"Photography Composition: The Definitive Guide"

[fdisilvestro]

There is a rule that the majority of photographers (including those that predicate no rules) follow most of the time:
“Keep the horizon level”
This rule of course can be broken, but if not done successfully will likely ruin the image

[amolitor]

I always keep the horizon level, except when it should not be level.

http://shifter.media/print-manifesto-by-andrew-molitor/

As for "warm colors advance" I look the liberty of performing that search just now. I have found that such searches tend to turn up a lot of photography web sites furiously copying from  one another, and gradually accreting errors until nobody know what anything means any more, AND occasionally a painter. So I click on the painters. This was about the third item:

https://watercolorjournal.wordpress.com/tag/do-warm-colors-advance-and-cool-colors-recede/

which, lo and behold, actually cites research, which research is summarized as:

"the results of tests conducted were inconclusive"

but the piece has more to say than just that, and has some excellent examples which are worth a perusal.

In general, the gap between what painters say online and what photographers say online is both startling and interesting. Notably, when a click-seeking photography teacher wannabee copies some material from  some other web site, not infrequently he will tuck in 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?"

[amolitor]

When I read something like Arnheim, say, I get to some page of white rectangles with black circles in them. He moves the circles here and there relative to one another, summarizing various research, and gives commentary. Such and such an arrangement feels "balanced" to the average viewer, and you look at it, and you say to yourself "yes, it feels balanced."

The technophile makes a note: Place the Big Mass Here and the Little Mass There to accomplish a balanced image.

People like me think about this a little and say "Wait, why not just move the camera around until the image looks balanced?"

You can skip the intermediate step of the "rule" about where to stick subjects because, it turns out, you can directly perceive a balanced frame. If that's what you want to achieve, just do it. Stop worrying about rules and guidelines, they'll just distract you. Your pictures will look like cookie-cutter crap, and sometimes you'll fail completely because you were too focused on the rule and not enough on what you were actually trying to do.

Once I had that epiphany reading Arnheim, I completely stopped trying to take pictures according to technical details of the placement of forms, masses, lines, and so on. Just look. Arnheim teaches, first and foremost, that seeing works. While it's fun and sometimes instructive to take things apart after the fact, all you're really doing is dissecting a dead thing to see why.

[fdisilvestro]

I always keep the horizon level, except when it should not be level.

Exactly! That’s the spirit of the rules and you don’t lose originality because of them. It is only when you think you must obey the rule at all costs that it becomes an issue.

[Farmer]

Still self-referencing as an appeal to authority, I see?  Yet you still demonstrate that a primer on the topic was valuable.

Anyway, regarding cool/warm - try this as a better search:

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?as_vis=1&q=warm+colours+advance+cool+colours+recede&hl=en&as_sdt=1,5

That's mostly peer reviewed and has references that look at the topic from various angles and fields, and it's the best I can do since I can't link you direct academic articles courtesy of searching via my university access.  Actually, there is one article relating to cinematography which I found particularly interesting and which does mention this effect (among so many others), and I'll quote just a small portion of it:

"The most general guideline was that background information should be carried by cool colors of low saturation, leaving warm, saturated hues for the foreground. Narrative interest should coincide with the point of greatest color contrast. The practice accorded with the still widely held view in the arts and design that cool colors recede while warm colors advance toward the viewer, but it spoke to the more basic perceptual fact that accents, or isolated points of color contrast within a restricted palette, will ineluctably draw attention. With this principle in place, color would perform as an adjunct to more central spatial cues such as diminution, contour, lighting contrast, and depth of field. All of which is to say that color was assigned a relatively low rank in the hierarchy of visual cues that define cinematic space."

That's slightly misleading without the context of the entire article because it over emphasises that one particular aspect (obviously, being an isolated quote).  For those who can gain access look for Higgins, S. (2008). Color accents and spatial itineraries. Velvet Light Trap, (62), 68+.  Google Scholar only finds this at a glance https://search.proquest.com/openview/3a4d39113542f5e7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=6499

Anyway, very interesting.

[amolitor]

Referencing myself is hardly an appeal to authority. Perhaps there are other reasons I might refer to my other work, though.

[Farmer]

Referencing myself is hardly an appeal to authority. Perhaps there are other reasons I might refer to my other work, though.

You put yourself as an example of "right" and the technophile as "wrong".  You are attempting to support your argument by virtue of you as the example.  That is self-referential appeal to authority.

Of course you can refer to work that you have done by way of example, but when you decide to try to win an argument by labelling yourself and your opponents then you've failed because you're not longer providing evidence.  Now, some robust exchange is fine and of no harm to me, but when you don't provide the evidence as well it becomes fallacious and pointless.

[amolitor]

Your ongoing research into the many ways in which I am wrong is riveting. Pray, continue.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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?"

You just made that up, like most of your "proofs."

[Farmer]

Your ongoing research into the many ways in which I am wrong is riveting. Pray, continue.

I'm not the one who said I was going to stop and then kept going, but now that you mention it there's probably enough material for a PhD in terms of the ways in which you are wrong.

[amolitor]

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.

[Farmer]

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.

Enjoy not reading this, then.

"Are you planning to grow up some day, or is this pretty much just it?"

But others are attacking you, right?

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

And you didn't say you weren't going to play anymore (to Slobo), right?

And just like you haven't been referencing yourself in order to conclude that you're right:

"The technophile makes a note: Place the Big Mass Here and the Little Mass There to accomplish a balanced image.

People like me think about this a little and say "Wait, why not just move the camera around until the image looks balanced?""

As if people "like you" are right because they are "like you".  There's no externality to support your claim.

Should I go on to show you all the things you say you don't do?  No, because you're not reading this - you don't enjoying standing in the light of your own words, the ones you implored us to read "ALL THE WORDS", even though you have a fetish for skipping the ones that you don't like after the fact.

At least now you're appealing to an authority other than you own, calling on the moderators to quiet me (and others) for deigning to present a different point of view and to do it quoting your own words.  If you're as clever as you seem to insist, and if we're as basic as you also seem to imply, I'm not entirely sure how you're having so much difficulty.

Anyway, you won't read this, so it's all for naught, right?

[LesPalenik]

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.

I fully agree with Alan. In most cases, my initial shot is quite adequate and I also take a few variations when it comes to the photographed scene or lens used. I seldom need to recompose my images in PS, although I crop some horizontal images to additional vertical formats. Usually, I am quite satisfied with my initial composition (although some critics might not be). When it comes to leading lines, it's one of the most overused and useless words in the vocabulary of the photography book or article writers. I never pay explicit attention to leading lines when framing a scene, but sometimes I discover them in the image during post processing.   

The other thing is that the individual tastes are very different. Both, for photographers and buyers. Not mentioning the museum curators and contest judges.

[LesPalenik]

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).

Just to show how our tastes and composition ideas differ. Also the geographic conditions in which we shoot.

[Rob C]

Jeez, you guys are unbelievable!

You take a natural ability and try to force it into girdles totally unnatural.

WYSIWYG is the bottom line: if that's too difficult, if you require Mama to hold your hand and lead you along the path you are already supposed to have had imbedded in your brain since you did your first swimming exercises in the womb, then I have sad news for you: not only are you on the track not meant for you, but in persisting to try and see that to which you were born blind, you display extreme symptoms of masochism. But that's fun too, right?

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.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Really what a load of rubbish. We call them the rules like the rule of thirds and so on but only a moron thinks they are actual rules They are not actual rules brcause you can do as you want, no one will bother you about it, well except on a forum perhaps. Stop pretending we think they are rules and so you can show your superiority by being beyond rules. The rules are suggestions and no doubt help the beginners and those who don’t have a natural feel for composition. They are also things you can poke fun at in subtle ways by breaking the rules. It’s not complicated.

[KLaban]

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?

[RSL]

In spite of the arguments, what matters is what comes out of your camera. Arguments about composition are meaningless. Pictures aren't.

[Rob C]

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?

I hope it isn't an omen, but Tony died in Rome of a heart adventure; he was but fifty-one years old. At his best period. Okay, there was a million possible future episodes to be shot, but unlike Superman, he remained solidly non-interchangeable even though the only other character in the series I'd thought had stood the stresses and tests of time was the psychiatrist. Mature sex appeal and projected sophistication with a suggestion of vulnerability - what more can any man ask? The others just remained the anonymous characters they always were to me, despite enjoying their screen presence - I felt they held no gravitas, just stereotypical stances.

LuLa as drug is not so far-fetched. I've been addicted for several years, as my numbers embarrassingly suggest to me. But yeah, where else to post and get rapid response? It's part of present photographic reality for me - the only place to talk a little shop with some expectation of reasonable response. That aside, insofar as digital is concerned, the Internet has also been a place where practical information seemed available. I bought a couple of books on the applications of PS but found they assumed too much existing knowledge. Unlike them, the web provided direct answers to specific problems. For which, muchas gracias!

Whither the women, you ask? Doing what they usually do: paying attention to what matters and letting the rest float past like old leaves in a stream. Why the hell is Teresa so determined to be the exception?

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Rob (in another thread; emphasis mine):

... Compositional Rules

1. Hold camera with viewfinder at eye;

2. move camera until eye is happy;

3. press button.

Russ (in response to Alan Klein):

... 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...

You guys should coordinate your attacks on us less talented