The desire to turn composition into an algorithm, a set of rules, is positively a plague in photography.
Good work on noting that Dynamic Symmetry is a bunch of crap. Now move on to Leading Lines and the Rule of Thirds, which are also crap. There is actual research here, Arnheim's book on Art and Visual Perception is pretty good, and suggests something like the Rule of Thirds but also makes clear that it's not that simple.
Just look. You see things pretty much the same way other people do. If it looks balanced, it is. If it looks off kilter, it is.
The key is not in knowing where to place the masses to create a sensation of tension (or whatever) but rather to know that it is possible to create a sensation of tension. This is what you get from looking at other people's pictures, as Russ suggests. You see, you react, you expand your ideas of what reactions are possible. Maybe you pick up a few hints about how to do it.
Rules of composition are a distraction. You lose the scene in front of the lens, because all you see is the leading line.
Just look, and be aware.
Paraphrasing from memory something that is attributed to various jazz musicians and in various forms... I remember this one as attributed to Miles Davis:"First, learn everything there is to learn about jazz... then forget it all and play until you are dizzy."
It seems to me that some of you guys want to skip the first part and jump straight to the forgetting part. Or you are so far from the first part, years-wise, that you forgot it ever existed.
I believe some of us put in many years learning on the job rather than from primers.
You never went to any art school? You just started painting?
... It doesn't hurt, here, to have some people point things out about pictures for you. Some stuff is there but it pretty hard to consciously notice unless you have someone pointing things out...
...Turning all this material into a #3, well, you cannot algorithmize it....
You think we learnt by rote, from primers or were encouraged to follow rules?
Far from it, we worked hard and were to encouraged to find our own way.
You never went to any art school? You just started painting?
... we were encouraged to do that, just get on with it...
There's a bunch of different things that tend to get conflated here, largely by photographers who because they tend to lean a bit technophile are charmed by the idea of algorithmic approaches to what are essentially emotional problems.
1. How to people perceive things, especially pictures of things?
2. What properties do pictures have?
3. What should I do when I take a picture?
The photographer in search of rules is interested, of course, in #3. People seeking to provide such rules to sell their book or promote their web site, gleefully gather up items from #1 and #2 and file the serial numbers off, presenting them as #3. Often, as in the case of Leading Lines and the Rule of Thirds, they haven't even got them from category 1, they're just made up entirely, but presented as if they were fundamental laws of perception.
Now, knowing how people perceive things, and understanding properties of existing good pictures, these are great ideas. You don't need to be able to apply words to any of it, though. You perceive things much the same way others do, so you can knock off #1 simply by paying attention. #2 requires that you actually look at pictures, and pay rather more attention. It doesn't hurt, here, to have some people point things out about pictures for you. Some stuff is there but it pretty hard to consciously notice unless you have someone pointing things out.
Turning all this material into a #3, well, you cannot algorithmize it. You can't just learn the properties of flour, water, salt, leavenings, sweeteners, and be a pastry chef. If you work away on existing pastries, make a bunch of pies and have people point out the properties of a good crust, and so on, you can learn to make a passable copy of existing pastries.
But there's no algorithm that's going to get you to a new pastry on your own. To get from copying to creating, you're just going to have to try some stuff out, throw a lot of stuff out, and exercise taste and judgement based on experience, and even then sometimes you just aren't the guy. You haven't got it.
Paraphrasing from memory something that is attributed to various jazz musicians and in various forms... I remember this one as attributed to Miles Davis:"First, learn everything there is to learn about jazz... then forget it all and play until you are dizzy."
It seems to me that some of you guys want to skip the first part and jump straight to the forgetting part. Or you are so far from the first part, years-wise, that you forgot it ever existed.
And it took four years of “just getting on with it”? Boy, what a waste of time and money. Just buy brushes and paint and “get on with it” on your own instead.
...You can't just learn the properties of flour, water, salt, leavenings, sweeteners, and be a pastry chef. If you work away on existing pastries, make a bunch of pies and have people point out the properties of a good crust, and so on, you can learn to make a passable copy of existing pastries.
But there's no algorithm that's going to get you to a new pastry on your own...
...
1. How to people perceive things, especially pictures of things?
2. What properties do pictures have?
3. What should I do when I take a picture?
...
To get from copying to creating, you're just going to have to try some stuff out, throw a lot of stuff out, and exercise taste and judgement based on experience...
Wait, someone thinks that baking doesn't benefit from algorithms? That you just randomly experiment until you get it right rather than being taught very clearly by more experienced chefs or cooks about ratios of ingredients and temperatures and so on?
What a lot of nonsense.
If someone wants to get into photography, why not read through a basic primer to get some ideas and then head on out to start learning and looking at masters and those whose work you like and admire?
I'm with Slobo - too many people here have either forgotten what it's like to learn (this is hardly the first thread to demonstrate that), or have such immense opinions of their own ability that they presume they were capable of training themselves to the level of master without and basic tips (and that such tips would have somehow sullied their creativity).
Wait, someone thinks that baking doesn't benefit from algorithms? That you just randomly experiment until you get it right rather than being taught very clearly by more experienced chefs or cooks about ratios of ingredients and temperatures and so on?
What a lot of nonsense.
If someone wants to get into photography, why not read through a basic primer to get some ideas and then head on out to start learning and looking at masters and those whose work you like and admire?
I'm with Slobo - too many people here have either forgotten what it's like to learn (this is hardly the first thread to demonstrate that), or have such immense opinions of their own ability that they presume they were capable of training themselves to the level of master without and basic tips (and that such tips would have somehow sullied their creativity).
Any judgement I make on any image maker is based on what they do, not what they say.
Which is exactly what commercial clients do, too!
It's all that matters.
Rob
That's one point of view.
However, even within the domestic scene of cooking - let's leave pro cheffing work aside here - there are exceptions to hard rules. Of course, you have to try to differentiate the difference between seeing something done once or twice, reading about it in a book (cooking or otherwise) and having a natural talent for whatever.
I met my future wife when we were both teens in school. Even then, she'd come back to my family home after the movies or something, see what was available and rustle us up a meal for two. I don't remember her ever being taught how to cook anything - and she was only fifteen years old. She went on to make the most amazing meals throughout her life, give successful parties and even in a crisis, never lose her cool (I never will forget when the potatoes she had to hand did not translate well into the gnocchi my uncle had asked if she could make: as soon as she discovered they wouldn't work properly with the flour, she switched to something else entirely and her smile made even my disappointed uncle forgive and forget! The stew that was to go with it was still perfect). So yeah, anecdotal, but still a valid point about nature and what it lets you do.
A downside to this was that every time we went back visiting to the UK, to either parental home, she was instantly handed the apron.
But the point is this: I watched her cook day after day, this and the other, yet today, left to my own devices, I can't cook a goddam thing that's worth the electricity.
Photography isn't that far removed: basically, it is a simple matter of making an exposure, as we all know. Of course folks with agendas will translate it into a huge deal, and it can be until you learn the mechanics of digital cameras and basic Photoshop. But that isn't photography: that's mechanics, as I said, and certainly a thing that can be taught. Photography is about the grey matter inside your skull, and even a brain surgeon can't put talent into that space if talent ain't there.
David Bailey trained with John French, very well-known in fashion circles at the time. During an interview, Bailey remarked that he had to unlearn everything he'd learned at the French studio. In my own case, I dropped out of photographic night school when the tutor told me, face to face, that he'd abandon photography is he made pix like Bailey. What was I going to learn there? How to be redundant? I already knew more about where I was going than any tutor out there could teach me.
Of course, perhaps the use of the word talent is part of the problem: some without it see it as a word denoting superiority or an attitude of elitism. What it is really, is nothing more than the natural ability you have to perform a particular kind of task. Because one may have it in one sphere does not imply one may have it in any other, so a sense of a broader superiority can be very misplaced indeed.
...Because one may have it in one sphere does not imply one may have it in any other, so a sense of a broader superiority can be very misplaced indeed...
Wait, someone thinks that baking doesn't benefit from algorithms? That you just randomly experiment until you get it right rather than being taught very clearly by more experienced chefs or cooks about ratios of ingredients and temperatures and so on?
What a lot of nonsense.
...I don't remember her ever being taught how to cook anything - and she was only fifteen years old...
Yes, yes, that would be nonsense. Which is why nobody said that.
If one thinks that teaching how to cook only starts after the age of 15... How about age six? My daughter also had cooking classes in middle and even high school. But I am sure that today, when she prepares something tasty, she would attribute that to her... talent ;)
Btw, every one of us has used algorithmized cooking, even when putting a frozen meal into a microwave: it is known as "instructions for use" on the back of the box. Follow it and you won't stay hungry that night. Or you can use your talent and guess the time and temperature... delivery is just a phone call away ;)
Yes, yes, that would be nonsense. Which is why nobody said that.
Early onset of dementia much?
I know this is the internutz, but could we here at LuLa perhaps recalibrate to a more civil form of discourse?
Paraphrasing from memory something that is attributed to various jazz musicians and in various forms... I remember this one as attributed to Miles Davis:"First, learn everything there is to learn about jazz... then forget it all and play until you are dizzy."
It seems to me that some of you guys want to skip the first part and jump straight to the forgetting part. Or you are so far from the first part, years-wise, that you forgot it ever existed.
... on the Internet the standard method of discourse is to read whatever the other fellow said in the stupidest possible way, dropping words, ideas, and paragraphs as necessary, and then respond as if the other fellow said that stupid thing.
What I said was, of course, more complicated and subtle than "baking doesn't benefit from algorithms" but on the Internet the standard method of discourse is to read whatever the other fellow said in the stupidest possible way, dropping words, ideas, and paragraphs as necessary, and then respond as if the other fellow said that stupid thing.
Even better: how about some more pictures from you?
:-)
Rob
My interpretation is that people here are saying this:
Learn all there is to learn about composition by example, not by rules. Avoid the rules like the plague. Learning composition is like learning language. The rules, even as mere guidelines, don't help one iota in forming comprehensible sentences, and certainly not in forming meaningful poetry.
...And Slobodan: more architectural oversaturation please...
... Learning composition is like learning language. The rules, even as mere guidelines, don't help one iota in forming comprehensible sentences, and certainly not in forming meaningful poetry.
My point, which to be honest I have already stated clearly, is that "rules" are at best a starting point, and are certainly not the endpoint...
Where?
Where?
... ETA: You know what, I'm just muting you. Nothing personal, but I shan't be responding to you further.
I had the same question.
I agree with Slobodan on this issue, as long as you use the rules as a means and not as an end...
I had the same question.
Perfect timing, Keith.
I know this is the internutz, but could we here at LuLa perhaps recalibrate to a more civil form of discourse?
Are you being deliberately rude and insulting toward me, or are you just off your meds at the moment?
If you feel the need to be an obnoxious ass, please do it somewhere else.
Michael
Russ, not sure if your comment was related to my attempt to end the childish bickering or was directed towards the image, but either way, thanks.
;-)
Actually, it was directed toward the image. There's no way to stop the bickering. It'll go on forever. :(
You sure about that?
As someone who speaks five languages (however elementary), Slavic, Romance, and Germanic, I can assure you that knowing linguistic rules surely helps in forming comprehensible sentences.
As for poetry... try haiku without following the rules.
Any judgement I make on any image maker is based on what they do, not what they say.
But the point is this: I watched her cook day after day, this and the other, yet today, left to my own devices, I can't cook a goddam thing that's worth the electricity.
Yes, yes, that would be nonsense. Which is why nobody said that.
What I said was, of course, more complicated and subtle than "baking doesn't benefit from algorithms" but on the Internet the standard method of discourse is to read whatever the other fellow said in the stupidest possible way, dropping words, ideas, and paragraphs as necessary, and then respond as if the other fellow said that stupid thing.
When it comes to medical conditions and forum etiquette, I am only following the lead of Michael Reichmann:
So you agree with Slobo and I? If she had actively taught you the basics, you would have been better off because left to your own devices you were incapable of learning how to cook?
And do you tell somebody you love: hey, just in case you die, how about teaching me survival skills for when you become memory?
Or until big brother closes the thread ;D
Well, no, I wouldn't word it quite like that :-)
But do you really think that if someone had shown you some basics, or given you a stepping guide, that you couldn't have learned had you been inclined to do so? The masters of anything create new work, regardless of the field - we all agree on that. The contention is the rubbishing of the OP and the link on the basis that no one should ever need a starting point or reference.
Ah, yes, when they can't substantiate their arguments they post pretty pictures (and they are nice photos, let's be honest). The honesty in the photography just seems absent in the debate, which is a pity.
The OP made a reference to a site useful as a primer and was roundly snubbed and "put in his place" by a few posters who feel that such things are beneath them (and that does not mean everyone who put a counter to my thoughts by any means). That's what happened. Apparently they, and I (and a few others), are not worthy in their eyes. I can't tell you how much of a relief that is.
That sounds awfully erudite in an artistic way, I suppose, but does it preclude you from listening to someone explain how they did something that you judge as being worthwhile? If, as I imagine, that is not the case then it directly rebuts you. Alternatively, if that's actually the case, then why is it you would think that we would listen to you about anything? Either way, I don't think your comment withstands any sort of scrutiny.
I guess if I look at enough flying magazines I shall soon be able to pilot my own jet. Not that I have one, but you know what I mean.
It is of course your choice if you listen to me or not, but as I don't have any knowledge of you or what it is you do then why would I care?
Rules of composition.
Isn't that an idea spawned in medieval times when mathematics and geometry were attributed mystical and divine properties?
That persists today, just look at the Fibonacci sequence, which is almost a religion for some
I believe there is a craft and an art to photography. Seems obvious to me. Learn the craft then work like hell and if you have any talent and feel and anything to say perhaps the art will manifest itself.
Musicians generally learn to read music and enough of the language of music to be able to communicate with other musicians. Writers certainly learn the craft as I attempted with several writing courses. If you want to make gelato there is certainly a science to it which you could label the rules, a way of making this amazing essential foodgroup which is actually quite complex.
Yet so many photographers think they have so much innate talent that as long as they can speak about bokeh, Nyquist point and argue endlessly about esoteric aspects of colour management that surely the great images will happen by themselves. The evidence certainly seems to indicate otherwise. I would suggest finding out what the rules are, why they are, assimilating them and then moving beyond them if you have the stamina and the talent.
I find myself mostly agreeing with Slobodan on this topic.
Perhaps herein lies the problem: there is science to flying, there is science to cooking. If there is science involved then it helps to learn the rules..
There is no science involved in composition.
Thing is, for me, the best images are almost invariably simple ones.
Perhaps herein lies the problem: there is science to flying, there is science to cooking. If there is science involved then it helps to learn the rules.
There is no science involved in composition.
Rules represent orderlyness and the known and safe. The negative of that is boring and dull. Outside of the rules is freshness, novelty, excitement. Also chaos and an inability to communicat effectively. The balance of the two is for me the sweet spot. Hard to find and an ever moving target depending on my knowledge and my intended audience.
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo da Vinci
Show me a kitchen without a recipe book.
Or a pastry chef who doesn't measure ingredients.
"cooler colors seem farther away" strikes me as a classic "rule" of the sort that's simply wrong. I mean, there *might* be a paper somewhere that outlines a careful study, but I have not seen it, and it doesn't pop up on google, and I have mislaid my copy of Arnheim...
Why do people keep insisting that I am against recipes for cooking things? I never said that...
Why do people keep insisting that I am against recipes for cooking things? I never said that.
Seriously. Post #19. Go read ALL THE WORDS and think a little bit. It's not that hard.
Just look in the remainder bin of any large bookstore for how-to-take-photos books!
I'm sure glad we got rid of politics. Now there's nothing on LuLa that could lead to an argument.
Good. I hope we can all agree that algorithms (i.e. recipes) are central to cookery, both amateur and professional.
Ok. So you're talking about a truly 'new' pastry; not a chocolate eclair, a ring doughnut, or an almond slice, but something unheard of. By definition, that won't be found in a recipe book. However it seems unlikely that anyone up to the task would not have had a solid grounding in following recipes.
Many photographers are happy to make the equivalent of chocolate eclairs. The linked article on composition seems harmless enough (and is not entirely uninteresting). It won't be of much use if you want to be a contemporary artist, but it could help you pick up some gongs at your local camera club. I don't understand why it's causing so much aggro.
I'm sure the women really dig that, when you speak romance... ;-p
Pillow talk they do dig ;)
I assume you meant the above in a humorous way. In case you didn't:
Pillow talk they do dig ;)
I assume you meant the above in a humorous way. In case you didn't:
Why do people keep insisting that I am against recipes for cooking things? I never said that.
Seriously. Post #19. Go read ALL THE WORDS and think a little bit. It's not that hard.
Google “warm colors advance cool recede.” There are pages of links.
I always keep the horizon level, except when it should not be level.
Referencing myself is hardly an appeal to authority. Perhaps there are other reasons I might refer to my other work, though.
... a "painters have known for centuries..." if whatever claptrap he's cribbing doesn't already say it. Painters in turn will say things like "this is complete BS, we have never heard of this, what on earth are you talking about?"
Your ongoing research into the many ways in which I am wrong is riveting. Pray, continue.
I have no idea where you keep getting these bizarre statements you attribute to me. It certainly isn't from this thread, though.
It is mildly irritating to be constantly attacked, needled, and wilfully annoyed. Since moderation doesn't seem to really be in effect as long as nobody swears, I guess I'll just mute you as well. I am sure everyone is looking forward to your inevitable "neener neener I win" post, but I'm not.
It has been charming.
The rules reflect what the brain already knows what is pleasing to it. After a while, you move the viewfinder around to select what the brain finds most pleasing. And there's your shot.
Here's a picture which, as nearly as I can tell, obeys exactly zero "rules" of composition, and yet somehow remains somewhat appealing to the eye. I consider it among the best single photographs I have ever made.I fully respect Andrew's opinion that he considers it as one of his best photographs (a nice flower in the lower left corner of the picture in post #65). To me, the flower looks way too small and misplaced. And most probably, if I photographed the same flower, Andrew wouldn't like it. Attached is a photo of mine where the main subject is even smaller, but there is a certain dynamic and action (the car was driving towards me) which makes the photo appealing to me (despite the central placement of the car, imbalanced composition in the horizontal dimension, almost equal division between the sky and ice, and no leading lines).
As somebody mentioned, politics is far from being the only dangerous zone in LuLa. I feel pretty much ready to bid the lot of you guys adios: this is turning into a frustrating drudgery, not the shared interest in what some still believe to be a form of visual self-expression. And no, abandoning this thread is no answer either: the malaise is everywhere these days.
I've never had a problem quitting LuLa, done it many a time ;-)
And that's the problem, LuLa is a drug, with drug crazed penmen - and it's always bloody men: where's the women when you need 'em - running amok. It's tearing LuLa apart.
But hey, in the words of the late, great, Tony S, 'whaddya gonna do?
... Compositional Rules
1. Hold camera with viewfinder at eye;
2. move camera until eye is happy;
3. press button.
... I ran across the suggestion that what you should do is raise your camera and then move the finder around until what you see is the balance you want. If you don't see that balance before you raise the camera, you're lost...
In spite of the arguments, what matters is what comes out of your camera. Arguments about composition are meaningless. Pictures aren't.
I have seen plenty of meaningless pictures. In fact I see very few pictures that aren’t meaningless. Perhaps if they followed the rules hey Rus :)
Rob (in another thread; emphasis mine):But if they coordinated their attacks, what would we all squabble about? :o
...
Russ (in response to Alan Klein):
...
You guys should coordinate your attacks on us less talented :)
Rob (in another thread; emphasis mine):
Russ (in response to Alan Klein):
You guys should coordinate your attacks on us less talented :)
I have seen plenty of meaningless pictures. In fact I see very few pictures that aren’t meaningless. Perhaps if they followed the rules hey Rus :)
"Knowledgable members answering should remember what things were like when they were starting out."
I remember when Michael created that forum because too many "knowledgable" (sic) members treated new comers quite badly and harshly. Seems things haven't progressed.
Russ is right about the inability to see.
1. It doesn't need to be a nursery, but neither does it need to be a place where deigning to speak without an invitation results in a backlash.
2. That's the problem. People can criticise something to their hearts content, but there's no need to be abusive about it or to categorise others as somehow being lesser being for having the audacity to take a different approach or to see benefit in things like primers.
"...nobody else has a right to tell another how to be himself."
3..And yet we have people in this very thread telling others they are inadequate because they want to understand or share some technical basics or provide some general guidelines, as if that's not telling another how to be themselves.
4. That old line about teachers was dropped earlier. What a load of rubbish. Those who can do but refuse to teach, or insist on bowed before first, are the lowest of the low.
1. So where does one apply for the permit to speak out, or, perhaps, should that be: where does one apply for a permit to disagree with Phil?
2. Where has anyone in this thread abused anyone else? (I think of the term abuse in its traditional form, not the politically correct one popular today, where to disagree is to abuse. If it's your definition, then there's nowhere left for any discussion with you to go.)
3. Nope, nobody is calling them inadequate; if you read it better, the suggestion is that those peddling the superior understanding of how to be whatever, are the offenders selling the best oil of snake. What I would suggesrt, and do, is that the hopeful, wannabe person realises early on that he's being milked.
And before you go any further into the realm of straw sculpture, realise that I have always advocated the learning of photographic mechanics, which is essential to everyone wanting to get somewhere in the discipline. However, photographic mechanics do not make photographers. God makes good photographers as he makes good musicians, good authors, good cooks or successful growers of pretty flowers.
4. I think you'll find the answer in my 3. above, unless you prefer to look the other way instead. Our last dog did that every time she saw something she thought a threat. We loved her so much we never felt able to replace her; but she was a pooch
1. Are you kidding? I haven't told anyone to stop speaking and I didn't attack a new poster. I rebutted some tired old nonsense from a couple of people who responded with little more than waffle.
2. Again, are you kidding? Calling people names, names which the callers clearly consider to be derisive, is being abusive.
3. Ah, I see. You either have it or you don't. Again, nonesense. Most people can become good at most things. Greatness? That's more limited, but it's hardly predestined that you can only be great at one particular thing.
I never suggested that you have ever advocated otherwise and, I agree with that approach. I don't agree with way in which some of the people expressed their disdain for anyone who might read to learn something before they embark on practicals
4. Oh, dear. I bet you think this song is about you, don't you?
Perhaps, or perhaps if people just said, "I don't think it's well titled - it's hardly definitive - but it's a good primer. I would recommend taking those basics and then experimenting for yourself and understanding why these are useful starting points, oh, and try reading this, this, and that...".
...start from a blank sheet, look at the world and find something that inspires you, something that you are passionate about. Express yourself and learn from your own mistakes. Above all be yourself and true to yourself.
It's certainly the approach I would take if ever I found myself in the extremely unlikely position of being a mentor. Would it result in prizes at the camera club or kudos on a workshop, a forum, or deliver qualifications, I don't know and care less, it's simply the way I learnt.
Your approach is perfectly valid and is no doubt the more conventional but I believe there is room for other pathways.
Esoteric enough?
Perhaps another way of saying you're not going to turn my head and I doubt I'll turn yours.
;-)
...start from a blank sheet, look at the world and find something that inspires you, something that you are passionate about. Express yourself...
... and learn from your own mistakes...
... Above all be yourself...
All fine, but nothing to do with composition.
(https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=126272.0;attach=182592;image)Ab-So-Lu-Te-Ly
There you go, Rob, all that angst over all those years of shooting models in the great outdoors when all you really needed was a simple diagram!
Ivo, just kidding.
;-)
(https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=126272.0;attach=182592;image)
There you go, Rob, all that angst over all those years of shooting models in the great outdoors when all you really needed was a simple diagram!
Ivo, just kidding.
;-)
One of this nice books is a post WWII (1945) Dutch School book: "Compositieleer in de fotografie" Composition theory in Photography.