Hiyer, I'm a student of photography and as time passes I'm really getting into it. However I would like to learn more about composition and flash photography. So anyone willing to give tips, advice, books....etc on these 2 issues, I would be really appreciative. thanks!!

-- Shannan Ravindra (ravi_g@pacific.net.sg), December 26, 1998

Answers

composition

Composition is an area that gets neglected in many photographic circles. It's tempting to want to break the rules from an artistic standpoint but you have to know the rules intimately before you can break them, IMO. I was taught them in a basic photography course when the instructor showed us a Kodak video on composition. It was very smaltzy but effectively demonstrated the few basic rules and how they added visual impact to any shot. We then went through images from the masters and were able to pick out these rules in most of their best shots. I recommend this method highly as it has made the world of difference to my images.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), December 28, 1998.

"No one can teach another how to see. If composition could be taught, anyone might become an artist. Composition is a way of seeing -- strong or weak, according to the individual. Rules of composition are deduced from the works of strong masters and used by weak imitators to produce nothing!" Edward Weston

-- Jeff White (zonie@computer-concepts.com), December 28, 1998.

composition

Well there you have it, opinions from both ends of the spectrum.

"If I f*ck this shot up I'll call it art" Andy Laycock 1998

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), December 29, 1998.

Yes, the truth is probably somewhere in between. The rules of composition that Andy refers to are demonstrated in most entry level photography books and the video tape he mentions is also probably a good choice. Having judged 4H competions for years, following the "rules" of composition is the main point that I am suppost to drive home to the youngsters involved. I can tell you without a doubt that following the rules does not mean that you will an interesting or even good photo but it is a place to start. Some of these rules are: the rule of thirds - imagine vertical and horizontal lines dividing the image into thirds each way - the subjects should fall on those lines and even at the intersecting points to be stronger. Leading lines - having some compositional element lead to the subject. Center of interest - having a simple photograph and one main subject. Framing - having something natural or found that frames the subject, tree limbs or a hole in a wall etc. There are others but you get the point.
A good way of thinking that I learned from Stu Levy is ask yourself 2 questions when you are preparing to make a photo. 1) What interested me in making the photo? Meaning to be sure to photograph the main point that you find interesting and simplify as much as possible. 2) What does this photograph mean to me? Meaning that you need to do what is needed technically to create the feeling or image that you want.
John Sexton teaches composition as "Isolation". This is thinking that what you leave out of the photo is probably as important as what you include. A good way to practice this is use a viewing frame made out of mat board or cardboard with a window the same shape as your negative. Hold the frame in front of your eye and find out how much things change with small movements. This is like looking through the camera viewfinder accept you don't have to squint and also you don't feel the same need to make a photo if you don't find anything interesting.
When I was first learning composition I was told to study the photographs of Paul Strand and Eugene Atget, two masters of composition. I think looking at photos that you like and figuring out why they work is a very straight forward approach to learning to make "your own photos".

-- Jeff White (zonie@computer-concepts.com), December 29, 1998.

composition part 2

I should clarify my description of composition by taking out the word 'rules' which tends raise the hackles of most people no matter what it is you're talking about. What I am describing are well known visual phenomena, such as thirds, diagonals and triangles that for some reason appeal to the human mind. Whether your style or personal philosophy will accept even thinking about these elements when you are creating an image is immaterial to their existence. However I will say that composition implies that one is making decisions on the placement of objects within the physical space of the photograph. If you want to be totally free from these restraints then you are probably better off not releasing the shutter but just think about it. My advice for a neophyte, while not carrying the clout of a master, is to be aware of everything that has been done in photography, keep learning and to not close your mind so soon. You'll have plenty of time for that later.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), December 30, 1998.

I have several random thoughts about composition...

The standard compositional forms were developed by painters. The rule of thirds etc. were devices to give paintings and drawings order and a visual language.

Photography's language overlaps with the traditional forms, but it also can and should be allowed to find its own unique conventions. That's why I find the observation that children having no preconceptions appealing.

OTOH, I think the editing process is more important in photography. A street photographer is constantly trying to find order in chaos, and however subliminally, I think at least some of the standard rules kick in when a street shooter is going through his rough prints and deciding what works.

Because cameras are capable of capturing a 1/250th of a second in time, one needn't necessarily take a lot of time composing a picture but with practice can learn to quickly react to (or anticipate) a scene and create compelling images that don't conform to traditional composition. On the other hand, you can set up a view camera, compose and wait for the light to be just right, and also create compelling work.

There have been discussions in the past on this topic in this BBS, and people have a tendency to take sides on the isue--Shoot first, edit later vs. preconcieving the final image before loading the camera (at the extremes). I feel otherwise: both approaches--believe it or not-- are valid.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 30, 1998.

street photography and composition

One of the more disappointing revelations about street photographers was finding out that many of them select a good location and work out their composition ahead of time then just sit back and photograph people as they walk through the frame. The 'Decisive Moment' may not be as anticipatory as I once thought. I agree with Mason that there are many ways to get to your destination...whatever that may be.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), December 30, 1998.

Andy, the fact that a street photographer may have a favorite location because of stuff in the background that might lend itself to a more interesting shot is, I believe, simply part of anticipating how a moment will come together. In street photography, anticipating a moment is one of the most difficult things to learn. There still has to be a relationship between all the elements for a street photo to be successful, and what people are doing as they "walk through" is essential.

I also think that when a good street shooter becomes fluent in his or her own personal visual language, they start to recognize elements in a scene that work for them, and will stick around waiting for something unpredictable to enter the scene and surprise them. As I said before...whatever works.

Ya see? Street photography isn't always as haphazard as some folks think! :-)

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 30, 1998.

Personally, I don't worry about "thirds", etc. I just go with what looks real good. Sure, that's a vague statement. It is also accurate.

I read one photographer commenting on his work that editors told him that they really like his stuff because it doesn't follow the exact "thirds" rule. The editors said that they can immediately see where many photographers strictly place their subjects in the frame by thirds as if they measured it with a ruler.

Composition need not be the final determination the moment you release the shutter. Jerry Uelsmann's definitive moment happens under the enlarger. Larger formats give you areas to crop. I have been shown that a medium format negative can yeild three pictures.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), December 31, 1998.

composition

So to answer your question Ravi here are the rules of composition:

1. There is no such thing as composition 2. Studying it makes you weak 3. Choosing a background is NOT composition 4. Avoiding thirds is an excellent career move 5. Kodak is brainwashing us 6. I'm sprawled out in the middle (At 6'3" 265 lbs it's unavoidable)

Hope that clears things up for you. Just let us know if we can be of more help.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), December 31, 1998.

Andy, please allow me to add my parenthetical commentary to your rules of composition...

1. There is no such thing as composition (actually, every image is a composition...it's just some compositions are stronger than others.)

2. Studying it makes you weak. (Studying it makes you realize how limiting the traditional rules are. And that makes you a better photographer. BTW, working out will make you strong again.)

3. Choosing a background is NOT composition (Agreed. It's choosing an element within a composition. Subtle difference.)

4. Avoiding thirds is an excellent career move. (Definitely! I try to avoid all fractions when shooting.)

5. Kodak is brainwashing us (Probably true, although that has nothing to do with composition :-) )

6. I'm sprawled out in the middle (At 6'3" 265 lbs it's unavoidable) (Yikes! I'll make room as I stand on the street shooting away...)

Happy New Year to all...take lots of great B&W pix next year!

~mason

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), December 31, 1998.

I can't resist pointing out that the 'rule of thirds' is numerically illiterate. 'Thirds' implies dividing in the ratio 1:2, but the 'golden ratio' is actually 1:1.618...

There are many good books around that analyse paintings by the Old Masters. These can be highly instructive in showing how the elements of a painting go together to make a whole. Books by Ernst Gombrich are particularly useful (and readily available). From sources such as this, I have learnt that applying a single 'rule' is bad news. Can we imagine, for example, Michaelangelo creating a bad painting and saying 'OK, if I add seagull at the intersection of thirds this will provide a point of focus'?

Effective composition is not achieved by blindly following rules, guidelines, or whatever we call them. And many of these 'rules' are really more complicated than they initially appear. For example, one states that 'faces should point to the centre of the frame' (alternatively, 'leave space in front of a face'). This is perhaps a simplified version of 'We tend to look at what other people are looking at. If a photograph includes a person looking at an object, the viewer will tend to also look at that object. But if the photograph includes a person looking out of the frame, the picture will have less cohesion. And this MIGHT be a bad thing.'

Studying composition will not make you weak. But blindly following 'rules', especially simplified ones, will.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), January 02, 1999.

composition ad nauseum

I'm so happy that this question has got everyone involved. I am surprised by the negative reaction (pun intended) to my advice on compositional 'rules'. I should qualify it by saying that this is only MY opinion and learning some of the basics have made a difference in my photographs but perhaps it will ruin someone elses. I also regularily disobey the rules and have so far totally escaped punishment, although I guess I have just blown my cover.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), January 02, 1999.

On re-reading my post, it looks as if I am negative on whether there are 'rules', and whether we should follow them. That is not so, I am all for an understanding of what makes a successful picture. I am in the habit of saying 'on the other hand', and this can obscure my own beliefs. Western Art has a long tradition, and studying what makes a work successful (or unsuccessful), whether it is by Michaelangelo or yours truly, can only improve our photography.

Of course, Eastern Art also has a long tradition, and a totally different set of equally valid 'rules'. But that's another topic.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), January 04, 1999.

The problem with trying to apply painting rules to photography is that we can't arbitrarily change the relationships between things. We can't "mow the grass" in a field as a painter can.

South of Anacortes, WA, is a really neat tree. This tree is one of the neatest I have ever seen. Unfortunately for my preferred style, the tree is in someone's front yard, it stretches over a road, and is surrounded by power lines. That scene has real clutter. If I were a painter, I could put the tree into a field, or change the house and remove all the power lines. Not so with the camera.

The camera basicly delivers a time slice. That's it. Real manipulation can only occur under the enlarger.

What are some "rules" I've broken?

#1: Divide your frame into thirds. Uh-uh. Not for me, no way. Nature isn't in thirds.

#2: Don't leave empty space in the frame. Phhhhht. If the tree goes there, the hills there, the river there, and there's a bunch of empty space, then there's a bunch of empty space. That's the way it is in nature. Live with it.

Actually, those are the only two rules I know about. The one main thing that I usually really do try to avoid is something "growing" out of something else.

Studying masterworks is a really good idea. Surround yourself with photos you really like. Some of them are by accident. AA happened upon "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM". He got one shot. Be prepared for the accidents. Those are some of the best.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), January 06, 1999.

necessary equipment

A few of us were discussing what basic accessories were of real use to a photographer and a chain saw and cutting-torch were high on the list. In your case maybe some dynamite for the house would have been more appropriate. I'll have to add it to the list.

Fortunately I have no trouble with showing nature in relation to human structures so I would have taken the shot anyways, you never know it might just be another Moonrise.

-- andy laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), January 06, 1999.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with studying a masterwork, or trying to recreate them. You will learn a lot by trying to do some of what has been done before. Just because Maplethorpe photographed Cala lillies hasn't stopped every Tom, Dick, & Harry from photographing them also.

Every day is different for nature photography. AA chanced upon that scene outside of Hernandez, NM. Chance favors the prepared mind, and Ansel made the most out of that chance. Every day brings different chance. Make the most out of it for yourself.

There are certain intrinsic things which make a picture really stand on its own. We naturally try to incorporate these things into what we photograph. Lines -- parallel, perpendicular, oblique. Triangles, circles, squares, all are naturally occurring shapes. Order is more interesting than disorder. How many successful photos are there of a pile of pine needles? (No, really, I mean seriously successful, like winds up often on calendars and postcards. Not something that just gets a mention in a critic's corner because the artist is/was famous or wierd.)

Remember, none of these great artists are standing next to your shoulder, photographing the same thing. Adams is dead, horizontal in the ground. I study his books, I learn from them, but I'm not a disciple. I use some of the discipline he outlined, but believe me, disciple and discipline are two completely different things.

Adams encouraged experimentation, to find out what works for the individual photographer. Good advise. Experiment with composition and film and paper. Play. Have fun!

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), January 07, 1999.

My two cents. If "rules" should be tossed aside, why have almost every photographer working in advertizing, architechure, industrial illustration ad infinitum gone to NYU, Brooks Institute, Rocky Mnt School, Kodaks' Summer Program so on and so on? Rules are starting points. They are tried and true. It's all been done. May be a new twist but it's all been done. The cat was skinned a long time ago. And to those who want to be anarchical? Fine. Just don't equate yourselves with the greats like Atgett or Brassai or Weston. Usually when I meet a rule breaker and they want me to look at there stuf it looks like they tried to break the rules. And most rule breakers are outcasts. And that's what should be done with their stuff. Cast it out into the bin. There. I said it. All $1.49 worth. I feel better. Think I'll go use some rules and make some money. Geesh. I hope that notion doesn't make anyone puke. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), January 08, 1999.

I think that the best rule is simplicity.

The Weegee photo I like the best is a man standing with his back to the camera, a lightpole to the left, and a brick wall in the background.

The B&W photo of mine that people like the best has one tree, hills, clouds. (I was just burning off film at the end of a 220 roll when I shot that. The underexposed bracket looked the best.)

Simplicity is the one rule I do my very best never to break.

-- Brian C. Miller (a-bcmill@exchange.microsoft.com), January 08, 1999.

I think we all have to remember that we are 'taught' to see and hear and know all the things in our world and culture from the time that we start being aware of our senses. Everything that is held up as "ART", whether it's in music, drama, or visual arts, is a product of many years of many artists trying to comunicate the things that are important to them. After many years, it is possible to see the commonality of artistic thought in any medium... and understand what the 'rules' are. Rules come after the creative thought, they are not the destroyers of creativity. Rules are only the result of trying to understand other artists creative thinking.

And rules are a way of understanding how people perceive art. So, it makes sense that if you are interested in communicating to many people effectively, doing it "by the rules" may be the best way. Ignoring the rules may be the best way of starting your mind on a creative path, and making something that is meaningful to you. With some luck and the right timing, it just might mean something to someone else.

Keeping a calm and open mind to what you want to communicate is probably t

-- Chuck Kleesattel (kleesattelc@mason.k12.oh.us), January 12, 1999.

Ok, to the person who actually asked the question...There are a few GUIDELINES (that everyone vaguely mentions but doesn't really tell you what they are...) that I was taught in my first photo class. Rule of thirds...The idea is to divide the frame into thirds...and place your subject in the upper left or lower right...this is basically saying...don't just stick the subject in the middle cause it's boring...Simplicity...Don't have a lot of clutter and tons of things in one frame. pretty easy... Merging...Don't let something in the background "merge" with your subject...like don't let stop signs look like they're growing out of people's heads...This one is pretty important...There are more....but i can't think of them....rules are made to be broken if you know the rules and have a good reason to break them.

To the rest of you people argueing...We've already been "taught" how to see. Through our geometric culture we see things differently than someone who lives in africa and doesn't have perfectly geometric homes and buildings. Our culture has already influenced what we see and how we percieve things. Haven't you ever seen any of the pogendorf(or whatever his name was) illusions. The "vaces faces" thing...everyone initally sees something different which varies accross cultures...So, perception is different for everyone, yes, but it is affected by environmental factors that "teach" us what to see. So perception is somewhat taught. There is absoloutly nothing wrong with a few GUIDELINES to start someone off and keep them away from big mistake, like having a tree growing out of someones head accidenlty...so all of you stop your bickering! ash

-- Ashley Dyett (MistresNIN@aol.com), January 17, 1999.