How can I achieve better composition in my photos?

[dennybeall]

You can learn something from every post on this and other forums. Some are good, some are demented, some carry a lot of weight and some are suspect, especially when the poster has 0 (zero) pictures in their gallery to share.
The "inner artist" concept is one that I have always agreed with. I don't think I even have a "right brain"(the creative side??) sometimes but I still know what I like so compose and crop for that. Some of us will never have photos hanging on a Gallery wall but we can get the shot that tells the story. Makes us photojournalists I guess.

 

[ForLackOfABetterOne]

Watch ALOT of photo's on flickr, 500px etc.. Pay attention to composition in great movies, think about it why do they do it like this, what are they trying to tell me. And maybe you could look at:
[h=1]FilmGrab A growing archive of stills from the best films ever. (not my site)[/h]

 

[chuasam]

Here's a good video The Big Picture Documentary on Iconic Photographer Jay Maisel
and go outside and take pictures instead of talking about it.

 

[jazza]

Just shoot what you see and what you like. Watch how the light falls on subjects from different angles and stop thinking about what how the "rules" are suppose to make your images better.

I had never heard about the rule of thirds until I started on this forum, I didn't know that there were any rules when it came to photography, and 40 years later I'm still working as a photographer.

 

[fatimaezzahra]

don't think about rules for me (beginner !!!) i shot what i see and when i have mode to capture

 

[unpopular]

It's more useful to think about broad concepts such as flow, tension and constraint than these antiquated compositional rules that date back hundreds of years. They are very good at making visually pleasing images that are relaxing to look at but all too frequently they are applied in a broad way that doesn't make sense and can be extremely limiting.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Every time someone says "learn the rules, then break them" or "forget the rules" shows they really don't understand composition or visual language, at all.

Even "broad" concepts such as flow, tension, balance, contrast, etc...have "rules".
What makes for good flow?
(Insert your "rules" here)
Contrast is a specific concept. To explain it to someone, to teach them what it is...you're going to give them a specific set of conditions. "Rules"!

What is balance? What makes an image well balanced? How does a well balanced image make the viewer feel? What does imbalance make a viewer feel? Balance and imbalance are visual tools to illicit a response.
There's those pesky "rules" again.

Tension. What creates tension?
The list of things you answer this question with, are the "rules" of using and applying tension for a specific viewer response.

Color has rules too. Tint your image slightly blue, and you will never, ever, convince anyone your image has warmth.
Pesky "rules" follow you around all the time.

Now go educate yourself in the use of visual language, and drop this pretentious, misguided, misunderstood idea of "rule breaking".

 

[unpopular]

Well, yes, Bitter. But my point isn't so much that; it's more about how to use these "rules" than strictly following them as if they were literally ordained by God (as artists of the past saw it).

Certainly everything probably comes down to thirds, fifths, triangles and other topology "rules", or going against them in a dissonant way, but judging from the OP this person seems to be seeking the just employ the "rule of thirds" as if it's a matter of just placing something on a grid. Anything can do that.

If you start thinking about composition topology like a "rule" you start getting into goofy stuff, like tense subjects composed in harmony, or, and probably worse, visual stagnation where you just keep repeating the same set of successful compositions over and over, something I am always battling.

 

[The_Traveler]

visual stagnation where you just keep repeating the same set of successful compositions over and over, something I am always battling.

I was just thinking about this when looking at some exhibitions. It seems that once a photographer has a successful look, they persist in doing and redoing images that say nothing different but have the same look.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You know I'm on the same page as you, unpopular.

I agree visual stagnation is a risk we face, but when you acknowledge, you push yourself to move beyond it.
It also becomes about finding subjects that push you away from your comfortable, reliable ways.
Variety is the spice of life, after all.

The rules are sorta "universal truths". You even create rules for yourself, in that you acknowledge that doing the same thing again and again is boring. By saying "you should not apply the rule of thirds to every image you create" it is in itself a new rule! If rules are meant to be broken, as it is tirelessly espoused here, again and again, then it should be ok to apply the RoT's to every image you create, because Hey! You're a rule breaker!

You know all these things, ideas, and concepts are the foundation of visual language, or visual organization.
Each one of them has rules that really can't be broken. No one could ever successfully argue that an image composed of a mess of jagged lines is serene, calming, and relaxing. Ever.

I think what it comes down to is the intent that you set out to expose. You for example, for the time that I've known you here, have consistently tried to push further and further with your intent. Sometimes you're successful. Sometimes you're not. Sometimes people here "get it" and sometimes, maybe more often than you'd like, they don't.

People should learn all these rules, how they work, and why they work, and apply them how the see fit, with their intent. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe it's a lack of intent or concept, and they just see rules, and that the rules alone make or break an image. Not how the rules relate to the content, and the intent.

If anyone really wants to continue saying rules are meant to be broken, or forgotten...
HERE is a website dedicated to exactly that!

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

visual stagnation where you just keep repeating the same set of successful compositions over and over, something I am always battling.

I was just thinking about this when looking at some exhibitions. It seems that once a photographer has a successful look, they persist in doing and redoing images that say nothing different but have the same look.

In my experience, galleries are looking for consistency in a body of work for show. You rarely see shows where one artist is exploring many different approaches. That doesn't mean that they aren't doing so. Look at Pixel Rabbit's thread for help choosing what to put in her body of work. She, and everyone responding is looking for consistency in that body of work. Now, if you are looking at an artists retrospective and everything looks the same, then I will agree that you have a valid argument.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think that any technique that imposes since stringent boundaries on an artist that every image looks approximately the same is wrong. Like the artist who blows up flowers; that works once or maybe twice but after that we are looking at technique and not content - a sort of Procrustean bed that doesn't attract me.

 

[unpopular]

visual stagnation where you just keep repeating the same set of successful compositions over and over, something I am always battling.

I was just thinking about this when looking at some exhibitions. It seems that once a photographer has a successful look, they persist in doing and redoing images that say nothing different but have the same look.

In my experience, galleries are looking for consistency in a body of work for show. You rarely see shows where one artist is exploring many different approaches. That doesn't mean that they aren't doing so. Look at Pixel Rabbit's thread for help choosing what to put in her body of work. She, and everyone responding is looking for consistency in that body of work. Now, if you are looking at an artists retrospective and everything looks the same, then I will agree that you have a valid argument.

I do agree with this. Look at Ernst Haas (one of my favorites), his style has a lot of consistency at any given point, but varies a lot throughout his life. By contrast Adams is much more consistent through his career, and I find his catalogue much less interesting.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

If a gallery chooses to show your flower macros, you are not going to submit a random street shot, bird, or architectural image.
If a gallery wants your images in the style of Impressionism, you are not gonna submit your cubist exploration.

If a persons portfolio across ten years work, is thousands of flowers...yeah, that's stagnation, and boring.
But like I said, it's not fair to judge an artist on one show, and a specific period of work, of a specific style.
That's generally how galleries show work, unless it is a retrospective.

 

[The_Traveler]

It was exactly this kind of experience, when the gallery owner chose from my pictures what she thought was most 'sell-able' or appealing, that I decided that showing is not for me.
I shoot and edit only for myself and if other people who see my pictures happen to like them (a rare-enough occurrence), that's a plus.

That is a wonderful free feeling and I am very lucky.