Composition Rules...really?

[mdarnton]

Hey, where's Ralph, anyway? He's the one who threw this little bomb, then just stood back and watched.
Ralph, buddy, you out there?????

There should be a forum rule that the whole thread gets wiped if the OP doesn't participate within 48 hours.

 

[removed account4]

If this had been posted by someone else I would have though "Oh, another Fauto$hopper showing off what a great computer he has." and would not have believed it. Did the SPCA or PITA [People Eating Tasty Animals] have anything to say about this. Of course learning how this was done would be interesting if it is real.

who cares if it was a digital image or an insanely manipulated portrait experiment from 60 years ago,
it isn't like composition doesn't exist for that, or sculpture , or architecture or painting or interior design
.... or anything else

 

[BrianShaw]

Hey, where's Ralph, anyway? He's the one who threw this little bomb, then just stood back and watched.
Ralph, buddy, you out there?????

There should be a forum rule that the whole thread gets wiped if the OP doesn't participate within 48 hours.

Ha ha ha... I've thought this thought very often. I'm sure there is a good reason. I just can't think of it right now. Ha ha ha.

 

[mdarnton]

I'm serious, though. He's got a couple of hours, then he goes on my ever-expanding "ignore" list.

 

[ic-racer]

Academic art was all about rules until the development of Modern Art. That was quite some time ago, at least a century.

 

[pdeeh]

Academic art was all about rules until the development of Modern Art. That was quite some time ago, at least a century.

"Modern Art" is not some monolithic thing, and there was certainly a great variety of different schools of modernist art, almost all of which proposed and sometimes insisted upon very stringent "rules" for the making of art pieces.

The idea that the rise of modernism somehow ushered in an era when "rules" were abandoned in favour of a free-for-all doesn't really bear scrutiny.

As noted above, we know that there are some forms used in composition which are more pleasing to more people than others, and that there are "tricks of the trade" in pictorial composition.

If someone prefers to use them that's fine. If they also choose to refer to them as rules I suppose that's fine too, but what really seems to happen is that people adopt practices which they prefer, come to believe that they are somehow "universal rules" and then use their application (or lack thereof) as a criterion for dismissing other people's work.

Thus the rabidly exclusive film photographer dismisses all digital photography as faux or fake because it doesn't meet the (arbitrary but heartfelt) criterion of being shot on film ... or the anal "crop in the viewfinder not the darkroom" obsessive dismisses photographers who reshape their vision on the enlarging easel as lacking finesse and proper skill ... and of course there will be photographers who believe a photograph that has a composition which does not meet the rule of thirds, or conform to the golden mean, is a "bad" or "impure" photograph.

Someone once looked at a photograph of mine and said "well I think it's OK but it lacks a clear subject" ... to which my response was "Where's the clear subject in a Jackson Pollock?"

Anyway, enough of this nonsense. I'm off to drag my arse across the carpet a few times and then spend some quality time licking my own bollocks.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'm off to drag my arse across the carpet a few times and then spend some quality time licking my own bollocks.

Refreshingly insightful observation.

Ken

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I would say that know the rules of composition and why they work. But also, know enough to break compositional rules to serve your creative needs. Any human endeavor involving aesthetics like painting, writing, sculpture, dance and even cooking has rules on what is good. But being slave to rules and staying safe doesn't serve the art nor craft. We advance by pushing boundaries, breaking rules and challenging the audience. Am I correct?

 

[MattKing]

Your goal is to get the iconic shot, no matter how you do it. Never forget that.

I couldn't care less if I "get the iconic shot".

I care about the quality of my photographs, and for those that serve additional purposes, how well they accomplish that purpose.

I'd rather be responsible for a photograph with subtle nuance and detail that repay regular re-visiting than a photograph that makes the cover of a magazine because it has impact.

 

[BrianShaw]

Refreshingly insightful observation.

Ken

... and inspirational. A role model for all of us to follow!

 

[Doc W]

I use composition rules all the time. I just don't think about them consciously. But I am pretty sure that if I took the time to break down my photographs into shapes and relationships, I would wind up being pretty much a classicist. I don't gravitate toward the experimental, nor do most of my favourite photographers. Oddly enough, I love the work of Jackson Pollock and abstract expressionism in general.

 

[cliveh]

Can we stop using the phrase compositional rules and instead refer to something like intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame?

 

[coigach]

Can we stop using the phrase compositional rules and instead refer to something like intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame?

"intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame" hasn't really got a snappy ring to it...

 

[blansky]

Can we stop using the phrase compositional rules and instead refer to something like intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame?

No. Because your definition is off.

And everyone understands what composition rules means, even though they are not "rules".

 

[BrianShaw]

Simple Definition of rule

We'd all be a lot happier if we accepted the third definition of the word "rule"...

1 : a statement that tells you what is or is not allowed in a particular game, situation, etc.
2 : a statement that tells you what is allowed or what will happen within a particular system (such as a language or science)
3 : a piece of advice about the best way to do something

 

[cliveh]

"intuitive composition within the context of subject and frame" hasn't really got a snappy ring to it...

OK, for snappiness, how about the look?

 

[Sirius Glass]

who cares if it was a digital image or an insanely manipulated portrait experiment from 60 years ago,
it isn't like composition doesn't exist for that, or sculpture , or architecture or painting or interior design
.... or anything else

I care. Excessive manipulation causes distrust of film. Period. I am firmly against all excessive manipulation.

 

[removed account4]

I care. Excessive manipulation causes distrust of film. Period. I am firmly against all excessive manipulation.

i guess you are against ansel adams and a whole host of other well known photographers of the last, IDK 177 years ?
do you pick and choose which excessive manipulation you will allow and which you won't ?
manipulation is manipulation ... whether it is composition, shutter speed, aperture, burning/dodging/retouching with leads, camera movement
using a developer that reduces or enhances grain, filtration+contrast grade, its not just an electronic camera and photoshop.
all of photography from the moment of removing the camera from the bag is excessive manipulation...

SSDD

 

[Sirius Glass]

You know exactly what I am talking about because I have clearly posted it many times and you comment every time. Since your memory is fading I will state it again: Adding or deleting major components or subject into the composition.

Here are two articles about the hoax that I posted and you commented on.
http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/helicopter_shark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_Shark

The last time I checked Ansel Adams did not add or delete subject matter, he cropped, burned, dodged, bleached and toned.

 

[removed account4]

a very tired argument...

not sure how the portrait of salvador dali has to do with
a photograph where elements are deleted.
no my memory isn't failing me at all,
you comment is about digital manipulation of a portrait
clearly done 50+ years ago.
if adams did retouching and blending, or ferricyanide bleaching
he most certainly removed subject matter.
and portrait photographers have been doing this for as
long as they have been making portraits and making any sort
of photographic record. suggesting that because something
might have originated on film means nothing because the
image could have been heavily manipulated to get it there.
sorry, there is really no reason to trust film anymore than there
is a reason to trust a digital file.

and this has very little to do with composition.

except this hoax offers a classic portrait composition
https://ethicsinediting.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lincoln121.jpg?w=450&h=300

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

a very tired argument...

not sure how the portrait of salvador dali has to do with
a photograph where elements are deleted.
no my memory isn't failing me at all,
you comment is about digital manipulation of a portrait
clearly done 50+ years ago.
if adams did retouching and blending, or ferricyanide bleaching
he most certainly removed subject matter.
and portrait photographers have been doing this for as
long as they have been making portraits and making any sort
of photographic record.

(1) suggesting that because something
might have originated on film means nothing because the
image could have been heavily manipulated to get it there.

(2) sorry, there is really no reason to trust film anymore than there
is a reason to trust a digital file.

and this has very little to do with composition.

except this hoax offers a classic portrait composition
https://ethicsinediting.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lincoln121.jpg?w=450&h=300

(1) The image does not exist until it hits film or sensor. It therefore cannot be "manipulated" before it exists. Perhaps you are confusing "manipulation" with the process of "composition", which does happen pre-acquisition, and is the actual topic of this thread?

(2) This might only be considered true by someone who does not fully understand at a deep level what is going on with and inside a computer file. While in an absolute sense neither files nor negatives can be considered fully trustworthy in and of themselves, in a relative sense the difference in potential trustworthiness is huge, and is related at least in part to the differences in ease of undetectable post-acquisition manipulation of each distinct medium.

Ken

N.B. I have quoted your entire post verbatim, and have highlighted the relevant passages. The numbers in parenthesis have been added by me for reference only.

 

[removed account4]

(1) The image does not exist until it hits film or sensor. It therefore cannot be "manipulated" before it exists. Perhaps you are confusing "manipulation" with the process of "composition", which does happen pre-acquisition, and is the actual topic of this thread?

(2) This might only be considered true by someone who does not fully understand at a deep level what is going on with and inside a computer file. While in an absolute sense neither files nor negatives can be considered fully trustworthy in and of themselves, in a relative sense the difference in potential trustworthiness is huge, and is related at least in part to the differences in ease of undetectable post-acquisition manipulation of each distinct medium.

Ken

N.B. I have quoted your entire post verbatim, and have highlighted the relevant passages. The numbers in parenthesis have been added by me for reference only.

in response to this

I care. Excessive manipulation causes distrust of film. Period. I am firmly against all excessive manipulation.

i said that film images for the last 177 years have been as excessively manipulated and i agreed with him he should distrust film as much as he should distrust digital images/
your statements don't help much.

what you suggest about manipulation is like suggesting that a hand thrown pot is not manipulated between the time it is a lump of clay and water
and it magically becomes a pot. exposure is the same thing ... exposure forms/creates the image, not just composition
maybe others do, but i don't perceive life in fractions of seconds or time lapse. shutters manipulate time.
the idea that manipulation can only take place after an image is created on film or a sensor is a fallacy as far as i am concerned.

whatever is happening deep within a computer file is similar to what happens when one manipulates a latent image
to turn it into a negative. both can be manipulated and are. every day on this website people ask questions about
how to manipulate images they have recorded on film so they look a certain way. people ask questions about
manipulating images through burning and doing and sometimes ferricyanide bleaching and other post processing.
whether it is more easily detectable on film or file doesnt' matter, neither media are trustworthy.

there is a saying - believe half of what you hear and none of what you see. that didn't just come about during the digital age.

 

[mdarnton]

It's incredibly naive to believe that photography only starts when light hits sensor. The photographer is editing from the moment when he decides where to stand, what to include and what to leave out. The image exists in the mind well before the button is pushed.

 

[Carriage]

I'm pretty sure you can heavily manipulate images that originated on film.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union

 

[Dwayne Martin]

YJust my opinion;like to discuss.Composition rules are a bourgeois concept,just like sharpness. anything beyond the rule of thirds is unnecessary and just confusing. I don't know of anybody thinking about composition rules while making photographs.Those rules, these days, come more into play during post processing.Just think of the crop tool and its aids in Photoshop.Making composition rules is a way for technically minded people to force rules onto things ehere no rules are needed.Asthetic has no rules! Your thoughts?

History rarely remembers artists who follow the rules........