"Photography Composition: The Definitive Guide"

[Rob C]

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?

No, I do not accept that assumption.

I am speaking from the experience of standing in the kitchen, doing the slave work with the used pots and pans wihlst she wove the magic with the temperatures and the blends (I told you somewhere that she was an analytical chemist!); that was possible because my second studio in Britain was at home, purpose-built alongside the house, resulting in much quality time together when there was nothing more pressing in the work department. From when we moved out to Spain, it was pretty much 24/24 together (not in the kitchen!), and that felt too brief...

So yeah, I saw her cooking and baking everything she did cook and bake, and yet nothing stuck in my head. They say you learn by example: some things, if they interest you, you sure do. Others, not so much.

And do you tell somebody you love: hey, just in case you die, how about teaching me survival skills for when you become memory?

;-)

[Farmer]

And do you tell somebody you love: hey, just in case you die, how about teaching me survival skills for when you become memory?

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.

[Rob C]

Or until big brother closes the thread 

I don't think that will happen.

This isn't political, but it sure is developìng into the absurd, which is only to be expected from minds that believe they can be taught to be something they patently are not. 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.

But, for sure, those magazines will allow me to understand which model of jet appeals to me the most in its beauty of seductive design! Just like yachts!

Which, of course, is why I recommend looking at monographs and websites. You* won't really learn how to do anything much, but you will be able to discover the kind of work/genre that appeals to you the most. And trust me, that's one huge step forward!

(By "you" I do not, of course, refer to you personally, Francisco. I refer to the neophyte world at large for whom these "primers" are constructed.)

[Rob C]

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.

Almost, but not quite!

Everyone needs and somehow finds their own starting point and references; the problem arises with people who set out to monetize that stage of original development by manufacturing snake oils of one kind or another.

Truth is, we are into the murky waters of what constitutes art, and for some guru to offer proposals that will guide one safely through said swamp is disingenuous in the extreme, especially when there are no rules, and when every image stands on its own merits, regardless of its procreator. The fact that so many great pictures follow no prescribed rules should, to anyone paying attention, ring the alarm bell that says hey, if this exception works, maybe all is exception, and rules but a figment of a marketing imagination setting up the perfect straw man built upon the uncertainty of the new supplicant. Follow the money?

[KLaban]

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.

I've no idea if you're worthy or not.

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.

If they can walk the walk I'll listen to them talk the talk.

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?

[Farmer]

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.

Flying a small aircraft isn't that difficult.  The first flying lesson I took, under instruction of course, I taxied, took off, flew around, landed, and taxied back.  The instructor handled the radio.  Prior to that I'd been a passenger and I loved most things aeronautical, but I'd never flown or been in a real simulator (flight sim games weren't at that level).  But with a large amount of reading, and an understanding of the physics involved, with minimal direction I was able to fly the aircraft (in perfect weather, and a simple circuit and so on, of course).  Did the reading make me a pilot?  Of course, not.  But I did start at a more advanced point than I otherwise would have.

[Farmer]

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?

I'm quite happy to listen to you.  I can parse what you say and evaluate it against my own experiences and I can consider the logic of it and I can look for other sources to support or refute it.  I can do all that without knowing anything about you.

If you read the OP's link and felt that what was being said was factually incorrect or misleading or what have you, then of course you could say so, but the discussion is the dismissal of it was being unecessary or inappropriate or even damaging.

[32BT]

Rules of composition.

Isn't that an idea spawned in medieval times when mathematics and geometry were attributed mystical and divine properties?

[fdisilvestro]

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

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Rob C]

That persists today, just look at the Fibonacci sequence, which is almost a religion for some

I looked at a video about it just now; if anything, it confirms my fears that all are far from being created equal!

That, or I suffer from curiosity deficiency. I could never find those facts gripping. My wife, on the other hand, would have watched all the videos available on the topic. For all I know, perhaps she already knew all about this stuff but didn't want to make me feel inadequate by bringing it up...

She shouldn't have worried: I developed the art of the blank expression back in boarding school: never let the buggers know what you are thinking! Even when you are not thinking.

:-)

[Rob C]

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.

Ref. your penultimate paragraph: I don't think the symptoms you describe have anything to with photography. They have everything to do with digital processing which is something separate, far more separate than was wet printing from shooting a subject.

Wet demanded a symbiotic, visceral link entirely absent from digital manipulation after the event. You may well be correct, though, in picking out this guru group as being lacking in the social graces of the image or even, for that matter, of its making. I can't, off the cuff, think of anyone other than Nick Knight who has made me sit up and take positive - if a little anxious - notice of what digital skill can produce.

Thing is, for me, the best images are almost invariably simple ones. Whether this is from a natural appreciation of the nitty gritty, the essence of an image and not its prologue, or just because of my personal, uncomplicated way of working all my life, is moot.

Perhaps photography too easily loses its way today, trying to be something else as well as everything else.

[32BT]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

.


I think that's right: composition is not science, it's emotional aesthetics.

Rob

[fdisilvestro]

Thing is, for me, the best images are almost invariably simple ones.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo da Vinci

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

It might not be a science but there is what I would call a phychology. Perhaps not a great term but the best I can do at the moment. 

I will give an eaxample. We are hardwired to see cooler colors as further away. It is believed to have developed as a result of distant objects in nature appearing more blue. We can use this “rules” to make the warm face of a portrait pop off the blue background of a sky or select a blue backdrop for a portrait to achieve a more three dimensional feel. Perhaps you use this instinctively but it is useful to know. I can offer other examples using lines and shapes but its a fairly obvious case that I am making.

I think these concepts or rules or whatever are useful and are a way to improve my photography. After so many years taking photos, more than 40, composition is largely instinctive but I am still aware of the rules.

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.

[fdisilvestro]

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.

+1

[Rob C]

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication" - Leonardo da Vinci

Well then, I'm happy he agrees with me!

;-)   ;-)

Rob

P.S.

Here's a musical equivalent of "simple" and beautiful.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ace+cannon+blues+stay+away+from+me&view=detail&mid=8CCAC0FEE6AE5FDE7E228CCAC0FEE6AE5FDE7E22&FORM=VIRE

[amolitor]

While it is always disappointing when someone misses the a small but vital step in what you're said, my experience is that when someone has climbed into a "YOU ARE WRONG" foxhole it is impossible to correct them, no matter how politely or rudely, carefully or carelessly, you walk them through the details of your remarks.

I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, Farmer, but I  decline to try to sort it out for you.

[amolitor]

"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.

It's probably a bastardization of the methods used to paint things which are distant, which more resemble desaturation, or reduced vibrancy, but which are not quite that. It strikes me as similar to the way you make audio sound distant by boosting the mids. With the brush, you just have to feel it, in the end, although to be sure your teacher can give you some suggestions.

Properly filed away, this "cooler colors" sort of thing could be useful, as a property of a picture it's something to note, something to think about (see post #19).

If you file it, rather, as a rule, and attempt to make pictures by directly applying the rule as a method, an algorithm, you're going to tend to focus on whether you have the background cool and the foreground warm, rather than focusing on the actual question which is "does the background look farther away."

It is absurdly common to run in to people who will, when you say the equivalent of "this looks X" will cite a rule and say "no, I did Y which produces the opposite of that effect, so you are wrong" which is extremely weird. They're been distracted from the things that are in front of them by the procedure they are following. They're mixing up a batch of muffins, and refuse to taste them to see if they forgot the salt no matter how often you say "there's no salt in these, they kind of suck."