Best Book on Photo Composition

[Manny A]

What is the best book published to date on covering general photo composition techniques that every photographer should read?

-Manny

 

[AnselMortensen]

Best?
No idea, I haven't read them all.

One that helped me understand the concepts of composition was "Photographic Composition" by Tom Grill & Mark Scanlon.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Have a look at what the great masters did, and still do, not only the photographers, but painters, sculptors, filmakers, designers, architects, theatre makers, anybody who's (publicly-) creating can teach you something (even what NOT to do...).

For instance I learned lightning a table-top scene by looking at the (B&W) cinema from the '30s till the '40s where everything was so sophisticated and well thought out, and visiting the opera where I saw the best contre-jour ever!
And for composing a table-top scene, I study the 17th and 18th century (still-life-) paintings showing an ingenieus clair-obscur (!), while visiting the musea which are an endless source for inspiration!

AND, not in the least for me, looking at the work by Josef Sudek, Eugène Atget and Paul Strand (20th century)!

In the beginning, I even copied their work as an exercise...

Learning is a never ending quest!

 

[koraks]

Have a look at what the great masters did

Yes, but sometimes it helps if someone talks you through what you might look for. I can look at a 1000 good paintings, but it really helps if I have someone with me who points out how the three people are set up with their faces in a triangle, how the horizon was placed, and a million things more. When I look at it myself, I won't notice most of these things.

So your advice is certainly sensible, but not a real substitute for OP's good question.

 

[Ballinderry-Michael]

I found Andreas Feininger's Principles of composition (1973) very useful. He always wrote very sensibly and without fuss about all aspects of photography.

 

[snusmumriken]

I have no right to pontificate on this, but I tend to feel with @Philippe-Georges that composition is better absorbed than learned. IMHO, books at best teach you how composition is believed to work. The ‘rules’ that many authors derive retrospectively are not inviolable, are not enough in themselves, and could just lead to a boring same-ness.

This earlier thread might interest you? IIRC, it includes links to scientific studies trying to establish whether composition guides the eyes as expected.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What is the best book published to date on covering general photo composition techniques that every photographer should read?

-Manny

If you want to go deeper than the endless variations on simple tricks like the rule of thirds and other such banalities—which most book "on composition" are—, my suggestion would be two books by Stephen Shore, The Nature of Photographs and Modern Instances: The Craft of Photography. In depth reflexions about what it means to look, and to organize that three dimensional space on a photograph, which is what composition is about.

I do think every photographer should read at least The Nature of Photographs.

 

[juan]

I read plenty of composition books dealing with both photography and painting. I began to understand composition by studying, and I mean really studying, Edward Weston and Eugene Atget. It seems to me you can read about composition, but you really have to look at pictures to understand.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I read plenty of composition books dealing with both photography and painting. I began to understand composition by studying, and I mean really studying, Edward Weston and Eugene Atget. It seems to me you can read about composition, but you really have to look at pictures to understand.

I agree. Reminds me of the answer an older, much more experienced photographer once gave me when I asked for a similar recommendation as the OP: "You buy books about composition in order to produce photographs that look like those you would make if you were writing a book about composition."

 

[guangong]

Have a look at what the great masters did, and still do, not only the photographers, but painters, sculptors, filmakers, designers, architects, theatre makers, anybody who's (publicly-) creating can teach you something (even what NOT to do...).

For instance I learned lightning a table-top scene by looking at the (B&W) cinema from the '30s till the '40s where everything was so sophisticated and well thought out, and visiting the opera where I saw the best contre-jour ever!
And for composing a table-top scene, I study the 17th and 18th century (still-life-) paintings showing an ingenieus clair-obscur (!), while visiting the musea which are an endless source for inspiration!

AND, not in the least for me, looking at the work by Josef Sudek, Eugène Atget and Paul Strand (20th century)!

In the beginning, I even copied their work as an exercise...

Learning is a never ending quest!

This just about sums it up. The goal is to create a dynamic composition which guides the eye throughout the picture, and not simply in one glance. This is what makes photography incredibly difficult. For example, a landscape photographer lacks the freedom of a Sezane, who could move mountains, barns, trees, etc at will.

 

[koraks]

Sezane

Cézanne?
It seems that when he painted landscapes, they were pretty true to life.

Also, how does one "create a dynamic composition which guides the eye throughout the picture, and not simply in one glance."? And how was it determined that this is "the goal"?

As I mentioned before, looking at paintings is really useful. So is a little guidance. It's not a dichotomy; "either read a book or look at art". They're mutually reinforcing. Especially the books on composition that don't smash everything flat into a couple of "rules". I hope we can agree to ignore those. Besides, most of those aren't books, but websites built to generate income from the ubiquitous ads on them, aren't they?

Note that OP asked not "should I read books", but which books are recommended on the topic of composition. I'm very thankful for the few suggestions given, and have in fact already ordered one of the books mentioned. I think it's a great complement to my regular museum visits and look forward to reading it. I'm sure it'll make me look at art in a more conscious way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have a look at what the great masters did, and still do, not only the photographers, but painters, sculptors, filmakers, designers, architects, theatre makers, anybody who's (publicly-) creating can teach you something (even what NOT to do...).

For instance I learned lightning a table-top scene by looking at the (B&W) cinema from the '30s till the '40s where everything was so sophisticated and well thought out, and visiting the opera where I saw the best contre-jour ever!
And for composing a table-top scene, I study the 17th and 18th century (still-life-) paintings showing an ingenieus clair-obscur (!), while visiting the musea which are an endless source for inspiration!

AND, not in the least for me, looking at the work by Josef Sudek, Eugène Atget and Paul Strand (20th century)!

In the beginning, I even copied their work as an exercise...

Learning is a never ending quest!

I have no right to pontificate on this, but I tend to feel with @Philippe-Georges that composition is better absorbed than learned. IMHO, books at best teach you how composition is believed to work. The ‘rules’ that many authors derive retrospectively are not inviolable, are not enough in themselves, and could just lead to a boring same-ness.

This earlier thread might interest you? IIRC, it includes links to scientific studies trying to establish whether composition guides the eyes as expected.

Growing up my parents took us, whether or not we needed to, one day on the weekend to a museum in the Baltimore Washington DC. After one has seen enough art, one knows how to compose. When I get back in town I will look at my bookshelves for books about composition.

 

[juan]

I should add Michael A. Smith to the above list. He composed very differently, and though I don't compose his way very often, understanding what he did helps seeing.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Composition is a generic skill, it's not specific to photography or painting.

With photography, you're generally limited to the strictures of Albertian linear perspective, but if you do photomontage you can be cubist also.

Anyway, the one that unlocked it for me was Pictorial Composition: An Introduction, by Henry Rankin Poore:
https://store.doverpublications.com/0486233588.html

It's an oldie, but what I liked about it was its focus on underlying principles (especially balance) rather than patterns and recipes like the "rules of third" (which is not a rule, and which is seldom the most interesting way to compose a photo).

 

[MTGseattle]

I always read threads like this since there ends up being recommendations for books that I have not read.

I completely agree with @Michel Hardy-Vallée though. Any 2-dimensional artwork should be helpful in terms of thinking about composition.

I was hoping to pull Horenstein off of my bookshelf and see what he had to say but I no longer have my copy of "Balck and white Photography: A Basic Manual." For those of us who approached photography through school, I think it along with the Ansel Adams series are likely the first textbooks many of us were exposed to on the subject. The "rule of thirds" does rear its ugly head a lot in the scholastic realm. It's good to know why it's considered a "rule," and have a visual reference to support that. A good book on the subject better have quite a few images for examples.

I know there are many people on these threads who only show work to a limited group of family and friends. I will say that in honing one's eye for composition having people view your work is invaluable to gauging success or failure. Family and friends may also give one biased feedback.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I always read threads like this since there ends up being recommendations for books that I have not read.

I completely agree with @Michel Hardy-Vallée though. Any 2-dimensional artwork should be helpful in terms of thinking about composition.

I was hoping to pull Horenstein off of my bookshelf and see what he had to say but I no longer have my copy of "Balck and white Photography: A Basic Manual." For those of us who approached photography through school, I think it along with the Ansel Adams series are likely the first textbooks many of us were exposed to on the subject. The "rule of thirds" does rear its ugly head a lot in the scholastic realm. It's good to know why it's considered a "rule," and have a visual reference to support that. A good book on the subject better have quite a few images for examples.

I know there are many people on these threads who only show work to a limited group of family and friends. I will say that in honing one's eye for composition having people view your work is invaluable to gauging success or failure. Family and friends may also give one biased feedback.

Now that the name of Ansel Adams came up; his book: "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs" is rather interesting as it tells not only about the (obvious-) technicalities but also enlightens the circumstances, and sometimes the state of mind, during the realisation of the explained photograph.
A state of mind can lead to a specific approach towards a subject, composition might be regarded as a step in this approach: thus in representing the subject (or is it the object?)...

 

[awty]

Theres books! Never knew there were any.

 

[guangong]

Cézanne?
It seems that when he painted landscapes, they were pretty true to life.

Also, how does one "create a dynamic composition which guides the eye throughout the picture, and not simply in one glance."? And how was it determined that this is "the goal"?

As I mentioned before, looking at paintings is really useful. So is a little guidance. It's not a dichotomy; "either read a book or look at art". They're mutually reinforcing. Especially the books on composition that don't smash everything flat into a couple of "rules". I hope we can agree to ignore those. Besides, most of those aren't books, but websites built to generate income from the ubiquitous ads on them, aren't they?

Note that OP asked not "should I read books", but which books are recommended on the topic of composition. I'm very thankful for the few suggestions given, and have in fact already ordered one of the books mentioned. I think it's a great complement to my regular museum visits and look forward to reading it. I'm sure it'll make me look at art in a more conscious way.

There is a very interesting book (have forgotten author and title) by a professor of fine arts at a California university who, under a Guggenheim grant, visited the scenes painted by Sezane, stood at same spot as Sezane and photographed using Hasselblad camera. Sezane improved his compositions by freely relocating elements, including mountains. As I remember, the author also provided diagrams demonstrating how Sezane’s composition guides the eye through the picture. Even Canaletto was not adverse to shifting the location of a Roman temple in his drawings.
There are of course many books that discuss composition, but probably the best way is to study great paintings and drawings under a sheet of tracing paper, a straightedge, and a pencil in order to analyze the composition yourself.
My wife was fond of a painting by Cranach. About 40 years ago we bought a poster sized reproduction when we were in Dresden. The painting represents a figure of a nude woman holding a baby, with several toddlers. But the picture is held together by a composition constructed of a repetition of triangles and three circles.
Going to museums doesn’t help much if one hasn’t studied how to see.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Going to museums doesn’t help much if one hasn’t studied how to see.

+1

My favorite author on the subject of looking is John Berger. At times challenging, but always worth it.

"Ways of Seeing" was a great series, still relevant today.

 

[removedacct3]

Going to museums doesn’t help much if one hasn’t studied how to see.

That is key!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I did a foundation year at fine arts college and a year of photography at another college and there was never a class given in composition. The only time it was discussed was whether a composition served the artists intentions or not. In that sense it was always on 'the plate' but was never codified or contained within a neat formula.

What I started using was a 5x7 card with a 4x5 hole cut out of it and used that to explore compositional variations. Waaaaay easier than setting up the 4x5! Using a cutout card means you can move around easily, exploring variations quickly before deciding to pull the camera gear out of the backpack.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Thinking back, the only hard & fast rule I remember was from the photography instructor who stated, on day one, "No photographs of trains or old vehicles".

 

[markjwyatt]

The book of Life. Get out with your camera, and develop your style.

 

[removedacct3]

Thinking back, the only hard & fast rule I remember was from the photography instructor who stated, on day one, "No photographs of trains or old vehicles".

or waterfalls

 

[snusmumriken]

Thinking back, the only hard & fast rule I remember was from the photography instructor who stated, on day one, "No photographs of trains or old vehicles".

Oh, hell!