I would like to improve my compositional skills, suggestions for educational resources wanted

Depends where you think composition comes on the spectrum of science or art. There can be some general guidelines about what makes for 'good' composition, but in the end the bigger question is 'do you like it?' If you do, and it breaks all the rules of composition, so much the worse for the rules.

I'm with those who suggest looking at lots and lots of images, photographic and otherwise, because you will see great images with composition that in theory should not 'work' because it doesn't follow the rules. (Or alternatively, someone will explain how it does follow the rules based on an entirely subjective interpretation of the image). In particular, if you go to an art gallery that has works from the medieval era through to contemporary art and you work your way through chronologically you will see that the 'rules' change over time and composition is not a static phenomenon. (This is true in galleries that focus almost exclusively on 'Western' art - add in other artistic traditions and it's even more diverse).

The other thing to bear in mind is that it is possible to over think all of this stuff:)
 
olli said:
Depends where you think composition comes on the spectrum of science or art.
Click to expand...

Well, it is not a science. Composition by its nature is subjective. (That is not a matter of opinion.) The "rules" are simply guidelines coming from a "survey" of "successful" images where their proportions were roughly qualified. The "rules" don't actually tell you want will not work (the don't dos are really inferred by the dos, but those are not the formal "rules"). All they do is give you ways to increase the possibility of "success." "Success" in this context is simply defined as a "pleasing" image. The "rules" where also created long before more modern sensibilities in composition were formed and as such are dated.
 
Boid said:
I've been grappling with these aspects of photography as well.

What is a photograph?

Is it a window into a scene?

If it is a window, then the binding frame around the scene becomes restrictive. It also begs the question what's happening outside the frame? Why is one satisfied with just what is presented?

Can the photograph bleed out of the frame, into the observer's reality?

Is it an object in itself? I mean, is the photograph complete in itself, like a painting? Paintings can represent a scene, but one knows that there is no existing reality outside the frame, because the artist has painted only the frame presented.

I dunno. This stuff bothers me a lot.
Click to expand...

Why? Photography is not philosophy. But the questions are easily answered--a photography by its very nature only exists within a frame. Associated thoughts leading outside that frame are the product of the audience and as such are irrelevant--you cannot affect those.
 
Jock Elliott said:
Henri Cartier-Bresson | Adam Marelli Photo

Cheers, Jock
Click to expand...

That is called 20/20 hindsight. One of the problems of art criticism is that it is personal opinion wrap up as some axiomatic truth. The striking thing about the woman in the door may have nothing to do with composition, but how the hell is half a woman nailed to a door!

If you like reading about how master photographers work and think, the book A Dialogue with Photography by Hill and Cooper is very good. It is a series of interviews with some of the greatest photographer of the 20th century, at least the middle bit. One thing you will notice is everyone is different, which really indicates that the approach to photography in entirely personal.
 
Personally, I tend to view composition as three components that occur in no particular order

1. Frame the image.

What do you want to use to define the outer limits of the image? Do you want to use a feature within the image to partly or fully bound it, or leave the image "open". Do you give the subjects room to breathe around the edges of the image or do you crowd them? I also include choosing the aspect ratio as part of this step. Don't let the camera's native aspect ratio be a restriction.

There is a civil engineering analogy that can apply here related to how you want someone else to view an image: When we design a road there are minimum lane widths to be adhered to such that motorists do not feel too restricted in their lane. A road that is too narrow is unsafe. However, the road doesn't become safer and safer the wider you make it, because when you relax the restriction of lane width too far motorists just start to wander around in their lanes and the road becomes dangerous again. The link back to photography is: don't restrict the viewer by cropping an image too tight, but still frame it tightly enough such that the frame of the image helps to guide them in the direction that the image flows (if applicable).


2. Fill the image.

Choose your subject/s. Choose your proportions (land to sky, foreground to middleground to background, etc). Place the horizon (if applicable). Place your verticals (ditto). Choose where you diagonals (and projections of) intersect the border of the image. This is where you might apply something like the rule of thirds, or as I like to call it the guideline of thirds.


3. Arrange the components within the frame.

Understand how objects relate in 3D space and how that translates to the 2D plane of an image. Emphasise or de-emphasise perspective distortion. Alter the ratio of distance to subject/s and distance to background. If you have good spacial awareness it will help here.


Of course, good luck applying this entire process every single time you press the shutter...
 
Hikari said:
Why? Photography is not philosophy. But the questions are easily answered--a photography by its very nature only exists within a frame. Associated thoughts leading outside that frame are the product of the audience and as such are irrelevant--you cannot affect those.
Click to expand...

Why is it not philosophy?
 
One interesting exercise would be to ignore the subject completely, let the camera take care of the subject, and just shoot the background. In fact don't shoot if the background is not communicating something.

Every time I try this I get interesting images.
 
Hikari said:
Well, it is not a science. Composition by its nature is subjective. (That is not a matter of opinion.) The "rules" are simply guidelines coming from a "survey" of "successful" images where their proportions were roughly qualified.
Click to expand...

Hikari said:
One of the problems of art criticism is that it is personal opinion wrap up as some axiomatic truth.
Click to expand...

These are strongly categorical statements:
"This is not that"
"That is not this"
"This is this and is not that"
... and so on

I might say that they are personal opinions wrapped up as some axiomatic truth, in fact ... :)
 
pdh said:
These are strongly categorical statements:
"This is not that"
"That is not this"
"This is this and is not that"
... and so on

I might say that they are personal opinions wrapped up as some axiomatic truth, in fact ... :)
Click to expand...

What is the science of composition called? I would love to know because I have never seen it. ;)

Ironically, you are committing the same rhetorical fallacy as I am--you have also made a strong categorial statement in trying to negate my statements. All generalizations are false. ;)
 
I am impressed by the breadth and depth of the responses

A trove of resources has been presented, which I plan to mine with an eye toward improving my photography.

My greatest hope would be that this would become one of those "evergreen" threads that people would continue to contribute to as they discover more useful resources.

Cheers, Jock
 
Jock, I work in photographic education. One of the blocks to photography I find is the intellectualization or conceptualization of it. Nothing wrong with thinking, but it goes so far in the arts. The best way is in the practice. Go out and shoot, evaluate, shoot again. It is just lots of work. It helps a lot if you can sit down with someone from time to time as they can show your things you cannot see and frame the process. Maybe take a workshop. Just a week of intensive shooting and feedback. Intensity is another element of learning.
 
I never considered myself a "natural" photographer. Although I take about 100k images per year I still don't consider myself a natural photographer. I'm great at the technical stuff but I have friends who "see" better than me and on the occasional photo safari they take better images in iAuto and a kit zoom than I do with a Leica or a 'Blad.

So I've got a few things I use to help me to see. Kind of like the superstitious things athletes do before they go out to play. And the one that helped me the most is one I stole many years ago. It's a checklist I go through before pushing the shutter button.

1. What's made me stop here? What has grabbed my attention?
2. What is the subject? The essence?
3. What do I want the viewer to feel? To see. What's to point? The message? The Story?
4. Do I want my subject in isolation or in context?
5. What is there that detracts from the impact of the subject? How do I remove those? Imperfections? Backgrounds? Colours?
6. What else in the scene strengthens the story. Secondary subjects. Context. Juxtoposition. Colour or black and white?
7. Light? Texture? Shadow? Timing? Should I come back to this place another time? Is there a better shooting position? Can I add light to strengthen the story.
8. Where in the frame to I want my subject? How much of the frame does my subject take?
9. What is my angle of view? My shooting position? Shooting Height.
10. ISO, Lens, Aperture, filters, additional lighting?
11. Shoot it.

12. Is there another story here? Another angle? Another image?

When I take the time to do the checklist I take better photographs. Then there's the other 99% of the time.....

Gordon
 

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Feedback Suggestions To Improve Forum Participation
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
7K
BBW
BBW
Boid
Fuji Suggestions to improve the XPro1
Replies
10
Views
2K
flysurfer
flysurfer
R
    • Like
Ricoh Dear Pentax, for Xmas I would like...
Replies
1
Views
1K
Luke
Luke
Back
Top