• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Can one have a picture that works brilliantly when the composition doesn't?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Michael A. Smith proposes a strict view of composition in their fine series of B&W photographs. Composition in those pictures trumps subject matter. Removing one element in these engaging pictures breaks the spell. See the thread and post # 51, in particular, here.

This idea of the critical place of composition does, I admit seem self evident, as most pictures of interesting subjects turn out to have no life of their own beyond the moment unless they have some value a mementos or some remarkable event.

I'd ask you all to consider this. Can the subject itself is be dominant and engaging that defects in structure of the picture get swept away as irrelevant?

Here's the challenge: Can you come up with museum quality collected prints of major photographers where composition is faulty but the picture itself works brilliantly and will, likely as not, outlast us?

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I've asked about the absolute necessity for great composition without serious flaws, but what about other attributes we consider sacrosanct such as harmony or giving pleasure?



So, putting aside pictures valued for

  • Just their unique special documentary value, something unique and rare , or news such as an assassination, great act of cruelty or a disaster and the like, what features of photographs are absolutely essential to make their way to the museums and collections people value so much.

  • Simply being made by some public figure such as Madonna, Elvis or Putin


What rules can be broken and still have a picture that's destined to live beyond us? Do you have examples of such pictures that still rise above the rest?


Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I'd ask you all to consider this. Can the subject itself is be dominant and engaging that defects in structure of the picture get swept away as irrelevant?

Here's the challenge: Can you come up with museum quality collected prints of major photographers where composition is faulty but the picture itself works brilliantly and will, likely as not, outlast us?

Here is the challenge: define a composition which is "faulty".

I think that you will find out that your underlying proposition is undecidable (in the mathematical sense, i.e.: cannot be proven right or wrong). If the picture works brilliantly, to the point that the print is "museum quality of a major photographer", then the composition cannot be found to be faulty.
 

Mark Hampton

New member
Here is the challenge: define a composition which is "faulty".

I think that you will find out that your underlying proposition is undecidable (in the mathematical sense, i.e.: cannot be proven right or wrong). If the picture works brilliantly, to the point that the print is "museum quality of a major photographer", then the composition cannot be found to be faulty.

I think Jerome is correct in this respect.

a couple of other points -

what is composition in relation to a photographic image - if there is such a thing we would need to define what it is to get to what it is not?

an avenue on this is may be how a work has been put together to support the subject/intent of the work.

and what is museum quality in relation to a photographic image - I guess you may mean well known or collected work - a museum is a place where mostly dead things are stored - a gallery may be more meaningful?

cheers
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Here is the challenge: define a composition which is "faulty".

Jerome,

That's hard, but let's say that many people experienced in photography find the picture unbalanced in composition but the meaning, pattern or other esthetics of the picture so dominate one's senses that the obvious lack of balance does not bring the picture to its knees.

Remember, that Michael A. Smith looks at composition independent of content and meaning. In his system then, balanced lines and marks, (however that's arrived at and judged) is dominant and critical. However, if the picture is designed based on beauty, conflict, empathy, passion or some other strong human feeling, then I wonder whether pictures can't succeed even should the composition be generally agreed to be wanting.

I think that you will find out that your underlying proposition is undecidable (in the mathematical sense, i.e.: cannot be proven right or wrong). If the picture works brilliantly, to the point that the print is "museum quality of a major photographer", then the composition cannot be found to be faulty.

Well, that could be so but not necessarily. I feel that a pressing and captivating set of elements in an image, despite hardly optimum arrangement, could still excel as a photograph. The best approach, I think is to hunt for possible examples where content and composition are obviously out of match in quality.

Asher
 

John Wolf

New member
Here's the challenge: Can you come up with museum quality collected prints of major photographers where composition is faulty but the picture itself works brilliantly and will, likely as not, outlast us?

Asher

I'll be interested to see if anyone comes up with examples. I suspect no one will be able to. If the photograph made it to a museum wall, part of the the reason will always be its composition, in my view.

Show any successful photo and someone will be able to make a case that composition contributes to its success, even if that composition does not follow the so-called rules of composition. Which is another way of saying that visual brilliance and engaging composition are probably inseparable.

John
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Show any successful photo and someone will be able to make a case that composition contributes to its success, even if that composition does not follow the so-called rules of composition. Which is another way of saying that visual brilliance and engaging composition are probably inseparable.

John

Not on a museum wall, but here's a stellar photograph that has less than wonderful composition! I've stuck my neck out, but I just think that perhaps content and human values can indeed trump mere structural composition alone.

Asher
 

John Wolf

New member
Gee, Asher, Michael's photo seems to me to work only BECAUSE of its composition.

Even though the photographer was not deliberate in composing it, the fact that it excludes whatever it is everyone is photographing, truncates the people, utilizes the lower extreme of the frame, and shows only cameras, adds to its strength. That unusual organization is the first thing that grabbed me. The reflection content became apparent only later. It seems to me that without those compositional factors it would have been just another snapshot.

As an exercise, I once shot a project where my conscious focus was only the edges of the frame. It seems to me that Michael's pictures speaks the same language.


L1001684.jpg
 

Rachel McLain

New member
Here is the challenge: define a composition which is "faulty".

I think that you will find out that your underlying proposition is undecidable (in the mathematical sense, i.e.: cannot be proven right or wrong). If the picture works brilliantly, to the point that the print is "museum quality of a major photographer", then the composition cannot be found to be faulty.

I absolutely agree. Sometimes you want to break the rules and that actually brings depth to your work that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Rach
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Gee, Asher, Michael's photo seems to me to work only BECAUSE of its composition.

You have stated composition but you refer to content!!

Even though the photographer was not deliberate in composing it, the fact that it excludes whatever it is everyone is photographing, truncates the people, utilizes the lower extreme of the frame, and shows only cameras, adds to its strength. That unusual organization is the first thing that grabbed me. The reflection content became apparent only later. It seems to me that without those compositional factors it would have been just another snapshot.

Forget about the substance and subjects. Just make this shapes and it doesn't work that well at all!

Your image follows :)

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I absolutely agree. Sometimes you want to break the rules and that actually brings depth to your work that wouldn't be there otherwise.

Rach

Forget the subject matter, shut look at the shapes in B&W. Fill them in. Does that pattern work. If not, perhaps the composition itself is underwhelming!

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
As an exercise, I once shot a project where my conscious focus was only the edges of the frame. It seems to me that Michael's pictures speaks the same language.


L1001684.jpg

I'd like to think about this a while. This is so cerebral like s David Mamot play, a slice of life and not the entire story.

Asher
 

Mark Hampton

New member
I think Jerome is correct in this respect.

a couple of other points -

what is composition in relation to a photographic image - if there is such a thing we would need to define what it is to get to what it is not?

an avenue on this is may be how a work has been put together to support the subject/intent of the work.

and what is museum quality in relation to a photographic image - I guess you may mean well known or collected work - a museum is a place where mostly dead things are stored - a gallery may be more meaningful?

cheers

Mark,

I think you have made a valid point - like most simple things it has been overlooked - without a working definition of composition - as it applies to the act of making a photograph (traditional or digital be it print or screen based) - there cannot be a discourse.

As photography is mostly a found image process based on editing from lesser information in each copy where exactly is the composition.

Is its based in an imagined image burned to sensor or film - the (not) still image of a print or screen (remember they do change over time) or in the markers mind - or in the viewers mind.

as there is no real stasis - no real still image - a composition can only be guessed at the point of exposure - the underling structure of the image must be the structure that holds the image - anything else is painted by the viewer so they may read - i would therefore put forth that a composition is the act of viewing an image.

what this thread is really about is how we want our work / images to be read - what can we do in editing (from burn to print) to push the subject. This is what makes a work a success.

yours

Deka
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I'll leave this one alone, Asher. You. Might be heading down a dead end path with a bottomless black hole at the end into which you will fall and never be heard of again. Either that or something worse; a continuous line of verbals that take you to a similar place.
There still seems to be a need here to 'define' the concept and then give it qualities which are inconsistent, variable and subjective. There are many other reasons why a photo may be included in a museum or gallery other than composition, as you well know. Any judgment on whether the photo's composition is good or bad, and keep in mind, it is a judgement, may not necessarily influence it's placement.
In the time I have been teaching such stuff I have seen the 'rules' of engagement concerning composition change dramatically, bringing me to the conclusion that there is no good and bad and if the photo does what it intended to do then it's composition is appropriate.
I know some of us might get a bit anal about composition and content at times but surely the photo is the thing and taking it as a whole is a better approach than dismantling it to see if it obeys some set of rules.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Any judgment on whether the photo's composition is good or bad, and keep in mind, it is a judgement, may not necessarily influence it's placement.

True!


In the time I have been teaching such stuff I have seen the 'rules' of engagement concerning composition change dramatically, bringing me to the conclusion that there is no good and bad and if the photo does what it intended to do then it's composition is appropriate.

I'd offer adequate or sufficient instead of appropriate. The latter signifies that the artist by his or her very nature makes appropriate decisions for their own art. They make decisions that are sufficient so as not to kill their work. The composition only has to be good enough not to suffocate the photograph in some way.

I've no wish to see perfect composition, whatever that might be, but I suspect it likely might end up with art that's frigid and sterile. I like faults in things and gaps in meaning. That's where the air and light comes in!

I'm just intrigued by Michael and Paula's well-made pictures that, as he explains, (and it appears true to me), need every element or mark to keep them intact! So I asked myself if this is a general requirement of picture making? Or, could it be that Michael and Paula both uniquely make their photographs absolutely dependent on structure, independent of content so that if structure is altered one iota, the picture loses it's life. So that's where my questions arose.

I just wondered whether other folk, equally successful, might be infusing more of evocative subject matter and feelings into the matrix of the picture, such that every single mark is not so precious and irreplaceable.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I'm just intrigued by Michael and Paula's well-made pictures that, as he explains, (and it appears true to me), need every element or mark to keep them intact! So I asked myself if this is a general requirement of picture making?


Then your question becomes: "can I find a picture in a museum which will work just as well or better if I remove an element or change its place?". Formulating the question in this way avoids the problem with the definition of composition, rules of composition, etc...

It also makes clear that the undertaking is trying to improve on art pieces which hang in museum, which many people would consider rather pretentious, I'm afraid. As in "I would prefer if Mona Lisa was not smiling".
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jerome,

Who even mentioned altering anyone's work? If your framing of a question would lead to that, then obviously the framing is in error! We're merely dealing with an assertion that removing one element can usually destroy a well-composed picture, (in that structure and not content controls the majority of a pictures success), and so removal of an element deflates our visual enjoyment. It's that assertion we're testing.

Then your question becomes: "can I find a picture in a museum which will work just as well or better if I remove an element or change its place?". Formulating the question in this way avoids the problem with the definition of composition, rules of composition, etc...

I'd never venture to alter anything published! That would be ridiculous.

It also makes clear that the undertaking is trying to improve on art pieces which hang in museum, which many people would consider rather pretentious, I'm afraid. As in "I would prefer if Mona Lisa was not smiling".


You might make that connection of "trying to improve art prices", I have no idea where you'd get that from, LOL! I'm simply asking whether or not Michael and Paula's true and tested experience is just unique to their work or has important implications for all, (or even just "many"), photographs that are considered masterful. ,

In other words, I find their work very impressive and the concept of structure and composition being made without resort to content of picture, but just the weights of the marks. It seems to have value and relevance for their photographs. I'm interested in to what extent this is also true of other works accepted as exceptionally well made.

Reread my emphasis in Courier above.

I thought I posed a simple enough question with important ramifications. Obviously, I have been unsuccessful in transmitting my intent. Back to school I guess!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I can't figure out why anyone would want to alter someone's photo, good or bad. Is it notes single to simply accept a photo for what it is, a photo, and not create some competition, ego chasing exercise to change it, make it better, like it more.
Anyone who starts off a conversation about someone else's image by saying something as inane as 'I would prefer...' is not thinking about the photo but themselves.
I'm sure Michael and Paula have their own reasons for being so anal about their composition. Others less so might faulted in our compositional style suggesting we 'break the rules' or go against convention. These are all very judgmental points of view and have no baring on the photo as an entity. This leaves me wondering if this conversation was instigated just for the discourse and not for the photo since no other photos have been presented. And if others were, would we discuss the photo or our own values or perceptions of what is good or bad.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I can't figure out why anyone would want to alter someone's photo, good or bad.

I often try the exercise suggested by Michael and Paula, hiding parts of a picture or trying diverse crops. I do that on my pictures to see how they can be improved. When I do it on someone else's picture, I am not necessarily trying to improve on their work, but just trying to find out what elements are essential to understand how their composition works.
I have the illusion that, by seeing how others compose their pictures, maybe I could learn how to improve my compositions.
I believe that the only other option is to be a genius and have an innate gift for composition. Do you or do you also try to learn from others? If you learn from others how do you do it?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I often try the exercise suggested by Michael and Paula, hiding parts of a picture or trying diverse crops. I do that on my pictures to see how they can be improved. When I do it on someone else's picture, I am not necessarily trying to improve on their work, but just trying to find out what elements are essential to understand how their composition works.
I have the illusion that, by seeing how others compose their pictures, maybe I could learn how to improve my compositions.

Well said, Jerome,

I believe that the only other option is to be a genius and have an innate gift for composition. Do you or do you also try to learn from others? If you learn from others how do you do it?

Some photographers, I have found most instructive, not only by studying the photographs, content, feelings and structure. Surprisingly, perhaps, it's their way of relating to the subjects they choose and their social interactions that are most helpful to understand. Not of course that one can duplicate that, even if one wished.

I like Bart's quote, "If you do what you did, you'll get what you got" Somehow, the photographers way of life influences their pictures and results in some of the essential nature of the picture. We can enjoy and admire that, but likely as not, can't tread in that person's shoes unless one's personality allows such a path.

Edward Weston seems to have been anal to the nth in setting up compositions for still life. Jock Storges, actually embedded himself in the community and claims he doesn't pose his subjects, the nude girls growing up in the naturalist lifestyle. He knows each one of them on a close personal basis and that relationship continues as the girls mature and eventually grow up and have children of their own. Richard Learoyd, the British photographer, (with his full room camera and 7 foot high Cibachromes direct positives), must position his subjects precisely, (women found on his walks, buying vegetables or the like. He never socializes with them, knows little about them but has to be meticulous to even get them in the thin DOF of the 760mm lens that's set before to gather the light from 30,000 watt seconds of flash.

So for me, it's learning from the books, prints and, (if I have the very rare chance), even interviewing the photographer with questions that relate to their work I've already studied. I come to learn what's possible with different mental approaches as well as technique and style. I hope by this education, that some of the methods of working I come across might apply to my own personality, needs, capabilities and interests.. That's why I started this discussion.

Asher
 

Rachel McLain

New member
Forget the subject matter, shut look at the shapes in B&W. Fill them in. Does that pattern work. If not, perhaps the composition itself is underwhelming!

Asher

I feel like I'm in my philosophy discussion group! :)

I don't think you can separate it out that way. For me personally, anyway, it's not a piece or part that makes a photo or work of art wonderful, it's the whole. I've certainly seem some things that had wonderful pieces or parts, but the whole was somehow lacking. Composition is only a piece of the whole--certainly it's an important piece, but it's not all that makes a piece work brilliantly.

Rach
 

Mark Hampton

New member
I feel like I'm in my philosophy discussion group! :)

I don't think you can separate it out that way. For me personally, anyway, it's not a piece or part that makes a photo or work of art wonderful, it's the whole. I've certainly seem some things that had wonderful pieces or parts, but the whole was somehow lacking. Composition is only a piece of the whole--certainly it's an important piece, but it's not all that makes a piece work brilliantly.

Rach

Rachel,

again that is the point - composition (what ever that is) cannot be separated from subject.... even if the subject is just lines and space it is still the subject.....

even fecken minimalist kent that - and they were uber anal

Jerome,

by adding a finger or thumb - you are adding to an image not taking away.


oh and Jerome - you should be watching your team.... if they lose just put your thumb over the score.....

choo ahhh feck


marsbunny.jpg








.
 
Last edited:

Michael Nagel

Well-known member
Composition is only a piece of the whole--certainly it's an important piece, but it's not all that makes a piece work brilliantly.
This sums it up quite well for me.

My take on the discussion is:
Lean the rules, know how to apply them, but, know when and how to break them.
For moving things, the right moment is way more important than the composition.
For me the intellectual approach is one way, but is more important that the picture has to have the right feel for me. This is the case for my picture discussed in this thread.

On learning:
It is good to take other photographers as example and try to learn from their way to see the world.
There is one thing you cannot do: Adopt their way to see the world. These are still your eyes and this is your brain and your heart, so you have to use it your way.
For me, learning from my errors gives me a large amount of data to improve upon. Looking at pictures from others will show you, how they would have done it. Looking at pictures you took and did not succeed might open your eyes on how you could do it.

Personally I do not like to analyze a picture 'to death'. This takes away the mystery a picture can have...

Best regards,
Michael
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
it's their way of relating to the subjects they choose and their social interactions that are most helpful to understand.

Now, this is an explanation I had been looking for lately, but did not realize what I was looking for. Let me cite it again: "their way of relating to the subjects they choose and their social interactions".

Did you see the thread I posted about Laetitia Eskens?
 

Rachel McLain

New member
On learning:
It is good to take other photographers as example and try to learn from their way to see the world.
There is one thing you cannot do: Adopt their way to see the world. These are still your eyes and this is your brain and your heart, so you have to use it your way.

--snip--
Personally I do not like to analyze a picture 'to death'. This takes away the mystery a picture can have...

Yes to both of these. I have had several people ask me to teach them to see what I see. I can't do that. I can't even explain fully why I shoot some of the things I shoot. Some things just "call" to me for lack of a better way to put it.

And there is magic in a good photo or other work of art that simply cannot be analyzed. It just is. (In my opinion anyway!)

Rach
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Learning, teaching and doing are 3 very individualized processes. As a teacher it is required of me to accept that and work with it. Individualized programs for students is a part of that. That also requires of me to change my teaching strategies, quite often on the run. The result is an individual way of doing by the student. There are no 'rule' for any of this, just a considerable understanding of the psychology of people. For subjective subjects such as this there are no right and wrongs for the student, only different. It's up to the teacher to present the circumstances where the differences can be discovered and explored in conjunction with doing.
I cannot teach them to see like I see, just to appreciate the way they see the world and to record it for others. Using the photos of others helps some, not others. Changing the photos of others helps some, not others. Photographing helps them all. Doing seems to have the most profound impact. Looking at students work at the end of the day, whether it's a family snapshot, a blood cell, X-ray, ad for a car, a local car crash, landscape or something I don't even recognise, my mind dosn't venture into the world of composition at all. It looks at the wonder of doing and that one person has found their own way of showing us what the world looks like through their eyes.
I will obviously have my likes and dislikes but I need to put them aside when viewing the work of others. My interests are also different to theirs and I need to put them aside as well. I might have done it another way and yet again it's not my job to show how I might have done it but to give the student the opportunity and circumstances to be adventurous so they can find their own place.
We are not talking engineering or chemistry here. Mathematical precision can be used to explore the world but 1 + 1 may not equal 2 and the student needs to be ready and willing to accept that might be the case.
Finally, the presence or non presence of a photo in a gallery or museum doesn't make it a great photo. It might make it a valuable photo but many of the great photos are in your own collection, the ones you value above most things, those you would rescue in case of a fire or flood, the ones you show us here and share with your family and friends.
Everyone is right here.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Doing seems to have the most profound impact. Looking at students work at the end of the day, whether it's a family snapshot, a blood cell, X-ray, ad for a car, a local car crash, landscape or something I don't even recognise, my mind dosn't venture into the world of composition at all. It looks at the wonder of doing and that one person has found their own way of showing us what the world looks like through their eyes.


So being a teacher is essentially letting the student take many pictures and wondering at the way they perceived the world? I am sorry, but here I'll pull my "the emperor has no clothes" card. But, generally speaking, I never met a teacher who was the least bit interested to find out how I perceive the world, so maybe I am just jealous.
 
Top