Composition vs Technique

[UMarius]

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?

 

[Hertz van Rental]

My position is that composition is part of photographic technique* so the question is redundant. It's a bit like asking whether the engine is more important than the car


* I think your problem lies with you not having defined your interpretation of 'photographic technique'. But I'm sure it's not going to deter others from wading in

 

[Mike_E]

is that composition is technique.

You can't speak without grammar, no matter how bad your grammar is.

 

[UMarius]

my translation of the subject was pretty poor. trough composition he meant something like "placement or arrangement, point of view, perspective of elements in the photo". trough technique i meant using the a camera to it's full potential. I argued that it's not enough to have a good "composition", press the button and that's it, you have a great picture.

 

[ann]

for me they are connected. one without the other is a miss.

i like Hertz comment about the engine/car.

 

[Garbz]

I argued that it's not enough to have a good "composition", press the button and that's it, you have a great picture.

That is only not true if it's false. Sounds stupid yes, but what I mean is it is perfectly good enough if your camera metres the scene correctly and has a shutter speed / aperture suitable for what you are after.

There have been many cases where I've just looked through, clicked, and come up with wonders. But plenty of other times where I have had to drop my camera into manual to achieve what I want.

I don't think there is a "technique" to photography other than how you hold the camera. The only other thing you can do is learn what the camera settings do, and then you're back to composition.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

trough composition he meant something like "placement or arrangement, point of view, perspective of elements in the photo". trough technique i meant using the a camera to it's full potential.

And that means using composition as well, so composition is a part of technique by that definition. The argument is, as I said, pointless because the question has no meaning.


As for there being a 'technique'...
Technique is generally defined as "a procedure used to accomplish a specific activity or task".
If the task/activity is to take a picture then the procedure will include things like selecting subject, choice of focal length and framing, exposure and so forth.
We will each have our own preferences - favourite lens, preferred PoV, exposure preferences and so on. We will also have our preferred way of framing the subject - composition if you will. And our preferred choice of subject.
Over time and with practice we will develop a number of techniques for photographing different subjects in different situations so that we get the results that we want or like. This is usually called 'style' and differentiates one photographer from another.
To illustrate:
Ansel Adams and Bill Brandt had completely different styles because they used different techniques.

 

[skieur]

This is not really open to discussion. It was decided a half century ago by the major photographic associations in several countries.

Composition is the elements of design as applied to photography. They come originally from the art area.

Technique is the technical aspects of photography as in lighting, exposure, shutterspeed, filter, tripod, flash use, focus, depth of field, etc. used to add impact to the centre of interest.

Both are equally important and both are used to critique and evaluate photos for contests, display, publication etc.

This is not an opinion. This is how photography is judged and has been judged for the past 50 or more years. I should know.

skieur

 

[JC1220]

"Composition is the strongest way of seeing." - Weston

Which only relates to technique in the sense that is what is used to convey a composition, vision and style. Technique can be taught, composition should never be taught and only at the sacrifice of the creative spirit.

Composition, style and vision are things that emerge in ones work over time, they are not things you try to incorporate. Especially as an artist or aspiring one, perhaps for a commercial photographer but even so you will only produce what has been done before or a cliche. Ones compositional strategies (while informed by intelligence, these are not intellectualized) determine ones style, which in turn defines vision.

 

[skieur]

"Composition is the strongest way of seeing." - Weston

Which only relates to technique in the sense that is what is used to convey a composition, vision and style. Technique can be taught, composition should never be taught and only at the sacrifice of the creative spirit.

Composition, style and vision are things that emerge in ones work over time, they are not things you try to incorporate. Especially as an artist or aspiring one, perhaps for a commercial photographer but even so you will only produce what has been done before or a cliche. Ones compositional strategies (while informed by intelligence, these are not intellectualized) determine ones style, which in turn defines vision.

Any art including photography and the compositional aspect can be taught but only the talented can reach beyond a certain level of achievement. Having taught the intellectually gifted and talented during one of my careers, I know that from personal experience and don't need to refer to the views of others.

Applying the elements of design or composition never results in clichés because there are so many possible decisions to be made that one cannot help but decide on a personal basis. My students may have used the rules of composition but I could always recognize their individual style and vision and I encouraged their individual approaches. Nevertheless no one rationalized ignoring basic design in the name of creativity because the result demonstrated what poor quality was all about.

skieur

 

[JC1220]

Certainly "composition" can be taught, I said it never should be taught to aspiring artists, only an uncreative person would do that. Compostion as an artist has nothing to do with rules, guidelines, design elements, et al, it is done by feel and intuition. Don't take this view as that one should not have a strong understanding of art history, specifically the history of photography, but that should not influence how one works.

You say "Applying the elements of design or composition never results in clichés because there are so many possible decisions to be made that one cannot help but decide on a personal basis."

Our approach to photography is vastly different, with this approach one may make a good picture, perhaps something quite clever, but because you have choosen "the way" you have made something more superficial than one is capable of making, it does not come from the heart and soul of who you are and an ongoing interaction of your world; it came from choosing a style and the resultant will most likely never stand the test of time and live with the greats.

As an aside, were you serious about saying "Photographic associations" have defined what composition is or is not? It can be hard to discern tone on the internet...

 

[Alpha]

Technique is the be-all-end-all. It is your vocabulary.

 

[skieur]

Certainly "composition" can be taught, I said it never should be taught to aspiring artists, only an uncreative person would do that. Compostion as an artist has nothing to do with rules, guidelines, design elements, et al, it is done by feel and intuition. Don't take this view as that one should not have a strong understanding of art history, specifically the history of photography, but that should not influence how one works.

You say "Applying the elements of design or composition never results in clichés because there are so many possible decisions to be made that one cannot help but decide on a personal basis."

Our approach to photography is vastly different, with this approach one may make a good picture, perhaps something quite clever, but because you have choosen "the way" you have made something more superficial than one is capable of making, it does not come from the heart and soul of who you are and an ongoing interaction of your world; it came from choosing a style and the resultant will most likely never stand the test of time and live with the greats.

As an aside, were you serious about saying "Photographic associations" have defined what composition is or is not? It can be hard to discern tone on the internet...

The concept that composition should never be taught to aspiring artists is rather far removed from reality. Elements of design are taught by artists to artists. I wrote the curriculum to do that for the Provincial Ministry of Education with the assistance of other artists working in their area of expertise. I presented my curriuculum to the North American Association of the Schools of the Arts and it was well received. As a matter of fact, I also opened the conference with a multimedia work that I produced, so I don't think that I would fit the characterization of an "uncreative person", either.

Words like "superficial" and "clichés" are characterizations often used by those who have not seen a vast amount of photos or have limited experience or both. Moreover, that limited experience is displayed by the presumption that one cannot develop one's style and creativity within a framework and that is incorrect. I don't think that anyone would accuse Karsh for example of producing technically weak portraits or cutting off important body parts compositionally in his portraits. His work has also stood the test of time.

As to photographic associations, the Canadian National Association of Photographic Art for example back in the 60s judged nation wide photographic salons that included amateurs and professionals on composition(elements of design applied to photography) and technique(technical excellence). The basic rule has not changed. All elements of technique and composition should contribute to the effectiveness and impact of the photo, or they detract from it and are weaknesses that need to be corrected.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

This is not an opinion. This is how photography is judged and has been judged for the past 50 or more years. I should know.

How do you judge on technique. How does one judge on the shutterspeed and aperture used? Everything whether it be depth of field, motion blur, or creative under/over exposing is part of the composition.

The biggest problem with your statement you answered. "50 years or more". As in before the advent of digital aids. Technique I am sure played a very important role before the advent of Aperture priority metering and autofocus.

Max said it: technique is the bee all and end all, but it has been proven time and time again that pointing and clicking is a perfectly viable technique, unlike how it was 50 years ago. This modern computer assisted brainlessness to me makes composition the critical part of the photo. The computer can't help with that.

 

[Hertz van Rental]

This is not really open to discussion. It was decided a half century ago by the major photographic associations in several countries.

Everything is always open to discussion. If it isn't then it becomes dogma and that way leads to stagnation and banality. Having a rigid view of what makes a 'good' photograph doesn't prove anything other than you have a closed mind.
The fact that a few people running a few photographic associations made an arbitrary decision doesn't mean a thing. The decision would have been taken purely to formalise the system of judging submissions for membership to their associations.
Photographic associations are just clubs. Becoming a member is purely a matter of taking some photographs that they like and then paying your subscription. And membership just means being able to put a few meaningless letters after your name to try and impress people.
If you look back over history you will find that the vast majority of recognised great photographers never belonged to any of these associations.
I think that says a lot about them.