Composition Rules...really?

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

 

[Sirius Glass]

The composition rules are rules of thumb for those who have no knowledge of art composition. I was dragged through all the art museums in the Washington-Baltimore area as many, many times a child by my parents, so my knowledge of art composition and art history is quite good. I am conscience of the composition rules, but I do conscientiously think of them when I photograph.

 

[bvy]

The best rules for composition are not the ones you study and memorize and try to apply forcibly, but the ones that come intuitively, naturally. One word informs just about all of my compositions: Balance.

 

[markbarendt]

In many cases I see composition rules as a recipe to copy a workable style when one hasn't developed a style of their own.

For example I know I've got a loser when I show my wife and she starts out by saying "that's a great 1/3-2/3 composition". Essentially she's saying "you did good at following the rules but the picture sucks".

 

[BrianShaw]

Does anyone think much about the rules of the road while driving? Very similar situation with composition rules. Once learned they are internalized.. And followed or broken as required or desired.

 

[mike c]

I have often thought about how some people are able to dissect any photo into proper thirds, half's, golden triangles, s-curves, dead space versus live space, tension points and lead inn's and the rest, if I tried to doing all this the photo my never be taken. Some time,s ignorance is bliss.

 

[gone]

These days is no different from them days. They were valid then, and they're valid now. Just saying they're not doesn't make it so. Rules of composition, as Brian and bvy said, are learned then forgotten, but people still use them even if they don't know that they use them. If you don't like them, don't use them, but at that point you're actively thinking of not using them, so they're still in play.

Having a composition that leads the viewer's eye out of the picture is a dumb idea. The relationship between negative and positive space is essential to a strong composition. Humans are focused on other humans, so having a human face in a picture can direct the viewer's attention away from the main subject. Putting blue in the background makes people think of distance. There's many more. Some people have a strong, innate sense of composition, some don't, and what has photoshop got to do w/ anything? I mean, if you don't want to make a strong image, don't. It's all right. I see that 90% of the time anyway. This is the second post today where someone has mentioned bourgeois, which is bourgeois itself. Les petits révolutionnaires

 

[railwayman3]

IMHO, it's probably wrong to call Composition Rules, "rules".

There are certain basic "rules" in Art, i.e. arrangements of subject, lighting, etc., which, if followed, will generally produce a pleasing picture. The same in Music, where "rules of composition" will usually produce a harmonious work.

But in neither case will this necessarily produce an original result, and this is where an experience artist or composer can "break the rules" to produce something new....not always a success, but something which will stimulate the viewer or audience and start them thinking and talking.....which is what Art is largely about. I enjoy a quiet morning looking the "Old Masters" in the National Gallery in London, but equally find the works in the Tate Modern more stimulating, even if I would not want many of them on my wall or in my home.

 

[BrianShaw]

I always thought calling them "rules" was shorthand for rules- of- thumbs".

 

[Ko.Fe.]

6x6 has only one composition rule - dump it in the middle.

Composition rules...
Every time I was trying to understand them it was extremely boring and absolutely useless.
To me where is only one composition rule. It must be in harmony. Not in obvious always. Objects could be are all other, horizon is crooked, yet, it works all together.

 

[swchris]

Does anyone think much about the rules of the road while driving? Very similar situation with composition rules. Once learned they are internalized..

And followed or broken as required or desired.

Like on the road while driving

 

[RobC]

the problem is the word "rule". The rule rule of thrids is simply about making a well balanced composition that is easy on the eye. Of course it isn't set in stone and you can use a myriad of other geometrically balanced compositions but none of them will make a crap photo a good photo just as not using geometrically balanced composition won't make a really good photo a bad one.

 

[mike c]

I would agree with momus, that if these rules or advice's were understood and used to the point of being just a natural way of composing, they would be a helpful tool. But I wonder how many use these rules without knowledge of them make successful images.

 

[DWThomas]

Enh -- I may occasionally mumble to myself that something is a bit too symmetrical and adjust, but to me, composition is mostly an intuitive thing. As noted upthread, I view the "rule" as "rules-of-thumb" or "guide lines." I'm a firm believer that the "rules" are a product of analysis, not synthesis. After many viewers noticed that Ogg's drawings on the cave wall seemed more attractive to them than the work of several others, folks began to measure and notice that Ogg tended to compose to some rule of thirds, but there is no guarantee that Ogg thought about it.

I would not be all that surprised to find, at least in horizontal rectangular compositions, that what looks "good" may have something to do with the physical system of our two eyes in a horizontal plane. Maybe the rule of thirds or golden triangle locates the most important part of the image on the highest resolution part of the retina.

How's that for speculation before my coffee fully kicks in?!

 

[mdarnton]

It's interesting this should come up now because it mirrors a discussion I've been having with people about classical music composition, crossing over into my photos. I'll go farther than the OP: composition rules and especially the rule of thirds are lame crutches for people with no eye, and they don't work at all. [Look at great photos, divide them into thirds, and notice how rarely anything falls exactly on the lines.] I'm pretty sure I can always tell when I'm looking at photos by someone who's simply following rules. Everything will be tidy, but rarely really right and exciting. Musicians tell me it's exactly the same with music.

If you want deadly photos, follow rules; If you want good photos, use your eyes. When I used to teach photography I stressed the idea that in watching TV and movies, especially old ones, we had the benefit of being exposed to hours and hours of good and great (old movies are especially good) composition. That experience is floating around inside somewhere, and needs to be tapped, rather than being run over by rules.

 

[ivanlow]

If I'm not hurry to capture a moment, have all day to figure what is the best solution to the current intent subject, I'm sure all these tools will work. However, a moment will not wait isn't it?

 

[cliveh]

but to me, composition is mostly an intuitive thing. As noted upthread, I view the "rule" as "rules-of-thumb" or "guide lines." I'm a firm believer that the "rules" are a product of analysis, not synthesis.

I would agree with this and add it is even more intuitive with movement within the scene.

 

[removed account4]

hi ralph,
i agree with you at one level rules of composition are kind of a moot point
they give a little bit of bounds to the "do what looks good" by explaining
in lay mans terms why that stuff might look good ( if that makes sense )
flow, weight, placement it all comes second nature to people who are used to it
but for someone who maigiht not be as used to understaning why something might look good
it is just a way to verbalize what they might or might not be doing.
" this might look better if it wasn't cropped off, has a little room to breath and is a little lower in the frame"
( or maybe not )

YMMV

 

[mdarnton]

If I'm not hurry to capture a moment, have all day to figure what is the best solution to the current intent subject, I'm sure all these tools will work. However, a moment will not wait isn't it?

Just me, maybe, but I do best when I think as little as possible, and just move the camera around quickly until things are right in the finder, until the balance is good and the background doesn't interfere, and shoot. Toulouse Lautrec and Degas are both great inspirations for this, especially with regard for their priority of visual balance over the chopping off of body parts. This last issue is especially pointed in that as painters, they could have moved things around to include what they chopped, but they didn't do that.

 

[jwd722]

Rules...?

https://youtu.be/b6kgS_AwuH0

 

[gzhuang]

I agree that composition rules helps in getting the right balance for a picture. Get it right in the camera as much as possible. Get lucky and may the "moment" be with you always.

 

[coigach]

As a jazz fan, I think that you need to know the tune before you can improvise around it. And improvising is so much more fun

 

[michr]

I cringe every time I hear "rule of thirds". It's not really a rule, and while a reasonable starting point for a beginner who might be tempted to stick the subject dead center, isn't remotely the final word on composition.

 

[blansky]

My opinion is the word "rule" in this context simply means, a tried and true guideline that matches what humans value visually or agree on, to make a picture interesting, exciting or comfortable.

I do think you need to learn them because they are part of the language of the medium.

I do think when you do learn them you will consciously and unconsciously, take better pictures.

I do think when you learn them you will break them but always for a good reason.

I do think some people have an innate talent for composition, and others have to spend more time to learn it.

I also think that lots of pictures are improved in processing when some compositional guidelines were missed in the taking of the picture and corrected in the printing.

 

[doughowk]

As Bruce Barnbaum explains, the "rule of thirds" was a 19th century construct by a statistician who was trying to understand what makes a good painting. Its basis is bogus; but unfortunately it has become an accepted concept at least among photographers. As Ed Weston said, good composition is whatever works best for the image. Follow your intuition and skip the rules.