Composition

Composition – “Arrangement of artistic parts so as to form a unified whole.” www.dictionary.com.

I am a believer in the “eye of the beholder” when reviewing photos. A composition that looks good to me, may not hit the mark for you. If you look at a photograph, whether one of your own or someone else’s and it brings some enjoyment, well, what more can you ask? Do you want to look at a photo for more than a few seconds, to know where it was taken, to visit that place (again), get a print for the wall; does it stir up memories, or do you want to take more shots like it? If any are true, then that is a good composition.

Of course, there are tried and tested rules to help in this task, but not ones to get too hung up on. As Edward Weston (http://www.edward-weston.com/) said, "Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." It is better to form your own opinions – to see that a clean, clutter free shot is more pleasing than one with distracting elements in it, or to recognize that a tilted horizon line is going to draw attention to itself and district from the image. Review your own images carefully and figure out why you like one over another, what works in a particular scene, and what doesn’t. Do the same with other peoples’ photos, both professionals and amateurs alike. If a photo grabs you as being a “10”, look to see what made it so. If it does nothing for you, why is that? Some of the reasons will be technical (blurred, poor depth of field, over-saturated, over-sharpened, etc), but leaving those aside, chances are the list you come up with will match most of the “rules”, albeit with your own weighting bias to them.

Side note: I apologize if this comes across as teacher to pupil and for presenting my own images as examples of good form. Both are far from the truth. I hang out at photosnapper.com to learn from others. I use my own photos simply because they are to hand. They are also not my rules, but well publicized ones, I merely show them with my own bias and experience.

The following is what I try to look for when deciding whether to take a photo at a particular scene, and then how I go about framing the shot. Beyond the first one, they are not in any particular order, nor do I consciously go through the list every time. Indeed, most of the time, I don’t know what will result in the most pleasing end result until I review the shots later. Digital allows some luxury of experimentation, taking multiple shots with different compositions of the same scene: some with foreground elements, some not; portrait or landscape mode; from different angles, etc. That’s ok; memory cards are cheap (relatively).

Why are you taking the photograph?

Apart from those shots that I just get flat-out lucky and everything comes together of its own accord, results typically happen when I have a conscious agenda in mind. “I am taking this picture of a lake because the boat is impressive against the perfectly blue sky; to catch my daughter just at the point of serving; the water is mirror-calm giving a great reflection, the white house sets off the height of those mountains….”

The shot above would be a good example of that. I wanted to show the stillness of a sunrise over Lake Superior. From there, it wasn’t hard to go for simple, focus on the sky, silhouette, no cluttering foreground. Of course, it took some tinkering to get the exposure as I wanted it and there were certainly a number along similar lines with the sun lower and then higher in the sky and at different vantage points. I also took many other shots that morning of different scenery, but that one was why I was up at 4:45am lugging tripod and all toward the shore.

I have found that when taking a photo, if I have a definitive outcome in mind, I have more chance of getting something I am happy with. Not just “I’ll take a picture of that boat”, but “I want to show the boat traveling at speed across the still water”. Then that helps to subconsciously frame the shot without too much sky, with the boat traveling into open water, and without distracting elements in the scene. Obvious perhaps, but when I do just go with “I’ll snap a picture of that boat”, with no extra thought as to Why, then more often than not, I’ll miss the tilted horizon, will stick the boat slap in the middle of the frame, and (sigh) catch the driver at precisely the right moment such that he has a tree growing directly from the top of his head.

Yes, it’s one of those “Visualize” moments; if I know why I am taking the shot and have an idea as to what I want to achieve, I find there’s more of a chance that it will come together. But, I hasten to add, enough of the touchy-feely stuff and onto some specifics…

Simplicity, no clutter

This ‘rule’ has been the hardest for me to get to grips with but I believe it has the biggest impact on my photo taking. It doesn’t necessarily mean complete isolation of the subject matter as in the butterfly shot above (which was taken with a shallow depth of field framed with a muddy field behind that turned into the nice brown backdrop). But it does mean simplifying the shot to what you are trying to show and isolating that as possible. A scene can certainly have multiple elements, as wide open vistas often do, but even then I look for a simpler message than trying to get many competing elements fighting for a viewer’s attention. Frame the shot to remove distracting elements, or use depth of field to fuzz out the background. A related aspect to this is in using contrast between elements to make the key ones stand out and not just smudge into one another.

Rule of thirds

For some reason, I fight against this one. It calls for math and specifics when we’re talking art and abstractions. It implies a formula can produce a great picture. Yet despite my reluctance to believe, it does seem to hold true. Your eye is naturally drawn to a point about two-thirds up a page, so placing key elements on the lines at a third of the way from the top and/or bottom and/or sides does provide a more pleasing impression because your brain has to work less to figure out what is going on. The lake shot above positions the sky and rocks at about the top and bottom third lines. The sunrise has the sun at the bottom left third. The butterfly above is positioned at about the top third line.

You can quickly go overboard on this, with rules of nines, diagonal placement and even those who bring in the golden ratio. But your brain, if like mine, will quickly implode, so I’m happy to stay with the rule of thirds

Diagonals are better than horizontals or verticals

A diagonal line leads the viewer deeper into the picture. They are seen to be more dynamic than static horizontal or vertical lines. And dynamic builds interest and a stronger connection to the viewer. They may be fairly subtle like the sunrise shot above with a diagonal formed from the boats and sun; to more explicit use of fences, roads, rivers and the like. The butterfly shot below was also, to my eye, more pleasing than similar shots with vertically or horizontally positioned butterflies.

Having said that diagonals are better, this doesn’t extend to those things which should be horizontal or vertical. More often than not, the horizon line is quickly distracting when sloping, for example, even only a fraction. Of course, post-processing can be used to remove those issues.

Foreground interest

When looking to photograph a scene, I typically try to include some foreground interest. Not only include it, but ensure that it is in focus, which typically means a large depth for field (smaller aperture, large f-stop), which in turn often (not always) means a tripod. It can give a sense of scale to the picture and provide some variety – it’s not just autumn colors, but a broken jetty with a beautiful backdrop. It is certainly not always required – and this shot worked as a reflections-off-the-water one as well, but certainly something I look for. Oh yes, wish that I could have taken the houses out in the above shot, but I couldn’t frame the shot with the jetty and avoid some houses.

Balance & Direction of Movement

The “don’t slap the subject in the middle” rule. I have a hard time following this one, often letting the center point auto-focus pick up the object and snapping away. Related to the rules of thirds, this one builds on the fact that asymmetrical is typically more pleasing than symmetrical. Unless you are going for a geometric effect, placing objects off-centre gives a greater dynamic to the picture. Your brain will infer movement; the movement will build realism; the realism will inspire a personal connection; the connection will have people offering you large sums of money for your work. One can dream.

Related to this is the balance of movement. If your subject is moving left to right, leave space for it on the right. Have the movement into and not out of the photograph. Otherwise it looks like you were just a little too slow taking the picture.

Side note; of course, there are always exceptions. Portraits are often centre frame for example.

Landscape or Portrait

Both portrait (vertical) shots and landscape (horizontal) clearly have their place, but using one or the other can change the overall effect of the photograph. When I was taking pictures of buffalo in the snow, most were horizontal shots to get the herd in, or for individuals because they are longer than tall. Yet my favorite of the batch was the vertical shot above. Only suggestion here is to experiment; try different orientations and see what happens. If you typically take landscape shots (because the camera is easier to handle that way), try putting it on end once in a while. Even for wide landscape vistas, I’ll often take a few vertical shots to give a sense of mountain height, or show the layers of flowers, fields, lakes, hills, etc. between my feet and the distant view.

Frame

It is sometimes useful to provide a natural frame for images such as a tree with overhanging branches leading you into the scene. The frame gives some indication of where the viewer (the photographer and then the person looking at the photo) is standing. A point of reference that increases the connection to the viewer by giving them a starting point to get into the photograph. Just as art work typically has a frame, so you can build a natural frame into the photograph itself.

Other thoughts

Don’t rely on post processing to crop and frame images. I used to rely on the Photoshop-crutch to make sloppy choices when framing shots. Rather than taking the time to fill the frame with what I wanted, I knew that I could snap-faster and crop later. Apart from wasting pixels, it goes against the “why am I taking this?” rule I started with above. If there’s extra stuff in the shot that doesn’t fit your “why”, try to take it out before pressing the button. Whether it is with a zoom, or shifting your feet to get the better shot. Clearly it is impossible to do this all of the time, but I have found that going in with this mindset has resulted (for me) with more keepers than before. A note of caution though that has bitten me more than once: be aware that what frames well at 4x6 may not work as well when blown up to 5x7 or 8x10 because of aspect ratio changes. I have had perfectly framed 4x6 out of the camera that we wanted to print at 8x10 and had to lose feet (or ears in another case) to make it fit. Not ideal. If there’s a chance of changing the aspect ratio of the print, give yourself a little breathing room for cropping.

About a year ago, I bought my first prime lens: a 50mm 1.4 for use in low light situations. What surprised me was that I found it a real help in framing shots. Or rather, the fixed focal length forced me to think much more about what I am taking, to use my feet and get the shot that I want rather than what zooming in and out gives me. Primes are not for everyone I understand, but I liked it enough to get a 150mm prime that I also find to be excellent. Partly because both lenses are super sharp, but more so because they force me to think more about what I am doing. I’d make a similar argument about using a tripod. Clearly it adds stability, but the extra hassle of setting up slows me down enough to make me think more about the composition, which typically yields better results than the flexibility of just being able to snap-snap-snap.

I suspect there are many more rules that govern good composition. But rules to guide, not to live by. Just as I am continually learning new aspects of the technical side to photography, I continue to look for new clues as to what will help make the image stand out. I suspect it is a long journey; but thankfully a fun one.

There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~Ansel Adams