that's the $Million question. Let us know when You find out!
that's the $Million question. Let us know when You find out!Reading through the recently resurrected thread asking about photographic turn-ons and turn-offs, I noticed several responders mention "Strong Composition"...and I realize, I haven't a clue what, specifically, that is. I mean, what does "strong composition" look like? or what the lack of it look like?
It's not about 'learning' per se, but more about learning to express/ allowing yourself to express what you want/ need to say - and how urgently you need to say that. 'Strong Composition' is the sort of phrase that tends to emanate from the strange world of highly codified, composition-by-numbers anti-art that is produced in quantity from camera clubs. (I'm aware that this is arguably a misuse of 'anti-art' in the sense it's used in aspects of art history, but I can't think of a phrase that adequately describes the antagonism to principles of art that camera clubs promulgate)
In order to talk "objectively" about composition you have to get rid of the notion that it's "all relative", for no other reason that if "all is relative" then there is really no point talking about it.
Instead, start as a working hypothesis with the idea that there are objective ways to think about, analyse and discuss composition. Then make a list of what can be relevant to composition, a list of what you might want to look at when investigating the idea of what composition can be in a photograph, of what you will look at when looking at a photograph. Mine would include:
You could add others, such as material/gear used (you don't compose the same way with a 35mm lens than with a 50mm lens), or, even more important, post-production, digital or darkroom (W. Eugene Smith infamously adding compositional elements to his portrait of Albert Schweitzer to make it stronger and more meaningful ; color processing with Stephen Shore ; etc.). You can also add elements such as what lies outside the frame.
- How the elements relate to each other within the frame
- How the elements are located within the frame
- Subject matter
- Point of view
- Intent
- Meaning
- Referencing (part of both intent and meaning, actually)
- Light
- Context
There is no hierarchy. The most important ones will vary from photographer to photographer, and from photograph to photograph. Not all photograph will check all the marks. It's a question of looking, and of trying to understand - which, in the case of great photography, is not always easy to do.
Sure, whether you like a photograph or not, whether it touches you or not may be subjective, but that in no way means that the strength of it's composition is also relative or simply subjective, same way you may be bored by Beethoven's Fifth or Bach's Goldberg Variations negate the fact that they are two of the "strongest" compositions in the history of music.
Sometimes it’s just about keeping the lines straight.
And practicing helps.
Interesting question. What comes to mind is a photo that speaks to you and moves you somehow. It could be awe. Tragedy. That kind of thing. Not a snapshot.
Why can't snapshots have strong compositions?
I tried to figure out where composing goes in on my list above, but as Alex suggests, there is no hierarchy (YMMD), and there can be feedback between the steps...small, or large,
Matt That's a very good definition. But I'm wondering. What good is a strong composition if it has no emotional impact? Checking all the boxes of "rules" and traditional artistic formulas won't make a great photo if it doesn't impact your insides, doesn't have soul. A photo of two boxers swinging at each other could be perfectly powerful, angles right, exposed perfectly. But it is the shot the shows two teeth flying out of the mouth of one of them as he gets punched that makes the strength of the picture. And no one has to explain to the viewer its power. So shouldn't composition include that something magical, maybe unexplainable element that goes to the heart rather than the brain?You can have really interesting and compelling photographs with lousy composition - a fair amount of true photo-journalism is that way. Essentially, the subject matter overpowers the presentation.
And you can have powerful photographs where the composition is the photograph - the relationship between the elements in the photograph is itself wonderful. The subject matter is unimportant, compared to how the subject matter is presented.
And you can use composition to support and work with the subject matter to create a photograph that is compelling in multiple ways.
"Rules" of composition are inductive in nature. They are/were discovered by reference to observed patterns of viewing and appreciating.
If you learn the "rules" of composition, you are learning about what others have historically used to explain why certain things are visually pleasing and evocative. They aren't subjective, but experiential. The weight of the various rules will vary between observer.
"Rules" of composition are also culturally referenced - different rules are more prominent in different cultures (e.g. Japan).
I would say that "Strong" composition is composition where the form and placement of the elements in the image is both visually impactful, and predominant in importance. cliveh's Cartier-Bresson example exhibits "strong" composition because of the impact of the form and placement of its elements and, paradoxically, because of the relatively mundane nature of its subject.
Why can't snapshots have strong compositions?
They could. But it would probably be by accident. I think of snapshots as shooting for record purposes. You're just trying to record the scene for posterity. Of course, power can happen as you're doing it. The Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima comes to mind, although even there, it was a pro photographer planning to take the shot, not quite a snapshot. But it all came together. Where everyone was standing, the compositional elements, the wave of the flag, the timing etc. Luck plays a big part in it as well. Catching the boxer's flying teeth as in my last post.Why can't snapshots have strong compositions?
As there are so many things to remember, I think even remembering one is enough. So my answer to this threads question in simple:
Opposition.
If there is any chance of "objectively" discussing this hugely "subjective" idea of "strong", any examples supporting compositional "strength" cannot be argued with an image taken by a famous taker. It's impossible to separate the two and how actual image and who took it plays into its evaluation.
I would bet more than my house that many would call Michael Kenna's compositions as "strong". I fell into this promotional trap myself buying one of his albums. I see little but "mannerism" in his images, there is no strength by any measure, but there sure is a lot commercial interest in hyperbolic descriptions assigned to them.
I have that book right next to me its the 7th edition.
composition is a tricky thing. .. its everything and its nothing. its what's in "the frame" and how it all works or doesn't work,
its how your eye wanders the photograph and how you want someone's eye to wander the photograph ( or not ) .. its what makes things
pleasing to look at or uncomfortable to stomach.
your book is good. look at paintings and sculptures look at architecture and look at the "architecture" of the paintings and sculptures ...
I always loved looking at Piet Mondrian's theosophical paintings.. they answered a lot of composition questions I had...
Why do photographs have to have emotional impact?Matt That's a very good definition. But I'm wondering. What good is a strong composition if it has no emotional impact? Checking all the boxes of "rules" and traditional artistic formulas won't make a great photo if it doesn't impact your insides, doesn't have soul. A photo of two boxers swinging at each other could be perfectly powerful, angles right, exposed perfectly. But it is the shot the shows two teeth flying out of the mouth of one of them as he gets punched that makes the strength of the picture. And no one has to explain to the viewer its power. So shouldn't composition include that something magical, maybe unexplainable element that goes to the heart rather than the brain?
Yuk That's why I know the rules (more or less) but ignore them. The composition has been seriously 'weakened'.Vaughn, this is a nice sample... Not better, not worse... very different. By only directing those lines to nail the corner (that basic resource/rule), we get what we may call an stronger composition if we want to generate "calm", or perhaps we may consider the counter, with the (original) lines intersecting the border we generate some disturbing mood, if it that was our intent then the original one it's what has the strong usage of then composition resources.
View attachment 263516 View attachment 263517
Matt, of course, you don't need a strong image or one that has emotion. Fact is, 99% of my photos don't meet that criterion.Why do photographs have to have emotional impact?
Photographs can do many things - they can inform, they can intrigue, they can illustrate, they can decorate, they can inform, they can entertain, they can reassure, they can calm, they can shock, they can support other artistic endeavours, they can bore ....
A portion of those purposes can be supported by emotional impact. But only a portion.
I know that you enjoy making (digital versions of) slide shows with your photography Alan, and I appreciate those. But I would suggest that the role of "emotional impact" is considerably more important with that sort of presentation than with many others.
Ironically, strong composition is probably most important for that sort of presentation, because of the time demands of that presentation. When time is tight, you need a strong arrangement of the elements in the frame of your photograph, because you almost have to force the viewer to quickly look at the things in the frame that you want them to see, otherwise they won't have the time to appreciate the image - there certainly isn't time to wander around the image, moving slowly, and at their leisure.
At high risk, I am going to post an example from Jeff Wall's work. Jeff Wall's compositions are meticulously created, and immense amounts of time are spent upon each one of them. He creates everything he photographs - somewhat akin to the creations of a cinematographer working on a sound stage.
He also references all sorts of allegories and artistic standards in the photographs he creates.
Like much of the photography I really enjoy, this example is chock full of all sorts of interesting detail - like many of my favourites, it exalts clutter. In this case though, unlike many cluttered photographs, the placement of all the clutter is meticulous, and supports a composition that is both strong and complex.
Here is the photograph:
View attachment 263522
The title is important, because if you are familiar with Ralph Ellison's story "Invisible Man" you are more likely to enjoy the photograph, because of how it illustrates that story.
This photograph wouldn't likely fit well in a slide show, because its strengths aren't the more transitory effects of emotional impact. Instead, it compels me to return and examine it, time after time, because of how well and how completely each part of the clutter is necessary, because of how it reinforces each other part.
they can and they do. and that is what ticks a lot of "serious" people off
They could. But it would probably be by accident. I think of snapshots as shooting for record purposes. You're just trying to record the scene for posterity. Of course, power can happen as you're doing it. The Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima comes to mind, although even there, it was a pro photographer planning to take the shot, not quite a snapshot. But it all came together. Where everyone was standing, the compositional elements, the wave of the flag, the timing etc. Luck plays a big part in it as well. Catching the boxer's flying teeth as in my last post.
wow. 8$?!I got lucky and found a copy of the eleventh edition, (C) 2003, on eBay for $8.00! It’s hard cover with dust jacket. The syllabus for the class specifically calls for 15th Ed. but, I decided to defer starting classes till September 2021 in hopes that the disease will be less of a risk by then...so just self study at home ‘till then and I figured the 11th Ed is good enough for now.
I agree with the first part, but the second part is too limiting (to just eye movement). As 138S mentioned composition is also used to create moods/tension moods -- part of that is eye movement.A strong composition is one that supports the goal of the image by directing the eye to where the photographer wants you to look.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?