# The "Golden Section" versus the "Rule of Thirds."



## jwbryson1 (Aug 7, 2013)

A friend of mine is an architect and professional artist.  He looked at a few of my images and commented that instead of following the rules of thirds when composing a shot, I should instead be following the Golden Section or Golden Ratio rule.  He's an expert at composition so I listen to him closely.

What are your thoughts on this?

Discuss...


----------



## ronlane (Aug 7, 2013)

I actually have that on my LR when I turn on the crop tool instead of the rule of thirds. Not sure why I did it but I like it and have used it for some time.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 7, 2013)

guess im just not overly familiar with this "golden section" bit.
is that like the 60/40 "golden ratio"?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 7, 2013)

An Open-Ended Course in Photography: Advanced Composition and the Golden Ratio


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 7, 2013)

composition - What is the &#39;Golden Ratio&#39; and why is it better than the &#39;Rule of Thirds?&#39; - Photography Stack Exchange


----------



## Big Mike (Aug 7, 2013)

I've studied it a bit, and I like the concepts (they go back thousands of years)...but I'm not really one to strictly follow any of those 'rules'.  

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2013)

He's saying he can spot the difference between 61% and 66% visually in an image where the subject could easily be several times larger than the difference in placement?

Sounds suspiciously like a blowhard trying to sound like he knows something.

Every example I see explaining why the golden ratio is better than thirds, the difference in composition is really influenced by something else entirely, like the cropping out or intentional including of some other element.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> He's saying...



Who is the "he" you are referring to?


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2013)

"A friend of mine is an architect and professional artist.  He looked at a....."

He.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 7, 2013)

Arrrrrrg. Arg, I say. Arrrg.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 7, 2013)

I learn something new every day, didn't realize there was a golden section or golden ratio rule. It's just one more thing to ignore when I shoot.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 7, 2013)

The fibonacci spiral is, by definition, inscribed inside of a golden rectangle. Unless your picture is cropped to 1:1.618 or so, any rule involving the fibonacci spiral is meaningless. Since nobody crops pictures to such an absurdly skinny rectangle these days, the rule is a meaningless.

If you just draw a golden rectangle inside your picture someplace and use that, well, the rule is really saying "put the subject anywhere you like, and then draw a spiral and a rectangle to fit, by way of justifying it"

Stop thinking so much about "the subject" and approach the frame holistically, get all elements in balance. The "subject" is just the dominant visual element in a frame with other lesser visual elements.

Blah blah blah standard rant about ahistoricity of all these dumb rules, despite claims to the contrary, etc and so forth.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> He's saying he can spot the difference between 61% and 66% visually in an image where the subject could easily be several times larger than the difference in placement?
> 
> Sounds suspiciously like a blowhard trying to sound like he knows something.
> 
> Every example I see explaining why the golden ratio is better than thirds, the difference in composition is really influenced by something else entirely, like the cropping out or intentional including of some other element.


I can tell the difference between 10, 12, 13, and 14mm bolt heads and nuts by looking at them. Why?  Because it's what I've been doing for years.  Most people can't.   There is a distinct difference between Golden Mean and Rule of thirds composition.   Not everyone can tell.   What's really bad is when someone is so slavish to the R.o.T. that they literally just compose their images to have something on each "eye" with no thought for the movement and dynamics of the image; resulting in a very "rigid" composition.   Personally, I like to compose on diagonals via the golden section.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 7, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> An Open-Ended Course in Photography: Advanced Composition and the Golden Ratio



I LOVE THIS PAGE!

Check the picture of the windmill, in the Rule Of Thirds example. Look closely. Is that grid a 1/3 grid? NO, it is NOT. They just drew some dumb lines any old place on some cliched picture they pulled out of somewhere. I've seen that picture before, not sure if it was on this web site, or if these bozos are stealing incorrect pictures from one another or what.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2013)

Scatterbrained said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > He's saying he can spot the difference between 61% and 66% visually in an image where the subject could easily be several times larger than the difference in placement?
> ...



Personally, I like to compose on a canvas where the space is used intentionally for foreground and background elements, moving things or the canvas around until it "works".  

In the discussion jw posted, the example image was better on the thirds than the golden ratio... why?  Because it (sorta almost) finished cropping out the half cropped out guitar player on the left.  But it would have been even better with the guitarist left in and the singer centered.  But hey, then it wouldn't be a golden composition, it would just be a shot that works.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 7, 2013)

They're all just tools in a toolbox, IMO. There's no much thing as universal "rules" in photography when it comes to things like composition. For things like exposure and white balance, obviously there are...

This discussion is akin to a beginner asking, "WHATZ THE BESSST LENZ?", the only answer is "it depends on the situation."


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...


  You can "move things around until it works" or you can arm yourself with the knowledge of visual language to know beforehand what does and doesn't work and why.   You can see the scene and know how things will weigh the composition and effect it's balance; how different points and lines will effect the flow of the image, how subject placement, angles and patterns will effect the energy and strength of an image.   There is a visual language to art.  Some choose to ignore it, call it hogwash, and move on without it; not realizing that even their instincts about what "works" are influenced from the art and media they've been subjected too their whole lives.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 7, 2013)

In the grand scheme of producing good images what difference does it all really make if someone came up with golden rules or rules of thirds, or any other rules. I grew up not knowing any of this stuff and if I did, would it have made my images better, I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Aug 7, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> In the grand scheme of producing good images what difference does it all really make if someone came up with golden rules or rules of thirds, or any other rules. I grew up not knowing any of this stuff and if I did, would it have made my images better, I seriously doubt it.


You learned to talk without having to get it from a textbook.   It's cultural.   You have been subjected to visual media your entire life.  Movies, magazines, painting, photos.   You taste for images didn't develop in a void.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2013)

I didn't say there is nothing to learn from the "rules".  Of course there is a visual language... And the more adept you are with it the faster you'll get to what "works" and the more reliably you will get to what works.  But the more you are bound by it, the more you will miss out on "what works unxpectedly", and that is also an important part of the language of art.

But say that one should prefer one compositional "rule" over another compositional "rule" because it's universally "better"?  Hogwash.  It's like me saying you should like green instead of red because it's a more universal color that occurs more in nature.  Same exact logic as it being used to support the golden ratio as the correct composition.  And just as redonculous.


----------



## Overread (Aug 7, 2013)

I wonder if we could keep this discussion on the lines of comparing the theories of composition and leave the utterly done to death "should you learn rules/you shouldn't learn rules/I don't use rules/I don't like rules/I'm bacon" out of the thread for once. It's tired and repeated and we've done it to death many a time - if you want to do it again please by all means start up your own thread on the subject, but leave this one to actually have a discussion on the merits of different compositional theories.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Sounds suspiciously like a blowhard trying to sound like he knows something.



You mean much like yourself?


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2013)

jwbryson1 said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds suspiciously like a blowhard trying to sound like he knows something.
> ...



Absolutely.  I say we should always fill the frame.  That's the rule we all should use.  It it's good enough for sports illustrated it should be good enough for everyone.

The problem with discussing the merits of compositional theories is that its very much akin to discussing the merits of religious theories.  Ultimately, they are all valid and valuable.  But relative merit is a very subjective thing.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> *Every example I see explaining why the golden ratio is better than thirds, the difference in composition is really influenced by something else entirely, like the cropping out or intentional including of some other element.*



^this


----------



## amolitor (Aug 7, 2013)

In the 19th century they used a theory based on ideas with names like:

     Breadth, Unity, Balance, Repose, Harmony, Variety.

(all these words still carry their artistic definitions in a good dictionary, perhaps around definition #3, but it's there)

All were qualities of a picture, easily seen, not so easily described. Certain things were well understood to tend to contribute to one or more of these properties, certain things were well understood to contend against one or more of these properties. A "good" picture was one which exhibited these properties in suitable degree so as to produce a pleasing picture.

Now, the 19th century conception of art did not include such things as edgy, unbalanced, off kilter, cramped, awkward, pictures which used these qualities to good purpose. Still, it's an easy extension of the 19th century ideas to arrive at this sort of thing. The point is that they viewed the frame in a holistic way. Everything in the frame works together, change anything and the picture changes. They had no obsession with subjects, there was simply a hierarchy of importance in the objects and visual features in the frame. Usually whatever we think of as the subject was the most important object -- if there was a "subject" in the sense that we think of these things.

This isn't the only theory of composition out there, but it's an _actual complete and functioning system_. It requires that the artist supply taste and skill, it requires that the artist have looked at a lot of pictures and maybe copied some, and taken them apart in some sense to understand these properties of Breadth, Unity, Variety, Balance, and so on, in a useful and applicable way.

I have literally never found a web site about photographic composition that provided a useful *system* as such. They offer up the same bunch of tips that work some of the time and don't at other times, with no understanding, and certainly no explanation of, why and when they work and when they don't. It's also rare to find such a web site that doesn't contain at least one glaring error even according to its own standards. Photographic web sites on composition are, to offer an analogy, like a web site that says "Use a faster shutter speed to freeze motion, and a slower one to create blur" without mentioning aperture or ISO, and without offering any systemic approach to exposure as a holistic thing.

It is utterly maddening.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 7, 2013)

Using just the rule of thirds could be limiting I think if that's mostly what's used to compose images; it's one concept that could be used to get a nicely balanced photo but there's more to composition than that. 

The golden ratio (and golden section, and golden rectangle, etc.) seems familiar so I must have learned it in art in school but I've had to look it up because I can't say I remembered the specifics. But I do remember learning in drawing classes how to get good proportion in a drawing, and I think that's what it relates to - having a 'golden' proportion can give a good balance to your composition because it seems to be a proportion that can be pleasing visually.
The Fibonacci Series - The Golden Ratio - The Golden Ratio

Apparently it's found in nature - in us, in plant life, etc., and has been used in architecture going way back. I wonder if someone who has an eye for photography is seeing that proportion in what they photograph without realizing there's a mathematical basis to it. It seems to occur in ourselves and in the world around us more than we might realize.
The Beauty of the Golden Ratio 
The Golden Ratio in Nature 

Maybe your friend is seeing a good bit of the use of thirds in your photos and is trying to suggest that you look at other concepts as well that can be useful in composition.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 9, 2013)

You guys should think less and shoot more. Both of the rules will give similar output.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 9, 2013)

nailed it!!!




_DSC8973 cheese burger by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

WEll, maybe not. But this cheese burger was delicious!


----------



## Patrice (Aug 9, 2013)

As a designer of furniture some of these artistic 'rules' do come in handy as a point of departure. As well as the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio I also use and teach the Hambridge progression. An understanding of the 'rules' and how and why they are used is essential in developing a design 'eye'. Not to say that these 'rules' must be followed at all times but they do provide a departure point.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 9, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> You guys should think less and shoot more. Both of the rules will give similar output.



Maybe you don't think enough!


----------



## GaryT (Aug 9, 2013)

When a child draws a picture you could apply most of these 'rules' to the vast majority of their sketches. I would say 80% of the drawings my 4 year old niece does would fit into the rule of thirds. It's not a rule, it's the way your mind works. 

If you look long and hard enough at a turd I'm sure you will see a pattern in it. I don't see why people have a need to pick things apart to try and shoehorn any and everything into some sort of neat little box. Art in any of its forms is NOT maths, there is no super secret equation that will explain all. 

A true artist does what they do because they enjoy it, they create based an their own vision. How can you fit that into a definition??


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 9, 2013)

amolitor said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > You guys should think less and shoot more. Both of the rules will give similar output.
> ...



Probably 

But creativity is a very natural process most of the time. I refer to a saying by Afrika Bambaataa......

"Free yo mind, Your ass will follow!"


----------



## KenC (Aug 9, 2013)

One of the big problems with trying to compare these methods for an actual photograph is that, while one might be able to sense the difference between them with a very small symmetrical object placed on one of the points, this is much more difficult with real-world objects.  For example, if the object in question is a car, presumably the center of the car should be on the relevant point in the frame.  What is the "center" of a car?  One could determine the line horizontally at half the height and the one vertically mid-way between the front and back and call the intersection the "center," but cars (at least sedans) are smaller on top, so based on the area of the car, the center should be lower, i.e., the center of mass of the car.  The difference between these two I'm sure is more than the difference between the two "rules."


----------



## Designer (Aug 9, 2013)

Using classical ratios in composition is just another tool, which most of the time it is only discovered after the fact.  

Photographers, unless the subject is still life, almost never have the opportunity to adjust a composition to fit any of the ratios before snapping a photo.  We can sometimes make the picture fit within one of the ratios while editing, but in the end, it is usually done simply "by eye".  If a composition looks good, then it probably looks good to everyone.  This is where the training of the eye comes in.  

The more experienced artist can hit the ratios faster and with more ease and precision than a beginner.  All done without measuring anything because he has done it so many times he "just knows".  

So while one composition looks better with one certain ratio, another composition might look better with a different ratio, and unless someone does some measuring, none of the small differences can be said to be "better" than another.

The ratios should be thought of as simply a way of explaining why a composition works, rather than something to aim for.


----------



## peter27 (Aug 10, 2013)

I think most of us compose our shots quite intuitively. The problem with such things as the golden ratio or the rule of thirds is that they set out to encapsulate and explain this a priori knowledge or gut feeling that we all have. If you use these things to check what you've produced against perceived norms, that's okay and it will give you an idea of how your work might be received. However, if you use them as a guide to your production you are likely to stifle your creativity.

In language there are two main types of grammar: descriptive and prescriptive. The golden ratio was, I'm sure, first devised by the ancient Greeks as a descriptive device; a means of recording and understanding what was already there and that they felt was right. It attempted if you will to explain intuition. The problem we have today is that it and the more modern rule of thirds have become prescriptive and now dictate what we think should be there and what is right: or more to the point what is wrong. They attempt to teach intuition, which is preposterous.


----------



## molested_cow (Aug 10, 2013)

I'm more interested in this "expert in composition". Where do I get certified?


----------



## cowleystjames (Aug 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> In the grand scheme of producing good images what difference does it all really make if someone came up with golden rules or rules of thirds, or any other rules. I grew up not knowing any of this stuff and if I did, would it have made my images better, I seriously doubt it.



Bang on, rules are meant to be broken and people that slavishly follow rules need to get a life


----------



## amolitor (Aug 10, 2013)

I don't think I have yet dragged out my other standard bit of rhetoric for this thread, so:

Go look at some actual good pictures, keeping in mind as many of these silly modern rules (and they are all very modern, claims to ancientness notwithstanding) and see how many actual good pictures follow any of them.


----------



## Designer (Aug 10, 2013)

cowleystjames said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > In the grand scheme of producing good images what difference does it all really make if someone came up with golden rules or rules of thirds, or any other rules. I grew up not knowing any of this stuff and if I did, would it have made my images better, I seriously doubt it.
> ...



I will add that in order to break the rules, one must first understand the rules and know when, why, and how to effectively break them.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 10, 2013)

Designer said:


> cowleystjames said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...



As I mentioned, I never knew there were rules in photography, I had no rules to understand or break.


----------



## Designer (Aug 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> As I mentioned, I never knew there were rules in photography, I had no rules to understand or break.



Nevertheless, you learned what is good and what didn't work well.  

In case anyone missed it, I said that the "rules" as I see them are more of a way to explain composition in simple terms.  Most successful photography exhibits one or more "rule" whether the photographer planned it in advance or not.

I understand that when you were learning from your father, he probably never mentioned any "rule", and for all I know might not have heard of them, but he knew from experience how to make a good composition.


----------



## Overread (Aug 10, 2013)

imagemaker46 - we get that you never formally learned artistic theory; just as you likely started out never formally learning photography. But you grew up in a household with a photographer who was more than just a product photographer. Thus that influence guided your childhood - you learned without realising that you learned. You studied photos and mirrored what you saw in them in your own work - and since you viewed a wide variety your influences were thus broader than most (remember most people don't really "look" at photos or art; they just glance at them without pausing to really see or learn how to see how the elements of the photo work and don't work). **



GaryT said:


> When a child draws a picture you could apply most of these 'rules' to the vast majority of their sketches. I would say 80% of the drawings my 4 year old niece does would fit into the rule of thirds. It's not a rule, it's the way your mind works.



Compositional theories/guidelines/rules are just that - they are the summary of theories based upon observation of popular artistic works and the aim of understanding those patterns in life that we find pleasing to view. It's no surprise that we see similar patterns in creative art that we also see mirrored in life itself since our environment and life around us likely influences us greatly in what we find to be pleasing. 

Yes there are new and old theories and some conflict, but the fact that many theories do work and that many are seen time and time again in works of art lends to the suggestion that the theories do work. 

As for the notion of breaking and using rules remember its not a game of rules. Some here hear and read about composition but get terribly distracted by the single word "rule" when its used. They latch on and suddenly the compositional theory is lost out the window as it becomes a game of following or not following the rules (where upon several groups rise up with those who mindlessly follow and those who mindlessly refuse to follow or break the "rules").

As said many times there are no "RULES". There are one or two theories called things like "rule of thirds" but its not a rule. It's a compositional theory that aims to allow one to understand some of the science and theory behind what humans find visually pleasing within a selected frame of existence (ergo a painting, a sculpture, a photo). Learning them simply helps to broaden ones visual library of options to compose and create with; you can just as easily learn it by copy and repeat of famous works; but often understanding the theory is actually superior. That is because when you understand some of why the theory is supposed to work you can use that underlaying concept to build into your photos and use the concept itself in different ways. 

The biggest thing though is to get the idea of rules out of your mind. Think of them at theories; take time to learn some; take time to experiment and play around and remember that much like when you learned exposure, the learning will feel like following a formula - like repeating over and over and like its filling your mind when you go to shoot. Then one day it won't be - it will slip to the back of your mind and become more instinctive and from that you'll be able to be far more creative within your photography (provided you allow yourself to be  rather htan simply finding something that works and repeating it over and over).



Edit
** let me clarify that I'm not talking down about any form of learning. Formal learning of a subject is not the only way to learn and in no way is superior or inferior; it is just a different approach. There are many ways to learn and any way can be very in-depth and detailed. Formal methods tend to be more commonly promoted online simply because its very hard to tutor something in a subject that is very hands on like photography in a remote sense without writing books worth of content (at which point pointing toward formally written books helps a lot in saving fingers from pages of typing). 

Heck many who learn from their parents at a young age might never have a degree in their subject of interest or any formal learning, but they can often be very experienced and well known within their field.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 10, 2013)

Designer said:


> In case anyone missed it, I said that the "rules" as I see them are more of a way to explain composition in simple terms.  Most successful photography exhibits one or more "rule" whether the photographer planned it in advance or not.



Really? Go to some web site or another with some tips, tricks, and general advice on composition for photographers, pick one of the good ones not some cheesy linkbait one. Re-familiarize yourself with the advice they give.

Now go look at a bunch of successful photographs, be it Ansel Adams, Gene Smith, photos from a fashion spread in Vogue, whatever. How applicable to _those pictures_ are the rules you have just familiarized yourself with? As you go, judge how far you're having to stretch a rule to make it fit the picture -- any rule can be stretched to fit any picture, the point is to understand how far it's stretching.

I dunno about you, but I was shocked the first time I actually tried this out. It's important to actually _do the experiment_ rather than just sort of thinking about it.


----------



## Buckster (Aug 10, 2013)

Overread said what comes to mind for me whenever I read this oft-brought up topic.  The big hangup and taking of sides in black and white terms, the acceptance or push-back of the "rules", and so on, seems predicated on the use of the word "rule" itself, as though people see it as a law or something.  Sure, that's one definition, but it's not the correct definition in this case.

It's quite simply not, and shouldn't ever be considered that way.  "Rule", in the case of these related topics in compositional theory, is short for "Rule Of Thumb".  That's it and that's all.  And for those who don't know what a "Rule Of Thumb" is, here's a pretty good definition from Wiki:

*Rule of thumb*

A *rule of thumb* is a principle  with broad application that *is not intended to be strictly accurate or  reliable for every situation*. It is an easily learned and easily applied  procedure for approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for  making some determination.

Anyone who takes it more seriously than that and attempts to discuss it in terms of rules as laws like those that govern countries or games or scientific theories, such as the laws of physics that cannot be broken; Laws as immutable things that can or can't or could or couldn't or should or shouldn't be _*broken*_, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the proper application of the word in this case, and probably a fundamental misunderstanding of compositional theory and application as well, if they think "rule" as applied to compositional theory is some sort of strict convention that actually warrants such lengthy back and forth discussions about whether one should adhere to or break it/them.


----------



## Overread (Aug 10, 2013)

amolitor - true however photography is more than just art. There are many photos which are not famous for their artistry, but instead for the emotion in the scene/subjects; for the scene they record, for the memories, heck there are many famous for just showing people of the time or products in clear even lighting. Photography is more than just an art form and as such one has to learn that the worth of a photo can be measured in artistic quality, but its not the only thing. 

It's just the same as a beginner learning that a "great photo of my kid" has major exposure and compositional problems and can be very bad to others who don't have the already established emotional connection with the subject. 


That said there are indeed many works of art which don't conform to artistic theory = some of them are often simply just the beginnings of new theories based upon what was discovered to work with them. In the past art, esp professional art, was often held to strict rules and guild lines - there were indeed "laws" of art and if you didn't conform you were simply not considered worthy to be displayed or respected. Today you are much more free to develop art to your vision and still have teh chance to be respected and accepted - however this also creates a lot of average or lower quality art in the world that muddies the picture a bit.


----------



## jwbryson1 (Aug 10, 2013)

molested_cow said:


> I'm more interested in this "expert in composition". Where do I get certified?



I don't think there is a certification, as you humorlessly suggest, but I would argue that anybody who has a degree in architecture from a top university, who received the highest award given by the university for their work in the field, and who has a masters degree in art and composition, and who teaches art as a university professor, is as close to an "expert" in the field as you will find.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 10, 2013)

A lot of B.S. gets passed along, repeated ad nauseum, and even utter B.S.can come to be accepted as "truth". Even college professors and architecture schools keep repeating utter garbage. a few minutes searching for thorough examinations of some of these "ancient principles" will turn up papers that show the "ancient" concepts are...well...bullspit, as Buckster often call it...

Like the idea that the Great Pyramid at Giza follows a mathematically perfect layout...the CLAIMS have been made for hundreds of years, but modern electronic survey methods show that the old so-called "golden measurements" and their "proof" of an ancient adherence to a "golden" ideal of proportion and aspect ration....are utter, total... bullspit...

The Golden Section Hypothesis: A Critical Look » Naturography ? Nature Photography By Mike Spinak


http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102542003987


http://meandering-through-mathematics.blogspot.com/2012/02/applications-of-golden-mean-to.html


----------



## ph0enix (Aug 10, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> nailed it!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No bacon.  Epic fail.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 11, 2013)

Overread said:


> imagemaker46 - we get that you never formally learned artistic theory; just as you likely started out never formally learning photography. But you grew up in a household with a photographer who was more than just a product photographer. Thus that influence guided your childhood - you learned without realising that you learned. You studied photos and mirrored what you saw in them in your own work - and since you viewed a wide variety your influences were thus broader than most (remember most people don't really "look" at photos or art; they just glance at them without pausing to really see or learn how to see how the elements of the photo work and don't work). **
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My Mother bought my Dad his first camera, he had never taken a picture in his life and was self taught, he learned without reading books etc. There was never any discussion about rules, not that I can remember.  As I said before, the first time I heard about a rule of thirds was on this forum, some three decades after working as a photographer. I expect that how to compose an image without thinking just came with what I thought looked right. Learning never stops, I have remembered more about how I used to shoot, different techniques I used to use, that I stopped doing, from other photographers that have just started trying to do them.  It has made me realize that the longer a person shoots the more likely they get lazy in the way they shoot, taking it for granted and sticking with what always worked, but forgetting that some of what used to work can still surprise people because it looks different.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 11, 2013)

An interesting fact about composition is this:

We compose pictures to appeal to others, to make pictures that inform, or whatever. The point of the composition is to aid in making something about the picture accessible to others, to other human beings generally within the same society that the photographer lives in.

So you, as a human being in your society, in theory have all you need to make compositions. Rules, standard, processes, whatever. If it looks good, it IS good. This is not, however, the same as saying "aw heck, anyone can do it by instinct, just reach out with your feelings" -- far from it.

You need, generally, some help.

The first thing you need to do is "normalize" your taste, which is to say you need to understand what your society sees, likes, understands as visual art. You don't have to _like_ the same stuff everyone else does, but you should at some level _understand_ it. This basically means "go look at a bunch of pictures, mostly good ones, and think about them"

The second thing you need to do is get some grasp of the elements that affect how people see pictures, how your society interprets, feels, connects with pictures. This includes basic obvious semiotics like The Cross as a christian reference, but also the use of lines, the ideas of balance and visual weight, and so on.

Some people CAN just do it by instinct, or can do enough of it. We all, mostly, have the stuff inside us to do it by virtue of being people who look at and connect with pictures, just like our audience. Most of us need some help turning that raw material into skills capable not of connecting with pictures, but of making pictures that people will connect with. Not everyone does, but most of us do.

Not everyone is going to get the same results, either. We cannot all be concert pianists. Most of us can learn to play the piano passably, a few cannot. A few of us need almost no help at all to be incredible pianists. Ditto all matters in which taste and emotion play a role.

Pretty much anyone can learn to, just to pick an example, focus stack to a very very high level of technical excellence. You simply work away at it until you get it right. NOT everyone can learn to make truly excellent compositions. Most of us are fated to get pretty good at it, at best. Pretty good is still pretty good, though! And there will be moments of excellence.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 11, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> I expect that how to compose an image without thinking just came with what I thought looked right. Learning never stops, I have remembered more about how I used to shoot, different techniques I used to use, that I stopped doing, from other photographers that have just started trying to do them.  It has made me realize that the longer a person shoots the more likely they get lazy in the way they shoot, taking it for granted and sticking with what always worked, but forgetting that some of what used to work can still surprise people because it looks different.



me, too.

This is an excellent thread and could/should be retitled and made a sticky.


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> An interesting fact about composition is this:
> 
> We compose pictures to appeal to others, to make pictures that inform, or whatever. The point of the composition is to aid in making something about the picture accessible to others, to other human beings generally within the same society that the photographer lives in.
> 
> ...



To say I agree with the above in bold black is understating the case. What Andy has written is the very core of how I see successful photography being done.

What he says in the bold red is something in a different vein. Really good photography takes some talent.
Just the acquisition of skills is not enough. 
With the innate smartness of digital cameras standing in for so much of the skills acquisition, we see many more photographers quickly getting to the point at which their further progress is limited by their level of talent. 
What new photographers can't see or understand is that jumping off place from skillful to talented. Witness the number of posts linking to a top level image and asking, essentially, 'what button do I press to get this'?


----------



## The_Traveler (Aug 11, 2013)

7 reasons why 'composition' is like sex



thinking about either one in the abstract isn't very rewarding because, in reality, there are always situations, objects and people to deal with
when one is new at either, style and planning aren't usually issues to be thought about
there are 'rules' in the abstract about how to arrange things and where important things are placed in both, but in reality, if everything works out well, no one really cares
it's nice if one person likes the final end product and is satisfied but if someone else is satisfied also, that's really terrific
different styles in execution  are possible but generally one falls back one one's main preference.
you can do it well by accident once or twice but doing it well consistently takes work and thought
however satisfying it is, one always wants to try it again


----------



## Ilovemycam (Aug 11, 2013)

I have to wonder...if you need a computer to crop your pix. What are you guys and gals going to do on the street?  You got to compose in 2 or 3 blinks of the eye? No computer to compose for you.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 11, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> I have to wonder...if you need a computer to crop your pix. What are you guys and gals going to do on the street?  You got to compose in 2 or 3 blinks of the eye? No computer to compose for you.



Shoot wide and crop. 
The computer doesnt do the composition, just the cropping. The photographer still has to point the camera in the right direction.


----------

