Thoughts on composition
Something I have given a lot of thought over for quite a long time now is the role of the rules of composition.
We've all heard the critique of images, or why an image does/does not work. For those acknowledged as masterpieces it is explained that the photographer has followed the rules of thirds - or you can replace that with the Golden Triangle, or Golden Spiral.
Sure enough, one of those will fit the subject......
Then of course you have leading lines, S curves, negative space etc etc.
Does anyone consciously follow these rules when shooting? I personally think that they may be useful and allow explanations of why certain images might appeal, but I'm not sure they help when shooting.
I find that when I shoot nowadays I tend to look for interesting subjects and then frame and shoot to show them in their best light. I find myself using my gut feeling to compose, doing so to create something that simply pleases my eye.
This is not to say that I disregard the 'rules' completely. I remain consciously aware of those that might explain why a composition 'works' and am surely influenced by years of at least being aware of the concepts.
I find when I shoot now the composition tends to be more reactive to the emotion the scene produces, and I'm more likely to look for a feeling of balance (or discord) than apply any framework of 'rules'.
I'd be interested to hear how others may feel about composition in general, and to what degree you use rules in your shooting workflow. As a bonus, it would be great to understand if you fall back on rules when evaluating images, whether that be your own or the work of others.
19 Comments
While I have never been a rule breaker, most of my photos are taken because of the appeal to my eye and I have no conscience idea while rule I am following...especially birds in flight.
There are, however, times where I intentionally follow a rule if the composition grabs me by the neck and gently say, "I will not allow you to press the shutter until you reorient the shot with the s-curve properly composed."
In viewing my works after the shutter release I tend to evaluate differently
Then the Rule of Odds make my eyes bleed from jumping all over the composition attempting to settle on the subject when the scene doesn't have the "even man out."
Without a compelling reason the horizon must be guillotine level as seeing lakes and oceans being callously emptied make me cry an internal river of tears while hanging my head holding in a quiet sob.
I do have a tendency to as Mr. Brown says, " [My] compositions tend to be more reactive to the emotion of the scene...."
I think the level horizon falls under the category of ‘what feels right.
However, I have consciously allowed a deviation from this in some abstract images where a level horizon just feels wrong for the content.
Lately, my work has been increasingly and quite intentionally abstract, where fewer dogmatic theories apply. But when I am in a more conventional mode, I always try to adhere to two rules, even if I have to manipulate the image in post-processing.
1.) If there is a horizon, it should be level.
2.) Vertical lines should be vertical, even if it is at the expense of horizontal lines (other than the horizon).
Rarely have I found a reason to violate these.
Interesting points Andrew.
I find that on some of my own shots (especially abstract) levelling up horizon and verticals actually detracts from the image, and looks out of place.
There are quite a few where I have levelled and then reverted to the (authentic) original.
In regard to your points, Andrew:
1.) I agree, but sometimes slightly undulating terrain can give the horizon a tilt, and then it's a case of if it looks right, it is right i.e. camera more parallel to the visible horizon than the in-camera virtual horizon or spirit level. Sea horizons must be dead level - a fraction of a degree off can be really annoying.
2.) I think that completely correcting converging verticals, especially with buildings, can sometimes result in an uncomfortable "looming" effect, as I think Ansel Adams called it. It's a bit as if the building might topple on you.
99% of the time I will level horizons. This was a shot where doing so just didn't feel right (a contradiction?) for the image.
I'd be interested to hear if you/others find the horizon as a distraction, or even annoying as you point out.
Undulating terrain is another aspect - for those I tend to level to what feels right for the image, whether truly level or not.
I DO find the tilted horizon in this charming image annoying, Alan, but I'll admit freely that I have a bee in the bonnet on this issue!
"Fixing" it distorts your composition. Here are two versions, the first simply a cropped (to maintin aspect ratio) rotation, the second with the left corner raised, elongating the people.
There is a dynamism in your image lacking in these, so I might prefer your original - but that horizon...! ;-)
Chris, you are correct that it is inappropriate to "correct" the horizon if the horizon is not level, such as a hillside elevation or any place where there is some question as to the horizon's orientation. In those cases, finding a vertical to set the photograph's framing is appropriate. If neither a level horizon nor a clearly vertical line is available, personal artistic preference (aka guessing) is allowed. Indeed, it's necessary. And yes, Adams is correct that aligning converging verticals in photographs of buildings can be counterproductive.
Finally, in this, as is generally the case, rules are made to be broken.
I really appreciate the way you articulated this, Alan. I have found myself arriving at the same place over the years. The “rules” of composition helped train my eyes early on, but once they settled into my memory, they became less something I applied and more something that simply informed the way I see.
Like you, I shoot now by instinct. I respond to whatever is in front of me and compose according to what the moment feels like rather than by consciously arranging elements on an invisible grid. The rules are still there, andexplain why something works (and even lead the process at times).
The biggest shift for me in recent years has been toward storytelling. Technical skill creates a foundation, but the photograph only becomes meaningful to me when it tells a story. I guess the important thing is to get the technical side down early on without it being the judge of everyone else’s work, then be free to leave the beaten path and experiment with compositions that are driven by emotion, mood, and story rather than by formal structure.
Thank you for opening this post/discussion!
Hope everyone is having a great holiday season!
Well said PG.
I agree that when 'shooting by instinct' in the way you describe we are likely subconsciously being influenced by those rules that we once used to guide.
I feel those provide a good foundation, one that allows us to look beyond and see deeper meaning.
Maybe it's technically, "shooting by experience" rather than instinct?
I'm a little surprised at how many people here did learn and follow these rules, at least starting out. I've found the classical ones - Golden this or that - particularly puzzling, even though great art was made in the past with fairly strict adherence to them. It is almost inconceivable to me to be using these when framing up a potential photographic image.
My initial photo schooling largely came from reading Ansel Adams' books, The Camera, The Negative and The Print. I loved his work, and noted that he never seemed to say in these books how he composed at all.
I'd never heard of the rule of thirds until a few years ago; I think it's a good one for beginners who want to plonk the subject dead centre because, well it's the subject after all, as we all do at first. I think placement exactly on the "third" rarely looks right, actually.
I've always composed intuitively - and really struggled to come up with satisfying compositions at all at first, puzzling "How do they do it?" Plenty of practice later, it became clearer and clearer when the composition looked right or not. As H C-B said, "My first ten thousand images were my worst".
One "rule" I HAVE tended to follow was really something that just stuck in my head when reading about Japanese art - the avoidance of left-right symmetry. The exception is with a symmetrical subject like a building or machine.
Also with a subject that "points" - a face, a person, a car - is to leave some space for it to point into as a general rule. However someone facing, or say a ship sailing out of the picture frame rather than into it can create a sense of loneliness or alienation - as Photo Girl says, telling a story.
All good points Chris. Joining a camera club at an early age the 'rules' were drummed into me, and used by lazy judges as a metric to gauge why an image works or not.
Once you've gone through that it actually becomes quite hard to disregard and shoot to your own eye.
I used to follow your last example pretty meticulously, leaving room for the subject to move into. However, nowadays I am equally likely to consider placing the subject to move out of the frame, to create a little surprise or tension in the image.
I think both can work, just setting a different mood (harmony vs discord?).
Set up your composition so that it "feels good" on the ground glass - or on the viewing screen then make the exposure. Never let someone else dictate your composition. That is your statement. Let your heart guide you. The question I have for the ones that live and die by the "rules for fools" is to explain exactly why those "rules" are. inexorably true. All are based on mathematical formulas and equations that the judge cannot comprehend or explain. One of them saying, effectively, we've always done it that way is an insufficient explanation.
(Some thoughts, not on a specific technique but rather, on a way to move beyond the constraints of ANY technique)
Interesting discussion Alan.
This is a topic that comes up quite a bit when I'm teaching. There is a lot of concern about what are the "rules" and when to use or not.
In my experience the way one frames an idea tends to bind or constrain the thinking around that idea.
We are taught from a very young age to follow the "rules". To get the approval of our parents, siblings, schoolmates, etc we must follow the "rules". As we grow older and have to start to fit in with society we learn that the "rules" are very important.
And here is the rub.
The idea that composition is a set of "rules" to be obeyed or to be broken. Even though we know that photography is an art form, many are still deeply bound by the concept of "rules" and the aversion to being a "rule" breaker. Or the promise that if we follow the "rules" we will succeed.
Perhaps a different way to look at composition would be...
Early on I found that by simply changing the word "rules" to "tools" it fundamentally changes the way we approach thinking about composition.
When we go from, what "rule" must I follow or not, to what "tool" works best for this idea, we free our thinking to explore creatively what works, without the fear, albeit subconsciously, of breaking some "rule" or other.
This is such a simple concept and yet one that can have a huge impact on our creative freedom.
And yes when using a physical "tool" like a saw, wrench, or screwdriver, etc, we need to master the skills necessary to effectively use those "tools". Once we master them we just put them the in the toolbox and pull them out when needed.
The "tools" of thirds, odds, symmetry, balance, framing, tension, negative space, contrasting colours, leading lines, and many many others are also "tools" that we must learn so that we have a well stocked photographic "tool" box.
The more "tools" we have in our mental photographic "tool" box the more "tools" we have to use on an idea we are creating.
All with the freedom of what "tool", if any, works here?
Not... what "rule" must I follow or break?
As we master the use of those "tools" we can spend less time thinking about the use of those "tools" and more on what do I want to say with this image.
As Alan says... "I find myself using my gut feeling to compose, doing so to create something that simply pleases my eye." That is the freedom that comes from using the best "tool" for that particular composition.
Thoughts?
A good concept, Julian, and a good response to the constraining notion of rules, offering the empowering alternative you suggest. In the end, I suspect most of use come to use the intuitive response, which may end up resembling the guidelines at issue.
BTW, perfect use of the tule of thirds here, Julian, the branch crossing being PRECISELY on the third! 10/10 for tule adherence.
;-)
Oh Chris, I knew I could count on you. 🤣
You made my day!
Too funny Chris. The crossing of the plant couldn’t have landed better on the thirds if Julian had measured it!
Looks like Julian picked the perfect tool in this case.
If you let the so called "rules of composition" tell you what to do, I call them "rules for fools", you are then ceding your personal vision to someone else. I the words of Edward Weston; "No one can teach another to see. If they could, then anyone might become an artist. Rules of composition are derived from the works of great masters, and used by weak imitators to create nothing". In my teaching career I taught these rules without question. They were doctrines which must be obeyed if one was to create art. Then, one day I began questioning, and the more I questioned the less sense they made. It is a fact that a lot of images conform to those "rules", some inadvertently, others by planning and on purpose. But a lot of good things happen when you say, "screw the rules and the horse they rode in on".