Composition Rules...really?

[Truzi]

I see something I want a picture of, and I snap the picture. My composition sucks, and any good photos I have are accidents. Really good ones are rare for me.

Following "rules of thumb" would improve my snapshots. They'd not be great, but would probably be better than they are now. So, if I were to follow the "rules," it would help me improve. If I were to do it enough, it would become second nature AND I would understand why they improved my images.

It would be at that point that I could then "break" the "rules" in order to achieve what I want. I see the "rules" as training wheels, or a guideline to get started. You know, similar to how development times are considered a "starting point," and you must fine-tune it as you learn.

(Yes, I am trying to be more conscious of my compositions, but I am starting with simple things.)

 

[pdeeh]

There are decades of research into human cognition and how we scan and interpret our visual fields. Some Italian bloke called Len noted some of them in the 15th Century too.

What we know is that certain shapes and arrangements of objects in the visual field are considered by humans as more "pleasing" than others. Some of this appears to be culturally determined, other parts seems "innate". (The cultural dominance of European and North American art and scientific research has to be taken into account when considering the universality or otherwise of those accounts)

It is a matter of interpretation as to whether or not you wish to call those things "rules" or not. Certainly if you were being schooled as a painter or illustrator in a Renaissance atelier you would have been taught them as immutable. But they are certainly not "rules" as we might talk in the same way of the laws of physics.

I'd commend a critical reading of A Primer of Visual Literacy by Donis A. Dondis

 

[MattKing]

The rules of composition are the sort of rules that are arrived at by a process of induction, rather thaw deduction. They are based on repeated observation of positive and negative results.

They can inform both photographers and viewers. I'd suggest though that they shouldn't in any way be considered targets or goals.

 

[Maris]

Years ago I lectured on "The Rules of Composition" as part of a 8 week certificate course in photography. Most of the students were teenagers and their attitude to the lecture was along the lines of "Leave it out guv. We don't need no steenkin' rules of composition. We're artists and we break rules because we're after exciting new vision." The lecture never went really well and occasionally degenerated into argument.

When the material was retitled: "Secret Techniques - how to make people unwittingly fall in love with your pictures. They won't know why but you will." the acceptance rate was much better. Of course it was the rules of composition all over again. And I think the students made better pictures too.

And since no one has mentioned it so far I will. There is a vast art discipline called Formal Analysis in which a picture is evaluated as a set of forms, tones, masses, lines, proportions, balances and imbalances. Identification of subject matter is irrelevant. People, mainly academics, draw salary expounding the principles of formal analysis. Others, mainly students and intending critics, pay money to be taught how to do it and what conclusions to draw. Maybe there really is something to it. Perhaps a picture can appeal to the eye on the basis of how it is laid out rather than what's it of. Hey, abstract painting rides entirely on this possibility.

Now a confession. Because I use large view cameras I physically can't just wave them about hoping that a fetching composition will eventually land on the ground glass. I search my surroundings with a framing card which sometimes has strings across it measuring out the "Rule of Thirds". No, not to be bound by the rule of thirds, but to give it a fair look just in case it's perfect. If thirds don't work I'll try fifths, Golden Ratios, symmetries, repoussoirs, diagonals, leading lines, all the tricks, whatever works. Because I've consciously memorised a lot of "rules" I can scan them mentally and discard the ones that don't work in a few seconds. Without a systematic way of approaching picture composition I fear I'm only rolling the optical dice in the service of hope and wishful thinking.

 

[OptiKen]

I like stripes....I like plaids. I would never wear them together.
I like pink.....I like red. I wouldn't wear a pink shirt with red slacks.

Composition still makes sense.

 

[Vaughn]

What that Blanksky guy said.

When I look at my images and try to figure out what worked and what did not work (and why), rules are handy measuring devices.

Edited: Printing full-frame encourages me to pay close attention to the entire frame. All compositional decisions must be made while I am experiencing the place and photographing the light reflecting off of it.

What is happening around the edges and in the corners is as important as the center. Where the eye is pulled; will the eye find a resting place or will it keep moving within the image. Do I want tension or calm. Do I want calm with one sharp point of tension. How can I use Sirius's "subject arrangement, lighting, exposure and use of depth of field." to twist the light to express what I am feeling about the place I am in.

Certainly not by thinking about all that stuff too much when I am photographing...but when I center something on the GG, I might mutter to myself, "Too damn stable..." and shift the weight somewhere else more risky. The rules of composition, and the experiences of applying them and breaking them are all floating around our heads -- tools to grab for when we need them.

 

[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.

I am using composition to mean the subject arrangement, lighting, exposure, use of depth of field, tonality and texture.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

When I shoot square, I work to avoid every subject being placed right in the middle. That gets too boring and static for me. I am looking for interesting lines, shapes, tonality, balance [whatever the heck that iis], ...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

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?

I think about composition, a lot. I manage sharpness as an element of consistency across my work (which spans decades, not months). Photographers are free to observe or discard rules however they see fit — but to a trained eye doing so is likely to hobble an image, and I've seen thousands of "also rans". The Rules of Thirds can be discarded too, but in limited circumstances. How many people know just when, and why? How many photographs have you personally viewed where one or more rules have been ignored, yet it turns out to be a benchmark for style and effective communication? And aesthetics? Well if an image isn't going to grab the viewer's attention and elicit a response, why bother with a photograph at all? It has to do something! And no, composition is not done in "post-processing". Not in my camp. Not in that of many others. It's done in-camera and left that way.

 

[lxdude]

I like pink.....I like red. I wouldn't wear a pink shirt with red slacks.

My father did back when he was a salesman. With a white tie. Thanks for reminding me...

 

[lxdude]

When I shoot square, I work to avoid every subject being placed right in the middle. That gets too boring and static for me. I am looking for interesting lines, shapes, tonality, balance [whatever the heck that iis], ...

The interesting thing to me about square is that the format does not dictate composition. A composition can be horizontal, vertical or angled, based on the arrangement of the elements within it.

 

[David Brown]

Years ago I lectured on "The Rules of Composition" as part of a 8 week certificate course in photography. Most of the students were teenagers and their attitude to the lecture was along the lines of "Leave it out guv. We don't need no steenkin' rules of composition. ...

When the material was retitled: "Secret Techniques - how to make people unwittingly fall in love with your pictures. They won't know why but you will." the acceptance rate was much better. ...

Perfect!

 

[mdarnton]

Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the people in this discussion actually had some pictures we could look at. That would push this discussion beyond a lot of empty blabbing.

 

[ME Super]

Rules, schmules. Here's the process, paraphrased from Ken Rockwell (yeah, THAT guy):

FART for better pictures:

F - Feel the urge to photograph your subject (for example, a cherry red Mustang).
A - Ask yourself why you want to take the picture. Seldom is it because of the whole car. Maybe it's the taillights or the grill. Maybe it's the cute redhead driving it, so the two of you go to lunch instead and skip the photo of the car.
R - Refine. Emphasize the reason you want to take the photo.
T - finally, Take the picture.

Skipping the A and the R in the above process can cause your picture to go ffft.

Now, having said all that, the "rule" I find most useful is "Fill the frame with your subject."

 

[jeffreyg]

How about this for a rule of thirds.
1) see it
2) record it
3) present it

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[blansky]

Wouldn't it be interesting if some of the people in this discussion actually had some pictures we could look at. That would push this discussion beyond a lot of empty blabbing.

Probably true. But this is more democratic. Everyone gets a say.

Then you can attach how much weight you wish to their opinions.

 

[mdarnton]

Yes, I am already doing that: no proof; no weight. Not much of substance in this discussion beyond hot air, then.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

 

[flavio81]

Years ago I lectured on "The Rules of Composition" as part of a 8 week certificate course in photography. Most of the students were teenagers and their attitude to the lecture was along the lines of "Leave it out guv. We don't need no steenkin' rules of composition. We're artists and we break rules because we're after exciting new vision." The lecture never went really well and occasionally degenerated into argument.

When the material was retitled: "Secret Techniques - how to make people unwittingly fall in love with your pictures. They won't know why but you will." the acceptance rate was much better. Of course it was the rules of composition all over again. And I think the students made better pictures too.

And since no one has mentioned it so far I will. There is a vast art discipline called Formal Analysis in which a picture is evaluated as a set of forms, tones, masses, lines, proportions, balances and imbalances. Identification of subject matter is irrelevant. People, mainly academics, draw salary expounding the principles of formal analysis. Others, mainly students and intending critics, pay money to be taught how to do it and what conclusions to draw. Maybe there really is something to it. Perhaps a picture can appeal to the eye on the basis of how it is laid out rather than what's it of. Hey, abstract painting rides entirely on this possibility.

Now a confession. Because I use large view cameras I physically can't just wave them about hoping that a fetching composition will eventually land on the ground glass. I search my surroundings with a framing card which sometimes has strings across it measuring out the "Rule of Thirds". No, not to be bound by the rule of thirds, but to give it a fair look just in case it's perfect. If thirds don't work I'll try fifths, Golden Ratios, symmetries, repoussoirs, diagonals, leading lines, all the tricks, whatever works. Because I've consciously memorised a lot of "rules" I can scan them mentally and discard the ones that don't work in a few seconds. Without a systematic way of approaching picture composition I fear I'm only rolling the optical dice in the service of hope and wishful thinking.

Great post!

 

[Rick A]

Rule #1: Learn the rules like a pro.
Rule #2: Once learnt, bend the rules like an artist.
Rule #3: Rules are meant to be broken.

 

[blansky]

Yes, I am already doing that: no proof; no weight. Not much of substance in this discussion beyond hot air, then.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

Exactly. Just opinions.

And the usual suspects.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, I am already doing that: no proof; no weight. Not much of substance in this discussion beyond hot air, then.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Internet_dog.jpg

thanks,
made my day !

 

[pdeeh]

: no proof; no weight.

The fallacy of only attributing weight or value to opinions or ideas expressed by those who are judged to have mastered the subject under discussion is widespread ... But is nevertheless deeply faulted.

It is perfectly possible to enter into these sorts of discussion in the abstract and for the discussions to remain fruitful and useful.

Requiring that a participant can demonstrate their capacity to produce a photograph that is "well" or "properly" composed - in a debate about whether any such rules about composition even exist - is quite absurd.

More generally, the idea seems to be that only a practitioner of an art/craft/science/profession/whatever has any right to express an opinion on the art/craft/science/profession/whatever ...


A moment's reflection should reveal that this belief only leads to a closed shop of hidebound and stultified thought. We only need consider the history of the catholic church, as one example.

 

[pdeeh]

In the interests of "full disclosure", however, I feel I should add that I am in fact a rough-coated Jack Russell terrier

 

[blansky]

Wire fox here.

And sometimes I write under the pseudonym...Sealyham Terrier.

 

[mdarnton]

The fallacy of only attributing weight or value to opinions or ideas expressed by those who are judged to have mastered the subject under discussion is widespread ... But is nevertheless deeply faulted.

It is perfectly possible to enter into these sorts of discussion in the abstract and for the discussions to remain fruitful and useful.

Requiring that a participant can demonstrate their capacity to produce a photograph that is "well" or "properly" composed - in a debate about whether any such rules about composition even exist - is quite absurd.

More generally, the idea seems to be that only a practitioner of an art/craft/science/profession/whatever has any right to express an opinion on the art/craft/science/profession/whatever ...


A moment's reflection should reveal that this belief only leads to a closed shop of hidebound and stultified thought. We only need consider the history of the catholic church, as one example.

I come from a tradition of learning that says anyone can say anything, and that the majority of opinions are flawed, that people pull out of their ass without any experience to back it up, as the way they "think" it should work, so the surest path through the mess is to make people demonstrate that what they say has some validity.

This is not an appeal to authority fallacy, as you imply; it's a matter of if you say something and expect to be taken seriously, you have an obligation to prove it. This doesn't at all lead to a "closed shop", in that it's totally accepting of new ideas THAT WORK. It's just a matter of put up or shut up, and yes, I understand that people who don't know what they're talking about would be put off by that concept.