composition rules exposed..

[Garbz]

I have seen some. The basic idea was that certain compositional elements can be completely ignored if others are very forward. Even some very basic examples can be seen here on the forum.

Such examples like the rules of thirds can be completely ignored if an image exists with perfect symmetry, or if the subject entirely fills the frame, or if there are sufficient lines in the image to direct your attention around the frame.

I took an image myself once which was compositionally "right" but drew the viewer to a large tower right on the right hand 1/3rd line. I recomposed to add a very distracting and slightly out of focus railing in the foreground, and suddenly when you look up and down the tower you see the distracting railing, which leads the eye back to the left middle of the frame, and across the bridge back to the tower.

The rules of composition govern how the eye works and what people find pleasing, but they can be broken if there are other ways to direct attention IMO.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Acutaly your leading line is a basic element of compostion as well as the thirds rule which is way over valued. To be honest the value of the image is in the subject, all the rest is just icing on the cake.

 

[sabbath999]

I honestly don't know the rules of composition everybody here keeps talking about, nor do I care about them. I vaguely know the "rule of thirds" because it is mentioned so often.

To me, something either works, or it doesn't. If it fits a rule, fine, if not, that's fine too.

Then again, I don't claim that I am a good photographer, or that I take good photos. I share my stuff, if people like it, that's fine... and if they don't, that's fine too.

If I make a photo that "follows the rules of composition" then I assure you it is completely coincidental.

 

[The_Traveler]

For all the discussion, I have not seen here, an example of a photo in which not following the rules of composition has contributed to an overall high level of visual impact and effectiveness.

skieur

I think that's because there are so many potential 'rules' and acceptable exceptions that any good photo can be parsed to show how it complied with at least some of the 'rules.'

I think that the rules are generalities that can be useful for people when they start. These generalities are ways to talk about and teach balance and tension and tonality. Once someone 'gets' it, there is no need to express these generalities to guide their internal processes.

Rules are to composition are what bodily measurements are to a beautiful woman - an inadequate way of describing the indescribable, but the only non-adjectival, metric available.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Well said but part of what you said will be missed.

Those rules are learning tools but you have to do more than quote them. You have to be able to understand them. Doing that means shooting images, not reading about them in a book. I can read a book about nuclear enegy but thank god i cant build a bomb.

I would encourage new photographers to stop worrying about rules and shoot images. Learn from your mistakes as you go. Don't get hung up on the rules just shoot and see what works. Trust me if you post them here someone will tell you what is wrong with the images. Not everyone because most won't know, but someone will tell you. If you want to learn fine, if not keep shooting images anyway someone will love them.

EVeryone doesn't need to be an expert or a professional photographer some just shoot because they love to see the reaction of their peers. Actually if you want to make a living at it, what your customers think is a lot more important than what any expert thinks.

Ask most any working real world photographer and he will tell you, the high art pictures in your portfolio draw the customeres in, but for the most part they buy the ones that are more traditional. At least the ones I talk to these days say that. Just like anything else in the real world, money talks bull**** walks.

For every successful art photographer there are a hundred blue collar photographers making a decent living slogging away day by day at their craft. You can aspire to shoot great art, but you might have to settle for eating.

 

[sabbath999]

You can aspire to shoot great art, but you might have to settle for eating.

Or, you can aspire to shoot great art and eat by doing something else for a living...

 

[The_Traveler]

The rules of composition are meta-statements in that they stand in for complex descriptions of intellectual/emotional processes we can't always understand and state completely.

So the Rule of Thirds really means that when most people look at the average images there is more drama and tension evoked when the center of interest is not directly in the middle but this of course is subject to all sorts of qualifications such as symmetry and color and a whole bunch I'll only think of when we see the image.

When someone knows little, the simpler the statement the better.
The more someone knows the more qualifications get added to the statement until the statement gets internalized into a sense of what, where and when.

So the cycle is:
1) take pictures
2) see how these pictures can be composed better
3 learn the reason behind 2
4) Goto 1

 

[mysteryscribe]

But the point is... when you say this is a rule and there is no follow up.. the poor devil thinks that is all there is too it... get me a list of rules and by god I'll be ansel adams. When it doesn't happen by Thursday they are disappointed and move on to stock car racing.

Having the day job is almost always necessary in the real world of new photographers. Over the years I personally took all kinds of bs photo contracts as my day job. Even those were fun. There are people here who made more money and did more complex photography than I ever did but I doubt anyone had more fun than I did at it.

I never went hungry, but I did borrow money from the bank now and then. I suppose these days you are a success if the bank will loan you money. I never borrowed much since my business was always freelance and overhead kills you in that enterprise.

 

[NoFilter]

I am a better photographer than Ansel Adams.

He was much better than me when he was alive, but now that he has died I have the upper hand.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I am a better photographer than Ansel Adams.

He was much better than me when he was alive, but now that he has died I have the upper hand.

Made me laugh!

 

[mysteryscribe]

....good point.... I like to think he and a few of the others are playing poker somewhere and laughing their asses off at us all.

 

[ksmattfish]

Maybe we should just shoot the person who coined the term "rule of thirds" or other "rules" of art? It's a figure of speech. I've never actually met anyone who took them to be anything other than suggestions. Some people stick to formulas that work for them, others try everything and anything never doing the same thing twice. Most people fall somewhere in between.

A way to decide whether advice from people on this or any other photo forum is worth anything is to take the time to visit the advice giver's website, portfolio, etc..., and see if they are doing work that you enjoy, are interested in, respect, aspire to, etc... Even if I don't have much or any interest in the work, I should be able to form an opinion as to whether it's competent or not, and how much weight I might be interested in giving their opinions. The world is full of advice givers on all subjects, and everyday we all make decisions on whether these folks are full of crapola or not.

 

[Don Simon]

Maybe we should just shoot the person who coined the term "rule of thirds" or other "rules" of art? It's a figure of speech. I've never actually met anyone who took them to be anything other than suggestions.

What, haven't you heard the FBI are monitoring hosting sites and arresting people who violate the Photographic Composition Act?

 

[danalec99]

A way to decide whether advice from people on this or any other photo forum is worth anything is to take the time to visit the advice giver's website, portfolio, etc..., and see if they are doing work that you enjoy, are interested in, respect, aspire to, etc... Even if I don't have much or any interest in the work, I should be able to form an opinion as to whether it's competent or not, and how much weight I might be interested in giving their opinions. The world is full of advice givers on all subjects, and everyday we all make decisions on whether these folks are full of crapola or not.

A valid point indeed.

How a photographer approaches a subject varies with the disciplines.
A traditional portraitist might be concerned if the hair is combed or not.
Whereas a pj's goal would be to get that particular moment.

 

[mysteryscribe]

The composition and grammar police work hand in hand. As for never heard anyone call it anything but a suggestion. How about people who say you can't make high impact pictures that don't comform to the rules of composition.

Now as to look at the websites, I absolutely agree. shoot pictures post them, then take what is said and balance it by who is saying it. Look at their images and decide if you give a rats rear about their opinions. But in the end don't be discouraged, it isnt a two hour course on which buttons to push. Composition and how to see an image is a life long process. And my website is listed below if you want to see the crap I can produce.