the darkroom techniques!

i'd agree there, cropping has been done since the beginning

humberklog

Scarlett68 wrote: »

Crispin wrote: »

But i reiterate, we are all taking a leap of faith in trusting any image!

Not at all. For e.g I've taken to stashing childrens cadevers in a field in Summerhill, Co. Meath. The pictures (one on the Random thread, posted today) a real!

Indeed Crispin a tad extreme if I sit and consider a wider picture of a collective of people with an interest in finding out more about photography. But personally that is how I feel about the sciences of structure.

And sure enough for a lot of people a guide is good. It could give people confidence and knowledge which will/can help them along. But there is a very real flip to that and that is: while courses and discussion groups and books explaining about structure (and therefore presentation) of an image this can lead to such a large school of the same thought. That's fine in itself. However it can spill over into being reflected in the work of camera clubs and groups. The results of this can be seen if you take in a good number of exhibition. The pictures are very often 'perfect'. Composition, balance, focus, lighting, crisp clean edges...perfect pictures that have come to the fore of the group and therefore displayed.
But my suspicion has been that the pictures have come to be placed on a wall because of their photographical (as a science) perfection not because they grab the viewer by the cahoonas and give a squeeze.

These courses/books/seminars/meetings in business park car parks are indeed brilliant I'm sure for many people wanting to flow into a very enjoyable hobby but my instinct is to be harsh as I'm quite often disappopinted looking at the results being displayed when it's done collectively, which it often is. Because those that needv that information are more likely to join classes, which in turn have exhibitions.
It is a eugenics for the arts. The Scientologist jibe was just a red herring.

Anouilh

I left this thread open in the hope that a lively debate would be the result. This has been the case and it links with last year's threads on the same subject very well.

I had some very helpful tutors on another forum and anybody looking for tips might enjoy searching there:

http://www.p45rant.net/boards/showthread.php?t=62736&page=83

I do not much enjoy the rule of thirds when it leads to banal photos with everything is classical proportions. However, when used with insight, it can create some very fine landscapes.

The value of photography in contemporary society is very much open to discussion and there is actually room for everyone.

Perhaps posting favourite photos that highlight some aspect of composition that has caught the poster's eye would be of benefit?

Fajitas!

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i find that whole rule of thirds thing a load of crap tbh...

does anyone actually adhere to it

Yes.

Crispin

humberklog wrote: »

But my suspicion has been that the pictures have come to be placed on a wall because of their photographical (as a science) perfection not because they grab the viewer by the cahoonas and give a squeeze.

^^ interactive photography:D

Scientology is in itself the teachings of a genius. A science fiction writer with a sense of humour

(can you please change your post as i am misquoted, twas scarlett uttered those words not me)

Fajitas!

Actually, hang on.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

do you not feel adhereing by this silly rule...almost limits your creativity... its almost like instead of drawing a landscape, its nearly colour by numbers... you still can be somewhat creative....but within the limits of the lines

This dosn't make an ounce of sense. There's too many almosts and nearly's to have any argument there. Of course one can be creative by following what's been laid out before us - Studies into aesthetics are done for a reason (And have been done for hundreds of years - far longer than a contemporary medium like photography can compete with). They're generally correct. They can also be broken for another aesthetic, but following the rules won't stifle anyones creative flow. Your post may aswell just say "Postcount +1" for all the sense it makes.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

i'd agree there, cropping has been done since the beginning

Actually, no, it was quite a while after "The Beginning" that cropping was done. And even then, it was quite a while after photography's invention that cropping was incorporated - Reason being: the plates used weren't all that expendable or easy to crop. With later processes, it did become more and more common.

/fin

:pac:

Scarlett68

Fajitas, i have to agree with you. The syntax and grammar of any genre can and will evolve over time and what is de rigeur today will almost certainly not be tomorrow. When we cannot think "outside the box" at any moment in our lives then what harm in living within its confines now and again.

Anouilh

Is there such a thing as "bad" composition?

Is it all in the eye of the beholder?

dinneenp

it's a guideline but rules are made to be broken...but it can make a photo look better. some good examples here

Fajitas!

Well, yes, there is a general notion of 'bad composition' but bad composition does not make a bad photograph - At most, it'll make it a 'technically imperfect' photograph, which doesn't matter one iota if the final image is captured the way you want it captured.

Anouilh

http://photoinf.com/General/Robert_Berdan/Composition_and_the_Elements_of_Visual_Design.htm





[IMG][/img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/3698660927_fab9facbed.jpg

Morrisseeee

I suppose it depends on who your 'composition' is for, is it for the general public, then maybe you should adhere to the rule of thirds etc, otherwise the ordinary guy/gal will not even look at your composition. It has to be pleasing to their eye, and in general....these are simple things ! (....not that thats a simple job to do !).
Whereas if you are trying to impress other professionals, then the composition rules change, ie. the harder it is to impress !

Anouilh

In other words, professionals are prepared to take more creative risks?

There is a sense of being finished in a professional photograph that is never found in a snap. Your insightful post sent me off reading round the subject and I found this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ngudu/116242779/in/photostream/

Professionals also set trends, which hobbyists and amateurs tend to emulate, I suppose.

Anouilh

Are there photographers working at the moment who stand out because of their successful use of composition?

Are they being copied by the general public?

ThOnda

Did you mean figural composition, tonal composition or colour composition? :pac:

Anouilh

ThOnda wrote: »

Did you mean figural composition, tonal composition or colour composition? :pac:

Any area of composition would widen the discussion. Often critiques are based on feeling or on personal taste. Learning to analyse an image, as one would a novel or short story, could help in mastering one's work.

I often admire a photo without particularly liking it, so, as ever, the question of aesthetics and contemporary style is on my mind.

SaturnV

Morrisseeee wrote: »

I suppose it depends on who your 'composition' is for, is it for the general public, then maybe you should adhere to the rule of thirds etc, otherwise the ordinary guy/gal will not even look at your composition. It has to be pleasing to their eye, and in general....these are simple things ! (....not that thats a simple job to do !).
Whereas if you are trying to impress other professionals, then the composition rules change, ie. the harder it is to impress !

Is that true? I mean, the perceived "quality" of an image does depend on context, but is there a line in the sand in terms of aesthetics between professional photographers and everyone else? Where does the amateur enthusiast lie in this spectrum? Maybe a professional photographer will look with a technical eye and will be "harder to please" from that perspective, but aesthetically?

sheesh

this thread is a way off topic imo. if you are starting off definitely learn the rules of composition. Only when you know the rules can you break them successfully.

Anouilh

SaturnV wrote: »

Is that true? I mean, the perceived "quality" of an image does depend on context, but is there a line in the sand in terms of aesthetics between professional photographers and everyone else? Where does the amateur enthusiast lie in this spectrum? Maybe a professional photographer will look with a technical eye and will be "harder to please" from that perspective, but aesthetically?

I think one's personal aesthetic changes over time and photos that were adequate seem less accomplished as one improves, regardless of whether one is professional or not.

However, since a professional has had a rigorous training and is competing with his/her peers and with the greats of the past, there will be more pressure all round.
I had one of my photo's compared to a Rothko painting, which was a compliment. Nobody, so far, has compared any work by others in the public sphere to my photos. When that begins to happen and it is enhanced by references in Google Scholar, reproduction of photos in the leading art magazines of the day and (de rigueur) a pat on the head by Martin Parr I will know that I'm getting somewhere.

It's not just about public persona, but about having a recognisable style that is definitively identified with that person's work. Many hobbyists remain at the "Pastiches et Mélanges " stage in the art, which is already not bad.

Scarlett68 wrote: »

Fajitas, i have to agree with you. The syntax and grammar of any genre can and will evolve over time and what is de rigeur today will almost certainly not be tomorrow. When we cannot think "outside the box" at any moment in our lives then what harm in living within its confines now and again.

Art is not an organic form like living creatures are, I think. The concept of evolution does not fit well with the way that compositions that at first seem novel and creative become debased and depleted in the hands of lesser practitioners. Andy Warhol's once revolutionary compositions were seen as being so far outside the box as to be evidence of ill health. Now his iconography is on every shop window you pass and does not have the shock of the new.

As for rules, it seems that the box may no longer exist. There was a row when Martin Parr was nominated as a member of Magnum. That was a long time ago and digital imagery has changed photography forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Medium_is_the_Massage

http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/theory-martin-parr-humanity-is-not.html

SaturnV

sheesh wrote: »

this thread is a way off topic imo. if you are starting off definitely learn the rules of composition. Only when you know the rules can you break them successfully.

I totally disagree. If the "rule" is of any use at all, you should be able to prove it to yourself. Which is better to explain to someone that is trying to learn to be a better photographer; the rule of thirds, or that they should move the subjects and objects in the composition around the frame, and look at the results afterwards, and see what works best. If the rules of composition are of any use, you'll arrive at it by experimentation surely?

I read an essay by Cartier-Bresson a few years ago where he said something along the lines of hating the ridiculous thought that some day cameras would have grids on the viewfinder lined along the thirds...

There are some rules to be learned in photography, of course, but they relate to exposure, not composition. And the ability to multiply by the square root of 2...

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

Art is not an organic form like living creatures are, I think. The concept of evolution does not fit well with the way that compositions that at first seem novel and creative become debased and depleted in the hands of lesser practitioners. Andy Warhol's once revolutionary compositions were seen as being so far outside the box as to be evidence of ill health. Now his iconography is on every shop window you pass and does not have the shock of the new.

Sorry, what!?

Art is as organic a form as the people making it, conceptuality and composition are generally completely seperate parts of what can come together to form art, though there isn't always a need for composition, whereas concept is vital. Furthermore the concept of evolution is shown within framing, look at the television, different eras had different ratios, composition within which is different.

Anouilh

Fajitas! wrote: »

Sorry, what!?

Art is as organic a form as the people making it, conceptuality and composition are generally completely seperate parts of what can come together to form art, though there isn't always a need for composition, whereas concept is vital. Furthermore the concept of evolution is shown within framing, look at the television, different eras had different ratios, composition within which is different.

We seem to have moved into the area of form and function and since that chestnut continues to engage Western thought without coming to any conclusion I thought to share a practical link on composition:

http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/photocomposition.htm

I am now trying to think of a good example of a photo that lacks composition and would be grateful if you could do the same so as to clarify our communication.
Abstract photos still have an internal ordering of elements that make them composed. The tonal qualities of a compositon are very important.

Thank you for helping me to think.

sheesh wrote: »

... if you are starting off definitely learn the rules of composition. Only when you know the rules can you break them successfully.

Whenever I see that phrase repeated I remind myself that Van Gogh set himself the challenge to paint like Rembrandt. They both broke through the conventional barriers of their time and they were also masters in the art of light. And you are right, they were both masters in their trade and explored new avenues.

Let's hope we don't remain forever embedded in the rule of thirds. There are so many other rules to think about.

Fajitas!

Anouilh wrote: »

We seem to have moved into the area of form and function and since that chestnut continues to engage Western thought without coming to any conclusion I thought to share a practical link on composition:

http://www.yellowstonenationalpark.com/photocomposition.htm

I am now trying to think of a good example of a photo that lacks composition and would be grateful if you could do the same so as to clarify our communication.
Abstract photos still have an internal ordering of elements that make them composed. The tonal qualities of a compositon are very important.

Thank you for helping me to think.

Well your quest to a photograph with no composition is going to be fruitless I'm afraid, it's whether the composition is good or 'bad', whether it works or dosn't in the context provided and whether the composition is an integral aspect of the image being successful (Aesthetically) that you should be looking for - Every photograph contains a 'composition' of imagery. Even an abstract photo has composition, indeed, it's the composition that makes it abstract.

Anouilh

I was trying to engage with "though there isn't always a need for composition" and understand what you meant. I have to admit I was finding it difficult to think of any photo I have seen that had that quality.

Anouilh

The Eggleston documentary has started a lot of discussion on what a good photo is.

Much of his work seems like visual jazz;

http://www.egglestontrust.com/ancient_intro.html

IvyTheTerrible

Isn't the whole point of these rules that you learn them so that you then understand when to break them?

I definitely think rules of composition helped me. I definitely see an improvement in my photos since I learned the rule of thirds.

melekalikimaka

Fajitas! wrote: »

. Even an abstract photo has composition, indeed, it's the composition that makes it abstract.

I likes this Al, thats your new trademark quote, well said

Simplicius

Surely composition is entirely subjective and personal. I don't think about it, I take the picture when it looks right to my gut if I have time to. If I don't, I just ensure I capture the moment as best I can.

Why tie yourself in knots over essays and guidance on composition. Being booksmart never, in any profession made someone good at their task. Go forth and shoot, examine your own pictures and forget about composition while doing so. Identify and stick with what appeals to you, ask yourself why you prefer it to on of your pictures you think is only ok. then try to further shoot that way. It's your style, develop it and stop worrying what others think. When your pictures give you pleasure and pride the rest just kinda happens.

(Not aimed at OP in any way just a general bitch) I really get annoyed at people who forget photography is a selfish pursuit aimed at pleasing yourself first and foremost. Some seem to try hard to not have fun but stress and frustration about what they produce.

that's my two cents worth.

Anouilh

Simplicius wrote: »

Surely composition is entirely subjective and personal....

How one takes a photo reveals a personal style and mastery. Composition exists in all arts and is usually taken seriously. I was criticised on another forum for not having horizons and buildings straight. It led to a great discussion on classical styles of composition and then mention of the New Wave in French cinema in the early '60,s. I tend to find classical composition very old fashioned, unless used with discretion. Buildings with domes that are set diagonal in the frame make me feel dizzy, which can be enjoyable as it adds to the impact of the building. The degree at which the angle is set is important, however.

sheesh

SaturnV wrote: »

I totally disagree. If the "rule" is of any use at all, you should be able to prove it to yourself. Which is better to explain to someone that is trying to learn to be a better photographer; the rule of thirds, or that they should move the subjects and objects in the composition around the frame, and look at the results afterwards, and see what works best. If the rules of composition are of any use, you'll arrive at it by experimentation surely?

No one is saying you should follow it. just learn it. as part of a process of learning to become a photographer.

sheesh

Simplicius wrote: »

Surely composition is entirely subjective and personal. I don't think about it, I take the picture when it looks right to my gut if I have time to. If I don't, I just ensure I capture the moment as best I can.

Not necessarily, what looks right to you will probably look right to other people this is the basis of the rules of composition.