What is 'Strong Composition"?

[rick shaw]

This is a long video, but she touches all the bases:

 

[Vaughn]

I have tried to stay away from that definition and instead define it by how 'strongly' the composition carries the artists' intentions. Which leads to the silly but true idea that a composition can strongly carry the artist's intention quite quietly. I feel my image on the sand dune is strongly composed...but in a very different way as the underground walkway above or the below image.

However, and I think it has been mentioned before "Strong composition" is something one says when there is nothing else positive to say about an image. An image can be expertly composed and be empty of content, thought and beauty.

 

[rick shaw]

In my view, strong composition is an adjective that describes cropping, geometry, and orientation. By itself it says no more than describing an image as having sharp focus or great colors.

 

[Vaughn]

Perhaps "bold" composition would be a better term then? Then one could have a quiet or mellow composition in comparison...rather than an image having a 'strong' composition, with the opposite being a 'weak' composition.

If I was comparing two prints someone made, I'd hate to say, this one has is strongly composed and this one has a weak composition in comparison. I'd rather say, this one has a bold, visually striking composition, and this one subtly composed to use light and texture to move one's eyes around.

 

[cliveh]

If you want to know if a picture has a good or strong (subjective terms) composition, just turn it upside down. If the shapes, forms, tones and colour still seem to work, even in an abstract way, then you have made a good or strong composition.

That is why historic photographers such as Francis Meadow Sutcliffe and Atget + large format photographers add infinitum produced such beautiful images. Because they saw their compositions upside down.

 

[rick shaw]

If you want to know if a picture has a good or strong (subjective terms) composition, just turn it upside down. If the shapes, forms, tones and colour still seem to work, even in an abstract way, then you have made a good or strong composition.

That is why historic photographers such as Francis Meadow Sutcliffe and Atget + large format photographers add infinitum produced such beautiful images. Because they saw their compositions upside down.

That is actually an old trick that painters have also used for years. Turn it upside down to see if still looks good and/or reveal any flaws. Squinting is also good to see if you have good basic forms in an image.

 

[Vaughn]

My photo prof usually did that to one of your prints during a critique. Old school photographer, street and portrait was most of his work, but he knew the West Coast people. A bombardier in WWII. One almost felt unworthy if one of your prints was not flipped! LOL!

I've used view cameras for the past several decades -- it is nice to see the composition in front of me repeated (and confirmed) upside down on the GG. I print in two different alt processes, platinum and single-transfer carbon. The images in carbon are reversed when printed, so when looking at the GG, I need to be aware of which process the image will be used for and how that relates to what I am looking at on the GG.

Since the image on the GG is up-side-down, but not reversed; for images to be made in platinum I just have to mentally turn the image right-side-up. For carbon prints I mentally flip the image on a horizontal axis through the center of the image. This flips it upside down and backwards -- the way it will be in the carbon print. All a mind game.

Sometimes I find that the composition will work either way. Here are two different negatives (processed differently to match the process). The change in the position of the one boy has at least an equal effect on the composition as did reversing the image:

 

[NB23]

If you want to know if a picture has a good or strong (subjective terms) composition, just turn it upside down. If the shapes, forms, tones and colour still seem to work, even in an abstract way, then you have made a good or strong composition.

That is why historic photographers such as Francis Meadow Sutcliffe and Atget + large format photographers add infinitum produced such beautiful images. Because they saw their compositions upside down.

I can understand that theory, but I’m not sure it works efficiently. In my personal case, I’d say it’s total bullshit .

A composition always stays the same, anyway you view it, therefore you don’t have to view it upside down to confirm that it’s valid. It’s all there, contained on the print. Therefore you are always looking at the same thing.

The way that this technique *might* have value would be to view the scene upside down, before shooting it. By maybe having a condenser lens in a viewfinder on the camera’s shoe?
And by doing so, the only confirmation I’d personally get is that I’m stupid, or not smart enough to understand what I am looking in a proper, upside-up, way.

A good personal example would also be that it often happens that I mount a negative the wrong way on the enlarger, and I don’t particularly like what I see on my easel... while as per this theory I should be liking it since the image is properly composed.
Or when I have a bunch of prints lay on the floor, many upside down, and I just don’t like what I see, but the images in question are finely composed.

No. To me, that is bogus.

 

[cliveh]

Well if you think what I say is bullshit, please note above two images of HCB, one taken in his twenties and one in his fifties. On both occasions he is using a Vidom finder in the flash shoe of the camera. This amongst other aspects, it allows you to see the image upside down. But you probably think his work is bullshit?

 

[MattKing]

Looking at an image upside down doesn't necessarily reveal the composition, it obscures the rest.
Looking at an image upside down breaks the visual connection with reality - you are more likely to see the shape of something, and less likely to identify the something itself.
It tends to make the subject become more abstract, and less mundane.

 

[cliveh]

Looking at an image upside down doesn't necessarily reveal the composition, it obscures the rest.
Looking at an image upside down breaks the visual connection with reality - you are more likely to see the shape of something, and less likely to identify the something itself.
It tends to make the subject become more abstract, and less mundane.

Matt, with all due respect, have you ever used a large format camera? In which case you may understand what I mean.

 

[NB23]

I am not saying that it’s bullshit per se, and I respect every post anyone makes.

I just say that to *ME*, viewing a print upside down to declare wether it is good or bad, is bullshit

I have never been a fan of HCB. Ever since I started in photography, at 15, I wasn’t impressed. But Doisneau, on the other hand, is God.

Doisneau was my first and last influence. I stopped having interest in any and all other photographers at 15, after Doisneau.

Yes, I’m an incultivated philistine when it comes to street photographers and such.

I only like Doisneau, Herzog and Leiter. All the rest aren’t interesting to me.

View attachment 263782

Well if you think what I say is bullshit, please note above two images of HCB, one taken in his twenties and one in his fifties. On both occasions he is using a Vidom finder in the flash shoe of the camera. This amongst other aspects, it allows you to see the image upside down. But you probably think his work is bullshit?

 

[MattKing]

Matt, with all due respect, have you ever used a large format camera? In which case you may understand what I mean.

I use the trick mostly when I'm deciding on how to crop a print.
If I did a lot of large format photography, I expect that the trick would be less useful, because familiarity would lead to adaptation of how I see.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My mother was an artist and she taught me about turning a painting over to judge the composition. If necessary I can close my eyes and rotate the photo 180 degrees in my head, but I just have never found it to be of much use.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I guess good/strong composition is how you arrange the elements of the scene within the frame of the camera. Where you place the subject. For my students I have to give them something concrete like the rule of thirds, along with a few other rules, so that there is balance and harmony... then they can break them for tension, effect, whatever. POV is also something that I talk to them about as well. On the first day, I send them out with a camera (no film cuz I'm mean) so that they can familiarise themselves with the K1000. NONE of them took vertical shots. NONE of them moved in close. NONE of them squatted down for a low angle of view. They all stood, just like they were using their phones. By the end of the course, there usually is a striking difference in the quality of their work... and their composition.

 

[cliveh]

I am not saying that it’s bullshit per se, and I respect every post anyone makes.
I just say that to *ME*, viewing a print upside down to declare wether it is good or bad, is bullshit .

I'm not saying that viewing it upside down makes it good or bad, I'm just saying that it gives you an indication about whether the compositional elements within the frame are working in a positive or negative way. It is merely an indication and not a rule maker to a fantastic image.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My mother was an artist and she taught me about turning a painting over to judge the composition. If necessary I can close my eyes and rotate the photo 180 degrees in my head, but I just have never found it to be of much use.

I'm not saying that viewing it upside down makes it good or bad, I'm just saying that it gives you an indication about whether the compositional elements within the frame are working in a positive or negative way. It is merely an indication and not a rule maker to a fantastic image.

I agree. It is a tool, but a tool that I let sit there and rust.

 

[NB23]

I'm not saying that viewing it upside down makes it good or bad, I'm just saying that it gives you an indication about whether the compositional elements within the frame are working in a positive or negative way. It is merely an indication and not a rule maker to a fantastic image.

I just can’t understand why doing so would overrule what we see and judge normally.

Maybe it impresses art students who are still green about “seeing” and having a vision? When the teacher takes their work and turns it upside down they maybe go like “whoaa”?

 

[cliveh]

I just can’t understand why doing so would overrule what we see and judge normally.

Maybe it impresses art students who are still green about “seeing” and having a vision? When the teacher takes their work and turns it upside down they maybe go like “whoaa”?

Or maybe the student shows the teacher an aspect of an idea that the teacher hadn't thought of and the teacher goes 'Whoaa'

 

[foc]

NONE of them took vertical shots. NONE of them moved in close. NONE of them squatted down for a low angle of view. They all stood, just like they were using their phones. By the end of the course, there usually is a striking difference in the quality of their work... and their composition.

It reminds me of when I first started out shooting professionally, an old pro told me that people will look at a scene/landscape where as a photographer in the same group will move to one side and chose a different a different angle.

 

[Vaughn]

I just can’t understand why doing so would overrule what we see and judge normally....

Some people realize that what they see is limited by their experience as well as by the physical capabilities/limitations of their eyes...and to be shown something in a different way frees up new possibilities and allows for new connections.

Some people already know want they want everytime, so have no need for such mental hijinks.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It reminds me of when I first started out shooting professionally, an old pro told me that people will look at a scene/landscape where as a photographer in the same group will move to one side and chose a different a different angle.

This is so true.

 

[juan]

This thread caused me to look at photos, which led me to Stephen Shore and the below image. At first glance, it’s a boring shot of a woman sitting in a car. Look deeper and you see lots of interesting lines and angles and shapes. But there’s another compositional element - green. There are multiple shades in the car, some in her jeans (probably from reflected light), and even a bit in the pavement.

 

[juan]

Looking again, there’s the complementary color red in her sash or belt and whatever that is in the top right corner.

 

[NB23]

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.