Composition vs Technique

skieur · Jan 30, 2008

Originally Posted by skieur

Easily! If motion resulted in a soft or blurred subject then a faster shutterspeed, flash, or panning should have been used. If the depth of field is too shallow on the portrait taken with the 50mm at f1.8 then a smaller aperture should have been used.

Garbz comment: "That is an artistic decision and thus composition in my books."

Boy, are you confused! Composition comes from the rules of design in art and has absolutely NOTHING ot do with technical decisions related to photography and chosing settings is technique whether it is done manually or automatically.

skieur

Alex_B · Jan 30, 2008

If you have no air to breathe, you die!

If you have no food to live, you die!

So which is more important?

UMarius said:
A few days ago, i argued with someone whether the photographic composition is more important than the photographic technique.
I stand that both have an equal importance, but composition without technique is null...
What is your opinion?

caitlinb · Jan 30, 2008

Technique can refer to two different aspects. One being the way you choose to shoot, i.e. your style which could include composition and two being what technical elements you choose to incorporate to the image. Technique is a very broad term.

abraxas · Jan 30, 2008

Alex_B said:
If you have no air to breathe, you die!

If you have no food to live, you die!

So which is more important?

Dying?

JerryPH · Jan 30, 2008

abraxas said:
Dying?

No, silly rabbbit... getting the shot! :lol:

skieur · Jan 30, 2008

Originally Posted by skieur

Pointing and clicking is a perfectly viable technique for taking average quality snapshots not serious photos. The proof of that is the number of technically weak portraits due to poor lighting and exposure visible on all forums, the waterfalls without the most appropriate shutterspeed or blown out highlights, the sunsets with no detail in the foreground because of not using a neutral grad filter or not adjusting the exposure, snow photos with grey snow due to not setting the meter to compensate, wide angle lens distortion in scenes, etc. Again, nothing has changed in this regard in 50 years and this is technique or the technical aspects.

Garbz: Read again. I didn't say it was the only technique. I said it is a viable technique. Just like stretching your hands infront of you and not holding the camera "properly" to take a self portrait is a viable technique. The proof, just look at all the wonderfully perfectly exposed photos of birds in the sunset which are easily photographed by point the camera at the bird and pushing the button.

What I am saying is 50 years ago you could judge a photo on technique in every detail, nowadays the only technique left is making sure you don't get an out of focus shot or motion blur when you don't want it. The camera is perfectly capable of doing wonders by itself in many situations. I am just arguing on the definition of the word technique here. I haven't seen anyone ever say "Well yes it's a wonderful little number with beautiful artistic direction, but I am sure it would be much more true to the art if the photographer had his camera manual instead of aperture priority with -1EV." "mmm yes quite right old chap. Cuppa tea?" :Garbz

And I just said above that whether the camera is automatic or not is irrelevant. Technique is how you go about ensuring that your are getting a sufficiently fast shutterspeed for what you are shooting, and in auto mode that might mean adjusting ISO, fstop or using flash to accomplish it...more techniques. Technique is how you go about getting the fstop you want for shallow or a wide range of depth of field. It may mean raising or lowering the ISO and shutterspeed.

Technique is the technical decisions in lighting, tripod, flash, reflectors, focus, fstop, shutterspeed, white balance, ISO, etc. that were made to take the photo. Whether automatic or manual all the technical aspects are adjustable and any decisions in technique must positively contribute to the photo or they detract from it.

To belabour what should be obvious, a technically excellent shot is not necessarily an artistic shot and a well composed shot may be technically weak. Composition and technique are inter-related but they are definitely not the same thing.

skieur