Composition in photography

[Janet Petty]

I've been helping teach beginners the basics of photography; and I also recently took some classes to improve my skills. I'm well aware of the "rules" of composition and such and the fact that once learned and practiced just beg to be broken or at least bent.

What I'd like to begin a discussion about is composition. What makes us all want to take that little focus point in the center of the screen and leave our subject smack dab in the middle? What about photo real estate, negative space, leading lines, telling a story, etc., etc.? What about interest, the decisive moment, telling a story, color, contrast, and on and on?

One of the reasons I ask is that even after drilling composition into students for a full semester, the majority of their portfolios at the end of the semester ignored composition. Bull's-eye vision was the predominant theme.

The second reason I ask is that it makes a good discussion. Come on all you artists and photographers out there. Let's rock and roll.

Janet

[Swampy]

Great topic of discussion, Janet.

I'm a firm believer in white space and am a devout minimalist. I think I took this attitude when I started designing business cards. With these cards you have a finite amount of space to work with (2.5 x 3 inches) and specific information that must be included. They are NOT the place to list all your products and services. I studied the Carlson Craft business card catalog which was full of excellent examples of design and layout. They are more of a challenge these days when, in addition to basic logo, name, address and phone information, folks now want to include email address, web URL, cell phone numbers etc. The principals of composition for business cards has carried over into my other creative endeavors as well as my approach to photography.

It might be a good study for your students.

[Janet Petty]

Good points Swampy. I agree wholeheartedly with the minimalist approach and often find that the negative space in a photo lends itself to compositing, text, and so forth.

Janet

[palms]

This is going to be a real interesting topic
When taking photo's i fall into the get it in to the centre brigade ! I dont know why, maybe because it is easy or i dont have the "eye" to see anything different I do try but back into the centre it ends up

but i like the opposite and on a few photo art projects i have tried to get some subjects off centre

Here is a link to one image that i really like for the quirkyness ( i mean the compostion not the technique although i like that as well)

http://www.pbase.com/sianp/image/95095733

and here is a link to the same persons flower gallery that inspired me to try the same (bet you cant guess where all my flowers ended up, yep you got it in the middle )

http://www.pbase.com/sianp/flowers_on_white

Palms

[Janet Petty]

Originally Posted by palms1

This is going to be a real interesting topic

Oh, I do hope so.

The links you posted have some great photography. What, may I ask, leads you to define the portrait of the little girl as quirky? Details please.

Also, don't you think that what is garbage to one viewer may be someone else's Awww moment?

Janet

[palms]

Originally Posted by Janet Petty

Oh, I do hope so.

The links you posted have some great photography. What, may I ask, leads you to define the portrait of the little girl as quirky? Details please.

Also, don't you think that what is garbage to one viewer may be someone else's Awww moment?

Janet

Ok what i perceive as being quirky is that the image doesn't contain the whole of the child's head, and that there is approximately 2/3 of just white space, plus the face looks big for the size of the image (not to sure how to explain that bit )

Now i don't know whether Sian took the photo like this or if she manipulated it, but i do know that had it been me the child would of been central with probably the cross hair on the nose ! ! ! !

Also my definition of quirky is something different be it a lot or just a bit from the norm


Phew Janet good job this is about photo's because i hated having to explain things at school in English comprehension



And yes i agree what is appealing to one person isn't to another, but that argument is for another topic i think

Palms

[Janet Petty]

Agreed Palms. It is a bit "out of the norm" as far as traditional portraits are concerned. But the elements of good composition are there.

I'm not too good putting words into my mouth either. So I'm with you there.

Janet

[LonK]

Excellent subject for discussion indeed Janet. It's most certainly a subject that applies to retouching as well as photography itself.

Rather than jump in with my personal take on the subject, here's an excellent overview to help get the ball rolling: Guidelines for Better Photographic Composition

[palms]

Lonk that is a excellent link, I have gone through it once for now and bookmarked it to go back too
I found it to be well put together and put in a way that is easy to understand.

In fact i pinpointed a problem of mine ( when taking photographs) quite early on where it stated that a "well composed picture needs careful planning and patience" on the whole i dont plan and i have limited patience




Now Janet would i be right to say that in the photo of the little girl that she fits into the rule of thirds and hence why i find it to be pleasing ?

I knew this would be interesting (as well as educational for me anyway )


Palms

[Janet Petty]

Lonnie, that is a superb slideshow. Thank you for sharing it.

Janet

[LonK]

I noticed you attached a couple of graphs to your first post Janet, but didn't address their relativity. I assume you intended to talk about the "Rule of Thirds". To follow, here's a brief article I wrote some time ago on the subject. I know it's very basic, but even for accomplished photographers (and retouchers), it never hurts to review.

[CJ Swartz]

Janet, you've chosen a great subject for discussion!

I've shot photographs ever since I was a little kid, but never took a real art class or photography class until after I retired. I knew that some photos and paintings appealed to me more than others, but I did not know WHY, and I did not know how to improve my own photos. We need to learn a language to help us talk about why some images appeal more to us than others, and that's where the rules of composition help. These rules have been used for thousands of years in drawing and painting, and rely quite possibly on instinctive reactions within us humans - most people DO know that they prefer one painting or photo to another - but have a hard time trying to explain in words what makes them FEEL that difference. Learning the language of composition helps us understand why we love the look of one image and don't care as much for another -- even if the basic subject is the same.

Lon - that slideshow is an excellent resource for folks who would like to brush up on their basics of good composition. One especially helpful tip from the site recommends "You can help yourself develop an artistic eye by studying pictures to find the strength of their lines, geometric shapes, and balance." First, we need to be taught what to look for, and the language to use to describe what we see, and then we need to practice seeing those rules in action.

I think many of us (non-pro photographers) started out shooting pictures of family, pets, and favorite places. We weren't focusing with our eyes, but with our hearts. That's part of the reason that we didn't notice the cluttered background, the telephone pole sticking out of someone's head, etc. -- we were only seeing someone or something we loved. When we got the prints back, we were disappointed by the photo a bit, but still loved it because it was a piece of a loved one. If we can learn to SEE the background, mid-ground, foreground, the compositional rules and how they might apply to this particular situation, and also FOCUS on how to enhance our loved person, pet, or favorite place using a bit of thinking, careful looking, and just a minute or so of extra time, we can end up having a treasured photo that reminds us of our loved one AND an image that anyone would look at and enjoy.

I still make mistakes and find electrical lines or a satellite antenna sticking up in the background that even my bad eyesight should have noticed, but I'm getting better about thinking about vertical vs horizontal, leaving room in front of a moving subject, placement somewhere OTHER than the middle bulls-eye section of the frame, etc. Some things come naturally now, and others I still have to take time to think about.

[Janet Petty]

Originally Posted by CJ Swartz

I think many of us (non-pro photographers) started out shooting pictures of family, pets, and favorite places. We weren't focusing with our eyes, but with our hearts. That's part of the reason that we didn't notice the cluttered background, the telephone pole sticking out of someone's head, etc. -- we were only seeing someone or something we loved. When we got the prints back, we were disappointed by the photo a bit, but still loved it because it was a piece of a loved one. If we can learn to SEE the background, mid-ground, foreground, the compositional rules and how they might apply to this particular situation, and also FOCUS on how to enhance our loved person, pet, or favorite place using a bit of thinking, careful looking, and just a minute or so of extra time, we can end up having a treasured photo that reminds us of our loved one AND an image that anyone would look at and enjoy.

I still make mistakes and find electrical lines or a satellite antenna sticking up in the background that even my bad eyesight should have noticed, but I'm getting better about thinking about vertical vs horizontal, leaving room in front of a moving subject, placement somewhere OTHER than the middle bulls-eye section of the frame, etc. Some things come naturally now, and others I still have to take time to think about.

Lonnie, you have a simple, straightforward, clear, and concise article. I might ask to copy that in the future. It certainly says it all better than all the drawing on the dry erase board and picture critiques we did.

CJ, you said it all. I often told the students that we can take pictures of all the beauty and nature there is but what really endures are the keepsake pictures that bring us treasured memories; and if they could learn the basic rules of composition and use them on who was important to them, then they would have learned a lot.

Bad eyesight? You said it. If it wasn't for auto focus, I would be up the creek without the proverbial paddle. I just have to remember to focus, lock, and recompose (again with the composition).

Janet

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by palms1

And yes i agree what is appealing to one person isn't to another, but that argument is for another topic i think

Palms

I agree too, but it seems with almost anything, someone gets in with the comment. "This is so overdone, etc", I like to look at and try everything. . . . and if I like it, I like it and if I don't, I just move on with no comment!

[Frank Lopes]

Here is an exercise for you all: a panoramic that I shot a couple of weeks ago.

I'm curious to see how each of you would crop this image.
And please explain why you elected to do it the way you did it.

Later I'll post my version.

[Swampy]

Great pano, Frank!

I cropped to the fountain since it is a point of interest in the overall image. I used the golden rule to find the sweet spot, but adjusted the actual crop a little large to get a little more sky.

[LonK]

Well done Swampy!

OK Frank. I'll play. Of course there are several ways to effectively crop this. As a pano scenic, there is no presumptive central subject other than the scene itself.

For my first composition, I choose an active portrait crop featuring the tall, stark, darker trees. The shoreline forms a dynamic "S" curve providing a path for the eye to follow through the scene. By including a bit of land in the foreground, the feeling of depth is increased. Depth is further supported through the symmetrical reflections of the trees in the water. The dark trees on the left balance the warm colorful trees on the right.

The second landscape composition utilizes the Rule of Thirds. The tall trees balance the floral tree in the foreground. Diagonal leading lines along the grass (and clouds), and the warmer central colors draw the viewer into the scene. The reflections and curved shoreline further support this more passive composition.

In both, I took the liberty of including some wispy clouds to give the stark sky a bit more character and kicked up the saturation some.

[Swampy]

Well, done, Lonnie. Especially like the second one.

[palms]

I found this a hard challenge as there seems to be quite a few crops that could happen plus i made the mistake of looking at the other posts first
but i chose this crop as

1. the fountain i think loosely fits into the rule of thirds
2. the buggys have room to move
3. the bank has a curve to it as does the road and the hill

but i am not sure about the lines as the hill line seems to be across the middle

well how did this novice at composition do?

Palms

[0lBaldy]

Great Shoot/Shot Frank .. Thanks for the exercise

I see at least 8 excellent individual pictures (crops) here depending upon what you want to emphasize.

I presumed you wanted a Pano..

I looked at all the points of interest and flow of the crop ..
I straightened a bit then cropped as my old eyes told me to for a Pano..

The Pano worked for me so here tis

[LonK]

Originally Posted by palms1

...well how did this novice at composition do?

A preponderance of strong horizontal and/or vertical lines generally makes for a rather static composition (though sometimes that's desired). What I see in your crop are two distinct lines that essentially cut the image into 2, 3, even 4 discrete parts. Also, because the fountain is so small and isolated, it's almost distracting. I feel the carts are also too small to considered points of interest.

Try this: cover the left half -> nice, cover the right half -> nice.

[MatthewMarshall]

I try not to follow rules and over think what i do. I just do. I dont think in m y head is this well in the norm of the "rules" of composition. I just take photos that i like at the time. It seems to have worked out for me so far.

[Janet Petty]

I'm going to take the 5th on this pano. I see possibilities for individual pictures; but the pano as a whole works for me.

On the other hand, I might just cut some off the right side as I'm looking at it. It still keeps a pano feel to the picture but takes some of the excessive length. More in proportion with the golden mean.

Janet

P.S. No pic to post. My computer is having a clean-up, update.

[Frank Lopes]

Janet,

I think you are right about the extra length on the right side. It doesn't belong in the picture. At least for me, it doesn't.

Lonk,

I agree with you that the "S" curve on the left, should be preserved. For me, it gives it an interesting sense of motion that goes against the static up and down of the trees.

Here is what I ended up doing. Please comment on it.

Originally Posted by Janet Petty

...
On the other hand, I might just cut some off the right side as I'm looking at it. It still keeps a pano feel to the picture but takes some of the excessive length. More in proportion with the golden mean.
Janet

[Janet Petty]

Frank, you cropped it exactly where I would have put the crop.

I think it preserves the S curve, the rule of thirds, and is a pleasing proportion.

Janet

[Nikolas]

Interesting discussion so far, and forgive me for having to disagree with most of what has been said. I, like many of the people here, am familiar with the rules of composition, after having them pounded in my head over several years of film school. I disagree though, that rules and conventions are what define a good photograph.

Photography is more then grabbing a camera and capturing what we see; it is a means to put oneself in that place again when one looks at the picture in the future; it is a means to share the beauty of life in one still frame; it is a means to share the intricate balance and harmony between man and nature. Every photograph, in its own right, does this, and, by some means, will be appealing to someone.

When I'm out with my camera, I'm not thinking about the composition of the image, or where to place things so that they are more 'visually appealing'; I'm thinking about what I WANT out of the images, and what STORY I want to tell with these images. Thinking this way helps me point my camera and capture the image I'm looking for, without much grief.

This idea of the rule of thirds is an age old means of defining what is visually appealing. However, the very definition of creativity is the use of the imagination and original ideas, especially in an artistic work. By defining work as falling within the conventions of the rule of thirds, or any other compositional rule, we strip away the photographers creativity, and creative right.

Ultimately, my argument is that we should never define how well composed a photograph is simply by the 'standard conventions'. Take risks. Tell a story. Be creative.

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

Interesting discussion so far, and forgive me for having to disagree with most of what has been said. I, like many of the people here, am familiar with the rules of composition, after having them pounded in my head over several years of film school. I disagree though, that rules and conventions are what define a good photograph.

Photography is more then grabbing a camera and capturing what we see; it is a means to put oneself in that place again when one looks at the picture in the future; it is a means to share the beauty of life in one still frame; it is a means to share the intricate balance and harmony between man and nature. Every photograph, in its own right, does this, and, by some means, will be appealing to someone.

When I'm out with my camera, I'm not thinking about the composition of the image, or where to place things so that they are more 'visually appealing'; I'm thinking about what I WANT out of the images, and what STORY I want to tell with these images. Thinking this way helps me point my camera and capture the image I'm looking for, without much grief.

This idea of the rule of thirds is an age old means of defining what is visually appealing. However, the very definition of creativity is the use of the imagination and original ideas, especially in an artistic work. By defining work as falling within the conventions of the rule of thirds, or any other compositional rule, we strip away the photographers creativity, and creative right.

Ultimately, my argument is that we should never define how well composed a photograph is simply by the 'standard conventions'. Take risks. Tell a story. Be creative.

The rules have come about through a sort of "reverse engineering" of what is considered good art. And it does not alway work. But then, it does help to give folks a "road map" of sorts to begin to help them to "see".

[palms]

Originally Posted by LonK

A preponderance of strong horizontal and/or vertical lines generally makes for a rather static composition (though sometimes that's desired). What I see in your crop are two distinct lines that essentially cut the image into 2, 3, even 4 discrete parts. Also, because the fountain is so small and isolated, it's almost distracting. I feel the carts are also too small to considered points of interest.

Try this: cover the left half -> nice, cover the right half -> nice.

Thank you Lonk for your input, I find this to be quite tricky although interesting, And i find it is easier to learn by doing excersises like this one, and that is what i liked about your first link the do and not do photo's


Palms

[Janet Petty]

Palms, that might be a good tangent for this discussion thread. If we could post examples and learn from them, then it will take us to a whole new dimension of learning.

Janet

[hawkeye60]

Great topic. This is a picture I took in Morocco last year, without any real thought towards composition, this is the way I cropped it. Just what I felt was pleasing to my eye.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of others, as to how they would have treated it. And why.