Stong composition.
Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman.
Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman.
What is 'Strong Composition"?
-
A
- Thread starter BradS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya ProSD 6x7 120 Roll Film Holder
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Mamiya RB K/L 250mm f/4.5 L-A Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale BOOK SALE! Weston, Karsh, Kenna, Worth, Sexton
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
I disagree a bit. Maybe it would mean more "looks interesting".
I was thinking about this again: I would still say opposition is the key word. But it should have relief / release / revelation too. Like in a drama arc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dramatic_structure#Freytag's_analysis
The beautiful example by foc has multiple oppositons: the dark figure, the vertical line, the stare of man, composition. The relief / revelation is that you can understand those all; ah - this is a potrait of a pianist! But then you want to read the story again .. It is so interesting you want to visit it again.
Language is elastic... it may depend on context.
Probably many times "strong composition" it is used to qualify those shots where (mainly geometric) composition resources are used in a very evident maner.
In fact in popular photography we find recipes for "stronger composition": https://www.artiststrong.com/7-steps-to-a-stronger-composition/
Probably many of the general public viewers would say that an image with an "strong composition" looks interesting or good... but the trained eye of a true artist usually it is not lured by the simple geometric rules alone.
+1
Last edited:
I think it's because a particular set of people want/ need to believe that applying a simple set of equations in every situation will make them a Master Photographer TM rather than something much more automatic and seemingly intuitive that may only be marginally less confounding/ complex than quantum mechanics to try to explain.
I do find it quite amusing that large scale analysis of aspect ratios in art have found that the 'golden mean' is not backed up in any way by the data, but that the European '8x10' equivalent - aka 17.8x24cm - is much closer in shape to the average, along with the 'full gate' of non-widescreen 35mm cinema format...
A few samples of the golden mean/ratio in nature.
https://www.treehugger.com/how-golden-ratio-manifests-nature-4869736
https://www.treehugger.com/how-golden-ratio-manifests-nature-4869736
Deleted member 88956
When subjects like composition are overthought it leads to repeats, the worst thing anyone can do to own development. I have no idea what or how they teach composition in actual classrooms, but there is a reason why it cannot be taught with individuality being the main goal.
Strong, weak, geometrical, sharp divisions, blending zones, symmetrical, high or low contrast: what does it all mean in a sense of teaching composition?
Then you hear one breaking all the compositional rules. What are these rules? There are indeed none. In the end it is all about how everything works together to make a particular image. What will work fine for one set of elements, it will be a mess with another. If one wants to stick to rules, there is only one outcome, sooner or later: boring lack of originality.
Flipping through albums of all sorts or going to exhibits, all with careful evaluation, is probably the only helpful way to develop own way of seeing, or get on a right track. Critique can be helpful, but has to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter who spoke. So if you liked what you shot and then someone tries to "explain" why it is not so good ... think it through. There was a reason why you liked it in the first place and only you can tell why. This is not about having an ego, these are aplenty, and it may take time to stand up for your own work. But just because an established artist does not like something, it has no meaning as to the actual visual value of what you had already liked.
Strong, weak, geometrical, sharp divisions, blending zones, symmetrical, high or low contrast: what does it all mean in a sense of teaching composition?
Then you hear one breaking all the compositional rules. What are these rules? There are indeed none. In the end it is all about how everything works together to make a particular image. What will work fine for one set of elements, it will be a mess with another. If one wants to stick to rules, there is only one outcome, sooner or later: boring lack of originality.
Flipping through albums of all sorts or going to exhibits, all with careful evaluation, is probably the only helpful way to develop own way of seeing, or get on a right track. Critique can be helpful, but has to be taken with a grain of salt, no matter who spoke. So if you liked what you shot and then someone tries to "explain" why it is not so good ... think it through. There was a reason why you liked it in the first place and only you can tell why. This is not about having an ego, these are aplenty, and it may take time to stand up for your own work. But just because an established artist does not like something, it has no meaning as to the actual visual value of what you had already liked.
Deleted member 88956
Golden mean works well in architecture and geometrical structures. Nearly useless in two dimensional arts, at least nothing to lose time over it. Whenever it can be measured afterwards as being the case, it is accidental. No question it has visual appeal and there are probably some studio images that have been shot after rulers and sticks were used to get things in a "golden" shape, as sad as such a case would be.
Is there such a thing as poor composition?
Yes. Many snapshots. The annual family photograph with everyone in a line, only the people, order of the people, bathing suits and ages change, also called "Ducks in a line" photograph is an example of a poor composition.
Gad, yes. Usually when one is overly concerned with a subject and forgets to consider the space around the subject and how they relate. (Telephone pole coming out of the top of someone's head?)
Another classic is a small triangle of blank sky in an upper corner of a landscape. It can be made to work, but that's rare.
MattKing
Moderator
They are mathematically related.
Only in that they both fall under mathematics. The Golden Ratio is the relationship of proportion bases on art and balance decided by men and not found in nature, while the Fibonacci series is a mathematical series which is found in nature. The two are about as related as building a house is related to turning an automobile engine - they both use numbers.
So If poor compositions are a thing does that not mean good (or strong or great) compositions are a thing?
MattKing
Moderator
I prefer to consider the quality of the composition to be dependent on how well it serves the artist. Poor (or weak) ones do not, whereas great (strong) ones do.
There are strong compositions that are strong graphically, such as Igor Stravinsky by Arnold Newman above, and some have strong emotional composition -- thinking of some of Thomas Joshua Cooper's images at the edges of the world. And some are TDB (too dang busy)
Attachments
MattKing
Moderator
I'm thinking Vaughn doesn't like that example I posted from Jeff Wall
.
OP
OP
Indeed they are mathematically related. The so called 'golden ratio' is approximated by the ratio of successive elements of the fibonacci sequence. The farther along you go in the sequence, the better the approximation.
Wow!
MattKing
Moderator
This is a great image, of a mundane subject.
It illustrates very well that composition alone can make an image effective.
From that, we can understand that composition is a component of the success of an image - one of those "balls in the air" components referred to in the quote at the bottom of my post.
Kertesz... so much to like here, the overall 'blocking' of the image, leading lines/curves, the balance of darks/whites, the poses/dress of the people, the man dressed in white in the shadows, arms 'akimbo' is a personal favorite...
I like this image a lot. The eye is drawn into the man in the white, arms akimbo, by the stairs, the roof on the stairs and the railway lines. (rule of thirds)
If he wasn't wearing white it would have lost impact.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |