What is 'Strong Composition"?

Interesting that the name has been discussed but not the colors as a design element. Perhaps I should have left out the name.

wyofilm said:

On the other hand ...

Sometimes the big names became big names because they are just that good. It is easy to later say, "I could've done that." But you didn't and neither did anyone else. Since this is a strong composition thread, I'll pick approaching shadow from Fan Ho. A photograph I really admire. Yes, I could replicate that shot. Technically, it isn't that hard. But he did it. He had it in his mind, brought a relative as a model, had her dress in a certain way, placed her at the right time, etc. He orchestrated all of it. For me it's brilliant.

https://dgeiu3fz282x5.cloudfront.net/g/l/lg7715.jpg

(No one could claim it to be as TDB - See Vaughn above.)

Click to expand...

Its graphical design is strong but not its emotion. It's cold. The person is just standing there exhibiting no feelings. A good "stong" street shot in my opinion has people with feelings, maybe interacting, etc. So you see, we're back to defining what strong means.

NB23 said:

I think it’s funny how the human psyche works.

Drop a big name and search for magic in the image afterwards. And then find the magic.

I have countless such images that go unnoticed. Tag a big name on them and suddenly they’d become masterpieces.

meh.

Click to expand...

this is pretty much true about photography in a nutshell. people who are unknown get un-noticed and people who are known well, they are noticed. its always even morebeautiful when people who are known rip off ideas of people who are not known and pass them off as their own. i love it when that happens.
i can't remember if it was pablo or banky who said it. ,,,
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/97/e3/1597e310a1396edf8e32cadd70dda078.jpg
i think it was banksy

in the end it doesn't matter. just make photographs and enjoy your self cause whats the point otherwise ...

NB23 said:

My 12 year old kid could certainly come up with the images you’re posting, that’s certainly a honest thought I had. And I can assure you, there is absolutely no jealousy here

Click to expand...

people always say stuff like that. especially about rothko paintings. .. kind of funny..

Begrudging the success of others is contrary to being successful.

BradS said:

Begrudging the success of others is contrary to being successful.

Click to expand...

+1

To me, any discussion on this subject has to start with the acknowledgement that there isn't one type of photography, and that the elements that may (or may not) make "strong composition" - or even simply "composition" - will vary according to each.

Street photography, wedding photography, photojournalism (from social documentary to war photography), "fine arts" photography, portrait photography, fashion photography, landscape photography, still life photography, etc., each have, not rules, but certain codes, a particular syntax (or syntactic elements) that defines it. Some have more codes than others - wedding photography, for example, is much more codified than street photography, essentially because of clients' expectations.

These codes, or syntactic elements have changed through time (there is street photography after Frank and there is street photography after Eggleston), as they are modulated, transformed, transfigured, reinterpreted by the particular eye, imagination of photographers, who sometimes add new codes - like Cartier-Bresson's geometry - that are then left to be modulated, transformed, transfigured, or completely dismissed.

Trying to define "strong composition" without acknowledging that there are many different types of photography each with its own compositional parameters is like trying to define "strong composition" in music and putting in the same basket jazz, classical, minimalism, hip hop, rock, ambiant electro, blues, R n' B, disco, K-pop and prog.