I am sure this may have been mentioned before, but I will mention it again.
There are a number of guidelines a photographer usually keeps in mind when composing a scene: foreground elements, depth of the scene, layering, rule of thirds, some of the elements in the composition mirroring each other (e.g clouds and rock formations)etc..... These may be useful guidelines, but, especially when I was first beginning to take pictures more seriously, I found these limiting to the creative process. If one walks around with these guidelines in mind, one automatically tends to compose a scene so that to some extent it satisfies these aspects.
For example, what is wrong with an image of only clouds in the sky? I hear people saying it needs to be anchored. What is not beautiful about the patterns, textures and colors of clouds in themselves? Why do people feel that they do not `hold the composition by itself. Or simply a water mass with a beautiful sky in the background - no foreground element there. Often I stare out at dawn, breathing in the beauty of gently lapping water ending in a soft dawn sky - it is a beautiful scene and we should share that in our photographs.
I think we have to be careful not to let guidelines dominate and define our creative process - I feel that many photographers, including me, automatically limit their vision this way. We should not always judge pictures by how well they satisfy the aspects which supposedly define a good photograph, but simply how they appeal to us emotionally. We should try more crazy ideas and post them here for feedback and inspiration.
Show me some more clouds!!!
Christoph
Posted by Terry Olsen on June 17, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I agree, Christoph. I love clouds and frequently photograph them with nothing else in the frame. Such as this example.
Christoph, I agree that we probably miss seeing a lot of beautiful scenes because people hesitate to show images that don't fit the rules. Maybe we need a "Heretic Forum" where only these type of images can be shown.
Posted by Doug Andrews on June 17, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Hear hear Gary. "The horizon must not be centered" guideline irritates me to no end.
Cristoph, you are on the money. I say let your own vision dictate your art, not someone else's rules. Rules are nice for a beginner to learn, and they have some value, but if, as an artist, one is too bound up in them, one might just as well occupy themselves with Scrabble instead of images.
Great topic. Did Salvador Dali follow the rules? I think not and look what his images are worth!! In many cases the "rules" are useful and help make an image come together. However, a special image may violate the "rules" and stand out from the rest.
To my mind, the concepts of basic compositional guidelines serve two purposes. First, new photographers can use them to obtain nice images without a great amount of trail and error, thus increasing their confidence to continue to explore the medium. Second, These basic concepts provide a basis for visualization and departure into (perhaps) uncharted creative realms.
I have seen so many shots with the subject bang in the centre in macro shots that actually astound me. So you won't get any arguments from here. Sometimes it just works.
Christoph, I'm glad you had the nerve to bring this up. And I couldn't agree with you more!
Three points I'd like to comment on:
A) Rules governing what is good or bad concerning composition is already well covered and all of you guys are off to a great start on that one. Bravo!!! Keep those cards and letters coming
B) At one end of the extreme there are artists and at the other end there are technicians. Most of us are a blend of the two somewhere between the extremes and the variety of opinions will usually be a reflection of where a person is at within that spectrum.
C) With the fast rising popularity of Digital technology more and more work is being judged "by the numbers" instead of for esthetic value. It's so easy now to "get it right" with in camera white balance and image stabalization and histograms and on and on, but who's to say that the photographers intent was to "get it right"? Back in the old days of film we could do all sorts of creative things and nobody ever said that the white balance was off, or there was a peculiar color cast or it's crowding one end of the histogram or whatever ...
FujiFilm recently ran an add for their image stabalization in which a before and after picture was shown of three kids having a pillow fight. The first (the "bad" one) was full of movement and the delight of the pillow fight. It was full of fun and was a great picture. The second and supposedly "good" one was static and lifeless and boring but we've got IS now boys and girls ... isn't it wonderful? Now there's a danger that somebody will miss the point and assume that I'm attaking IS.
I remember another image which was posted for critique in which the photographer succeeded in achieving exactly what he wanted but the picture completely failed the "histogram/contrast/shadow detail test". Odd thing is, that photograph has made over $1200.00 in it's first two weeks on display at a local gallery. It seems that the viewing/buying public look at things differently than do photographers
Terry, Nice shot, but that sky really needs an anchor or a rest for the eye.
Gary, Shame the horizon ended up right in the center of an otherwise great photo.
KIDDING! Both are great shots, and prove that there are exceptions to the rule...BUT it takes a great eye and a great scene to know when to let the rules slip by the wayside!
I think that David has a great idea with a 'rule breaker' weekly challenge. I know I have my share of shots where I thumbed my nose at the norm!
If rules help you make photographs you like, use them. If the rules seem stifling and counter productive, "break" them on purpose! Either way, rules are good because the provide a framework to consider photographs. I knew a what I liked long before I knew any rules. Knowing some of the rules hasn't changed my reaction to a single photograph. It has just made it possible to understand why I react as I do. There is nothing inherently beautiful about an off-center horizon (nor a level one for that matter). Nevertheless, knowing that the horizon is often a visual element of importance is important.
With that, I shall retire to the deck to take some highly centered photographs of chickory flowers.
Personally, whether you use guidelines, break them, or do both - it never guarentees a great photograph. Christoph, I agree with your post and I love clouds too! But guess what? Not all clouds are created equal! And some folks like huge soaring Alto cumulous, while other prefer lenticulars. It also means the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And just because someone cuts the image in half with horizon to break the rules, doesn't mean the image will be successful. The key, and the $64,000 question is learning to recognize WHEN to use a rule/guideline and WHEN not too.
I think as Preston mentioned, a beginner might have a tendancy to center an image, for example. That's fine, and that can work - but not always. Some guidelines like the Rule of Thirds, or concepts like selective focus can help someone, "step out of the box." And once out of the box, I think one can start seeing doors open for other ways of expressing your own vision and style.
Wow guys, looks like we got a good discussion out of this. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions!
Lon, I totally agree with you, however I feel that all too often we walk around with our camera in hand trying to compose a scene and don't even bother to take a picture because we think others may not like it since there would be no foreground element, or the horizon would be centered, or the clouds would not sufficiently mirror the foregound etcc....
I do find the rules of composition to be very effective and they often result in an image which is considerably more powerful than if it was taken without these rules in mind. This is especially so because it is so difficult to convey one's impression of a scene in two dimensions. However, I have found that they do restrict the images I take nowadays. I always hunt for a strong foreground element and sometimes, if I don't find one, I don't even bother taking the photograph. I remember standing at the shore line of Bruce Peninsula national park, as the dawn was breaking and witnessing water glittering with the beautiful colors of the dawn and ending in the sky. That probably was the most beautiful scene I witnessed that morning but I almost did not bother taking the picture because there was no foreground element. We really should not let that happen to us.
I feel the idea of a "break the rules" forum where we post pictures which don't satisfy the traditional guidelines, but still are powerful and evoke an emotion, is great.
Regards,
Christoph
Posted by Darren White on June 19, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Hi everyone, I am here from the PNW forum. I, too, am a cloud person.....we are a select few who appreciate clouds and not much else in the scene.....here is a shot I took last night from my garage looking across the street, the house is owned by a pastor and his family and this kind of looks like heavens wings.....
thanks for looking...
Posted by Toni Lankerd on June 20, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Wow...fantastic clouds, Darren!
I shoot whatever composition catches my eye, regardless of the rules, including clouds. After all, guidelines are just that. No one says we have to follow them to the letter every time!
Posted by Mark Stahlke on June 20, 2007 at 12:57 PM
There is a widespread notion in modern times that principles of composition or any system and law binding an artist would have a deadening effect on his work, that it would kill the free flow of his inspiration and reduce it to a thoughtless and mechanical repetition of patterns. This assumption was most probably caused by the observation that in certain periods of decline in traditional styles it does happen that art becomes a product of ready-made formulas and results in stereotyped monotony. But this only happens when the principles, adopted at a time when the art was in its full vigour, are no longer understood and are mechanically perpetuated without knowledge of their reason and meaning.
This is, however, no argument against the intrinsic value of principles of composition and it would be utterly misleading to take the symptoms of decadence as the sole and inevitable result of artistic principles. Composition in the plastic and pictorial arts is exactly the same as metre and rhyme in poetry or as rhythm and measure in music. A thought expressed in metrical verse lives on a different plane of reference than the same thought expressed in prose. Musical notes strung together without measure or rhythm cannot even form an intelligible musical phrase. When all other classes of artistic expressions are dependent on laws of composition, why should such laws be deemed superfluous or even harmful to the language of form?
Alice Boner
Principles of Composition in Hindu Sculpture: Cave Temple Period
I was researching a long reply about the value of understanding the Principles of Classical Composition (I so dislike "rules") when I ran across the passage quoted above. I couldn't say it better myself.
Discussion
18 repliesI am sure this may have been mentioned before, but I will mention it again.
There are a number of guidelines a photographer usually keeps in mind when composing a scene: foreground elements, depth of the scene, layering, rule of thirds, some of the elements in the composition mirroring each other (e.g clouds and rock formations)etc..... These may be useful guidelines, but, especially when I was first beginning to take pictures more seriously, I found these limiting to the creative process. If one walks around with these guidelines in mind, one automatically tends to compose a scene so that to some extent it satisfies these aspects.
For example, what is wrong with an image of only clouds in the sky? I hear people saying it needs to be anchored. What is not beautiful about the patterns, textures and colors of clouds in themselves? Why do people feel that they do not `hold the composition by itself. Or simply a water mass with a beautiful sky in the background - no foreground element there. Often I stare out at dawn, breathing in the beauty of gently lapping water ending in a soft dawn sky - it is a beautiful scene and we should share that in our photographs.
I think we have to be careful not to let guidelines dominate and define our creative process - I feel that many photographers, including me, automatically limit their vision this way. We should not always judge pictures by how well they satisfy the aspects which supposedly define a good photograph, but simply how they appeal to us emotionally. We should try more crazy ideas and post them here for feedback and inspiration.
Show me some more clouds!!!
Christoph
Christoph, I agree that we probably miss seeing a lot of beautiful scenes because people hesitate to show images that don't fit the rules. Maybe we need a "Heretic Forum" where only these type of images can be shown.
Heretic Forum? Great idea to me.
-PB
Danny.
Three points I'd like to comment on:
A) Rules governing what is good or bad concerning composition is already well covered and all of you guys are off to a great start on that one. Bravo!!! Keep those cards and letters coming
B) At one end of the extreme there are artists and at the other end there are technicians. Most of us are a blend of the two somewhere between the extremes and the variety of opinions will usually be a reflection of where a person is at within that spectrum.
C) With the fast rising popularity of Digital technology more and more work is being judged "by the numbers" instead of for esthetic value. It's so easy now to "get it right" with in camera white balance and image stabalization and histograms and on and on, but who's to say that the photographers intent was to "get it right"? Back in the old days of film we could do all sorts of creative things and nobody ever said that the white balance was off, or there was a peculiar color cast or it's crowding one end of the histogram or whatever ...
FujiFilm recently ran an add for their image stabalization in which a before and after picture was shown of three kids having a pillow fight. The first (the "bad" one) was full of movement and the delight of the pillow fight. It was full of fun and was a great picture. The second and supposedly "good" one was static and lifeless and boring but we've got IS now boys and girls ... isn't it wonderful? Now there's a danger that somebody will miss the point and assume that I'm attaking IS.
I remember another image which was posted for critique in which the photographer succeeded in achieving exactly what he wanted but the picture completely failed the "histogram/contrast/shadow detail test". Odd thing is, that photograph has made over $1200.00 in it's first two weeks on display at a local gallery. It seems that the viewing/buying public look at things differently than do photographers
my 2 $.00
Bob
Gary, Shame the horizon ended up right in the center of an otherwise great photo.
KIDDING! Both are great shots, and prove that there are exceptions to the rule...BUT it takes a great eye and a great scene to know when to let the rules slip by the wayside!
I think that David has a great idea with a 'rule breaker' weekly challenge. I know I have my share of shots where I thumbed my nose at the norm!
With that, I shall retire to the deck to take some highly centered photographs of chickory flowers.
Pete D.
I think this is an excellent idea! Break the rules and make a 'Moderator's Pick' photograph? It could be more challenging than we think.
How about it, Jim?
-PB
Personally, whether you use guidelines, break them, or do both - it never guarentees a great photograph. Christoph, I agree with your post and I love clouds too! But guess what? Not all clouds are created equal! And some folks like huge soaring Alto cumulous, while other prefer lenticulars. It also means the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And just because someone cuts the image in half with horizon to break the rules, doesn't mean the image will be successful. The key, and the $64,000 question is learning to recognize WHEN to use a rule/guideline and WHEN not too.
I think as Preston mentioned, a beginner might have a tendancy to center an image, for example. That's fine, and that can work - but not always. Some guidelines like the Rule of Thirds, or concepts like selective focus can help someone, "step out of the box." And once out of the box, I think one can start seeing doors open for other ways of expressing your own vision and style.
Lon
Lon, I totally agree with you, however I feel that all too often we walk around with our camera in hand trying to compose a scene and don't even bother to take a picture because we think others may not like it since there would be no foreground element, or the horizon would be centered, or the clouds would not sufficiently mirror the foregound etcc....
I do find the rules of composition to be very effective and they often result in an image which is considerably more powerful than if it was taken without these rules in mind. This is especially so because it is so difficult to convey one's impression of a scene in two dimensions. However, I have found that they do restrict the images I take nowadays. I always hunt for a strong foreground element and sometimes, if I don't find one, I don't even bother taking the photograph. I remember standing at the shore line of Bruce Peninsula national park, as the dawn was breaking and witnessing water glittering with the beautiful colors of the dawn and ending in the sky. That probably was the most beautiful scene I witnessed that morning but I almost did not bother taking the picture because there was no foreground element. We really should not let that happen to us.
I feel the idea of a "break the rules" forum where we post pictures which don't satisfy the traditional guidelines, but still are powerful and evoke an emotion, is great.
Regards,
Christoph
thanks for looking...
I shoot whatever composition catches my eye, regardless of the rules, including clouds. After all, guidelines are just that. No one says we have to follow them to the letter every time!
I was researching a long reply about the value of understanding the Principles of Classical Composition (I so dislike "rules") when I ran across the passage quoted above. I couldn't say it better myself.
Cheers,
Regards,
Christoph