# composition rules exposed..



## mysteryscribe (Jun 26, 2007)

I started this explanation of why preaching composition rules on a forum is a really bad idea, but I decided that I was going to end up with a text book. Let me say this as simply as I can. When a new photographer is sent out to read the rules of composition, nobody bothers to tell him that every rule has hundreds of subtleties. So he runs out and makes his pictures using the rules and thinks my god this is easy, I finally understand all there is to photography. His pictures aren't better because he has been exposed to the so called rules. What he is ... is the guy with the little bit of knowledge that is a dangerous thing.

See I cut that down a heck of a lot. There are no easy answers. 

See if your community college has night classes in adult education photography. If so sign up and you might learn a little about composition. If not shoot pictures, shoot more pictures and when you are sick of it, shoot more pictures. Post them in the galleries and ask for edits and comments. You will begin to understand a little at a time. Good luck and take all these guys, me included, with a full shaker of salt.


----------



## panocho (Jun 27, 2007)

Rules are a first step; second is to trangress them. But one has to start from the first step, not directly on a second. Then if someone, just by following some basic rules, sees herself already as a master or something it's only her problem.
I prefer thinking that people will understand they are only following the ABC of photography, and precisely because of that, see themselves as beginners. If someone doesn't and thinks that's all there is to know, that is, as I say, a problem she has. And, by the way, I think she would feel exactly the same if following no rules -or even more that way, you know: I am the man and didn't even need any rules or learning of any kind!

Rules are like obbeying your parents: you need to first do it only to later find out sometimes you need not doing it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Well don't worry about not being an expert there are planty here who are rofl.  I do not consider myself to be an expert either.   but like i said there are plenty who do.


----------



## panocho (Jun 27, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> but like i said there are plenty who do.



and does not have to do with having followed or not certain rules, does it?

I get your point on rules, and basically agree, but as I said I think that's only for when you've already followed them -as I guess you some time did. For the one who begins from scratch rules are somehow "needed" (please note: _somehow_)


----------



## craig (Jun 27, 2007)

To me it is not clear if you are trying to discuss something or giving us your thoughts. Certainly rules are only guidelines to help us understand the final outcome of our photo. In some instances rules of proper exposure and composition etc can be thrown out. If it is the shot you perceived then isn't that valid?

Personally the only rule of photography is that you put everything you have into each frame. 

Love & Bass


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 27, 2007)

panocho said:


> Rules are a first step; second is to trangress them. But one has to start from the first step, not directly on a second.


 
Personally my first step was to shoot impulsively, trying to capture images which I felt conveyed a certain emotion or mood, or simply which I found (and I know it's not going to be a popular word) 'interesting'. I don't think it did me any harm.

Because I love analogies, here we go: You can send someone on a course and teach them how to write a book well, but it doesn't mean they can write a good book (i.e. one that people will want to read).
Another one: It's not always the people who can readily understand the 'rules' of a foreign language who can speak it convincingly and comfortably.

Conventions (rules if you must call them that) are certainly helpful, but personally I would rather start with ideas, and rein them in with convention to better express them, than start with conventions and try to find ideas to work around them. I am not by any means suggesting that people shouldn't learn the "rules" of composition, or that they shouldn't do so when starting out, but I don't think learning them should be the first or most important step either.


----------



## newrmdmike (Jun 27, 2007)

actually everyone here should listen to my advice. no salt shaker for me . . . 


jk


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

newrmdmike said:


> actually everyone here should listen to my advice. no salt shaker for me . . .
> 
> 
> jk


If you dont have a salt shaker I'll happily lend you my jumbo shaker. It doesn't say salt on the side it says simply BS eliminator on one side and quick fix killer on the other.

In the world of instant everything it's not popular to say it's just gonna take time to figure out composition.  It's like the difference between a 16 year old driver and Mario Andrette (sp).

Now here is a mixed metaphor... You can follow the rules of the road and still not hit a home run... god I love to do that where is Yogi Berra when you need him.


----------



## skieur (Jun 27, 2007)

For all the discussion, I have not seen here, an example of a photo in which not following the rules of composition has contributed to an overall high level of visual impact and effectiveness.

skieur


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jun 27, 2007)

panocho said:


> Rules are a first step; second is to trangress them. But one has to start from the first step, not directly on a second.


 
I'm looking forward to seeing how this is applied in the Critique Forums...


----------



## PNA (Jun 27, 2007)

Chris of Arabia said:


> I'm looking forward to seeing how this is applied in the Critique Forums...


 
Good point....!

And where is Yogi when you need him???? One of the best bad ball hitters of all time. Rules?????


----------



## skieur (Jun 27, 2007)

Still waiting to see a convincing example of a photo that has great impact because it does not follow many of the rules of composition. 

skieur


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Yogi was a great wit knowing or unknowing...   "When you come to a fork in the road take it."  

As for high impact I think you need to define that for me I'm kinda slow.  Impact on who?  You ....or the person the image was made for.

I don't have the images but if you like I can tell you a story about a phone call I had this morning.  Tomorrow is my birthday so my second ex wife called to make sure i would be around to celebrate.  During the conversation she informed me that the photographs I had made for her partents in the early seventies now resided on her walls and in her shoebox of family images.  

Now at the time i was still learning about photography and still am I don't know it all like some of you.  But that makes the point even better.  The images were of family members.  They hung on one family's wall since 1973 or so and now they hang on another family's walls.  I'm sure they are not perfect composition wise but they had an impact on the people who recieved them.  

So you are going to have to define Impact for me...  Do they hang in museums no but then lots of images with perfect composition don't hang in museums either.


----------



## PNA (Jun 27, 2007)

skieur said:


> Still waiting to see a convincing example of a photo that has great impact because it does not follow many of the rules of composition.
> 
> skieur


 
I have many that _do not_ follow the rules of comp.....but none with any great impact!!!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

I can look around at the images in my house on my walls. Most do follow compostion rules because I know what they are and subconsciously apply them, but some don't. I have a still life I shot for my father on one of his birthdays. All I have is the 11x14 image so I not going to take it apart to scan it. The image items in the still life are dead center of the image and the triangle is open at the the top with the lines going in all the wrong directions. I shot it that way because I was balanced on a shakey picnic table and shooting down on the items.  I knew that the image would be what counted not me spending an hour arranging and rearranging the items till they were perfect.

So why did it have any impact on anyone. I shot the image of my dad's tools. Tools all of us kids had seen him use almost everyday when he was more healthy. 

When I made the image he could move around but he was shakey just like I have been off and on in the last couple of years. The image of those tools hung over his tv in the den. He could look up and see an image of things from his better days. Now does that image have an impact on me, my brothers and sisters?  You bet your butt it does. I doubt seriously it would have an impact on you.

I am reminded of a series of photos LaPhoto shot in a dance studio. The exposure was tricky and not always dead on. The backrounds weren't always straight but I venture to guess those images had a great impact on those kid's parents. I also venture to say if she had waited for only perfect compostion she wouldn't have made the images at all.

So can I show you examples of high impact but  not perfect pictures, again define high impact for me.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 27, 2007)

I have seen some. The basic idea was that certain compositional elements can be completely ignored if others are very forward. Even some very basic examples can be seen here on the forum.

Such examples like the rules of thirds can be completely ignored if an image exists with perfect symmetry, or if the subject entirely fills the frame, or if there are sufficient lines in the image to direct your attention around the frame.

I took an image myself once which was compositionally "right" but drew the viewer to a large tower right on the right hand 1/3rd line. I recomposed to add a very distracting and slightly out of focus railing in the foreground, and suddenly when you look up and down the tower you see the distracting railing, which leads the eye back to the left middle of the frame, and across the bridge back to the tower.

The rules of composition govern how the eye works and what people find pleasing, but they can be broken if there are other ways to direct attention IMO.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Acutaly your leading line is a basic element of compostion as well as the thirds rule which is way over valued.  To be honest the value of the image is in the subject, all the rest is just icing on the cake.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 27, 2007)

I honestly don't know the rules of composition everybody here keeps talking about, nor do I care about them. I vaguely know the "rule of thirds" because it is mentioned so often.

To me, something either works, or it doesn't. If it fits a rule, fine, if not, that's fine too.

Then again, I don't claim that I am a good photographer, or that I take good photos. I share my stuff, if people like it, that's fine... and if they don't, that's fine too.

If I make a photo that "follows the rules of composition" then I assure you it is completely coincidental.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 27, 2007)

skieur said:


> For all the discussion, I have not seen here, an example of a photo in which not following the rules of composition has contributed to an overall high level of visual impact and effectiveness.
> 
> skieur



I think that's because there are so many potential 'rules' and acceptable exceptions that any good photo can be parsed to show how it complied with at least some of the 'rules.'  

I think that the rules are generalities that can be useful for people when they start.  These generalities are ways to talk about and teach balance and tension and tonality.  Once someone 'gets' it, there is no need to express these generalities to guide their internal processes.

Rules are to composition are what bodily measurements are to a beautiful woman - an inadequate way of describing the indescribable, but the only non-adjectival, metric available.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Well said but part of what you said will be missed.  

Those rules are learning tools but you have to do more than quote them.  You have to be able to understand them.  Doing that means shooting images, not reading about them in a book.   I can read a book about nuclear enegy but thank god i cant build a bomb.

I would encourage new photographers to stop worrying about rules and shoot images.  Learn from your mistakes as you go.  Don't get hung up on the rules just shoot and see what works.  Trust me if you post them here someone will tell you what is wrong with the images.  Not everyone because most won't know, but someone will tell you.  If you want to learn fine, if not keep shooting images anyway someone will love them.

EVeryone doesn't need to be an expert or a professional photographer some just shoot because they love to see the reaction of their peers.  Actually if you want to make a living at it, what your customers think is a lot more important than what any expert thinks.  

Ask most any working real world photographer and he will tell you, the high art pictures in your portfolio draw the customeres in, but for the most part they buy the ones that are more traditional.  At least the ones I talk to these days say that.  Just like anything else in the real world, money talks bull**** walks.

For every successful art photographer there are a hundred blue collar photographers making a decent living slogging away day by day at their craft.  You can aspire to shoot great art, but you might have to settle for eating.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 27, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> You can aspire to shoot great art, but you might have to settle for eating.



Or, you can aspire to shoot great art and eat by doing something else for a living...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 27, 2007)

The rules of composition are meta-statements in that they stand in for complex descriptions of intellectual/emotional processes we can't always understand and state completely. 

So the Rule of Thirds really means that when most people look at the average images there is more drama and tension evoked when the center of interest is not directly in the middle but this of course is subject to all sorts of qualifications such as symmetry and color and a whole bunch I'll only think of when we see the image.  

When someone knows little, the simpler the statement the better.
 The more someone knows the more qualifications get added to the statement until the statement gets internalized into a sense of what, where and when. 

So the cycle is: 
1) take pictures 
2) see how these pictures can be composed better 
3 learn the reason behind 2
4) Goto 1


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

But the point is... when you say this is a rule and there is no follow up.. the poor devil thinks that is all there is too it... get  me a list of rules and by god I'll be ansel adams.  When it doesn't happen by Thursday they are disappointed and move on to stock car racing.

Having the day job is almost always necessary in the real world of new photographers.  Over the years I personally took all kinds of bs photo contracts as my day job.  Even those were fun.  There are people here who made more money and did more complex photography than I ever did but I doubt anyone had more fun than I did at it.  

I never went hungry, but I did borrow money from the bank now and then.  I suppose these days you are a success if the bank will loan you money.  I never borrowed much since my business was always freelance and overhead kills you in that enterprise.


----------



## NoFilter (Jun 27, 2007)

I am a better photographer than Ansel Adams.

He was much better than me when he was alive, but now that he has died I have the upper hand.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Jun 27, 2007)

NoFilter said:


> I am a better photographer than Ansel Adams.
> 
> He was much better than me when he was alive, but now that he has died I have the upper hand.


Made me laugh!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

....good point....  I like to think he and a few of the others are playing poker somewhere and laughing their asses off at us all.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jun 27, 2007)

Maybe we should just shoot the person who coined the term "*rule* of thirds" or other "*rules*" of art?  It's a figure of speech.  I've never actually met anyone who took them to be anything other than suggestions.  Some people stick to formulas that work for them, others try everything and anything never doing the same thing twice.  Most people fall somewhere in between.

A way to decide whether advice from people on this or any other photo forum is worth anything is to take the time to visit the advice giver's website, portfolio, etc..., and see if they are doing work that you enjoy, are interested in, respect, aspire to, etc...  Even if I don't have much or any interest in the work, I should be able to form an opinion as to whether it's competent or not, and how much weight I might be interested in giving their opinions.  The world is full of advice givers on all subjects, and everyday we all make decisions on whether these folks are full of crapola or not.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 27, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> Maybe we should just shoot the person who coined the term "*rule* of thirds" or other "*rules*" of art? It's a figure of speech. I've never actually met anyone who took them to be anything other than suggestions.


 
What, haven't you heard the FBI are monitoring hosting sites and arresting people who violate the Photographic Composition Act?


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 27, 2007)

ksmattfish said:


> A way to decide whether advice from people on this or any other photo forum is worth anything is to take the time to visit the advice giver's website, portfolio, etc..., and see if they are doing work that you enjoy, are interested in, respect, aspire to, etc...  Even if I don't have much or any interest in the work, I should be able to form an opinion as to whether it's competent or not, and how much weight I might be interested in giving their opinions.  The world is full of advice givers on all subjects, and everyday we all make decisions on whether these folks are full of crapola or not.


A valid point indeed. 

How a photographer approaches a subject varies with the disciplines. 
A traditional portraitist might be concerned if the hair is combed or not.
Whereas a pj's goal would be to get that particular moment.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

The composition and grammar police work hand in hand.  As for never heard anyone call it anything but a suggestion.  How about people who say you can't make high impact pictures that don't comform to the rules of composition.  

Now as to look at the websites, I absolutely agree.  shoot pictures post them, then take what is said and balance it by who is saying it.  Look at their images and decide if you give a rats rear about their opinions.  But in the end don't be discouraged, it isnt a two hour course on which buttons to push.  Composition and how to see an image is a life long process.  And my website is listed below if you want to see the crap I can produce.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 27, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Look at their images and decide if you give a rats rear about their opinions.



So you don't value opinions unless you can see pictures from those giving opinions?


----------



## skieur (Jun 27, 2007)

Any photographer needs to learn the rules of composition and use them until they become somewhat transparent in that he/she uses them automatically without thinking about it. They certainly cannot be ignored.

When taking a photo it may not be possible to follow all of them.  Depending on the location and what is in or near the frame in the viewfinder it may not be easy to follow the rule of thirds for example.  Nevertheless, the ultimate question is: Would the shot have been better if you had found a way to follow all the rules of composition?

We have all seen visually effective images with something distracting the viewer's eye in the background.  The point is that the photo would have been even more effective without the distracting object in the background.

Some also seem to be under the misimpression that by labelling a photo as photojournalism or documentary it is somehow an excuse for ignoring composition or postprocessing.  I assure you, it is not.  In shooting events, ceremonies or speeches, it is getting in the right position to shoot a properly composed photo.  It is also postprocessing and cropping to perhaps de-emphasize or take out distracting equipment or other items in the background.  If as a photojournalist, you don't do it, the photo editor of your publication will, or not use your photos at all.

skieur


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 27, 2007)

skieur said:


> Any photographer needs to learn the rules of composition and use them until they become somewhat transparent in that he/she uses them automatically without thinking about it.


 
And some of us disagree with that. Do these threads ever really lead anywhere except back to where they started?


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 27, 2007)

The_Traveler said:


> So you don't value opinions unless you can see pictures from those giving opinions?



I can't answer for him, but I can answer for myself. 

I absolutely, positively do not value the opinion of anybody who's work I do not respect. At all. I can't respect work I have never seen.

Sort of the "Here, let me show you a better way" philosophy... yes, if you (and I am using the royal 'you' here, not anybody on this forum personally) have a better way, I will listen and learn... but you have to SHOW me a better way not with words, but with images.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 27, 2007)

skieur said:


> It is also postprocessing and cropping to perhaps de-emphasize or take out distracting equipment or other items in the background.  If as a photojournalist, you don't do it, the photo editor of your publication will, or not use your photos at all.


And both the photojournalist and the editor will be kicked out of the organization. Case in point - the recent photo manipulation at Reuters.

No one is advocating a thoughtless composition. Thoughtful composition will lead to compelling imagery regardless of the field. The "rules" were supposedly created for a reason. It's just that priorities changes with your field of photography.

We would be playing on the surface if the only thing what we notice in an image is 'Composition'.
I've posted this Nachtwey shot several times on here. If golden ratio (or another "rule") is what comes to your mind when you look at this image we just have to agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

No what I should have said was I agree a new person should judge the person whose opinion they are going to take.  

Ie a dentist's opinion of a brake problem on my car would make me nervous.  Unless I found out his hobby was working on vintage autos...

If you do not have the bonofides of an informant, do you blindly change a battle plan.  I don't think so.  I think a person who critiques should be willing to show that he knows what he is talking about yes.  I don't have to love his work to see merit in it.  But I want to know that he knows which end of a camera to point at me.


----------



## PNA (Jun 27, 2007)

OK guys.....here's a shot I took over 35 years ago in Greece when I did not know the meaning of or could not spell "composition" as related to photography.

Disregard the dust spots, please.

Have at it.......


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Nice image but I wish there was something on the bottom.  It is otherwise a nice shot.  I'll listen to you


----------



## PNA (Jun 27, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> Nice image but I wish there was something on the bottom. It is otherwise a nice shot. I'll listen to you


 
WOW....I'm hornored!

Sorry, it's not cropped at the bottom. It was a display in a plumbing shop.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Dont get carried away everybody knows more than me just ask them///


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 27, 2007)

PNA said:


> OK guys.....here's a shot I took over 35 years ago in Greece when I did not know the meaning of or could not spell "composition" as related to photography.
> 
> Disregard the dust spots, please.
> 
> Have at it.......



It makes me thirsty.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 27, 2007)

'Rules' of composition is a phrase used by people who do not actually understand what they are talking about.
There is just 'composition' and it is a process.
'Rules' means 'things you always have to do' and this is not the case with composition.
There are approaches and tricks, but each image poses it's own problems and they have to all be solved differently.
There are a number of elements in an image: foreground/mid-ground/background; light and dark; colour; subject(s); frame, etc.
Each exerts it's own influence on the image and on all of the other elements, modifying them. 
This is the visual dynamics - the relationships between the elements.
These various elements can vie for your attention when you look at an image and so it is the photographer's job to use composition to direct your eye. To focus your attention where he wants it to be.
If he doesn't you won't see what he wants you to and the picture will not work: it will be flat and boring.
If he knows what he is doing he can manipulate the various elements (to varying degrees) to produce an image that not only holds your interest but 'speaks' to you.
Of course, it is possible to have a basic approach using a few simple rules of thumb to make the picture appear more interesting than it is. The Rule of Thirds is one of these basic approaches and there are one or two others.
There is nothing wrong with keeping photography at this level. But composition can do so much more if you understand it.
Composition in itself does not play directly on the intellect or the emotions. What it does it to set up a mood in an image and direct your attention to provide the conditions to produce a memory/emotion trigger.
Composition is just part of the process of perception - of seeing. If you remember that a photograph is nothing more than an optical illusion then you might begin to see how it all works.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Why do i feel like the caveman on the tv commercial whose response is WHAT?  What is really scary is that I do understand it and i do agree.

When I go out to shoot an image sometimes I find myself looking for the tricks Hertz mentioned.  Usually because theobject of the image is crap.Other times the way I want to shoot the image is obvious because the image speaks to me,  (yes I do plan to see someone about that) and still other times, I don't feel the need to worry about composition.  Ie a line of people a the front of the church.  The autopilot balances out the line and that's that.

So yeah I get what the man is saying and I hope it's what I have been saying all along but less eloquently perhaps.


----------



## JC1220 (Jun 27, 2007)

As a photograhic artist, you do not need to learn, be aware or know these supposed rules of composition even exist. 

Want to see photographs made without them in mind, easy, any of Edward Weston's photographs. Can you find examples of his work were these "rules" fit, I'm sure you can, but it is not what makes his work great nor did they influence his composition, his seeing.

I cannot improve on his words on the subject so I will quote him:

"Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection and after-examination, and are in no way a part of the creative impetus. When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches.

Good Composition is only the strongest way of seeing... It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth."
- Edward Weston

Teaching rules of composition to artist only serves to crush that creative spirit and personal growth process.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

I just did about five hundred words on Weston, but that is silly. If you want to know what I think of Weston you better have about a month. Weston more than anyother human being changed photography from an illustrative endevor to an artistic one. All of us who came after owe Weston more than we can imagine. He taught the people who came after including me how to see. No matter how we use it, the ability to see photography as an art form is a great deal due to Edward Weston.

Which is probably why I resist the idea that people need to be brow beaten with rules. Yes his work fits the rules because he more than anyone ealse is responsible for them.

And he learned to see from an artsy crowd he ran with. He was probably the first photographer ever who sat and drank wine with painters as an equal. 

 Weston enjoyed being Weston. Which I respect just as much as his work.  Thats my take on weston in a readers digest version


----------



## JC1220 (Jun 27, 2007)

I am not sure I agree with you on that he is responsible for the "rules," so if you could explain that so I can see your perspective that would be great.

Also, I highly recommend the book Edward Weston: Life Work available here  http://www.lodimapress.com/html/edward_weston.html  it is the most comprehensive volume of his work and the absolute finest reproductions.

They are also publishing the Brett Westons portfolios in book form that are just as wonderful.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Rules of composition are an after thought. The rules of composition as it relates to photography were derived from the work on hand when the shift from illustration only to art took place. Weston was the premere photo artist of his time. It would almost guarentee that composition as it relates to photography came from studing the works of Weston.

Weston in turn most likely learned his balance from painters. His composition no matter whether he was trying on not is very classical. So even though we trace some of the composition elements back to the painting on cave walls probably as they relate to photography and use of light in that medium it has to be from Weston and his crowd.

So in effect Weston no only taught us that Photography could be art, he also taught us how to see complete images.  Not that he was above altering a scene.  There is the famous boot on a nail story.

Careful or that 500 words will be out here again.


----------



## skieur (Jun 27, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> And some of us disagree with that. Do these threads ever really lead anywhere except back to where they started?


 
Well, it comes down to why you disagree, what your view is, and do you have the experience to justify it.

skieur


----------



## JC1220 (Jun 27, 2007)

I can see that to the point of others have looked at his work in the afterthought to derive these things. But, certainly Weston had no active hand in their creation. 

I would be interested in reading your 500 words.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

Trust me it gets all involved in my introduction to weston and donuts in bed on sunday morning with a painter photography instructor... Way too complicated.  

And no to my knowledge Weston never gave a lecture or did any analysis of his work at all.  Other's were looking at it and im sure it influenced others mimic his work and how do you mimic without forming a mimic program.  Ie rules of composition to mimic great artists.  

Weston did teach photography on a one to one basis.  I'm not sure how much cole and brett learned from him and how much they picked up from him after they were already in the business.

you are familiar with the boot on the nail story aren't you.


----------



## Don Simon (Jun 27, 2007)

skieur said:


> Well, it comes down to why you disagree, what your view is, and do you have the experience to justify it.


 
Well I explained why I disagree in my first post on this thread. Hertz however made a far better case... including mentioning that the "rules" are, quite simply, not rules.

As for experience, well I have been shooting for several years but I'm not sure that means anything, I certainly wouldn't claim it does. This isn't a case of saying "I am now experienced enough to discount the rules" - because we differ on the exact nature and significance of the "rules" (again note the quotation marks). Although perhaps you have a scale of experience on which I could place myself so we can work out whether I'm experienced enough to justify having a different opinion


----------



## JC1220 (Jun 27, 2007)

Sounds like the start to a great story: Weston, donuts, Sunday morning, instructor, bed...


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 27, 2007)

Weston sounds like an under-rated maestro.
I was stunned to see this quote from him - Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 27, 2007)

OH Weston isn't under rated, except that most of todays photographers have no idea how it all began. We are too busy with the tech and new way of seeing that we have forgotten where we came from. Most people think it was always as it is now.

And i only write fiction nobody would believe the truth..


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 27, 2007)

It could be argued (with almost total success) that a 'great' artist makes his own rules.
As I have repeatedly stated, composition is about resolving the internal dialogue of an image, that is to say how all the bits work together to get what you want.
If it is done right then the picture works. It becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.
And in order for this to happen the bulk of it has to be done _before_ the shutter is pressed. There is only a limited amount of tweaking that can be done afterwards so if you haven't caught it you haven't caught it.
The different disciplines in Photography require different approaches to it. In Photojournalism and related you do not have the luxury of time and you can only work with what you are presented with. It has to be done almost instantly. In Advertising you have a lot of time (relatively speaking) and control over almost everything so you can construct the image - often based on drawings by the Art Director.
Landscape you have time but little control over the basic elements.
And so on.
Each discipline calls for a different approach and a different _type_ of person to do it successfully. This means that a photographer who is good in one area frequently flounders when he takes on others.
For example, HCB was a superb PJ with one of the best eyes of all time. But he would have failed miserably in the studio doing Ad photography - unless he set it up and did it like it was PJ.
Ansel Adams was the the perfect technical Landscape photographer - but I really could not have seen him being any good as a PJ (or taking portraits of babies in the supermarket).
And then you have the rarities like Edward Weston and Mapplethorpe who could cross over several disciplines. But they do it by sleight of hand - if you look at Weston's studio work (particularly his nudes and his pepper series) he approaches them like they are landscapes. But he gets it to work because he solves the problem.
If you want to see how composition works in practice then see how Renaissance painters like Michaelangelo solved their problems. The whole notion of 'rules' started with them but was turned into dogma by second-raters. If you don't have the ability to solve each problem individually then develop a formula and work to that.
Formula works up to a point and that point is when it becomes bland and stereotyped.
Look at composition, learn composition, understand composition and analyse other's composition - then put it behind you and make your own 'rules'.
If you can.

Ooh! We are now asking for peole to give their CV's before listening to what they say?
Fine. Here's mine:
Degree in Photography.
Post Graduate in Education specialising in Art and Design.
Several qualifications from Professional Photographic bodies.
Twenty years working in Advertising and Editorial.
Over fifteen years as a lecturer in Photography.
Photographic Advisor to several London Museums at one time.
I have set up at least four Photographic Departments at various Educational Institutions.
I have written a number of courses in Photography up to Degree level.
The number of students I have taught must be over 2,000 (never counted).
I have known professionally and socially some of the top photographers of my day.
My professional work was published world wide.
Does that qualify me to have an opinion?
And who else here is qualified to disagree with me?

Answers: Possibly, and anyone who has an opinion :mrgreen:


----------



## craig (Jun 28, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> OH Weston isn't under rated, except that most of todays photographers have no idea how it all began. We are too busy with the tech and new way of seeing that we have forgotten where we came from. Most people think it was always as it is now.
> 
> And i only write fiction nobody would believe the truth..



Slightly off topic... and with all due respect. Your above statement is a generalization we need to stay away from. It helps no one.

Love & Bass


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jun 28, 2007)

It occurs to me that a good analogy is to compare composition in Photography with composition in Music.
You arrange the elements to give the effect you want. It can be a pleasing tune as in a popular song - or a powerful emotional experience as in a symphony.
It's up to the photographer to decide how and when to use it based on knowledge, experience and skill.
And like music you can spend ages wrestling with the one thing - or have it spring forth fully formed in just an instant.
The only important thing is that it is intended and not just sheer luck (but if you get lucky never admit it   )


----------



## RacePhoto (Jun 28, 2007)

ZaphodB said:


> And some of us disagree with that. Do these threads ever really lead anywhere except back to where they started?



Sometimes yes, sometimes no? 

Let me add something which is equally nothing, to the discussion, since I haven't seem much of the rules, but just general debate over them. They are Rules, which means they are not Laws. Very different. As one of my friends said when we were discussing Rules for an event, and he didn't like one, "We'll call them guidelines, instead." Which in my mind means, suggestions and a waste of time to write down. At least rules are a starting point and then people can break the rules later. :lmao:

I just want people reading the rules, to understand that the rules are just guidelines, and not laws of composition.

Here's another for you. Never have a lateral or horizontal bisector in your photo. Of course if you want the picture to look that way, you can. But normally you don't put the horizon straight across the middle of the picture, it just doesn't look pleasing. And that's what the rules of composition are all about. What is generally going to be pleasing to the eye of the viewer.

To add one to the list of quotes, "Wherever you go... there you very well are!" Lord Buckley

Another way to study composition is to read about the great masters of painting. Classical art has much to do with composition.

Oh ya, what I should always add. Have Fun. Experiment. It's a good way to learn. Don't fret about the details and all the small stuff. Just shoot and learn. Read some more, learn some more, shoot some more. Have fun!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 28, 2007)

First of all *off topic* is what I do.  I did start this thread as discussion not on topic of anything ...

Second of all there seems to be in general two mind sets going on here.  One is that you learn as you go shoot, shoot, shoot, ask, ask, ask, take the answers to your next shoot... and the other is you have to strive to get everything exactly text book correct everytime or don't shoot at all...  In my mind that is very impractical to even contemplate.

I shoot pictures to this day that aren't even close to classically great.  I do it because it's the best I can do with what is available without imposing myself on the scene.  It is a personal thing I try to keep myself out of the image as much as possible.  

Do I know when I see the finished image that the composition isn't great. Of course I do, do I think that I have a worthy image, if I kept it you can bet your butt I believe it is.  

How do I feel about someone pointing out that a line goes through someone's head.  I don't mind at all as long as they GET IT sometimes composition take second place to getting an image.  Rules, laws guidelings whatever you call them, of composition don't preceed the image.  They are (as someone important to photography said) an after thought.  I think I will let the rest of you finish off this thread.


----------



## JC1220 (Jun 28, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> It occurs to me that a good analogy is to compare composition in Photography with composition in Music.


 

An analogy my mentors used often:

"The point is to make a photograph the way a composer writes a piece of music--no extra notes (and none too few either)."


-


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jun 28, 2007)

Gee this really is my last post here but I couldn't pass this up.... or as that great philosopher Kenny Rogers said, You gots to know when to holdem and know when to foldem... now I promise no more...


----------



## skieur (Jun 28, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> And both the photojournalist and the editor will be kicked out of the organization. Case in point - the recent photo manipulation.


 
Sorry, but that would not happen and has certainly not happened to me.  As to the case in point at Reuters, that was completely falsifying the photo, not simply postprocessing, or other adjustments that every photographer should be making in composition whether they are photojournalists or not.

skieur


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 28, 2007)

By post processing if you mean cloning* out elements from an image, that's a cardinal sin in pj. I'll post the new Reuters post processing guidelines if I find it.

*I specifically mentioned cloning because that was what you advised The Traveler to do in his pj shot at the Crit section.


----------



## skieur (Jun 28, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> By post processing if you mean cloning* out elements from an image, that's a cardinal sin in pj. I'll post the new Reuters post processing guidelines if I find it.
> 
> *I specifically mentioned cloning because that was what you advised The Traveler to do in his pj shot at the Crit section.


 
Actually, cloning is not a cardinal sin in PJ at all. I and my colleagues do it all the time. The National Press Photographers Association of the US indicates specifically that cloning out of minor elements such as objects and other useless details is ethical. Cloning out a major person from the photo changes its meaning and is unethical and not allowed. As an example of a major person they cited the groom in a wedding photo with the bride.

skieur


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 28, 2007)

http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop

A quote from that link:



> Cloning, Healing or Brush Tools are not to be used. The single exception to this rule is sensor dust removal. The cloning tool will only be used below the 100 pixels radius setting. Unless performed on a well-calibrated screen under good working conditions we strongly recommend photographers to request dust removal by pictures desks.


In pj/documentary photography, it would be a gray area to decide which element is important or not. But then again, you don't believe in documentary photography. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## sabbath999 (Jun 28, 2007)

Cloning out unimportant details in photojournalism is not unethical, nor is cropping, or adjusting brightness, saturation or any other adjustments made to make the image print better or easier to understand.

Here is an example:

In the PJ forum here, user jimiismydaddy posted a bunch of pictures of a fire in Dallas. He put them up unedited for all of us to see, and has "My Photos Are OK to Edit" turned on... This was one of his shots:







I suggested the following crop:






For demonstration purposes only, I went into PS and cloned out one small element that bugged me about my crop, and made the following:






There is absolutely no difference in the "story" this photo is telling, but the image is more clean and has a slightly better impact because of a minor change.

I spent 10 years as the editor of a newspaper, and worked with literally tens of thousands of pictures -- likely hundreds of thousands. We edited and cropped pictures all the time. The reason that photographers get in trouble with photoshopping isn't that they edit pictures, it is because they substantially change elements important to the story the picture tells...


----------



## skieur (Jun 28, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the-use-of-photoshop
> 
> A quote from that link:
> 
> In pj/documentary photography, it would be a gray area to decide which element is important or not. But then again, you don't believe in documentary photography. So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


 
From reading the link: Reuters is trying to get as close to reality as possible by combining image and captions to give total credibility to their news photos.  Their objective may be praiseworthy but I have always contended that it is not possible.

I use the example of, as a court photographer for an inquest, I had to take a photo of a snow pile and the area around it.  The issue was the possible liability of the property owner for the accidental death of a young person.  Any photographer knows that using focal length, angle, lenses, exposure, contrast, etc. one could make the amount of snow and the piles look from very large and copious to very small and not much at all, and that is without any postprocessing whatsoever.  What is the reality here?

Your distance from the subject and focal length distort reality, as does your angle, exposure, shutter speed, colour balance, and even the limits and capability of the digital sensor.  Post processing is often done because the image has NOT accurately reproduced what the photographer saw.  Considering the contrast nature of sensors in many lighting situations even accurately reproducing the lighting is an impossible task without postprocessing.

So I tend to agree with the National Press Photographers Association that cloning out objects and useless details that do not effect the meaning of the photo is ethical and should continue to be permitted. I don't think that making a decision is that difficult either when you are talking about part of a microphone, arm, paper etc. in the background.

(By the way, I got the impression from Reuters that part of the reason that they were banning a lot of Photoshop use in the field was that it was not being done very well.)

I notice that in journalism reviews, it seems photojournalism in Canada and the United States is "all over the map" from major manipulation which is used as fair comment legally when politicians are involved through to cropping, touch up and some cloning out in the middle ground and to just cropping to fit the publication space at the other end of the spectrum.

skieur


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 28, 2007)

skieur said:
			
		

> I use the example of, as a court photographer for an inquest, I had to take a photo of a snow pile and the area around it.  The issue was the possible liability of the property owner for the accidental death of a young person.  Any photographer knows that using focal length, angle, lenses, exposure, contrast, etc. one could make the amount of snow and the piles look from very large and copious to very small and not much at all, and that is without any postprocessing whatsoever.  What is the reality here?


 
I would assume that one wouldn't pick a fisheye or a shallow depth of field for this shot.
I see your point, but wouldn't a normal lens on a ff body solve the issue? Did your photo negatively influence the case?



			
				skieur said:
			
		

> So I tend to agree with the National Press Photographers Association that cloning out objects and useless details that do not effect the meaning of the photo is ethical and should continue to be permitted. I don't think that making a decision is that difficult either when you are talking about part of a microphone, arm, paper etc. in the background.


The main reason why we are discussing cloning is because you suggested to blur that man and clone out the lady in the other thread, which he titled Photojournalistic shot. People are not unimportant objects. My reasoning against it (this has nothing to with composition or 'artistic' merit) is what if that blurred man or the cloned out element is important to an upcoming sinister plot? What if that is the only shot to solve the case? Hence the need for 'reality'.

I'm not comfortable with cloning out the microphone, arm etc either, but that's a personal preference - _unless_ the shot is for a commercial work and if the said elements distracts the final intended content.
If I'm not mistaken I think it was you who posted an image from an hair salon and asked if the arm was distracting. To me, it wasn't. Like I said, it's a personal preference. Therefore it would be pointless to advocate a 'one size for all sweatshirt' as mysterscribe puts it, while analyzing an image.


----------



## deanimator (Jun 28, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> Weston sounds like an under-rated maestro....


 
Sure. Just like J. S. Bach and L. v. Beethoven were under-rated.


----------



## crownlaurel (Jun 29, 2007)

When a child learns to speak, he follows the patterns he hears most. When he becomes aware of the rules, he almost always overgeneralizes the rules until he becomes mature enough in his ability to distinguish among rules and patterns and "outlaws." Maybe the same holds true for forms of art.

As someone who is new to SLR photography, I'd never heard of the "rule of thirds" until recently. I had heard of not centering everything and having some sort of context to pictures and many of the pictures I had taken before do "follow" the rule I'd never heard. I'd also taken a short class for shooting slides for missions work and one of the "rules" they gave us (I may still have the papers somewhere) said something about getting some greenery in the portraits ("Put a limb in it" was a phrase I remember because we played off that and had extra arms and legs stuck in portraits just for fun). That's where I also learned about not cutting off someone's hands or feet but I quickly learned that that rule isn't taught to low end photo studios like Sears or Olan Mills and it grated me to get a perfect picture of my child with one foot cut off (and having paid for it at that).

I began taking my kids' pictures 3 years ago. I knew what looked good. I knew what I liked to see and what I wanted to preserve. I knew to get their faces I had to squat or sit or even lay down. I knew that a head shot of a smiling face (posed in some ungodly and uncomfortable position) didn't capture their character. I learned from old snapshots that even a bad picture can create emotion (especially any photo of my late mother who hated to have her picture made). 

Since I came here, many critiques of my images have said something like "nice composition" with suggestions on lighting, exposure, DOF (this is what I have learned most in the last few weeks), color, etc. I guess I consider the rule of thirds a little more now when shooting or cropping, but I also think it's too simplistic to place focus on one of four crosspoints in a photo where a slight move in one direction or another can mean the difference in including a crucial part of the picture or excluding a major distraction.

All my life I wanted to learn to paint. I had images in my head and I wanted to share them. I was told photography wasn't "art" and painting from a picture was cheating. Although I had a few fluke good pieces in art class, I never really learned to paint and now I find out photography IS an art. I can find or create the images I have in my head and I can share them. I believe that because it is an art, some people will only ever create pieces of technical perfection with no feeling or meaning. Some will create an image that perfectly follows the rule of thirds or other rules, yet has absolutely no value other than an image. And because it is an art, those who master and take license with it will be able to break every rule and still touch the heart.


----------



## highwoodhiker (Jun 30, 2007)

They aren't rules. They are proven principles. The rule of thirds is the most commonly known and not even understood properly by many people and is not a guarantee of a good photo if used. There are other principles that are of better use depending on the photo. The rule of thirds is only the tip of the iceberg.
Because the principles are based on the balance we sunbconciously find pleasing to look at with the confines of borders or a frame, a person will naturally learn them and use them and get better at using them without even realizing they are doing it simply by judging which of their technically correct photos are good and which are bad without even really knowing exactly why they are good or bad. This happens naturally. It's just the way our brains work.
A person can say there are no rules but the principles do exist. Purposely learning them and putting in the effort of applying them through experimentation and practice will just speed up acquiring the ability to use them proficiently. 
I guess it depends on how long a person wants to take to master composition. Why take 10 years to learn what could be learned in only a few years just by putting in a little extra effort?


----------



## skieur (Jun 30, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> I would assume that one wouldn't pick a fisheye or a shallow depth of field for this shot.
> I see your point, but wouldn't a normal lens on a ff body solve the issue? Did your photo negatively influence the case?
> 
> The main reason why we are discussing cloning is because you suggested to blur that man and clone out the lady in the other thread, which he titled Photojournalistic shot. People are not unimportant objects. My reasoning against it (this has nothing to with composition or 'artistic' merit) is what if that blurred man or the cloned out element is important to an upcoming sinister plot? What if that is the only shot to solve the case? Hence the need for 'reality'.
> ...


 
Well, I tried to reply but it got deleted or disappeared.

skieur


----------



## fmw (Jul 1, 2007)

I'll agree with Hertz on this one.  Guidlines for composition might be a better term.  There aren't any rules, really.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 1, 2007)

I keep saying this and it keeps getting lost.... 

Rules and ridgid formulas are easy... so people go looking for them. It is not that simple, It's about Balance. 

Those things are common elements in good photos a lot of the time, but it isn't about that. It's about the image being balanced and you learn that by doing. Doing then having it pointed out to you. and then doing it again and having other flaws pointed it. 

That's how you learn balance in images. Just following rules guidelines never teaches you balance. It teaches you to be a mime.

So get over the idea that you can carry a card with some instructions in your pocket and make great pictures. It just isn't going to work that way. That was my point in the beginning.

If you look in the thread 'really raw' you will see a flag on my front porch. I have shot it three times and probably will shoot it three more before I get an image I am satisfied with. It isn't about fixing it, it's about shooting it right. Anybody should be able to put a bandaid on a photograph and get it to pass. God knows over the years I've sold enough to crappy photos to know that is a fact.


----------



## danalec99 (Jul 2, 2007)

deanimator said:


> Sure. Just like J. S. Bach and L. v. Beethoven were under-rated.


Actually Ludwig is more 'popular' than Bach. Him and Mozart - just like Ansel Adams and HCB. 

The little piece of info I had about Weston was that he was an inspiration to AA. I'm not a huge fan of of AA. Why then would I pay attention to his influence? But I'm glad I was wrong.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

almost one in ten posts in his journal is about trying to quit smoking ....he was as weak and normal as any of us. Its why I like him..


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Jul 2, 2007)

danalec99 said:


> The little piece of info I had about Weston was that he was an inspiration to AA.



I believe he was his mentor and taught him at one point. But I could be wrong.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

They were both part of f64 a very select group of photographers..  They obviously were colleges if nothing else.  Adams got a lot more recognition but I think Weston had more to do with how photography moved to the higher status it enjoys now.

I think he had a wider range of subject matter and


----------



## deanimator (Jul 2, 2007)

JSB was AA
LvB was EW


----------



## JC1220 (Jul 2, 2007)

Dody once wrote, "Once I heard it put this way: "Ansel [Adams] reveals the beauties of nature that the ordinary man sees but cannot express. Edward reveals what no one has seen."

I could not agree more with that, it is a pitty Adams ever started enlarging.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Jul 2, 2007)

If Weston had ever gone truly commercial like with a print salon of his own, I'm not sure he would have kept creating as he did.  

I think he really loved the single image and didnt want to part with more than one of them.  Always looking for the next challenge or the next image.  I'm not sure he ever wanted to do more than create the next image.  In other words he was the model for all photographers.  Those who can make images but can't sell enough to be sure the car payment is make next month.  At least that's pretty much how his journals read.


----------



## thebeginning (Jul 2, 2007)

mysteryscribe said:


> newrmdmike said:
> 
> 
> > actually everyone here should listen to my advice. no salt shaker for me . . .
> ...




HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!11!!PWNED


----------

