Composition and horizon position

yardcoyote said:

Here's a famous example of breaking the opposite rule-- bisecting the picture plane with a vertical element. Just as "bad" or worse than the dreaded center horizon, but Caillebotte makes it work. His strategy lies in the differences in subject matter and complex balance between the two sides. There a nice little push/ pull dynamic, and even a little conceptual thing going on between the umbrellas and the water between the cobblestones.

Caillebotte is one of my favorite artists-- much "dryer" than many of the impressionists with many qualities in his work that reflect the influence of early photography.

Click to expand...

I agree, he was a brilliant painter.

That's a very good reproduction -- it justifies examining at 1:1.

Don Cox

Many humans are keen to discover "the certainties"; the "absolute truths" of the world; the propositions that cannot be denied. They want right or wrong, goodies or baddies. As others in this thread have noted, this seems to invoke the notion that rules or laws should be applied to every little thing, even the location of a horizon in a photograph.

"Guidelines", as another poster notes, is a better concept for employment when considering how to construct a pleasing composition of something. Many crafts such as photography have guidelines as a basis for at least beginning something like a composition or an exposure or a choice of the moment when the shutter button is best pressed. Many of them involve proportions and symmetries of various kinds.

For example, it's a well known guideline (or so I always thought, having found it in numerous photography circles over the decades) that a photograph involving a large expanse of water can often look at its best when horizontally bisected into two equal halves by the line between the reflection and what is reflected. This form of symmetry looks pleasing to the human eye for some reason.

Such bisecting lines can be a horizon - actual or virtual - in many such photos.

This isn't to say that other arrangements of the elements of a scene that include such horizons can't also be pleasing, informative, meaningful or otherwise interesting. But those with a simple and equal horizontal symmetry very often are what "we" prefer.

Some will automatically call this a cliche and dismiss it out of hand. Personally I let the picture provide the argument for or against it's quality, since a picture is unlikely to be prejudiced for or against this or that, as so many humans are, by mad cultural constructs lodged willy-nilly in their often hopelessly tangled wetware.

SirLataxe

It's a matter of intent.

@Bob: education can also be a problem that prevents us to explore new fields. I like quoting Picasso: "I could paint just like Velazquez when I was 17, it took me 80 years to be able to paint like a child".

IMHO we have been exposed to so many images that obey the classic 'rules' of painting/photo that we are disoriented when we see pictures that do not follow those rules. A bit like when we look at cave paintings that lack perspective. Or old religious paintings that show a golden sky (just because at that time, blue paint was not available or extremely scarce and expensive).

@Quarkcharmed: what was the intent of Corot here? My guess is that he was trying to pass a feeling of harmony. There is a subtle balance of cold colors vs. warm colors. If one crops out the upper part of the sky as you suggested, this harmony is lost.

In addition, what is the subject here? The main building, at the center, is the Popes palace (Popes left Rome for a few decades in the 14th century and settled in Avignon). My feeling is that the sky here is a symbol for heaven. Yeah I know may be Corot would deny it, but what the beholder sees is what counts!

A lot of times an idea is a cliche because it works really well. And there are really only so many ways to divide up a picture plane of a particular shape.

In a photograph you can always balance out a composition that has been seen many times before with interesting subject matter and a thoughtful eye to color, or to tone in a black and white image.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

The reproduction came straight from the Wikipedia; I was pleasantly surprised how nice it is.

I am lucky enough to have spent hours over the years studying the original. The Art Institute moved it some years ago to a much more prominent place (as Caillebotte's star has risen, it has become one of the museum's "famous paintings") and the new setting features a decent bench from which to contemplate the picture and enjoy the reactions of others. You can tell a painter by the amount of time they spend thriling to the water on those cobblestones ... Caillebotte's technique was as good as his eye.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

Some 20 years back and listening to too many camera club judges I came up with this page, modified from notes from one of the judges... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/compnotes.html

Hey, now I just take pictures and try to make them look nice without thinking about any darn "rules" much at all. Mostly though, it's all about capturing memories and how do you compose a memory?

Just one more thought which has not been mentioned here. If you point your camera down to give the sky only 1/3 or up for 2/3, you are generating slanted buildings, trees etc. I can see that in some images in the net, and I do not like it unless it is done on purpose.

Otherwise, yes, put the horizon where you like it.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.

Sorry - I’m not clear on what you saying. Education is bad and so are the classic rules? Just paint, draw, or photograph whatever you feel like - because that worked for Picasso?

Bob said:

Sorry - I’m not clear on what you saying. Education is bad and so are the classic rules? Just paint, draw, or photograph whatever you feel like - because that worked for Picasso?

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes.

Unfortunately, artistic education is sometimes detrimental. I've watched it in children and young people, as one person after another gets their artistic inclination sucked out by well-intentioned teachers. Likewise, there's some very strange stuff going on at art schools.

You have to know the rules before you break them.

iljitsch said:

You have to know the rules before you break them.

Click to expand...

Rules? What rules?

See Mark Scott Abeln's post, where he thoroughly demolishes the notion that these are rules.

Right, so a crooked horizon is just fine.

iljitsch said:

Right, so a crooked horizon is just fine.

Click to expand...

Probably not, usually. It's usually important that one's craft is carried out skilfully, but it isn't a rule.

And by the way, there's nothing wrong with the concept of studying composition. It's just that the practice sometimes goes astray. I'll have more to say about this shortly, but I'm looking for a previous post.

Guy Parsons said:

Some 20 years back and listening to too many camera club judges I came up with this page, modified from notes from one of the judges... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/compnotes.html

Hey, now I just take pictures and try to make them look nice without thinking about any darn "rules" much at all. Mostly though, it's all about capturing memories and how do you compose a memory?

Click to expand...

Thank you, Guy. That's quite a large number of "rules". Many of them are good suggestions that would work well for some pictures but not others. I can imagine that unfortunately, some judges would apply them as if they were rules, and apply them incorrectly to photos to which they didn't apply. Some judges might just be ticking off check boxes instead of judging the capacity of a photo to inspire the human spirit.

Of course the former is easier. I don't know how to formulate rules about what will give enjoyment or constitute great art. Art is subjective, and if one tries to apply "rules", then one is likely not seeing the art. I do have suggestions about what might work sometimes, and I think that's what you have tried to do.

We have a local (big-city) photography club. Out of curiosity I looked at their web site. They have a weekly photo contest, and if you win, you get your picture(s) projected at the weekly meetings. They also post past winners on the web site. Unfortunately, I had a hard time finding pictures that I liked. Most of them seem like garish caricatures of rule following.

iljitsch said:

Right, so a crooked horizon is just fine.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen photos of mountain slopes ?

There's a difference between compositional concerns and representation of subject. Diagonal lines are prevalent in photos and art works. A crooked horizon can work just fine from a compositional point of view.

A crooked horizon bugs us, not because it's a diagonal (we're fine with scenes of mountainsides) but because we know we're looking at a tilted photo - it's just "wrong".

I'm not sure this has much of anything to do with the simplistic guidelines (like "rule of thirds") trotted out as rules of composition. Just for fun, I did a google search on rules of composition in photography. I got back:

"Top 6 composition rules"
"What are the 7 rules of composition"
"What are the 9 rules of composition in photography"
"What are the 10 rules of composition in photography"
"What are the 5 rules of composition in photography"

I chose one of them and there was a rule about "horizon" but it said to place at 1/3 from the bottom; nothing about tilting it.

Most of it is tripe from people looking for their 15 minutes of fame on the web. "Minimalism" is a "rule of composition". "Colors and patterns" is another. "Frame within a frame". At least they seem to have the sense to refer to them in context as "techniques" despite titling their pages "rules of composition".

I don't think artists concern themselves with rules. They study what's been done before to try to understand what aspects of the composition have different effects on the viewer. Of course, they start with learning about figures and lines and motion and space and all of that, but putting all of that together while trying to say what you want to say is complicated business. We photographers - at least those of us who aren't actually creating the scene in front of the lens - don't really need to be bothered with all that. It helps to have a basic understanding of why different compositional elements have different effects on the viewer, but all we really control is perspective. You can do a lot with perspective, but it makes the process more about recognizing good compositions and less about creating them.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

ThrillaMozilla said:

Bob said:

Sorry - I’m not clear on what you saying. Education is bad and so are the classic rules? Just paint, draw, or photograph whatever you feel like - because that worked for Picasso?

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, and yes.

Unfortunately, artistic education is sometimes detrimental. I've watched it in children and young people, as one person after another gets their artistic inclination sucked out by well-intentioned teachers. Likewise, there's some very strange stuff going on at art schools.

Click to expand...

Okay - fair enough. Are there any well-known photographers you admire who have this kind of approach? I'd be willing to expand my awareness of such artists.

Dennis said:

Dennis said:

(snip)

Click to expand...

I don't think artists concern themselves with rules. They study what's been done before to try to understand what aspects of the composition have different effects on the viewer. Of course, they start with learning about figures and lines and motion and space and all of that, but putting all of that together while trying to say what you want to say is complicated business. We photographers - at least those of us who aren't actually creating the scene in front of the lens - don't really need to be bothered with all that. It helps to have a basic understanding of why different compositional elements have different effects on the viewer, but all we really control is perspective. You can do a lot with perspective, but it makes the process more about recognizing good compositions and less about creating them.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

Most crafts, including photography, are learnt vai the understanding and acquisition of "rules" (better described as your "aspects of the composition have different effects on the viewer"). At the lowest level of learning a craft, we internalise micro-techniques that are effectively "rules" describing how to achieve base effects that together can be permed into a near-infinite set producing a very wide range of different effects.

This is known as "acquiring a skill".

A painter has "rules" about how a certain brush shape, size and hair-type will work with various paint types on various substrates being painted, to produce the appearance of intended light and form. Ditto a woodworker's use of various tool types on various timber types to achieve different shaping outcomes and surface "looks".

Photography too has such "rules", although as this thread suggest "techniques" is a better description.

Base photographic comp[osition techniques of composition do exist "with different effects on the viewer". Humans do share a common set of visual gubbins, after all (although the associated cultural gubbins can vary quite a lot).

*********

Personally I start all compositions with a now-learnt & internalised set of compositional techniques. There's about twenty of them. As when you've learnt to drive and done a lot of it, there's no longer a hugely conscious thought process about the "rules" - they happen quickly and automatically at a subconscious level .... yet are consciously amended by "circumstances".

We don't drive blindly over a sudden cat in the road (well I don't) and we don't have to always make our photographic compositions predictable or cliche-ridden.

But often we do make photographic chocolate-boxers, because that's the effect we want to achieve. Several compositional cliches are useful for that.

The "rules", then, are just a framework in which to begin a composition; a set of techniques on which we can elaborate; a means to communicate commonly-understood pictorial elements if that's what we want to do (rather than produce an "artistic" shock).

Of course, shocking pictures are allowed too.

SirLataxe

SirLataxe said:

Photography too has such "rules", although as this thread suggest "techniques" is a better description.

Click to expand...

There are pragmatic rules/guidelines - like using certain shutter speeds to get different effects from flowing water; capturing lightning or fireworks and so on.

The thing is, photographers know about photography and knowledgeable photographers can pass along such information. But when it comes to composition, too many competent photographers pass along what works for them as if they're experts on the topic and the end result is that people are encouraged to reproduce forumulaic stuff and discouraged from trying anything outside that mainstream ideal.

Take the OP in this thread - he's under the impression that there's some kind of consensus about avoiding centered horizons. It's cookie cutter stuff designed to help no-nothings produce better stuff, on average, than if they don't follow the recipe. So I don't see them as rules for beginners, but rather, short cuts for people who don't want to learn. Kind of like the difference between "cook the steak for 10 minutes, flipping hal way" versus knowing the pros and cons of cooking different cuts different ways and the chemical reactions that take place when you cook them. Ultimately, the 10 minutes isn't a "rule" at all; it's a better-than-nothing, works-most-of-the-time-and-doesn't-fail-too-badly short cut.

SirLataxe said:

Base photographic comp[osition techniques of composition do exist "with different effects on the viewer".

Click to expand...

Exactly. And better compositional advice spells that out, leaving it up to you to decide on the composition based on the effect you want.

SirLataxe said:

Personally I start all compositions with a now-learnt & internalised set of compositional techniques. There's about twenty of them. As when you've learnt to drive and done a lot of it, there's no longer a hugely conscious thought process about the "rules" - they happen quickly and automatically at a subconscious level .... yet are consciously amended by "circumstances".

Click to expand...

Right! It's funny - I've read so much advice from accomplished photographers, in books or on websites, that imply that there's this deliberate process involving stopping to ask yourself "what do I want to convey" and then translating that into a composition. I was so relieved to pick up Harald Mante's "The Photograph: Composition and Color Design" and read his acknowledgement that composition is done in the manner you describe. He might even say that a lot of the information in the book is academic and not practiced when composing photographs.

SirLataxe said:

The "rules", then, are just a framework in which to begin a composition; a set of techniques on which we can elaborate;

Click to expand...

I agree that such a framework serves as a foundation - even if you don't use it while photographing, you can consider it when evaluating photographers to see what you like in some and not in others. But these "top ten rules" web pages (and, no doubt, videos) put out by people looking for clicks, that tell you "never center your subject" or "use the rule of thirds for more dynamic images" don't provide that framework - they tell you to live in a confined space.

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com