Three most important factors in producing a photographic image

[cliveh]

1. How much are they paying me.

2. I wonder if I can get her clothes off.

3. Does her husband know she's here.

Blansky you have no soul.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

At its most fundamental, photography is communication. Good photography is communication understood. And great photography is deeply subtle communication well and deeply understood.

In that instant when the viewer discovers the essence of what it was the photographer was trying to say, there is, for a moment, a very personal meeting of the minds across time and space. It's the point the lines cross on the graph at a single point. Transmission and reception are identical.

Hand one of your photographs to 100 viewers, and perhaps 99 of them will be unmoved. It did not resonate with them. But when the light goes on for that 100th viewer, the rest are both forgiven and forgotten. You have found the audience you were seeking. You smiled knowingly when you released the shutter. That viewer smiled knowingly when he saw the final photograph.

Composition is less a goal in itself and more a tool to achieve those deeper levels of communication. It's a technique that can be consciously applied to greater or lesser extent depending on the message being communicated. There are other equally powerful tools available. Tonality, or its lack. Implied motion, or its lack. Sharpness, or its lack. Color, or its lack. The list goes on.

But it's the depth of successful communication of your original message that defines a successful photographic image. Not just the tools used to render and achieve it.

Ken

 

[RalphLambrecht]

The question is a little akimbo.
All photographs have merit in some way. It is a medium for recording a fragment or period of time and can mean many things to all people.

For the artists amongst us:

• Composition
• Impact
• Technical mastery.

I'm close to that
Impact
Interest
technical execution

 

[Vaughn]

...But it's the depth of successful communication of your original message that defines a successful photographic image...Ken

So true!

But I see composition as more as a process than a tool, a combining of all the elements -- subject, time, motion, tonality, color and so on -- into an image. Just the way I see it...certainly not the way it has to be seen.

 

[pdeeh]

There's only one thing that makes the difference, which is that you have the most expensive camera.

 

[cliveh]

Composition is less a goal in itself and more a tool to achieve those deeper levels of communication. It's a technique that can be consciously applied to greater or lesser extent depending on the message being communicated. There are other equally powerful tools available. Tonality, or its lack. Implied motion, or its lack. Sharpness, or its lack. Color, or its lack. The list goes on.

But it's the depth of successful communication of your original message that defines a successful photographic image. Not just the tools used to render and achieve it.

Ken

But what you have mentioned and many other factors are all implicit in composition.

 

[pschwart]

There's only one thing that makes the difference, which is that you have the most expensive camera.

Camera not even required -- look at Man Ray's Rayographs (photograms). There have been plenty of great images made using home-made pin holes, and and plenty of images of no consequence made using top-of-the-line gear in all formats.

 

[cliveh]

Camera not even required -- look at Man Ray's Rayographs (photograms). There have been plenty of great images made using home-made pin holes, and and plenty of images of no consequence made using top-of-the-line gear in all formats.

He was being sarcastic.

 

[pdeeh]

Yes but man Ray used the most expensive light

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

But what you have mentioned and many other factors are all implicit in composition.

Then perhaps our respective definitions of "composition" are significantly different?

If the working definition of composition is everything under the sun required to realized a photographic image, then by definition everything I mentioned will indeed fall within that set.

But if the working definition is limited to the arrangement of the particulars of the subject itself within the bounding frame visible to the viewer, then many other contributing pieces will fall outside that set.

For example, traditional toning of a photographic print can have a powerful effect on message communication. By the former definition, such toning would be a part of the composition. But by the latter definition it would not, being instead just another tool to be used, or skipped, to contribute to that communication.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

Then perhaps our respective definitions of "composition" are significantly different?

If the working definition of composition is everything under the sun required to realized a photographic image, then by definition everything I mentioned will indeed fall within that set.

But if the working definition is limited to the arrangement of the particulars of the subject itself within the bounding frame visible to the viewer, then many other contributing pieces will fall outside that set.

For example, traditional toning of a photographic print can have a powerful effect on message communication. By the former definition, such toning would be a part of the composition. But by the latter definition it would not, being instead just another tool to be used, or skipped, to contribute to that communication.

Ken

I would not include toning in my definition, as it is just an embellishment or not of what is there already.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I would not include toning in my definition, as it is just an embellishment or not of what is there already.

OK, rather than do the 20 questions thing, what then is your working definition of photographic "composition"?

Ken

 

[cliveh]

OK, rather than do the 20 questions thing, what then is your working definition of photographic "composition"?

Ken

The essence of form and time within a given frame.

 

[Vaughn]

Toning could very well be part of the composition, especially if split toning or selectively toning. But the definition of composition is a personal thing -- everyone conceives it differently to get the results they want. While it might be nice if everyone used the word to mean the exact same thing, the purpose of these posts (like photographs) is to communicate, and their success depends on understanding -- not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

The essence of form and time within a given frame.

So then do you see those things I described as tools, such as tonality, sharpness, and color, as being members of your definition of a more generalized compositional set called form? With perhaps implied motion being a part of your definition of time?

Toning could very well be part of the composition, especially if split toning or selectively toning. But the definition of composition is a personal thing -- everyone conceives it differently to get the results they want. While it might be nice if everyone used the word to mean the exact same thing, the purpose of these posts (like photographs) is to communicate, and their success depends on understanding -- not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing.

And in order to facilitate understanding one must ask questions to clarify concepts and thinking. That doesn't always mean agreeing. But it does mean not misinterpreting what someone else is trying to say. And the best way not to suffer misinterpretations is to simply ask, and then hopefully receive full and complete answers in return.

Questions and answers do matter.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

So then do you see those things I described as tools, such as tonality, sharpness, and color, as being members of your definition of a more generalized compositional set called form? With perhaps implied motion being a part of your definition of time?Ken

Yes, as they are implicit in capture.

 

[removed account4]

Yes but man Ray used the most expensive light

YES !! THIS !!
====

 

[removed account4]

At its most fundamental, photography is communication. Good photography is communication understood. And great photography is deeply subtle communication well and deeply understood.

this is a very narrow view of photography. and while true for some forms it is not true for all forms of photography.
there need be no message to communicate, art can be for art's sake.

some of the best and most beautiful images i have ever seen have not communicated anything, they just "were" ...
and you can look at the work of aaron siskind, man ray, maholy nagy, the starn twins, steichen and countless others ... and see the same thing - photographic images.
if your only purpose of photography is to communicate then you are missing out on an awful lot of beautiful work. ... and the possibility of making beautioful photographs

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Yes, as they are implicit in capture.

OK, now I understand better what you are referring to. Personally I would not include those aspects of image creation under the umbrella term composition. My working definition would be more restricted to include only the spatial arrangement of subject matter within the frame.

If, however, you are using composition to refer to a much larger set of techniques and processes used to create the image, then your assertion of composition3 as being of primary importance makes much more sense to me.

Ken

 

[blockend]

I wouldn't include time as a compositional element. The movement of a 3-dimensional object in time will be rendered as a 2-dimensional object in space on a still photograph. It will occupy a certain area on the print whether it's a cyclist moving past a lens with a slow shutter speed, or the transit of stars in the night sky over many hours.

Light could be argued to have a compositional influence, but time..? I can't see how?

 

[removed account4]

I wouldn't include time as a compositional element. The movement of a 3-dimensional object in time will be rendered as a 2-dimensional object in space on a still photograph. It will occupy a certain area on the print whether it's a cyclist moving past a lens with a slow shutter speed, or the transit of stars in the night sky over many hours.

Light could be argued to have a compositional influence, but time..? I can't see how?

time is rendered differently .. water is smooth, removal of everything but static elements
or the way lights streak and creates a design ... it is all due to time and
how it is treated through exposure ... exposure control = time control

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

1. How much are they paying me.

2. I wonder if I can get her clothes off.

3. Does her husband know she's here.

LOL... you horn-dog bastard.

 

[ic-racer]

What would you say are the three most important factors in producing a photographic image? For me they are composition, composition and composition.

Timing, camera placement and focus. After the click it becomes size, exposure and contrast.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

OK, rather than do the 20 questions thing, what then is your working definition of photographic "composition"?

Ken

the aesthetic arrangement of subject componentsinto a pleasing arrangement

 

[blockend]

time is rendered differently .. water is smooth, removal of everything but static elements
or the way lights streak and creates a design ... it is all due to time and
how it is treated through exposure ... exposure control = time control

Yes but composition is about where objects sit within the frame. Timing (getting the subject where you want them by having quick reactions and an aesthetic sensibility) and time (the freezing or otherwise of such subjects), are two different things. A river in the bottom third of a shot will have the same influence on the composition whether your exposure is 1/1000 or two hours.