"Photography Composition: The Definitive Guide"

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... ETA: You know what, I'm just muting you. Nothing personal, but I shan't be responding to you further.

To continue with your culinary metaphors:

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I had the same question.

Funny thing, Andrew was actually quoting you (but quickly forgot who said what):

I agree with Slobodan on this issue, as long as you use the rules as a means and not as an end...

[KLaban]

Let's put an end to this childish bickering.

For opgr, that Leica, going on Hasselblad, thang. The Women's Refuge, Jodhpur, India.



;-)

[RSL]

Perfect timing, Keith.

[amolitor]

I had the same question.

Very well. Post #19.

[amolitor]

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.

[amolitor]

Here's another in my fake risograpphs series, which at any rate my wife finds thoroughly delightful. Honestly, everyone seems to adore these ridiculous things.

I guess there's some sort of diagonal thing going on. But mostly people enjoy the bright colors, and don't give much of a damn about how the forms lie in the frame.

[amolitor]

This is easily the best street photograph I have ever taken. Those with longer memories will recall it, I think. It is literally the only one I have.

There is no concept of composition at all in here. What is compelling, if anything, is the human drama in it. Content rules over form. I could have straightened it, but it is a straight-up fake Winogrand in several different ways, made wilfully by me before I decided that I didn't have the patience for the form, and maybe lacked the skill (it's hard to tell between just being bad, and just being impatient, the keeper rate is so low either way).

I suppose there might be some rule of composition, or some theory, with which this complies, but I assure you that I was thinking no such thing. At best there is a certain sense of not-quite-balance that is about right which you could ascribe to it, if you were generous. But in the end, I'm just copying Winogrand.

[amolitor]

Here's Robert Frank.

Again, I suppose you might find some rule or theory of composition that captures some of this, there's certainly nothing obvious and it clearly defies a lot of ideas. And yet, it works perfectly as a mood piece. It's a little bit tone and a lot of composition and it captures some essence of emotion.

Frank was looking and he was seeing and he was feeling and he did it all over again at the contact sheet and again at the enlarger, and he came up with a finished piece. Composition be damned, trust your spirit.

[KLaban]

Perfect timing, Keith.

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.

;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I know this is the internutz, but could we here at LuLa perhaps recalibrate to a more civil form of discourse?

When it comes to medical conditions and forum etiquette, I am only following the lead of Michael Reichmann:

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

Coincidentally (or perhaps not), the above was in response to the user "amolitor" 

[RSL]

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.

[fdisilvestro]

Actually, it was directed toward the image. There's no way to stop the bickering. It'll go on forever.

Or until big brother closes the thread 

[32BT]

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.

I'm sure the women really dig that, when you speak romance... ;-p

The rules don't help diddly-squat. Having mastered at least one language prior to learning other languages is what enables comprehensible use.

Haiku is a classification. I have no idea what that is supposed to illustrate except that it is a good example where you have to really master the form before you can confidently break it.

You could just as well use poetry itself as an example. It is also a classification. Apparently then its form is governed by rules. The question is what rules? And which of these rules helps one to create meaningful poetry?

Avoid the rules. You internalize poetry by reading it. A lot of it and by living life and experiencing it.

[Farmer]

Any judgement I make on any image maker is based on what they do, not what they say.

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.

[Farmer]

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.

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?

[Farmer]

Yes, yes, that would be nonsense. Which is why nobody said that.

It's the essence of what you said.  You chose a particularly bad analogy of a pastry chef because such a professional absolutely relies on being taught and provided with primary information at some point, which suggests there is value in such things contrary to your assertion.

[Farmer]

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.

There was little subtlety in what you said, but certainly there was more to it than the aspect to which I responded.  Nonetheless, you did comment to show support for your original assertion that there is no value in the photography primer in question.  So the essence of your argument, devoid of the sophistry, is what I continued to discuss and, instead of providing some counter to that you simply dismissed it in your infinite wisdom in the same way you did the photography primer.  A self-referential appeal to authority, in effect.  So the dropping in the standard of discourse is yours, and not mine. 

[32BT]

When it comes to medical conditions and forum etiquette, I am only following the lead of Michael Reichmann:

Ha, i'm sure "following our dear leader" is ingrained in your character... Not.

Our dear leader was trying to elevate us to ever higher photographic nirwana. Clearly he wanted us to abide by the rules, and not take his example. Oh wait...

[Farmer]

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.