Composition

A quote from Edward Weston is instructive here.

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk."

I think what Edward was saying is that rules can only get you so far. In any form of visual art, if it looks right it IS right, so once you're experienced you don't actually have to think about the "rules".

Easy for Weston to say. The rest of us sometimes need a little help...

But remember that it takes us quite a long time to learn how to deal with gravity as we begin to walk. But once you get it you no longer actively think about gravity when you walk. If you never 'get' the basic tenets of composition, you'll be bumblin' and stumblin' for quite a while. The equivalent of walking before you run, learning basic composition should always precede worrying about the technical whiz bangs of our equipment.

I know that many folks only rate/critique photos they like, but I think you can learn an awful lot about composition be looking at some shots that don't work and trying to figure out why.

Thanks for the article !

Good article. Weston was further quoted as stating "Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection . . ." Such "rules" of composition are also helpful in culling through images and trying to decide on the keepers, especially among slightly different perspectives of the same subject. The "rules" are also helpful in cropping images, particularly where the subject did not allow the opportunity for a "proper" composition.

Having had a bit more time to think about this subject, im beginning to wish i could turn back the clock.

Its very strange, but when i do a bit of landscape photography, composition is a major priority for me. But when im doing bird photography, apart from general composition, it rarely crosses my mind. I think it is an important lesson to learn, especially for newcomers to bird photography, as getting an image larger than a small dot is often the main aim {i hope im not alone with that}. I dread to think how many small images i have binned over the years, that i could have kept, had i considered composition more of a priority than i did. As im strictly an amateur, i guess my end result only has to please myself, and often the story behind the image is just as important to me. I think if i was a pro, my thinking would have to be different, as there is so much competition, that more thought would be required and composition would be a higher priority.

Its easy to get stuck in a rut, and although ive had many years experience, its good to get a wake up call, every now and again. Although on my previous reply, i stated that in my situation, composition is not always a top priority for me, due to a number of reasons, i dont think that excuses me from not trying to improve my final images in that way. My only feeble excuse is that my main lens for bird photography is a manual focus/diaphram lens, and although im very experienced with manual focusing, it does leave me with less time for other considerations, and my bank balance wont allow me to get into the 21st century.

Although I respect compositional rules, and I understand how they can be useful as a guideline, I am not bound by them as so many are or will become in photography.

Art schools and technical institutes pump out countless mindless automatons who've had more than their fill of 'the rules of compostion', leaving them with their creativity and desire destroyed. This troubles me deeply.

Technicalities and rules are the basis of science, however, creativity is the driving force behind the true artist--the ability to convert the creative energy and thought processes into the physical actualization--that to me is what it's all about. And they can't teach you that in school.

Compositional 'rules' are so often used as a comfort zone by those who are afraid to venture beyond the 'middle gray, by those who would rather be accepted by the norm than to confront them with imagery that may challenge their understanding of art.

Creativity and it's expression in the manifestation of art has been with us since the begging of human life on earth, long before there were rules, science and art critics.

-Mark Klotz

"The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant and immaterial" - Ansel Adams.

I agree with Ansel Adams.

Mark I hear what you’re saying and I agree on many points. Regarding this statement: “Technicalities and rules are the basis of science, however, creativity is the driving force behind the true artist … “

Agreed! But what if you feel you have no artistic abilities and are not a “true artist?” What if you’re driven to succeed in photography but you’re absolutely clueless about how make an image interesting and attractive?

When thinking about the design of a photograph let’s not confuse the words “composition” and “composing.” Composition is simply a word that means "the arrangement of elements that make a whole." Composition is the “whole” part - the final result. The “arrangement” part is what we as photographers need to be concerned with if we want to produce visually pleasing images on a consistent basis.

Every painting and every photograph has a composition. Every billboard sign, advertisement, yellow pages ad, cover of a magazine, architectural blueprint, etc. They're everywhere, both natural and crafted. Regardless of whether you neglect it or spend 10 hours perfecting it in your viewfinder, your composition is there and it’s not going away. You either address it when making the photograph or you don't. That decision is entirely up to the photographer. And yes, there are sometimes when a composition presents itself with no possible way of improving it. But how do you know when you’ve encountered that situation? ________________

One last thing and then I will stop arguing with opinions :) It is my intent with the article to emphasize the importance of learning about composition. Please don't interpret that to mean, and I don't think I ever wrote, that we follow every rule and guideline out there.

I break the rules all the time, but I do so knowing exactly what I'm doing and why. When I make a photograph there is usually very little luck or chance involved as far as the composition is concerned. Here's a favorite Pied-billed Grebe that breaks one of the major rules "don't center your subject" and I love the shot.

http://www.naturesglory.net/upload/circles_small.jpg

Sorry for rambling, thanks for reading and have a wonderful day!

G

I think a possible definition of art is "mastering a technique to produce beauty or emotion". I think this is valid for anything ranging from painting, music, poetry,...to photography too of course! But the point is that you must know the rules to produce something beautiful. Of course, you can always get something unexpected by breaking or bending a rule, or to produce "beauty" in an unconventional way. But it should come later.

Arturo

I think it's great to try to understand what forms and fundamentals people like, but please remember that such understanding should be used to inform our creativity, not to stifle it!! I've seen so many budding talented photographers' work ruined for years by the "full tonal range is a MUST in a print!" "law of thirds in composition!" "Zone System!" -whatever ideology. The greats are the ones who broke the rules - or, rather, created new rules - by reinterpreting the fundamental forms of what we like in a new way that we also like.

In other words - it's ART - there are no rules. But if you don't understand what you're doing and do it willfully, then you're only lucky if you produce something good

What I like so much about Gloria's example is that she's not saying 'this is how it must be' - but she makes excellent observations about how the eye seems to like balance and travel. Thank you for posting this, Gloria!!

mjr.

In my experience, those most drawn to the "rules" of composition were those with the least creative vision and natural talent. I know someone, for example, who is always talking about the "composition" of great works of art and photographs, including my own. This person has taken art classes and produces, at best, one mediocre, lifeless piece per year.

I see nothing wrong with learning the rule of thirds, learning to read music, or studying the technical aspects of any other art. I can tell you this, though: I know classical musicians who are great readers of music but who, when asked to play something impromptu, would not know where to begin.

>>But the point is that you must know the rules to produce something beautiful.<<

This is, simply, hogwash.

Hi there Gloria,

Let me first apologize for neglecting to thank you for your time and research attributed to your article, it is very good and your photographic work is outstanding. I guess I kind of jump the gun when I see articles about composition. Yours is fair and straightforward.

"It is my intent with the article to emphasize the importance of learning about composition."

I fully agree with your response as there are people out there who just want to learn how to take a better photo. I guess it is to some of the critics whom my opinion is aimed toward; ones who judge a photo too harshly and forget to look for the beauty of the image.

I can see that you bend the rules a little and yet you are fully in control. I have unlimited respect for this ability, as only a truly seasoned and accomplished photographer can work that method and achieve their expected results.

Keep up the good work,

-Mark Klotz

Georg,

It's not hogwash. Line up a group of similar images - like your flower shots - and pick the strongest one. Maybe you will be able to explain why breaking a rule will create a better shot, but more often than not the stronger image can be analyzed from the standpoint of rules, and why your adherence to them produced the image that people respond to. I don't think the rules are intuitive, but I think some people catch on a lot quicker than others.

I think many of you are missing something. Here's the perspective of someone who is learning, me. It is not that easy to get the elements of a photograph to work together to create a good photograph. And that's where the guidelines for compostion are helpful. I use the term guidelines and not rules because that's what they are, just guidelines. The photgraphic elements working together in that little square or rectangular frame determine the feeling and emotion that the work imparts. With same subject, location, and time of day, you can create photographs that are calm or dynamic, interesting or boring, exquisite or banal, and its often the composition that makes the difference. As a beginner, I can look at a photograph and appreciate that it works, but not have a clue as to why. Without the "why", how will I fashion a photograph that works the next time I'm out in the field and a backlit egret spreads it wings. So what if I'm not Edward Weston, Arthur Morris, or John Shaw. I go out into the field with great equipment, schmooze with the other photographers, follow the compositional guidelines, and come back with photographs that I'm proud to hang on my wall. And I have a great time to boot.

Gloria, Many thanks for the excellent article on composition. As a beginner, in this field of knowledge I realise I have a long way to go before "learning to walk". Here are two techniques that I sometimes use to improve on my compositions. 1. When possible, I always take about 2-3 photos of the same subject. What I change in these photographs is the camera angle (mostly), zoom factor (amount of subject in frame). 2. After getting the photos developed I crop the images using cheapo softwares such as paintbrush. I sometimes am able to "save" some "bad pictures" These are probably very common techniques used by a lot of people. But I decided to share them anyway in case there are other green horns like me out there. :)

Hi Gloria, I personally find that every one of the rules of photography I have ever seen is a simplification of the relationship between the human visual system and the physical system that records that image.

I find that when people talk about rules of any sort that they are often not incorporating the underlying human visual system in their understanding. I personally take a moderately technical view on photography. I rather abhor the use of the term rules in photography. I think your words in the comment above are of more value to your story line than the entire published article.

When thinking about the design of a photograph let’s not confuse the words “composition” and “composing.” Composition is simply a word that means "the arrangement of elements that make a whole." Composition is the “whole” part - the final result. The “arrangement” part is what we as photographers need to be concerned with if we want to produce visually pleasing images on a consistent basis. Every painting and every photograph has a composition. Every billboard sign, advertisement, yellow pages ad, cover of a magazine, architectural blueprint, etc. They're everywhere, both natural and crafted. Regardless of whether you neglect it or spend 10 hours perfecting it in your viewfinder, your composition is there and it’s not going away. You either address it when making the photograph or you don't. That decision is entirely up to the photographer. And yes, there are sometimes when a composition presents itself with no possible way of improving it. But how do you know when you’ve encountered that situation? -- Gloria Hopkins, February 7, 2003, http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/ghopkins/comp1/

This is just my opinion, but I think it should be a fundamental thread of your narrative. You want to tie this in to controlling the camera to manipulate what you show the eye. Photography is fundamentally about the human visual system and how to manipulate it to certain causes and effects. Thinking of things as tools to use and not rules to follow fosters far more creativity in my opinion.

Sean: I agree 100% with the basis of your post and with your last sentence. As I gain more experience with actual writing, I will be able to better organize my thoughts :) But for now, please note the last para of the article:

"If you keep composition in mind ... it will go from being a source of uncertainty to a powerful tool that will enable you to speak to the world through your images ... "

A *tool.* Exactly.

Thanks everyone - for reading, offering your thoughts and feedback and for taking the time to write!

These "rules" are for photographers who don't know what they are looking at when they see a photo - before or after it's taken. These are the 'paint-by-numbers' and 'stick-to-the-recipe' crowd.

They don't strive and they don't create. They reproduce some idea that they got from someone else. That is their goal and will forever be the limit of their accomplishment.

I would reccomend that photographers who aspire spend their time shooting and looking and looking and shooting. Time spent reading this stuff is time wasted.

Peter, your post says a lot about your understanding of image design. It irritates me to no end when a person sees the word "composition" and, without thinking assumes it means "follow rules." That's insane!

If you are trying to say that there is no need to consider things like light, placement of subject, focus, background and foreground before taking a photograph, then I would recommend that you avoid reading such articles in the future. Just shoot at whatever you find and hope it turns out well.

As far as telling photographers that they are wasting their time by reading something they feel could educate them in some way, well ... I feel that you are doing them a disservice. ANY time spent learning ANYthing is never time wasted.

Photographic composition can be compared to grammar.

Grammar can be understood as a set of codes that describe the way semantic elements (words) can be ordered in a given language. Consciously or not people use grammar to say what they want to say.

The description of those codes make the 'rules of grammar': describe, not prescribe!
But if anyone wants to learn a language, other than his native language, he needs a prescriptive grammar to learn the language (as I tried to do with English).

Of course, a language can be learnt without consciously learning the grammar, just be practising a lot, making mistakes and practise again. But for most people this is not the most efficient or successful way of learning a language.

---

The same applies to photography: there are a people who are so to speak born with a high level of esthetics and inner vision, who learn composition without rules. They just follow their vision.
There are countless people though working hard to learn the photographic language - and do so by learning rules.

Do the ones who don't have to learn by rules, have no rules? Yes they have - but they don't know themselves. Are they breaking the rules (or making new ones)? Yes sometimes, as did Sheakspeare or Joyce or whatever famous writer did.

As soon as you can see compositional rules as descriptive in stead of prescriptive you will find much use for them. At least you know what your breaking, if you follow your own vision!

Wim

Wim ... well said >>>> "those codes make the 'rules of grammar': describe, not prescribe!" ... I think your comment captures the spirit of the "rules". They assist us as we grow in our vision. Later, as we have developed a more naturally creative eye, these compositional descriptions can be used to self check our random flares of inspiration. Rules of composition are not a prescription.

Peter ... "I would reccomend that photographers who aspire spend their time shooting and looking and looking and shooting. Time spent reading this stuff is time wasted." ... Kinda' makes you wonder why your on Photo.net tonight? Perhaps you would kindly waste your time elsewhere.

Gloria ... you mentioned how this new generation of super sharp IS lenses help us create technically good images. I heard a speaker once say that image sharpness and vivid color are great "covers" for almost great compositions. Her point was that to assist her in her in visualizing through the lens compositions, she would make a practice of throwing the lens out of focus. She felt she could compose better based on the shapes and shades ... then refocus before pulling the trigger.

Different people see the world and photos differently.

I find the composition in Gloria's photo particularly displeasing. Technically it is well executed, even superbly so. But the composition leaves me wondering, what this posting is all about:

In particular I would like a lot less background on top and a little less background on the left side, as well as a little more subject matter to the right. A shifted frame to the lower right, so to speak, would be more pleasing and more convincing to my eyes and senses.

Now that would destroy the 2/3 construct that apparently justifies this as an (academically?) good composition. But I think the composition as is is rather poor. Consequently those rules of compose are clearly and often detrimental to their very aim. In my eyes and experience at least.

Sorry. But the picture could have been much better composed. And there would/could/should have been no dogma lecture on rule of thirds ...

Some people just think outside and beyond simple lines, 1/3 etc, Gloria, and some can see angles, balance, negative spaces and shapes and dynamics more clearly than others. We are all different. It is a nice picture, though.

I once read a quotation referring to love... but it makes a lot of sense here:

"Learning to take pictures (Love) is a lot like learning to play the piano... First you must play by the rules... then, you must forget the rules and learn to play from your heart!"

I don't, however, totally believe that one should forget the rules. By practicing good habits early, the rules will become second nature to you, the photographer, so when you start shooting with your heart, the fundamentals aren't lost.

I can't wait to get there! =p Art is passion... but you still gotta know what looks good and what doesn't!

First of all, kudos to Gloria for a well written article- it takes guts to express an opinion about composition on a photography forum (everybody's a genius). The way I've always looked at it was that you have to take several thousand bad photographs on the road to "knowing what you like", and by that I mean you reach that point where you can absolutely stand by your choices (photographically speaking). If somebody, (or everybody) doesn't like a particular photo, it's not because it's no good, it's just not to their taste (you must reach this level of self-belief). Confident composition is crucial to learning to be a better photographer, and for somone who is starting out, or trying to improve, a set of guidlines is no harm at all- you can only think "outside the box", by first learning to think inside the box. I read a quote recently by the British photographer Terence Donovan which struck me -"The magic of photography is metaphysical. What you see in the photograph isn't what you saw at the time. The real skill of photography is organised visual lying." I very much doubt if Gloria goes shooting with "composition maps" in her head, but her point was that if you don't know any better, or find yourself in a visual rut,then they're not a bad place to start. Also, damn the curmudgeons Gloria, your work is beautiful.

curmudgeons ?

What one reads at home and what one finds on the street are often world's apart. On the street, its the snap shot that counts. At home, rules and regulations. Just depends where you feel most comfortable, not so?

Many thanks to all who have offered their thoughts! It's interesting to read the positive and negative comments about the article and I have learned a tremendous amount from your feedback. What's more fascinating to me is the broad range of sentiments regarding composition and what the word really means to you as photographers.

I look forward to sharing the next article which explains many composition terms and how they apply to photographers.

Many thanks! G

Gloria,

You made a comment about some photographers automatically thinking that composition refers to the "rules" of photography and how it shouldn't be. I think the reason why a lof of photographers refer to the type of composition you described as rules is because that's what was taught to them and what is still taught today to students aspiring to be photographers, correct? When in school, students learn rules not just for discipline, but what they are taught comes across as rules as well. "You have to do it 'this' way or you won't get the marks!" (Math, Literature, Science, Arts, etc.) I'm not saying that composition IS a set of rules, I'm just trying to explain why some photographers may feel it is.

Carl Root asserts that the rules of composition are not intuitive. He may be right but I think it is possible for photographers to assimilate the rules unconsciously. I have never thought of the rules of composition at any stage of the image-making process. I have been guided by a sense of the ‘rightness’ of the look of an image, and it has served me well since I started taking photos at the age of eighteen. As a life-long lover of the cinema I was exposed to the work of many great directors of photography (especially of the black and white school) and I suspect I learned many lessons in composition from them without being aware of it. I have tended to favour the use of twin lens 6x6 reflex cameras (usually Mamiya C3) which encourage compositon on the groundglass, as well as allowing sufficient leeway in fixing the composition with judicious cropping at the printing stage. I have occasionally been frustrated by the inability to achieve the best composition because I made insufficient allowance for the parallax error encountered with cameras such as the Mamiya C3…..I suspect that if someone asks to be taught the rules of composition, he or she is not a natural, and should try something else. I feel the same way when I am asked the secret of sucessful street photography – if you haven’t already gone out and done it by inclination, it’s not your field, and you are unlikely ever to succeed with it.

Hi FJ: You wrote "I think the reason why a lof of photographers refer to the type of composition you described as rules is because that's what was taught to them and what is still taught today to students aspiring to be photographers, correct?"

Yes, I agree. We are told that the bird shouldn't be centered, the background should be blurred, the subject needs to go on one of the powerpoints - the list goes on. Budding photographers hear this advice, follow it, get praised for their improvements and suddenly this advice has become a set of golden rules that, if followed, will produce successful images. This is when we get cookie-cutter images. Someone else's idea of a great shot.

G

Gloria…… Yours has been a thought-provoking article, and I look forward to the others. In my comment I might have given the impression that I had no time for the rules of composition. That is far from the case, it’s just that I never consciously use them when I take a photograph. I am inclined to think that their most valuable use is in the appreciation of images. When I wrote about my debt to famous cinematographers I forgot to mention another great influence –painters. I don’t know whether you intend to cover it in future articles, but I feel that the balancing of masses of tone is important just as much as the placement on that imaginary grid of thirds. This was brought home to me recently when I looked at some infra-red digital landscapes. They looked ‘unbalanced’ on account of a preponderance of very light tones in the wrong places. I suspect that the original landscape looked just fine in the photographer’s mind before he pressed the shutter, but he was unable to predict the appearance of his IR image.

Just a small comment about following 'rules' in art: as a learner I think the right way to go about it is to learn to master the rules, and then to break the rules. No doubt, if we are blessed with such talent as to develop great creative insight early, we should back ourselves. But for the rest of the people (and even for the great people, sometimes) it makes sense to follow this approach.

Badri

Hi David: Thanks for your second post and I'm glad the article got you thinking!

You wrote: " ... I don’t know whether you intend to cover it in future articles, but I feel that the balancing of masses of tone is important just as much as the placement on that imaginary grid of thirds. ..."

To answer your question: yes, balance will be covered, in more ways than you might imagine :) I'll discuss the balance of space, subjects, values, color, focal points, light and more. The balance of less obvious things like mood and action will also be discussed. I'm happy that you look forward to the other articles!

"With today's high-tech pro cameras and IS and VR lenses, learning to take perfectly sharp, expertly exposed photographs is a snap"

Gloria, I understand why you would open your writing with such a statement - to draw relative importance on your primary subject. But you're doing "expert" photography a bit of a disservice. Yes the technology inherent in photography makes it pretty damn easy to expose an acceptable image. However an expertly exposed image, in my mind, is one where the photographer can read light values and place the exposure point within the range of available light and gaurantee with only one exposure remaining that all the important values (relative to the end product) will be captured.

There's a complete discipline and art to exposure as well. It may mean nothing to the weekender willing to let his Coolpix auto meter and then send prints off to oFoto but those dedicated to photography as something more would do well to focus and master exposure as an integral component of the craft of photography.

I am quite frankly surprised that so many negative comments about the possible use of the (rules of thirds) as a compositional aid have been posted here! I read the above article and got entirely different information than most of you! The article that I read, seemed to be suggesting that a photographer think about various compositional elements when designing an image. To think about these elements you must first understand them! It seemed the rule of thirds was just an example of one compositional aid! Maybe I missed something! The following paragraph summed this article up very well, in my opinion!

"Many other maps discussing different highlights could be drawn for a single photograph. I recommend practicing at home with your own photographs. Studying compositions builds good design skills even though you are not actively designing the image. Seeing is half of the art of photography and this exercise will help you to recognize that prize-winning shot when you have it in your viewfinder. "

Studying compositional guidlines can only enhance a photographers ability to produce images that reflect this or choose to follow different ones, maybe even ones own! Too many people are quick to criticise others, even when their words may be helpful! Which this article certianly is! I know that my photography in fact needs all the help it can get!! So do my writing skills, the reason I'm practicing here! Chris Davidson

Ah,but in the eye of the beholder!!

Learn the rules! Then break them! ! That's a rule!!!

Not all of us have the natural sense of composition and the ability to arrange visual elements within an image to create the kind of work that Weston and Adams produced. Dare I say it but can those who knocked the value of mastering the basics of photographic composition expressed in this article say that they are photographers producing work equal to Weston or Adams? Perhaps Weston and Adams said those things to help us grow beyond the rules, but I think few of us have the natural ability to just forsake the rules. If you can create images that will stand the test of time such as Weston or Adams', then you are truely lucky! Each photographer's journey towards their photographic goals is traveled on thier own road. We shouldn't be so quick to put down what works or what might work for others even if it is not the best way for you. I think Gloria deserves the credit due her for taking the time to share with others what works for her in the hope that it might benefit those who read it.

I must agree with Tobias Kunze when it comes to art, which I consider photography to be, and the "rules" of it. I am one who has been behind a camera for a not small number of years, so it's difficult for me to say if the rule of thirds (for example) is "helpful", one way or another. Given a single shot, I typically don't compose by "rules" first, but rather by "how it feels" (what a thing to say, huh?). The alternative is to base your composition on "rules" and then break one or some to make the shot better. I suspect that most photographers probably drift from the latter to the former as they gain more experience in composing shots. In the end, I think I must say, yes, "rules" are worth having and teaching (but someone should invent a better word). Two examples:

I sometimes find myself trying to photograph something and really not knowing what to do. Usually I get something I like right of the bat, but sometimes I get stuck. Nothing really "feels right". This is when I go back to things like the rule of thirds. I try my subject at each cross-point. Then I flip portrait-landscape and try again at each of the four. Usually one of them will twig something and I'll say, ah, that's it, and then I have something to go on. From there I tweak any number of available variables, DOF, angle, even lens length (although this alters things quite drastically). Sometimes I just go a bit wide and imagine how I would crop the print, then adjust to match that in the viewfinder frame. After a bit, *snap*..., I have my shot.

On the other end of things, I recently went for a walk with a friend of mine and two cameras. The purpose was to try to show him what the rule of thirds is about. The routine went like this: stop, choose a subject and sit down, both of us attach an eye to a viewfinder for 5 minutes (= a while), I question my friend how he framed a particular scene/subject and why, (he answers), I then give my own answers. Based on my answer, he recomposes and looks at the "better" composition, then we talk about it. I say better because those were his words. A real newbie prefers his own "rule based composition" over his original.

When it comes to art, generally everyone is capable of looking at something and saying, "I like this", "I don't like that", or "I like this one better". The other way around is a different story. WHY does one like it better? Given some basic shapes and a place to put them (think childrens' building blocks in a shallow box), can everyone arrange them on their first try exactly how _they_ like it best? Probably not, but I bet a few could.. they have probably done it many times before. Many would likely choose others' compositions above their own, and probably quite a few would choose the ones the "experts" made. True, photography is a _little_ :) more complex than a child's toy, but basically my point is that I think there is a reason to learn and teach these so called "rules". In the end it just comes down to learning what makes a photo "taste better". Whether or not it happens to coincide with a "rule" really doesn't matter. Perhaps these "rules" should be viewed more like "things many great photos have in common". They're good starting places, for learning photography and for composing that tricky shot.

In mathematical terms, these "rules" could be seen as the prime factors, or prime numbers, of photography. If, _if_, 2 is the rule of thirds, 3 is "subject in focus", 5 is "background out of focus", now compose a '6' shot (2*3), or a '30' shot. Oh, wait, what about a '105' shot (3*5*7)? "BUT, it doesn't follow the rule of thirds!". So. What about that great prize-winning '23' shot? It doesn't follow any of the previous rules. Make sense? (... anyone following me here..)? This even seems, in some strange way, to make reference to Tobias' comment about Beethoven..

I hope I didn't ramble too much. Maybe I should start writing articles instead of comments.. :|
I do look forward to some articles on balance, as this is what has probably the heaviest weight in my own "feels right" algorithm.

On a different note (and a different comment), I got to wondering about the comment Frank Uhlig made. The example composition in this article botheres me a bit too (although not in the same direction). Then it occured to me, it has to do with the box around the whole graphic. It throws off the balance of everything. I realized this after I looked again and tried to constrain my "visual viewport" to the photo alone. Presentation has a lot to do with whether someone will like a photo (just like how a photo is matted and framed, and even the wall it's hung on). I grabbed the image and added a lot of white padding (see attached image), and now I think I like it exactly as it is (although maybe just a tad cropped off the top.... ; ). Perhaps this is a lesson to learn?

Just put everything out of you mind and shoot, works 95% of the time.

This is a Definite Article!

Pardon me if somebody's already said this, but learning composition isn't a religion. You won't be cast into photo hell for neglecting the rules...I don't think that's what the author was suggesting.

Studying the rules of composition encourages us to think about how our art is composed. That's all.

Gloria, good job, though I wish you had gone further.

I am not a pro-photographer. When I compose a photograph, I DO think of the rule of thirds, as well as leading lines, "s" curves, framing, the golden mean, balance, and whatever else I failed to mention.

To a seasoned pro, it may be like riding a bicycle, you don't think about it, you just do it. To amatures or beginners, these rules are of paramount importance. I do believe that the difference between a photograph and a snapshot may very well be composition.

To a beginner, composing a photograph may amount to making sure the subject is in the middle of the frame! How does one compose a photograph without understanding composition? How many times have you seen a photograph taken in bright sunshine with people squinting with goulish eye sockets, when there is a beautiful shade tree in the background that would have been the ideal location to shoot the same photograph?

Beginners and amatures alike need to understand the general rules of composition, as well as light, exposure values, DOF, hyperfocal distances, and so forth. There are a lot of people who have been using cameras for 20+ years who are really still beginners.

I may say let's simplify the rules of composition in art. The rule "x" will apply. : This is the statement #1. The rule "Y" will apply, if the condition "A", "B", or "C" exists. This is the statement #2. Often if one artist uses statment #2, he may say " I break the rule, because I know the rule." There is another rule. The great artist breaks the old rule, and will invent the new rules. If an artist successfully establishes and invents new rules, and the artist becomes a great artist if, only if, the new rules dominate the century of the art. See the examples of Manet/Monet against the academy painting group. Manet/Monet (my favorite artists) broke the rule and invented the new rules, and started impressionism. So did Piccaso. He repeated the cycles of breaking/inventing. Photographic art has only less than two hundred year history compared to the two thousand year history of painting. Painting artists went trough the cycles of breaking/inventing debates many cycles. I consider that all the different styles of the Greek & Roman classic styles/mediaval art style/renaisance art style/romanticism/impressionism/abstract/cubism/Hundson Valley Landscape style/modernism, etc. went through wonderful debates, sometimes really nesty debates. Through these debates and different styles of art philosophy produced the different theory of beauty/aesthetics. And finally these debates produced wonderful art theories that will define what the works of art are. The photographic artists have not gone through the serious debates yet. These debates have just begun. Adams and friends began Group f/64, or aka the west coast school against the pictorialists, proponants of manipulation of photo. With the computer technology, the debates of manipulation have re-emerged last two decades. So here we have three basic questions for photographic artists/students/professionals/theorists/critics today: (1)the level of manipulation; (2)what is the work of photographic art? (3)How will you define the theory of art for your photo & artistic works? the question of composision is a small portion of "work of art" debates and theory of art. Or is it? It will depend on to the extend of how we develop the debates and each artists/theorists/critics contribute toward this argumentation and the develpment of photographic art. We may as well should know why we debate and what the goal of debate is. My opinion is that the lack of debates and the lack of great critics/great theorists of photo art delayed the full development while the painting artists went through many cycles of debates. So, members of photo.net are all contributing something toward photo artistic debates. This debate received some attention from the books or essays by Professor Rudolp Arnheim (book title: "Art and Visual Perception"), Professor R. Zakia (book title: "Perception and Imaging"), Man Ray, A. Adams, A. Stieglitz, S. Sontag, digital camera users, and the users of Adobe Photoshop program. You can add your favorite photographers. Andy Riew

I guess the obligatory credentials must come first: I've made a living making images since the late '60s and have taught photography on the college level (while continuing to sell my work and my creative services) since the late '70s. However my training and schooling was in the traditional art mediums of painting, drawing, sculpture and printmaking. So I'm not a newcomer to the concepts or discussion about composition. "Composition" and its so-called "rules" is about far more than the Rule of Thirds. It is about the arrangement of objects in space as bounded by the borders of an image. It is about visual balance and weight and how to direct the eye and heart of the viewer. But more than that it is the syntax from which the language of art speaks to the viewer.

In a few nearly universal areas and in lots of culturally induced aspects, compositional elements create a predictable and seldom varied response in the viewers. If our visual "words" are the specific image elements, our "grammar" is the use, for good or ill, of compositional guidelines. Whether we like it or not, are aware of it or not, are willfully ignorant of it or not, how we structure our images will generate a highyl predictable emotional, often completely below-the-conscious-level response in the viewer. Those elements have even entered (or been generated by) our spoken languages and some of the cliches that they contain.

It is ignorance and arrogance gone to seed that pretends such structure does not exist and the result, often, is imagery that creates an impact on, or response from, viewers that surprises the artist. Art is not an accident and it is not gibberish. It is a pure and profound communication albeit on a more visceral "felt" or "gut" level. Further, it is enhanced by the use of good "syntax" and impeded by poor or missing structure regardless of the author's pretenses to the contrary.

To be willingly ignorant of the meaning of one's words or phrases makes for a poor writer who can, at best, hope for the occasional, if unlikely, coincidental occurence of meaning. It is exactly the same with the creation of visual art. To claim the title of an "Artist" one should be a master of the arts. To create something by sheer luck is fortunate but simply, well, lucky. The artist worthy of the name, and this has been true pretty much across the media board, is one who can, time after time, nearly predictably, create works that speak to his or her intended viewers... and who knows enough to throw the failures away just as the author knows when to through the bad page away.

But having said that, I have always felt it was a mistake to use the term "Rules." They are safe and predictably successful starting points in the visual conversation. Some people adhere closely to those "rules" and write breathtaking phrases; others turn the rules on their heads and move the work to a new plane entirely. But that latter group knows the rules and consquently knows the results, and USES the results of playing with them purposefully and consciously. If you know what a rule generates, then you also know what it does not and what breaking it does. However if you work in ignorance of the structure that provides, at least, a starting and commonly understood response, then the image that ends up working is a fluke, and more often the results are those images that are visual gibberish.

If someone intuitively grasps the structure, like a musician with perfect pitch, they may be unaware of the specifics of the underlying structure but they still use it. It has been my experience with students and colleagues that the majority of those who insist that the guides and "rules" are all bogus and they never use them are, more often than not, simply trying to rationalize a failed image or defend one of those flukes. That there are exceptions is undeniable, but they remain simply exceptions. Or, worse, they are instructors who want to guarantee their students' work cannot compete with their own.

So I would encourage readers, as I do my students, to study the rules as a way of gaining an understanding of the syntax that lets the artist generate predictable responses in their viewers. That study and those rules predate photography and have been around pretty much since the caves of Lascaux. Art did not start with photography and two dimensional design neither started nor ended with it. We work in a medium with rich precedents and we can either stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before and strive to reach even higher, or we can stay on the ground, reinvent our wheels over and over, and then wonder why the rest of the artistic community refuses to take us seriously and laughs at our pretenses.

I think Gloria's article is well thought-out and a great starting place. Whether a reader uses it as a stepping stone to honing their own creative expression or poo-poos it to their creative detriment is pretty much up to them. For myself, I would say "Thank you, Gloria" for starting a great topic of discussion.

David

Photography is an art and there are rules and there are no rules. To a beginner, the rules of composition and techniques help understand the art better. As we keep doing it, we break the rules and go beyond in creating wonderful piece of art.

I enjoyed Gloria's piece on composition. To say rules are not necessary is not quiet right.

speaking historically, the very vast majority of artists who endure--and i'm not talking 100 years, here--are those for whom rules, structures, parameters, and models were not restrictions on their creativity, but sources for it. the god of creativity and the devil of anarchy are a Janus: and in this "modern" age, with its ethics and aesthetics of "excuse", impulse, contempt for tradition, and denial of standard, it is not at all exceptional that those who champion the creed should likewise sacrifice to this two-faced deity. mr. weston may or may not have differed to the law of gravity when he went a-walking; but mr. weston certainly would not have walked very far without that law everywhere and consistently in effect. the same is true of composition. some of the confusion about composition arises when we mistake it for an identity with a single ordering principle, say, the rule of thirds, or the golden mean. the word literally means "placed with, or put together with", and any ordering necessarily indicates a compositing principle. for the greeks, the discoveries of the mean, and the relationship of parts to the frame (the golden mean applied to all possible orientations within a rectangle is the rule of thirds/ninths) were liberating: praxateles could concentrate his artistic efforts less on individual elements of a work, and more on their unity. a similar emancipation occurred to the renaissance artist with the rules and relations discovered in perspective. now the compositing principle of thirds not only applied to the frame and the two dimensional disposition of parts within it, those thirds were placed in a depth of field as well. mozart, who was arguably the greatest musician who ever lived, certainly found within the rules of classical tonal arrangement no impediment to transcendental and unique musicality; and i find it more than coincidental that there accompanies the simplification of musical composition that has occurred since the classical period fewer and fewer great musical talents. the same is true in the visual arts, one may like cubism--some folks eat kidneys in pies--but that it is technically inferior to a painting by rembrandt is obvious. much is made of the constraints of rules, not only in aesthetics, but in our daily lives. we hold it as a divinely bestowed privilege that our behavior is somehow born exempt from any standard; asked to define democracy, not only the man in the street, but the theorist replies, license, and means thereby freedom from any censorial authority. compare this attitude of license, and the democrats who shout about it today, with not only the attitudes of men who created our democratic states, but their behavior patterns as well. it is no great wonder that by democratics we have come to think that dictatorship in the name of it is the only fitting evolution. the founders were without doubt about the need for governed behavior: they merely believed that self government was preferable to being governed by someone else. what we mean by it today, is no governmental regularity whatsoever. so, what i am pointing at is the spirit of the age, the drunken self absorption of dionysus, energy erupting from every pore, like a nuclear event, but increasingly without bound or direction; and what this means for our aesthetics when we have that type of spirit. the original "moderns"--an interesting etymology to this word, too!--were tired of rules, rules had been mined and become hackneyed; even the mildest of talents could express themselves competently simply by applying them faithfully. so the rather unique solution to the puzzle was, abandon rules! behold two obnoxious noses and eyes in the back of one's head! and so on. perhaps to folks who consitutionally reject any rule this is understandable; but can it produce artifacts that speak to all men at all times? no, i don't think so; and without THAT parameter, greatness is hardly apt to be developed. for it is an easy thing to flaunt the rules that exist, and call it "art"; it is another thing entirely to find new and binding rules, and allow oneself to be used by them. and perhaps this is the final truth of compositional rules: one promotes, in bowing before them, at least the fundamental attitude of selflessness so essential to the creation of a work of art. after all, it is not I that creates, is it?

Man, you guys sure like to chatter.

ART...I would like to suggest that - composition - content - position - or any of the rest of it - no matter WHAT - is in the eye of the creator of such...and the interpretation of same by ALL future viewers is that which makes ANY particular piece "ART" - irrespective of the idea that the original creator had in mind at the time of its creation... ...either it communicates that original idea or vision - or it does not... When an image - whether photograph - painting - article - billboard - tv commercial, or whatever - succeeds ... it succeeds - and the creator of such is vindicated. The ART of it all is so personal at the moment of its inception - that the only possible avaialability - IS - interpretation...if that interpretation is popular - in real time or on down the road - conditions the guage of its success as ART. And then there IS the inexplicapable twist that is and always will be --- genius...for that - no forum exists.

To Gloria Hopkins and David King

OK, credentials. Concerned with fine art, design and photography for over 35 years. But for a few handicaps this might have been a continuous professional involvement but instead it has been on-and-off. Further, for the greater part of my life my specialisation has been sculpture. Gloria, this is a neat and well-illustrated article of useful points appropriate as an introduction to an absolute beginner. I think you're on the ball here and would do well, (very well) to write further because you are articulate and able to illustrate and simplify the details for your reader. What you have written is what I learned at school from a rather insightful art teacher when I was 15. Other teachers I've come across, (of drawing, sculpture, and photography) have reiterated the main ideas from time to time, and I have passed on the same to my students.

David, I like the analogies you draw here, and would suggest that you have written an excellent 'advanced' level text :-)

Composition is rhythm, visual rhythm. Rhythm is intuitive in so far as it is a biological response to wavelengths, but it can be picked up by exposure to good influences - it can be learned, though it is often easier to absorb than to study. Rules are intellectual simplifications, and as such are not intuitive. They can be learned with our intellectual faculties, though their application is by no means a simple matter. The analogy of the concert musician who cannot improvise has already been drawn - it is a valid one. Likewise, it's easy to imagine a great steel-drum player who would have some problem with an orchestral timpani part. Both are accomplished musicians and masters of their own language, but should we exercise some kind of 'cultural supremacy' and say that one is 'better' than the other? If we do, in my opinion, we only show our own personal limitations.

I sometimes quote David Smith, (the sculptor) who taught that "there are no rules in art." It's a glib statement, and perhaps even a little cynical, as he had studied the Renaissance period in depth ... and then Edward Weston's statement, "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." They are right, but these statements probably do not come from the beginning of their careers! We can make rules and use them as guidelines for as long as we need them, but they can certainly get in the way of creativity if one applies only the rules and forgets where they come from.

The poetic form of the sonnet has 'rules' of structure, (or for that matter the constraints of medal design) but these rules act as a framework within which the artist can explore. And in music, if you continuously break out of the tempo you no longer have a tempo at all. Ditto visual composition, you either have a composition, or you don't. You have a kind of chaos which may or may not be interesting. To paraphrase one teacher, "You can be eclectic, but if you don't know what you are doing you are simply confused." However, there is a great danger in criticism if the critiquer is unable to recognise evolutionary cross-fertilization when it occurs. If we had stuck rigidly to the rules of Rhythm & Blues and Gospel, then Soul music would never have emerged.

Likewise with photography as much as any other visual art we use a language of rhythm in our structuring of a composition, and we aim to become as articulate as we can by melding the languages we can understand with the languages we can express. Simple songs use only a major scale, but there are the minor scales as well ... visual perspective may be single point and mathematical, or ontological and difuse. It is not so much the 'rules' that will help a photographer to improve, but the development of their language.

For starters, I am as green as they come. And I haven't read all the posts - scanned few for a basic understanding [that's what us lawyers do :-)]. My 2cents is the following (and I'm sure someone would have given the bicycle scenario): It's not that you later don't think about balance etc. when riding, it's more that you must be able to ride properly, before you start riding backwards, your feet on the handles etc.

I'm having trouble at this stage with my photography. I understand the basics of composition etc. But it's just plain ordinary, and I'm not sure how to proceed. By breaking the rules? By forcing myself to see something different? Tilting the camera, my head, my brain? I just don't know.

My point being: If you can't ride properly, you are most probably going to make a fool of yourself by trying to ride improperly.

So I need to know the rules/guidelines, to be able to not follow them in a way that it looks like I knew what it was, and deliberately didn't follow it - and it all came out great. Otherwise I'm going to look like the village idiot. Enough said, thanks for the opportunity. JH

I think that a lot of the contemptuous abandonment of any and all rules has led to the disaster known as "modern art". Some of modern art is great -- some of the cubism is mathematically interesting, if sophisticated enough; Calder's mobils are interesting, etc -- but a lot of it is just total junk. A blue square, a red square -- these are displayed in museums as art masterpieces. So-too are structures made out of shoes, and various other hideous things; i.e., splatterings on a piece of paper (plop art in the negative sense). To be sure, the artist expressing his feelings may be interesting, but it has to actually connect with people, otherwise it's just noise. Da Vinci actively studied the mathematics of art.

I would take MC Escher over Picasso any day in terms of the the quality of his work.

For my pennyworth I want to say here and now that there is no such thing as 'Inner vision' or any other such wooly-headed concept. At least it is not what is responsible for an artists abilities.

Such a bold statement requires some explanation.

The notion that certain 'gifted' individuals can ignore the rules or do not learn them in some way is something of a fallacy. It is clear that what makes the individual 'talented' is an understanding of compostion learned from observation, (That is looking at other peoples pictures.) and experiment (Looking at your own pictures.) It is an apptitude for learning how a composition works and applying what is learned effectively, that is what we commonly refer to as a 'talent'.

I can't think of a single instance of a photographer or painter who did not start out by looking at pictures and deciding that that is what they wanted to do. How much and how genuine that desire is is as much to do with it as any innate ability. If learning some formal rules helps them achive their goal then that is precisely what they will do.

A great many classical great masters clearly used 'compostioinal rules' to arrive at a layout for their paintings, so why not the modern photographer?

What is more to the point, is that these rules are more about helping the artist/photographer to look rather than just to see. When you learn to look, you learn a lot more than just how to look, in exactly the same way as when you learn to read, you learn a lot more than just how to read. You also learn from what you are reading.

No art is produced in a vaccum without reference to earlier works. To claim otherwise to profess a profound misunderstanding of the way human beings work. We all learn from each other, and we all communicate with each other. To do that well, we have evolved means of communication, only one of which is the spoken word. Images in the form of art are one of these modes of communication.

Spoken language has a rules of grammar, and syntax that are based on a common set of 'hard wired' concepts, otherwise we could never learn to speak, Art has rules of grammar and syntax too, and these are also based on the internal workings of the brain.

The details of a particular language are partly cultural, and partly due to the fact that many grammars and syntax's are equally valid, and so we get differnt langauges. That is we evolve differnt cultural variations of speech. In art too we can see cultural variation. Oriental clasical painting for instance while recognisable as art, looks quite differnt from western clasical painting.

So it is quite clear that art is learned as much as it is innate.

But, and here's the key. Some writers are better than others, they have a 'natural talent' but they still need to learn the rules of the language they write in, and all benifit from more advanced rules of writing, such as avoidance of inandvertant repetition, and what effect deliberate repetition of a word or phrase might have. Knowing these rules will not in themselves make you a great author, but with these tools at your disposal, when you read a book, you are no longer reading the words, or even the story, but how and why the author chose those particular words. You begin to understand how good writing works.

The same applies to creation of an image. It matters not how great the 'talent' the syntax and grammar of the language of images has to be learned. Even those who are largely self-taught can benefit from a formal eductaion in these techniques. Then when you look at a picture you begin to understand how it works. Understanding those rules, won't make you a great photographer, but you will begin to understand how good photography works.

Terms such as 'inner vision' and the like are most often used by those wo have little or no understanding of art, primarily (I think) because in reality they have no interest in it. But he cultural qudos associated with being 'knowledgable' about 'art' is a great incentive to fake it. The fallacy of special 'inner vision' which is the exclusive estate of the artist, is an effective tool for mystifying the whole subject. It makes the artist into some kind of superhuman, posessing a godlike power inaccssible to mere mortals.

To put it another way, we are all artists to some degree. All (Normal!) human beings are born that way. Some of us are better at it than others, mainly because they like it enough to take the time to learn it. Those with the a greater desire to learn and an aptitude for that particular subject will be better students, that's all.

There is no special 'inner vision'. We all have that!

So go and learn these 'rules'. They do not tell you what to photograph, or even how you want to photograph it, it just provides some rules of grammar so you can understand and express yourself more clearly.

That's what's important.

I knew about the rule of thirds but this helped drive it home. Clear and concise, thank you.