What is 'Strong Composition"?

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

that's the $Million question. Let us know when You find out!

 

[Sirius Glass]

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)

Exactly which trash can did you dig that up from? It can be learned. There are books on composition. There are both art and photography classes and workshops on composition. None of them are "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".

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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:

• 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

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.

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.

 

[Vaughn]

Mine would be:
Context...why am I taking the photograph
Light...light as subject matter
Image...how the light will go on the GG and be seen as a print

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, adjustments made during the process. But I also work with large format cameras and even tend to treat my Rollei as one, so my pace tends to be slower, and my approach to composition will not fit the style of, and may not be appropriate for, most photographers.

I really do not wish to clutter my head with golden means, rules of thirds, and such. I do not look out into the landscape and see that way. I kinda still prefer just to be there, try new things, make mistakes, trust my vision and what I see on the ground glass, and from experience, know how it will translate into a print.

A fairly soft subject...blowing sand on top of a dune, about 700 feet above the valley floor. I'd call it a fairly strong composition, but that is subjective. (16x20 silver gelatin from 4x5). And for fun (and hopefully what others might consider a strong composition, is a 4x5 contact print taken the same day, with the other photo taken at the top of the dune seen in the back. This photo was taken purely in fun, but I like it.

 

[NB23]

Sometimes it’s just about keeping the lines straight.
And practicing helps.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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:

• 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

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.

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.

OP had a hugely subjective proposal to discuss. Trying to objectively discuss subjective matters is an entirely new concept, I say unbeknown to human kind.

Everything that can be said about this will remain pure speculation with nothing to prove anyone wrong. And it will be impossible to go through this without touching upon examples from "superior" & "famous" photographers, which further throws this into the unparalleled depths of subjectiveness.

 

[138S]

Sometimes it’s just about keeping the lines straight.
And practicing helps.

At all this image is about "only" keeping lines straight. These straight lines are also powerful, but you have a tangent curve hitting a corner (red) dominating, the green lines providing stability, and a visual flow (violet) suggesting the path you would walk to reach the entrance door in the fence, which bars your entrance, then you realize the windows are protected by the fence... and we have a closed door.

After a general exploration that can be mostly random depending on viewer and his instant mood, the eye goes to the bottom left corner, being bright and having edges, then with the eye you follow the tiled path until the fence's door, there you get stoped and from the door you cannot access the windows.

We usually tend to explore from left to right, and from top to bottom, the way we read. Native Arabic language people are more confortable explorinf to the left, and chiness from to to bottom. We also tend to explore starting at bright areas, so starting detailed exploration from bottom (left) is a bit diturbing, not much because at least we start in the left, but this has an influence in the visual impact...


Of course here straight lines are important, a bit it suggests a fortress, those inside are safe... but there is an strong counterpoint between what is straight lines and the tiled path that is curved, suggesting the freedom experimented when being outdoors.

In part these are my interpretations, in part I mentioned features that most of the people will interpret similarly, for example the exploration from the left-bottom corner to the door in the fence.

This is a sound shot, many other features can be evaluated, IMO I only mentioned a share of the most evident features, we may find more... (how the edges in tiles captures attention to the path, positions of windows, the bottom window, windows that are over the fence top level...)

 

[radiant]

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?

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.

 

[138S]

Why can't snapshots have strong compositions?

It can, and some artists are fast enough nailing an strong composition in dynamic shooting... but many times we have to refine the framing of the snapshot in post if we want an stronger/refined composition, simply we may need time to analyze the image to consider alternatives and refinements, so snapshots may have strong compositions, but an optimal one is not easy, still:

>we may be very good/fast in the job,
>we may have luck,
>we may have refined the framing in post.

When we want a sound composition most of us have to spend some time... Gods do it faster.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wow who'd have thought this subject could get so animated and dare I say passionate - in the artistic sense of the word of course

Still, as long as we all remain friends

pentaxuser

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It seems like "strong composition" is already trending here as a given, yet nonsensical, and the question was what is it? But the term Circle of Confusion is a photographic term, so quite fitting into this kind of logic.

What gets me is when one reflects on an image as having "strong composition" it implies some sort of power struggle, especially if someone else says "no, ain't strong at all". Every time any argument for it comes up, it can be swiftly dwarfed by the opposite. If that strong means a "direct poke in the eye" then lots of images out there would never be considered worthy of a look. I am assuming that once "strong" comes into a description, it is always with implied superiority, unless someone wants to use a "strong" in a negative manner. This can go in circles with no end to it. It's like chatting over something with a beer in hand, but as long beer is available and stomach can take it, one continues to tread water while standing still.

 

[138S]

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,

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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?

 

[removed account4]

Why can't snapshots have strong compositions?

they can and they do . and that is what ticks a lot of "serious" people off

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[BradS]

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.

You’re putting too much emphasis on ‘strong’ - taking it too literally. I think probably the people who mentioned ‘strong composition’ did not mean to imply such overwhelming superiority but rather that something about the composition adds to or improves upon the subject of the photo.

 

[BradS]

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...

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.

 

[MattKing]

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?

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:

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.

 

[Vaughn]

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

Yuk That's why I know the rules (more or less) but ignore them. The composition has been seriously 'weakened'.

Brad made a point I have been thinking of since this thread started. A 'strong' composition is not necessarily graphic in nature, bold, or strilking.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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. Certainly, my vacation shots are just that. Record shots of my journey. Some are more impactful than others. But must are humdrum. Sometimes, I might take one shot that I think I did particularly well and then post it on one of the photo sites. If I get one "Nice shot", it's made my day. I can believe all sorts of the supposed impact its created in the mind of the guy who thought it was a "Nice shot". There's a lot of strength in "Nice shot".

 

[dpurdy]

Rules for composition are poison to your mind. Art and photography should be about self discovery and inspiration. Otherwise you are trying to be a commercial photographer, trying to please the person who is paying you.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

A strong composition is one that supports the goal of the image by directing the eye to where the photographer wants you to look.

 

[radiant]

they can and they do . and that is what ticks a lot of "serious" people off

I couldn't agree more

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.

I think the worn-out term "decisive moment" means you capture something "strong" just at the right time, being aware and ready. And it is based on skills, reactions and experience. And of shooting lot.

 

[removed account4]

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.

wow. 8$?!
I think when I bought mine at the school bookstore in 1984 it cost me well, lets just say I have 1 arm, 1 leg and I had to sell a kidney in Mexico in a back alley...
have fun expanding your mind
John

 

[Vaughn]

A strong composition is one that supports the goal of the image by directing the eye to where the photographer wants you to look.

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.