From the USA

I agree that composition can certainly be taught; lots of "rules" abound. However, IMO it's the breaking of those rules that many times leads to images that soar to another level! Learn the "rules", then break 'em!! ;)
 
Alan,
I wasn't really thinking of "rules" as such. Photographers seem to be tied to the Rule of Thirds. If you care to make an image with items placed carefully on the thirds, you will have a very boring picture. I've tried it, as a demonstration. In practice, it seems to be little more than the Rule of a Bit Off-Centre, which isn't much of a rule at all.
Rules is a very poor word to use anyway, as is suggests a prescription. I was thinking of useful it it to analyse what we believe to be successful and then trying to discover why. I think it's better done in like-minded groups rather than in isolated contemplation. We might discover that there are multiple reasons for approving an image.
If we step aside from photographer's concerns and look at other human enterprises, we might find some clues. Architects have historically been very interested in systems of proportion and harmony. They are obliged to plan ahead, because rectifying mistakes is prohibitively expensive for architecture. Photographers have much more flexibility. Even the most expensive re-shoot couldn't match the price of another Taj Mahal.
In music, too, there are well-established ways of constructing harmonious sounds. Not all music is required to be harmonious and so musicians have ways of predicting what combinations of sound will be sad, or threatening or awe-making. I don't think we can reasonably suggest that musicians are uncreative because of this. We might even suggest that knowledge expands their creativity.
There is a difference in photography. Many photographs are not constructed, but are captured and the photographer has to make the most of what's in front of the lens. This is not a universal truth. Many images are arranged and composed at leisure. Do we judge these things differently? Perhaps we only care if either genre transgresses our expectations. Something for another discussion.

*In my footnote (added after re-reading) I tried to distinguish between what can be taught directly and what person can learn by all sorts of means – observation, experience, reading, conversation, emulation and so on.
I'm pretty sure that the techniques of photography can be taught, of course.
 
Good find, David. It may provide several specific answers to Al's question. An answer in summary might be "It depends" - but that demands elaboration. Then there's the Barbra Streisand version "Feelings" but I'm not going to go there, as I see no relation to photography.
 
Last edited:
I am amazed by the way in which many photographers allow themselves to be constrained by the so-called Rule of Thirds. Perhaps Camera Club judges are to blame. I wish I had a box of 5x4 HP5 for every time I've heard a judge pronounce the well-worn praise "Nicely on a third". Actually, most judges seem incapable of accurately judging a third. You can place a significant object anywhere between just over halfway and slightly more than three-quarters across, and the judge will compliment you on it being on a third.
The rule of thirds is just a watered down version of the Golden Mean. But it sounds rather odd to say "nicely on five thirteenths."
If painters ever did consciously followed the Golden Mean as a compositional aid, they surely abandoned it long ago; at least as a formal rule...so why do photographers put up with thirds?

Alan
 
Even in still life photography (albeit to a much lesser extent) most of what is photographed is based on what to leave out. My digital artist friend starts with a blank space and decides what to put in. We photographers set up our kit in front of a space with subject matter in it, and then go looking for the image that 'works'. Even when we set up a still life, differential focus, lighting(and therefore shading) still determine what our image 'leaves out'. (Thinking of gradual OOF to completely out of focus to highlight some fine detail, perhaps.)
I'm not certain such creations can be taught, but learned, to use David M's understanding of the differentiation of the terms. Therefore, practise until you know by experience that this image will 'work'. Even if it only 'works' for you.
I am an amateur. I do it for the love of it (amo, Latin, I love). I don't have to work to other peoples constraints. Thirds, five thirteenths, whatever.
Thoughts?
 
The mention of "rules" causes a flashback, for me, to my first exposure to a camera club in which the incessant rules were so frequently invoked. It didn't take long to feel nauseous, so I sought other places.
 
As Jim has suggested, I think you have to go by your own instincts.
Many years ago at members' night at my, then, camera club, a member showed what I thought was a very nice picture of an old gnarled log lying on a woodland slope, surrounded by Spring flowers. He explained that he didn't like the log and went on to demonstrate how he used the marvels of Photoshop to remove it by cloning flowers in its place. He seemed very proud of the final result, but made the mistake of asking what else he could have done to complete the improvement. The old chap sitting next to me was a born-again biker; a real petrol head. He shouted out,
"What it needs now is a nice yellow Kawasaki 500 motorbike and rider skidding down the slope"

Log, flowers motorbike; three alternatives in the same setting. Who was right?

Alan
 
When the photographer becomes the digital artist, then photography per se has ended. Using many disciplines to achieve the image required has become the process needed. Right?, who says what's right? You? Does it do for you what you want it to do for you? Did the biker get what the biker wanted? And if the original photographer didn't get what they wanted, then 'right' seems a redundant term... The process seems to be the hobby, not just a part of it. And who said the gnarled old log was ruining the shot?
Of what use are lens and light, to those who lack in mind and sight? Quoted in Bruce Barnbaum's book, the Art of photography. One of the best things I have ever read on the why we photograph. Can't recommend it enough.
 
Alan,
If we subscribe to the idea that what counts is what we feel, then all three were equally right.
That makes me think "Hmmm..."
In those Good Old Days of the Renaissance, paintings were very carefully constructed for a highly educated and demanding clientele. They used systems of proportion to get everything in the right place. The systems they used dated back to classical Athens and the birth of philosophy and democracy. We still admire them.
In those days, knowledge was knowledge and they didn't suffer from the idea that some people were creative and good at arty things and some were geeks and interested in science and mathematics. They were interested in everything and their curiosity knew no bounds.
 
David, true; they didn't suffer from the idea that Art was a vehicle for self-expression. Painters were tradesmen then, craftsmen. And they often didn't get paid.
Times have changed. Now we regard painting and photography as a means of expressing what we feel about something we see. And as amateurs we still don't get paid!

Alan
 
At face value this might seem straightforward, but it's actually fraught with problems!
I never said it was easy, but at least you can set your own criteria! The 'joys' of struggling, and the ecstacy of success. Then you understand why. (I'm still waiting for consistent success.) Sigh....
 
Wow, such a great discussion! This is what I love about this forum!!

So many well spoken arguments and words put forth in this thread, I can't really add more; other than...when I hear or think about compositional rules like the rule-o-threads I think of the square. Having shot with a Hasselblad for about 30 years, I chuckle at that "rule" saying I should place important subject matter on a third intersection. How boring would that be?
 
You knock in a nail. You miss and hit your thumb. You scream. That's self-expression. I want more.
Surely, good work is produced by the whole person, not by half the brain or a quarter of the personality?
 
Last edited:
You knock in a nail. You miss and hit your thumb. You scream. That's self-expression. I want more.
Good work is produced by the whole person, not by half the brain or a quarter of the personality.

David, there are levels of self-expression. Everyone can scream when they hit themselves with a hammer. But only Cezanne could paint like Cezanne.

Alan
 
Alan,
Entirely true. My point was that he needed more than that. He needed the whole of Cezanne - heart, hand and head. We cannot legitimately dismiss any of these.
If we consider the most ostensibly intellectual of painters, Mondrian, it becomes clear that his thinking and his concern for proportion did not inhibit personal expression. He is almost certainly the most recognisable painter in history.

I may be exhibiting a bias here. The greats of the Renaissance were expressing what they considered to be universal truths. Today we have (eg) Tracy Emin, concerned with expressing her own autobiography. It takes all sorts, of course and perhaps we now believe that we have solved all questions of universal truth.
To return to today's photography, the most widespread form of self-expression, by far, is the Selfie. It's not yet a mature art-form, so we must summon all our tolerance and wait and see.
 
Jim,
You make some excellent points.
My apologies for replying out of order.

May I suggest that the "What is Real Photography?" debate is best avoided. It seems to have been exhaustively and acrimoniously covered elsewhere.

If we do want to be purist, then we might consider that only a Daguerreotype* is a Real Photograph, because it's made by the light reflected directly from the subject. Projection and contact printing are merely images of a light bulb, interrupted by a stencil. You just press the timer button. I'm not suggesting that I believe this. It's offered as an example.

*...or bitumen of Judea on pewter, processed in lavender oil, of course. My mind has not got round to considering Polaroid in this context. A bear of very small brain...
 
Surely, good work is produced by the whole person, not by half the brain or a quarter of the personality?
My question here is 'Good for whom?' I've been spending an hour with a photographer who has to make it pay the mortgage, therefore 'good' is what sells. He doesn't put a lot into some of his work, he is quite derogatory about it. But it sells.....
May I suggest that the "What is Real Photography?" debate is best avoided. It seems to have been exhaustively and acrimoniously covered elsewhere.
Here, I meant no acrimony. If I caused any offence in any way whatsoever, I apologise. I meant no disrespect to anyone. If anything, I wanted to liberate anyone from unnecessarily imposed rules. What one does for whatever reason is for one only.
Real writing with light? As a lighthearted silliness, if I shade my lawn with a simple image, and the grass loses colour where it has been shaded.....
https://grist.org/living/these-artists-print-photographs-onto-living-grass/
https://www.popphoto.com/news/2012/07/english-artists-print-giant-photos-live-grass
Photography? Hey, ones own rules are for one's own self, right?
Unnecessarily imposed rules leave no choice. I don't want to live in that world. What you do...... is up to you.
Thoughts? Thanks for putting up with mine..
 
Back
Top