composition rules exposed..

[JC1220]

I am not sure I agree with you on that he is responsible for the "rules," so if you could explain that so I can see your perspective that would be great.

Also, I highly recommend the book Edward Weston: Life Work available here http://www.lodimapress.com/html/edward_weston.html it is the most comprehensive volume of his work and the absolute finest reproductions.

They are also publishing the Brett Westons portfolios in book form that are just as wonderful.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Rules of composition are an after thought. The rules of composition as it relates to photography were derived from the work on hand when the shift from illustration only to art took place. Weston was the premere photo artist of his time. It would almost guarentee that composition as it relates to photography came from studing the works of Weston.

Weston in turn most likely learned his balance from painters. His composition no matter whether he was trying on not is very classical. So even though we trace some of the composition elements back to the painting on cave walls probably as they relate to photography and use of light in that medium it has to be from Weston and his crowd.

So in effect Weston no only taught us that Photography could be art, he also taught us how to see complete images. Not that he was above altering a scene. There is the famous boot on a nail story.

Careful or that 500 words will be out here again.

 

[skieur]

And some of us disagree with that. Do these threads ever really lead anywhere except back to where they started?

Well, it comes down to why you disagree, what your view is, and do you have the experience to justify it.

skieur

 

[JC1220]

I can see that to the point of others have looked at his work in the afterthought to derive these things. But, certainly Weston had no active hand in their creation.

I would be interested in reading your 500 words.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Trust me it gets all involved in my introduction to weston and donuts in bed on sunday morning with a painter photography instructor... Way too complicated.

And no to my knowledge Weston never gave a lecture or did any analysis of his work at all. Other's were looking at it and im sure it influenced others mimic his work and how do you mimic without forming a mimic program. Ie rules of composition to mimic great artists.

Weston did teach photography on a one to one basis. I'm not sure how much cole and brett learned from him and how much they picked up from him after they were already in the business.

you are familiar with the boot on the nail story aren't you.

 

[Don Simon]

Well, it comes down to why you disagree, what your view is, and do you have the experience to justify it.

Well I explained why I disagree in my first post on this thread. Hertz however made a far better case... including mentioning that the "rules" are, quite simply, not rules.

As for experience, well I have been shooting for several years but I'm not sure that means anything, I certainly wouldn't claim it does. This isn't a case of saying "I am now experienced enough to discount the rules" - because we differ on the exact nature and significance of the "rules" (again note the quotation marks). Although perhaps you have a scale of experience on which I could place myself so we can work out whether I'm experienced enough to justify having a different opinion

 

[JC1220]

Sounds like the start to a great story: Weston, donuts, Sunday morning, instructor, bed...

 

[danalec99]

Weston sounds like an under-rated maestro.
I was stunned to see this quote from him - “Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.”

 

[mysteryscribe]

OH Weston isn't under rated, except that most of todays photographers have no idea how it all began. We are too busy with the tech and new way of seeing that we have forgotten where we came from. Most people think it was always as it is now.

And i only write fiction nobody would believe the truth..

 

[Hertz van Rental]

It could be argued (with almost total success) that a 'great' artist makes his own rules.
As I have repeatedly stated, composition is about resolving the internal dialogue of an image, that is to say how all the bits work together to get what you want.
If it is done right then the picture works. It becomes greater than the sum of it's parts.
And in order for this to happen the bulk of it has to be done before the shutter is pressed. There is only a limited amount of tweaking that can be done afterwards so if you haven't caught it you haven't caught it.
The different disciplines in Photography require different approaches to it. In Photojournalism and related you do not have the luxury of time and you can only work with what you are presented with. It has to be done almost instantly. In Advertising you have a lot of time (relatively speaking) and control over almost everything so you can construct the image - often based on drawings by the Art Director.
Landscape you have time but little control over the basic elements.
And so on.
Each discipline calls for a different approach and a different type of person to do it successfully. This means that a photographer who is good in one area frequently flounders when he takes on others.
For example, HCB was a superb PJ with one of the best eyes of all time. But he would have failed miserably in the studio doing Ad photography - unless he set it up and did it like it was PJ.
Ansel Adams was the the perfect technical Landscape photographer - but I really could not have seen him being any good as a PJ (or taking portraits of babies in the supermarket).
And then you have the rarities like Edward Weston and Mapplethorpe who could cross over several disciplines. But they do it by sleight of hand - if you look at Weston's studio work (particularly his nudes and his pepper series) he approaches them like they are landscapes. But he gets it to work because he solves the problem.
If you want to see how composition works in practice then see how Renaissance painters like Michaelangelo solved their problems. The whole notion of 'rules' started with them but was turned into dogma by second-raters. If you don't have the ability to solve each problem individually then develop a formula and work to that.
Formula works up to a point and that point is when it becomes bland and stereotyped.
Look at composition, learn composition, understand composition and analyse other's composition - then put it behind you and make your own 'rules'.
If you can.

Ooh! We are now asking for peole to give their CV's before listening to what they say?
Fine. Here's mine:
Degree in Photography.
Post Graduate in Education specialising in Art and Design.
Several qualifications from Professional Photographic bodies.
Twenty years working in Advertising and Editorial.
Over fifteen years as a lecturer in Photography.
Photographic Advisor to several London Museums at one time.
I have set up at least four Photographic Departments at various Educational Institutions.
I have written a number of courses in Photography up to Degree level.
The number of students I have taught must be over 2,000 (never counted).
I have known professionally and socially some of the top photographers of my day.
My professional work was published world wide.
Does that qualify me to have an opinion?
And who else here is qualified to disagree with me?

Answers: Possibly, and anyone who has an opinion :mrgreen:

 

[craig]

OH Weston isn't under rated, except that most of todays photographers have no idea how it all began. We are too busy with the tech and new way of seeing that we have forgotten where we came from. Most people think it was always as it is now.

And i only write fiction nobody would believe the truth..

Slightly off topic... and with all due respect. Your above statement is a generalization we need to stay away from. It helps no one.

Love & Bass

 

[Hertz van Rental]

It occurs to me that a good analogy is to compare composition in Photography with composition in Music.
You arrange the elements to give the effect you want. It can be a pleasing tune as in a popular song - or a powerful emotional experience as in a symphony.
It's up to the photographer to decide how and when to use it based on knowledge, experience and skill.
And like music you can spend ages wrestling with the one thing - or have it spring forth fully formed in just an instant.
The only important thing is that it is intended and not just sheer luck (but if you get lucky never admit it )

 

[RacePhoto]

And some of us disagree with that. Do these threads ever really lead anywhere except back to where they started?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no?

Let me add something which is equally nothing, to the discussion, since I haven't seem much of the rules, but just general debate over them. They are Rules, which means they are not Laws. Very different. As one of my friends said when we were discussing Rules for an event, and he didn't like one, "We'll call them guidelines, instead." Which in my mind means, suggestions and a waste of time to write down. At least rules are a starting point and then people can break the rules later. :lmao:

I just want people reading the rules, to understand that the rules are just guidelines, and not laws of composition.

Here's another for you. Never have a lateral or horizontal bisector in your photo. Of course if you want the picture to look that way, you can. But normally you don't put the horizon straight across the middle of the picture, it just doesn't look pleasing. And that's what the rules of composition are all about. What is generally going to be pleasing to the eye of the viewer.

To add one to the list of quotes, "Wherever you go... there you very well are!" Lord Buckley

Another way to study composition is to read about the great masters of painting. Classical art has much to do with composition.

Oh ya, what I should always add. Have Fun. Experiment. It's a good way to learn. Don't fret about the details and all the small stuff. Just shoot and learn. Read some more, learn some more, shoot some more. Have fun!

 

[mysteryscribe]

First of all off topic is what I do. I did start this thread as discussion not on topic of anything ...

Second of all there seems to be in general two mind sets going on here. One is that you learn as you go shoot, shoot, shoot, ask, ask, ask, take the answers to your next shoot... and the other is you have to strive to get everything exactly text book correct everytime or don't shoot at all... In my mind that is very impractical to even contemplate.

I shoot pictures to this day that aren't even close to classically great. I do it because it's the best I can do with what is available without imposing myself on the scene. It is a personal thing I try to keep myself out of the image as much as possible.

Do I know when I see the finished image that the composition isn't great. Of course I do, do I think that I have a worthy image, if I kept it you can bet your butt I believe it is.

How do I feel about someone pointing out that a line goes through someone's head. I don't mind at all as long as they GET IT sometimes composition take second place to getting an image. Rules, laws guidelings whatever you call them, of composition don't preceed the image. They are (as someone important to photography said) an after thought. I think I will let the rest of you finish off this thread.

 

[JC1220]

It occurs to me that a good analogy is to compare composition in Photography with composition in Music.

An analogy my mentors used often:

"The point is to make a photograph the way a composer writes a piece of music--no extra notes (and none too few either)."


-