Composition is not a set of laws, and treating it like one makes your frames timid. If you want images that feel alive, you need options that go beyond placing a subject on a grid.
Coming to you from Max Kent, this opinionated video argues that most “rules” work better when you treat them like tools you can pick up or drop. Kent starts by challenging the usual advice you hear about classic guidelines, then quickly moves into approaches that create tension and curiosity. One of the first ideas is “disembodied subjects,” which is exactly what it sounds like: you show only part of someone or something instead of the full figure. A cropped arm, a leg, or even an animal’s hooves can pull attention harder than a complete portrait when it’s done with intent. It also forces a question into the frame, like what the person is reaching toward or what just happened outside the border.
Kent builds on that with “relationships,” meaning the way two elements in the frame change each other’s meaning. He describes a scene where a partial subject and a splash in water suggest one story, then another detail reframes the cause of the splash. That’s the point: the photo stops being just a record of objects and turns into a small problem the viewer tries to solve. If you ignore relationships, you end up with frames where everything sits next to everything else, and none of it connects. If you learn to notice relationships, you start catching accidental implications too, like a background shape that makes a gesture look aggressive when it wasn’t.
He uses an example of photographing the Golden Gate Bridge through a broken chain-link fence, not as a flex, but as a straightforward way to show framing and foreground. The fence becomes structure, depth, and context in one move. Kent also points out you can “frame” without making a neat border, like using a large out-of-focus wall or shadow as negative space that presses attention onto the subject. That kind of choice can make a common location feel less like a postcard and more like a moment caught from a specific position, especially when the foreground is imperfect.
From there, Kent introduces what he calls the “extra element,” the thing you didn’t plan but you can prepare to catch. He talks about making an image at blue hour that looks good on its own, then waiting for a car to add movement and a different mood. That idea sounds simple, but it changes how you shoot: instead of taking the frame and leaving, you hold your ground and watch for the next layer. He extends the same thinking to places that get photographed constantly, where a single person doing something slightly odd can shift the entire meaning of the scene. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Kent.
10 Comments
This video needs a response: Stop bringing clutter and distractions into your composition and start making better pictures. The broken fence as a framing element in the Golden Gate Bridge picture takes half the space, and the bush or tree conceals the lower part of the bridge, so what's the subject? Picture frames and mats rarely become so large relative to the artwork that they become the subject themselves, but in the case of Max's pictures, that's exactly what's happening... the framing elements become a distraction.
His pictures at Monument Valley are dominated by tourists which detract from the subject, assuming that the landscape was intended as the subject. As if we've never seen a flock of tourists at an iconic location before. Tourists in a picture are not the "extra" element which sets an image apart... they're simply ordinary clutter in a landscape photograph. They're fine pictures for a family photo album showing where we took our summer vacation, but definitely not portfolio worthy according to Fstoppers photo rating system. If the man lying on the bench is the story, get closer to him and remove the huge expanse of concrete foreground. There's too much space allocated to things which have nothing to do with impacting the story... which essentially turns a great shot into a snapshot. Yes, introducing multiple elements can tell a story, but when too many are given equal balance, or the wrong element is given too much emphasis, the story and intention of the photographer become confusing. Ask yourself: "Why am I making this photograph?" Then don't get too lost in the side show.
A guy supposedly helping people to create better pictures yet all of his examples look very amateurish.
I think a much better example of this genre of photography is the work of James Popsys. He is very good at finding the compelling within the mundane. He utilizes interesting framing and has a keen and creative sense of the sometimes subtle relationships between the environment and the people in his photos. And to Ed's comment, Popsys achieves this by using some of the same concepts that Max talks about in the video, but he also is skilled at simplifying the scene to remove the clutter.
Knowing nothing about photography and buying my first camera this year, a Fuji X-E1, I sometimes can't get my head around the rules for composition. Being self taught I'm free of the shackles that prompt you to shoot in a certain way, and just capture anything and everything that interests me. Obviously I understand the learning processes that professionals go through, and I fully appreciate a picture that just makes me stop and stare.
The pictures below were taken at the Natural History museum in London, in the main hall everyone wants to take a picture of the skeleton of the blue whale, but the stone carving on the wall caught my eye, I felt it was something people don't necessarily see, and was a bit cheeky with the bones in the background. I chose on purpose to shoot dark, to give more impact, but also my budget manual only lenses work better when stepped down.
I don't know if these are good pictures or not, but I like them, and to my mind that should be what photography is all about, and why you take the pictures in the first place...
Jason, Ted Forbes on his YouTube channel as a nice series on the "rules" of composition. He doesn't treat them as if they are carved in tablets handed down by Ansel Adam and Edward Steichen, but as tools to help you frame your picture.
Many thanks for that Jim, I will certainly take a look. I'm finding photography both fascinating and rewarding, obviously I've got still much to learn, that though is part of the pleasure or frustration! Admittedly I take many terrible shots, but sometimes I take some that bring let's say, a sense of achievement...
A few more I've taken recently...
I don't think photography is such that we wake up one day after 20 years of experience, take the lens cap off, make a great picture and go home. After at least that many years, I take plenty of, while arguably not terrible, certainly ordinary and boring (to some people) pictures. That's okay too... photography is largely about the experience of getting out and seeing the world around us. My wife often says that I notice little things that I never would have before without the camera. Whether that's of value or importance to anyone is for them to decide.
As far as progressing in skills and results, for someone self-taught like myself, there's never been a magical ingredient or concept that transformed my photography overnight. I learned before YouTube put a million educational videos on everyone's lap, but I read all kinds of books and magazines, taking what made sense with me and chucking the rest. It's not hard stuff, like algebra. I've always looked at pictures in newspapers and magazines with sort of a critical eye, determining what it was about the ones I liked, or why they didn't work for me. I had a mentor early on who spent time critiquing my images, but be careful with that. Some photographers have different reasons for making a picture, and a lot of people's opinions aren't worth listening to. Photography is learning a progression of skills throughout a long process... not an endpoint. And people with a passion for their particular endeavor will always do well.
I absolutely agree with you about looking at things in a different light, I see beauty everywhere now even in the most simplistic of objects, where before I would just pass by with my normal life. Photography is now my happy place where I can forget about all the nonsense going on around the world, and concentrate on what makes me happy.
You have given some sound advice, and I have a very long way to go, I'm inspired by other people's photography and hope one day I can also produce something of equal measure, I am probably my worst enemy when it comes to critiquing my own work, but occasionally I'm very happy indeed.
I have found out though that I'm a manual guy, using 95% of the time manual only lenses, adjusting shutter speed and ISO etc for every shot, and very carefully trying to get it in focus. I've only started my photography journey, but my camera is with me every day, my little X-E1 has proven itself to be one of my better investments...
One comment I might make in observation about the photos you've posted....
Just because your camera records the picture in a 3:2 ratio, doesn't mean that you have to keep it that way. Most of what I call distractions lie along the outer edges of the picture, especially top and bottom in vertical format pictures. So in analyzing your picture of the orange car with the main subject obviously in the middle, ask yourself whether cropping off some of the top and or bottom of the picture would improve the picture. In other words, how can you simplify the picture to emphasize more of the reason for shooting it in the first place? Great photos typically get closer and tighter to the subject, leaving no opportunity for the viewer to get distracted looking at unrelated or insignificant parts of the background.
Thank you so much for the advice. I do often think of cropping, and I understand about not having other distractions in the picture, when I'm photographing flowers for example, I do try to block everything else out. The orange car was really just a street shot, but I was happy with the colours and the focusing, only because it was very crowded and I didn't have much time.
The exposure triangle is what I'm concentrating on most at the moment, I think I have a fairly good eye, so I try to compose the best I can, but in London you sometimes have to make do as there will always be something just a few seconds away that will ruin the picture! As for editing, I can only to the most basic, I don't have the skillset to do much else, but if I'm honest I rather like my pictures to come straight out of the camera, as much as possible.
Thank you for your time in commenting, it's all very helpful, and encouraging to do better...
I've never been interested in flowers before, just proves what a camera can do...