Composition in Photography
Composition is one of the key issues in photography and one which many people find difficult or daunting. For me there is a lot of mumbo jumbo written about composition and it is simply about being careful what is included in the frame and the relationship between components. It is particularly pleasing to see a photograph that breaks one or all of the ‘rules of composition’ and looks wonderful anyway. The picture here has been criticised by several people for the central placement - whilst this is true and it will never win any prizes (but not because of central placement though), it is a perfectly acceptable image.
The Messaage
The first thing to consider in composing an image is ‘what am I trying to say to the viewer with this image’. There is no right answer to this (that is one of the things that makes photography so infinitely variable).
Consider a wonderful scenic view in the evening light with a sky that is turning a beautiful shade of pink. Unfortunately there is a series of electricity pylons marching across the skyline completely blotting the landscape. There are several solutions to this problem including post manipulation, but it really depends upon what one is attemptiong to convey
- the environmentalist campaigner would definitely include the pylons to show how thoughtless industrialisation is ruining our countryside heritage for generations to come.
- the chocolate box designer would turn the camera to another part of the skyline to exclude the pylons.
- the abstract artist would ignore the countyside and get a close up of the pylon against the moody sky
You can, no doubt, think of a number of alternative solutions for this admittedly oversimplified example scenario, the point being that no one composition is correct and that the solution chosen will depend heavily upon the intent of the photogrpaher.
Rules
There are a variety of rules and some will surely be discussed in the coming months - many of them are very well known and easy to understand such as the ‘rule of thirds’ or the ‘golden section’ and some less obvious such as the consideration of ‘balance’ and ’symmetry’.
I prefer to think of the rules as guidelines - some photographers such as the excellent Nitsa make an art form of ignoring the rules. Despite her protestations, however, she knows the ‘rules’ better than most!
September 18th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Ian, I am so glad you have added “Words” — a place to discuss the aesthetics of photography — it is a much needed forum, and I hope you see a high degree of participation here.
I am smiling as I think of a certain photo that may have..or at least could have…inspired your thoughts on composition, as it illustrates just what you are saying. It is just such a farm scene as you describe, with an unfortunate maze of telephone and electrical wires and a telephone pole in the middle. As my husband pulled the car to the side of the road so I could shoot the photo, for a moment I actually thought of not shooting the photo — as the telephone pole was in the way. But the light was fading fast and there was no time to move to a better location. So I shot it as it was. My husband’s reaction was, “Well, you’re just showing reality.” And depicting reality is one compositional value we can have. Yet with careful composition (and/or being in the right place at the right time), you can convey a more important inner reality of a scene — its peace and quiet, or the longing one might feel for a simpler, bygone time, for example.
But since then, the photo and its circumstances have given me much pause for thought. A photo is as much a snapshot of a time as it is of a place. I’m not sure that any other form of art (with the exception perhaps of music) is so closely tied to single, discrete moments in time. I really appreciate the efforts of photographers like Ian Britton who will research the light, weather conditions, and angles on a solitary sycamore tree for nine months, before coming up with a photo that he is satisfied with.
Having said this, my daughter just sent me a poem she had written, and just laughed when I asked her where this image or that sentiment came from, and what was the deeper meaning of the poem. She feels a poem isn’t complete until someone reads the poem and reacts to it. Perhaps it is the same with photos. An environmentalist sees the farm/telephone pole scene one way, a chocolate box designer another — perhaps a religiously oriented person might see a cross entangled in the strangling wires of technology, thereby fracturing the peace of a life ordinarily in harmony with nature.
In any case, one compositional element that has begun to intrigue me is the inclusion of an “anomaly” in a photograph — the one odd thing or disruption in a pattern, that makes you ask questions about the photo. For instance, why is there one tombstone missing in Rock’s photograph of a confederate cemetary?
September 20th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Judy,
Your photo did not particularly inspire me to write this, rather it is a general comment on composition and what one ought to consider - in the end, I firmly believe that the only person we need to please with our compositions is ourselves - I am often intrigued by the variation in response that some of my own photographs invoke, ranging from awful to fabulous on the same image. Often specific items are pointed out as being bad or not to the viewer’s taste and those self same features are liked by another person.
I love the comments and they often make me think which is great, but the ultimate decision must remain min (or yours in the case of your images). Naturally if everybody says - dog - then I should probably take note.
Your daughter is correct - the poem/photograph interacts with the viewer and the viewer with it (an existentialist would say it does not even exist until somebody has seen it!).
Often anomalies (such as the missing ‘tooth’ in Rosc’s image) make the picture stand out as special.