-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rules of composition: there to be broken?
- Thread starter Tom Axford
- Start date
The artist spent hours if not day on this picture. Photographer has second. Does he or she have time to deliberate? No way.My finger would not have depressed the shutter in the first place ; )There seem to be many contributors here who agonise about composition and whether they are properly following the "rules".
Personally, I regard rules of composition as rather weak rules that often provide useful guidance if you don't know where to start in composing a scene, but not much more. Sometimes, it's possible to find very satisfying compositions that break many of the rules.
To illustrate the point, the image below is of a painting by Edgar Degas, entitled "Jockeys Before the Race" (1879).
I suspect that most photographers who took a photograph like this would regard it as not a keeper for several reasons (the post in the foreground partly obscuring the horse's face and breaking the scene into two parts, the rear end of the horse being cut off, etc.).
Yet, this painting is highly regarded in the art world, despite the composition being unconventional. I have seen this painting several times and I really like it, although it initially looked like a mistake!
If you took a photo like this, would you discard it or keep it? I hope I would keep it, but, to be honest, I'm not sure.
--
https://500px.com/candidchris
Erick L
Senior Member
Dismissing rules of composition is akin to musicians who don't want to learn to read music because it will "stifle their creativity".
Jestertheclown
Senior Member
Actually the photographer can choose the 'moment' that the rules of composition converge. If you take this photo you will see 'FGR', 'Gamut' and 'dynamic symmetry'....
If you are unaware of these principles in the first place you are not likely to be able to find them in the photos you take....,
--
Nice photo (I really like it!) and I do agree that the photographer has the same sort of opportunities to think about composition as a painter. Though true, it happens much faster, it's still possible to utilize some learned concepts of composition as you photograph. It certainly isn't something that everyone who does it necessarily consciously thinks of when taking every photograph, but if you understand the concepts and have a philosophy behind the way that you frame an image then those things are going to come through no matter how spontaneously you're shooting... and there's of course also the post production part where you are free to crop the image at that point as well.Actually the photographer can choose the 'moment' that the rules of composition converge. If you take this photo you will see 'FGR', 'Gamut' and 'dynamic symmetry'....
If you are unaware of these principles in the first place you are not likely to be able to find them in the photos you take....,
--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/
--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/
I hadn't heard of these terms but now I've looked at your flickr site I intend to find out...an incredible collectionActually the photographer can choose the 'moment' that the rules of composition converge. If you take this photo you will see 'FGR', 'Gamut' and 'dynamic symmetry'....
If you are unaware of these principles in the first place you are not likely to be able to find them in the photos you take....,
--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simongwildplanet/with/27871726033/
Last edited:
barrym1966
Senior Member
There seem to be many contributors here who agonise about composition and whether they are properly following the "rules".
Personally, I regard rules of composition as rather weak rules that often provide useful guidance if you don't know where to start in composing a scene, but not much more. Sometimes, it's possible to find very satisfying compositions that break many of the rules.
To illustrate the point, the image below is of a painting by Edgar Degas, entitled "Jockeys Before the Race" (1879).
I suspect that most photographers who took a photograph like this would regard it as not a keeper for several reasons (the post in the foreground partly obscuring the horse's face and breaking the scene into two parts, the rear end of the horse being cut off, etc.).
Yet, this painting is highly regarded in the art world, despite the composition being unconventional. I have seen this painting several times and I really like it, although it initially looked like a mistake!
If you took a photo like this, would you discard it or keep it? I hope I would keep it, but, to be honest, I'm not sure.
if you want your work to stand out and be unique then break the rules
if you want your photos to look like everyone elses, follow the rules
Really? Take this photo from Steve McCurry.
I can tell 100% that this photo was 'created' by a photographer with an artistic education. A photographer who understands composition and can create it. The composition is so perfect in this photo that the fact that the 'ultimate nono=a horizantal horizon' doesnt register....
If you happen to have a vague belief in the 'rule of thirds' at least appreciate where the very concept came from (the basic armature of a 3:2 rectangle). And if you seriously believe that I am drawing 'sufficient lines' so that one of 'those' lines falls somewhere significant, you are so far off base you are a lunatic....
At least appreciate that the masters of composition such as McCurry, Leibovitz or Bresson achieved their mastery through studying and understanding composition. There is a famous quote from Michelangelo along the lines of 'if you knew how hard I had to work to achieve my mastery, you wouldnt think it so wonderful after all'
--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/
Last edited:
--
[/QUOTE]
The may or may not be true for every photographer. I just got back from a night shoot in the desert. I planned going out 15 days prior to going, selecting the location in a general sense. I arrived at the area 3 hours early to set up camp and begin to looks specifically for the scene I wanted to compose, I then spent a few hours waiting until I felt I had the perfect time. I clicked the shutter and about 20 sec later I had my RAW image. When I got home I spent about an hour processing the image.
Not every photo is a spur of the moment shot. Commercial photography can even take longer as decisions on lighting and color matching, make up, model positioning etc...Even when I am shooting sporting events, I am planning my shots at least a day ahead deciding on where I want to be. I already know typically what f stop and what shutter. On rare occasions I get to my location and need to move a trashcan out of my field of view, or I need to re-think because another photographer is in that location..
For those who see the canvas is their awaiting paint or ink. We just have to see and set the stage and plan. Event street shooters have to plan where they are going and have some idea of what they might expect to catch. Perhaps its a location they have scope in the past and are returning to try and see if the people around will naturally compose to their vision.
Jestertheclown
Senior Member
You have your point of view, to which you are entitled.Really? Take this photo from Steve McCurry.
I can tell 100% that this photo was 'created' by a photographer with an artistic education. A photographer who understands composition and can create it. The composition is so perfect in this photo that the fact that the 'ultimate nono=a horizantal horizon' doesnt register....
If you happen to have a vague belief in the 'rule of thirds' at least appreciate where the very concept came from (the basic armature of a 3:2 rectangle). And if you seriously believe that I am drawing 'sufficient lines' so that one of 'those' lines falls somewhere significant, you are so far off base you are a lunatic....
I don't happen to agree with it.
Where we differ is that I can do so without resorting to name calling.
I've seen that image before. In fact, it was used in another forum to make precisely my point; that being that if you draw sufficient lines, particularly if you then give them meaningless names, then eventually, one of them will coincide with one of your so-called "rules".
At least appreciate that the masters of composition such as McCurry, Leibovitz or Bresson achieved their mastery through studying and understanding composition. There is a famous quote from Michelangelo along the lines of 'if you knew how hard I had to work to achieve my mastery, you wouldnt think it so wonderful after all'
--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/
A job that it does extremely well.
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
Mike CH
Veteran Member
... because with the armatures, that's exactly what it looks like to me. So many lines that some of them must fall somewhere significant.
But perhaps you can explain why that isn't so? Please? Serious question, mind. Neither RoT nor GR really speaks to me, so in the past I've had a look,at the armatures - and was rather disappointed because I came away with that exact impression.
Regards, Michael
Ok let me start at the beginning....
The basic concept in art is that you want to produce 3d dynamic images on a 2d format.
So lets consider what is dynamic...
So if we consider the 3 lines we can draw and their tree. The line/tree can be vertical and stable (non-dynamic), horizantal (flat non dynamic) or at an angle which is dynamic (the tree will likely move).
So the concept is to create dynamic symmetry - - ie movement in art. And you do that through a basic armature. Which is the two longest diagonals (sinister and baroque) and 4 x rectilinear. Which creates 16 triangles of equal proportions and hence dynamic symmetry.
Now in order to create dynamic harmony you create a limited gamut (preferably 4-6) as in say a (Van Gogh) or the Steve McCurry I posted.
(If you have been following this conversation which I seriously doubt, you will now know how the 'rule of thirds' (1809) derived via inherent art composition.
Now i know a lot of you think this is all bulls==t and imaginary but you should at least consider that the masters of yesteryear actually knew what they doing....
If you happen to be in the large pool of people that believe composition is an art simply understand that progress is created by knowledge rather than ignorance....
--
http://www.salintara.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robcoll/
Last edited:
Jestertheclown
Senior Member
Or appear to be crooked.Ok let me start at the beginning....
The basic concept in art is that you want to produce 3d dynamic images on a 2d format.
So lets consider what is dynamic...
So if we consider the 3 lines we can draw and their tree. The line/tree can be vertical and stable (non-dynamic), horizantal (flat non dynamic) or at an angle which is dynamic (the tree will likely move).
I think it's all more than a little precocious.So the concept is to create dynamic symmetry - - ie movement in art. And you do that through a basic armature. Which is the two longest diagonals (sinister and baroque) and 4 x rectilinear. Which creates 16 triangles of equal proportions and hence dynamic symmetry.
Now in order to create dynamic harmony you create a limited gamut (preferably 4-6) as in say a (Van Gogh) or the Steve McCurry I posted.
(If you have been following this conversation which I seriously doubt, you will now know how the 'rule of thirds' (1809) derived via inherent art composition.
Now i know a lot of you think this is all bulls==t and imaginary
Did they?
Or did someone decide that by plastering myriad lines all over their paintings, they'd be able to come up with some contrived theory that there's actually a set of so-called "rules" in action here?
You can copy and paste all the diagrams you can find but the undeniable fact remains that if you paste one, or preferably, several of those onto any image, one, or some, of your so-called "rules" will eventually, apply somewhere.
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
I do agree with you entirely. Posting meaningless lines is pretty stupid. I do however know the education that Leibowitz, mccurry, and Bresson came from. I know how those myriad of lines were derived. You might think their compositions are an act of genius, while I know they are simply a product of education....Or appear to be crooked.Ok let me start at the beginning....
The basic concept in art is that you want to produce 3d dynamic images on a 2d format.
So lets consider what is dynamic...
So if we consider the 3 lines we can draw and their tree. The line/tree can be vertical and stable (non-dynamic), horizantal (flat non dynamic) or at an angle which is dynamic (the tree will likely move).
I think it's all more than a little precocious.So the concept is to create dynamic symmetry - - ie movement in art. And you do that through a basic armature. Which is the two longest diagonals (sinister and baroque) and 4 x rectilinear. Which creates 16 triangles of equal proportions and hence dynamic symmetry.
Now in order to create dynamic harmony you create a limited gamut (preferably 4-6) as in say a (Van Gogh) or the Steve McCurry I posted.
(If you have been following this conversation which I seriously doubt, you will now know how the 'rule of thirds' (1809) derived via inherent art composition.
Now i know a lot of you think this is all bulls==t and imaginary
Did they?
Or did someone decide that by plastering myriad lines all over their paintings, they'd be able to come up with some contrived theory that there's actually a set of so-called "rules" in action here?
You can copy and paste all the diagrams you can find but the undeniable fact remains that if you paste one, or preferably, several of those onto any image, one, or some, of your so-called "rules" will eventually, apply somewhere.
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
--
Jestertheclown
Senior Member
Actually, I don't think either is the case.I do agree with you entirely. Posting meaningless lines is pretty stupid. I do however know the education that Leibowitz, mccurry, and Bresson came from. I know how those myriad of lines were derived. You might think their compositions are an act of genius, while I know they are simply a product of education....Or appear to be crooked.Ok let me start at the beginning....
The basic concept in art is that you want to produce 3d dynamic images on a 2d format.
So lets consider what is dynamic...
So if we consider the 3 lines we can draw and their tree. The line/tree can be vertical and stable (non-dynamic), horizantal (flat non dynamic) or at an angle which is dynamic (the tree will likely move).
I think it's all more than a little precocious.So the concept is to create dynamic symmetry - - ie movement in art. And you do that through a basic armature. Which is the two longest diagonals (sinister and baroque) and 4 x rectilinear. Which creates 16 triangles of equal proportions and hence dynamic symmetry.
Now in order to create dynamic harmony you create a limited gamut (preferably 4-6) as in say a (Van Gogh) or the Steve McCurry I posted.
(If you have been following this conversation which I seriously doubt, you will now know how the 'rule of thirds' (1809) derived via inherent art composition.
Now i know a lot of you think this is all bulls==t and imaginary
Did they?
Or did someone decide that by plastering myriad lines all over their paintings, they'd be able to come up with some contrived theory that there's actually a set of so-called "rules" in action here?
You can copy and paste all the diagrams you can find but the undeniable fact remains that if you paste one, or preferably, several of those onto any image, one, or some, of your so-called "rules" will eventually, apply somewhere.
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
I stand by my original statement above. The word "undeniable" is the important one.
--
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
"It's good to be . . . . . . . . . Me!"
(Apologies if I have reduced whatever you posted to being meaningless.)
I still think it amounts to one of two things...
I have studied art over the last 2000 years and believe their are rules, concepts and constructions that determine what people find attractive and compelling in art....
...And you who feel that there are no rules and artists simply winged it in the hope of getting recognized etc...
You are of course totally wrong but you are (of course) entitled to your opinion....
Jestertheclown
Senior Member
Good for you.
Now you have an opinion in precisely the same way that I do.
Sadly, the two are different opinions.
Both are, however, equally valid.
One area in which your discourse constantly falls down is in the repeated use of the word "rules".
There aren't any; merely guidelines. Suggestions as to how an image might (or might not) be composed.
Studying art over the last 2000 years should have taught you that.
Did I say that they were seeking recognition?
I think not.
Actually no. That's only yet another of your opinions.
As are you.
Just please don't keep spouting it as if it were fact.
It isn't.
Jestertheclown
Senior Member
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum