Creativity Vs Rules: The Composition Paradox
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- Do you create photo compositions by 'the rules' or go purely on gut instinct?
Why is the photographer who does the opposite wrong?
A big thank you to Picdrop for sponsoring today's video.
Get your free trial of their excellent photosharing system here: www.picdrop.com/go/tpe
The last few spaces are available for Focus and Frame cohort - which starts May 1st: www.thephotographiceye.info/f...
I am excited to share a collection of captivating images captured by renowned photographers while adhering to a fair use policy. As an avid creator and a firm believer in promoting artistic expression, I have carefully curated these visuals to enhance the storytelling experience and enrich the content I present.
It's important to note that fair use allows for the limited use of copyrighted material without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder. In this context, I have utilized select images from famous photographers to analyze, critique, and educate, ultimately adding value and providing a unique perspective to my viewers.
Through this approach, I aim to celebrate and showcase the incredible talent and vision of these esteemed photographers while offering insightful commentary and fostering a deeper understanding of their work. I sincerely believe these images contribute to the overall discussion and appreciation of the art form while respecting the rights of the original creators.
I want to express my utmost gratitude to the photographers who have brought these magnificent visuals to life. I encourage you, as viewers, to explore their full portfolios and support their remarkable contributions to the world of photography.
Transcript 
Кино
The "rules" are interesting when trying to understand how or why a composition works, but I find them as useful as peanut butter when actually seeing something appealing to photograph.
actually I really like peanut butter, but I get your point. When I look at a scene, I don't ask myself what photographic rule works here, I ask myself how can I make this look better, I go by how does it make me feel.
composing an image is like composing a music
In the image you have to care of rythm, bass, melody, accompaniment, solo, so they fit best together and talks to the viewer your intention and feeling
In 1969, maybe ‘70, I took a photography class as a film student at UT Austin. I don’t remember the instructor’s name, or much else about that period of my life, really, but I’ve always remembered his only comment about composition: If you’re a person who considers where to put a stamp on an envelope in relation to the address, you have an innate feel for composition. There’s more to it than that, of course, but the fact that I’ve remembered that simple concept for half a century, and still accept it as accurate, tells me I got a lot out of that course.
The Post Office has a rule for that.
In a flurry of gear reviews (which, we love our gear lol) THIS channel keeps me grounded and in a creative mindset.
Please keep doing what you do! 📷😎👏🏻
Thanks Alex. I have my own composition method. I bring up an imagine in lightroom then cycle through the compositional aides until I find one that sorta-kinda fits and attempt to convince myself that's what I had in mind all along!
LMAO; we've all used that one 😉
That phrase you used, Alex... bending the rules gives your photography soul. So we'll put. Nailed it for me. It's why I get scoring out of 5 in a national competition from 3 judges, a 2, 5 and 3. This shows the image passes my pub test, I liked it enough and found it worthy, however it does not necessarily sit well to someone else's perspective.
Composition rules usually have one of three aims in mind.
1) Compensating for the loss of stereoscopic vision due to the viewer observing a 2D picture instead of the actual scene. Examples are the use of leading lines or winding S-curves. The same holds for red at the front, blue at the back or layering with varying degrees of haze.
Note: Further losses of not being on the scene are the sense of scale, the sound, the temperature and the smell.
2) Creation of harmony within the frame given by the picture format. This has to do with all sorts of balance. Examples are the rule of thirds or the very similar golden ratio. The same goes for symmetry with the subject in the center. Patterns and color harmony belong to this group.
3) Leading the viewer’s eye along a specific path within the picture. Usually from dark to bright. Not putting too much into the frame so that the viewer’s eye can actually find the subject. Framing is another device that can be applied.
These composition goals give rise to three questions.
1) Do we want a 3D-looking picture? Maybe not if it is a graphic for a poster.
2) Do we want a harmonious picture? Maybe not if the aim is to alarm the viewer. “Smoking may be hazardous to your health.”
3) Do we want the viewer’s eye to wander around in the picture? Maybe not if the picture is a small mug-shot for a passport.
The main thing is to know what you wish to express and how to go about it.
i find it interesting that you also bring up the reasoning behind taking the picture to begin with, because that too has great effect on how one would go about on the composition of a piece
Love your new "architecture details"! Great use of the square and color.
My first rule of composition would mostly be: Get all important elements INTO the frame - keep all other elements OUT.
“Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.”
Ansel Adams said: “The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant, immaterial.” And I'll go one step further and say that in my opinion these rules are actually harmful because they get in the way of developing creativity and Vision.
Bill Brandt: "Photographers should follow their own judgment, and not the fads and dictates of others. Photography is still a very new medium and everything is allowed and everything should be tried. And there are certainly no rules about the printing of a picture."
"The Code is more what you might call guidelines than actual rules" - Captain Barbossa, "Pirates of the Caribbean"
There always comes that moment when it is better to say "Hang the code and hang the rules" but of course the principles of composition are there for a reason too.
Learn, understand and then brake the rules…..😊. I am a very as it feels photographer. Your video connected with me in more than one way, thank you
Alex,
I think the key to understanding the “rules of composition” is to abandon the concept of “rules” and think of them as an attempt to understand what makes certain images more pleasing or interesting to the viewer. To me they are more an “observation” or an “explanation” than a “rule”.
At some point, after following the rules for a time, I turned off the grid lines on my display. A. I realized I was putting elements on those lines regardless of the impact. B. I know where the thirds are. Lastly, with out the lines, I’m more thoughtful about what elements are where and why they are there. Love the channel.
The rules of composition are a means of trying to quantify qualities. In other words, the rules of composition are an attempt to apply a scientific formula to aesthetics. It's a starting point, but not the end all. You can't quantify "gut feeing" and intuition.
Rules are a good starting point, know them, then break them!
When I think of composition, I think balance frame or unbalanced frame. Light can create a balanced or unbalanced image. In colour theory balance is created using what is called Goethe's Numerical System. You have colour weight, for example a darker colour carries less weight than lighter colour, so you need more of the darker colour to evenly balance with a lighter colour. That type of thinking has always served me well. I would refer you to a photo taken in Poland during protest decades ago. A sea of black umbrellas and one solitary white umbrella not classically composed. It just works.
I think most studio photographers actually do have a lot of control - the beginning of your argument works better with street photography or anything outdoors. For me the rules can be likened to training wheels. After a photographer develops their talent and style, we all have a tendency to throw them out the window whenever appropriate.
When Watkins was asked by the judge how he chose the position for his camera, he said he placed the camera to "...get the best view."
I've always had a good eye for a good design, or so I'm told. I'm not able to paint or draw at all well but I do see photographs in front of me and that's what excites me about photography, I can capture something I like. I have worked through 'the rules' and I feel these are useful guides.
Like everything in photography, it isn't about rules, it's about deliberateness.
This is hard to explain verbally, but when I compose an image I feel a vibration, much like a a guitar string vibrating. When you play guitar you can tell if it's not in tune, not only audibly but you can feel that it's not right. When it's in tune you get a sense of great harmony, when out of tune it's a cold chill running down the spine. When I compose a photo I get this same sense of harmony when all is right and a sense of chill or coldness when it is not.
Hi Alex, I also take a lot of pictures with my iphone. And when I look at your pictures in this video, its quite obvious, that its not how the showed up on the screen after been taken😊 I guess they are all heavily processed. And here also comes in the composition. When one takes a photo of something interested him and put it to the post processing, one comes out (at least sometimes😉) where the final picture is pleasing the mind. And for pleasing the mind, certain compositions work with a picture and some just don‘t. It depends on the subject, the lighting conditions, the personal taste to but a few. And as we are trained to lookmat pictures in a certain way, a lot of our favourite photos, we show a sort of similar compositions, which then are called rules😊.
Vexing indeed, the discussion of composition. There are so many theories. In my 50 years of studying, teaching and practicing photography, it still is a battleground. In the end for me at least it is about contrast and line orientation. Then throw in some Gestalt Psychology, the concepts of similarity, proximity, closure and continuation and that is, at least for me, all you need. No rules. If you can break a rule and still have pleasing imagery, it's not a rule. Ditch the idea that you need to follow a rule.
1 - What is the subject?
2- How do I focus on subject? ( Make it stand out)
3- Simplify (taking out all distractions).... Those are the questions I have for myself, when going out to shoot.
It Works.
Absolutely agree. Almost every photo that 'feels right' will end up conforming to two or three of the compositional 'rules' anyway without you even considering them. Just make it clear what you want the viewer to look at. I try to keep to a general rule of not having more than three obvious points of interest in any shot.
Another winner! Reminds me of a conversation I had with my grand daughter. She was in “rebellious age” and expressed an interest in photography. I gave her a brief intro to PS. I also told her this was one time she could “break the rules”.
A famous spitfire pilot from WWII once said “ Rules are made for the observance of fools, but merely serve as guidance to the wise”. Thank you Douglas Bader .
Thought provoking as always. Thanks.
Your photos exude great composition. There's great balance and/or lines that draw the viewer to the essence.
The only people I’ve ever met that love to adhere to the rules are members of photography clubs. I believe that is largely because they treat photography as a sport and focus on the competitions rather than the art.
I’ve always believe in breaking the rules once you’ve learned them.
Lately most compositional rules get thrown out the window because all delivery formats have mostly changed.
I feel photography has been marketed/driven towards the more technical aspect, like there is a formula etc that makes a good photo. It doesn’t seem to happen that much in the world of painting. At the end of the day, making art is picking up on the things that catch your attention and try to capture why it did. If you’re lucky is will capture other peoples attention.
As Eddy said: “A good picture-- in photography or any other medium-- is most likely to be produced by the artist who upsets the apple cart, snaps his fingers at the rules, and does as he pleases. Then an art critic comes along, measures and analyzes, interprets the result, and lo! another ‘rule of composition’ is born. This sequence cannot be too emphatically stressed. Pictures come first, composition after. There is no hen-and-egg doubt about it. From his earliest days man has made pictures, to frighten evil spirits, to record history, to portray happenings, to express himself and his feelings, for any number of reasons except one-- he did not make pictures to carry out the laws of composition.”
-Edward Weston, 1937 As Eddy said.
Thanks Alex! I'm more of a gut feeling shooter and your video validates how i shoot. Thanks again!
I think that composition is not just about lines and curves and where they are in an image. Other things play into the image’s composition such as color and brightness/darkness. So, in my opinion, you can have a composition that strictly follows the rule of thirds and it will feel very off and unbalanced if the light values don’t support a balance. But that is still composition. Or you can have an image that doesn’t “follow” any of the rules but feels right and that is because the mood matches the composition.
The first rule of composition in photography is that there are no rules.
It's what you fill the frame with in conjunction to the composition that counts.
Hi Alex , I follow the rules of composition 90,% of The time, but if I'm in a hurry I break that rule in order to not miss the opportunity to get that shot. Cheers 😊
At the age of 10 in 1965 my father chucked me the camera, told me about the sunny 16 rule and never said another word to me about photography until the day he died in 1999. I did not receive another tip or advice about photography again as I am a 100% lone wolf photographer. During the pandemic I discovered the world of photography on you tube and there I learned about all these "rules" and if I look back (and forward) I have loosely followed these "rules" all along. Even now I hit the button at what I see in front of me without clouding my mind with "rules". I still rely on the sunny 16 rule.
Thank you, Alex. This is most useful.
I think understanding and using the rules of composition is a good place to start but over time as one gains experience the rules become guidelines and finally suggestions and it really up to the photographer to decided whither or not the use of one or more of the "rules" will make for a stronger photograph.
Thanks for sharing.
Someone said (?who) something like "Good composition is just the strongest way of seeing a subject." Also I think painters start with a blank canvas and add visual elements, we photographers start with a full cluttered canvas and have to decide what to exclude to achieve the strongest image.
Edward Weston used that phrase.
Well said. Thank you!
For me the composition "rules" or other guidelines are tools to help you put an image together. Inspritation how to, for example, lead the eyes to where you place the subject or how subjects interact or stand out.
A great book, I found, is funny enough "The Photographic Eye" by Michael Freeman
Excellent video essay!
For me, Strict Rules are just for people that are not able to express their feelings
Thanks!
"Initially, yes. But after a couple of years of delving deep into the art, I don't think we really need to worry about any of these rules, including composition. There are so many types of composition, and when you take a photo, it will invariably belong to one of those types. Just take a photo when you see an image the way you want to photograph it and see it. That's it."
Rules only apply if your pov fits those rules, if rules don't fit pov, then create new rules.
I’m into my 50th year of photography, and in 1976, was inspired to become a photojournalist after attending a 4 hour slide lecture by the famed Time Life photographer, W. Eugene Smith at the San Francisco Art Institute.
His iconic photos (“Blasting out on Iwo Jima, Country Doctor, the Minimata series, Albert Scheitzer, etc) are heralded for their amazing composition, but not ONCE in the lecture did he talk about formulaic composition.
First of all, the idea that there are rules in photography or art is just patently absurd. I laugh when I hear people reference “Rule of thirds.”
That’s like saying that there are rules to cooking, fashion, or music. Ridiculous.
I’ll accept “suggestions,” but RULES? Never.
Stanley Kubrick placed subjects smack dab in the middle many of his movies, and how many would challenge his choices?
The most enlightening compositional advice that I ever received was from a college art teacher, who suggested that I think of a teeter totter with massive weight (i.e., mass, color, action, gesture) on one side, and all the rest of the composition were to be a scattering of elements that balanced out the literal or figurative mass.
I also have been inspired by Roy Decarava, who called his photography “visual jazz.”
Likewise, I consider my best photographs to be visual music, sometimes it’s ambient, other times can be rock, classical, or jazz. I look for visual rhythm, motifs, harmony, etc., but all instinctively.
But mainly, I suggest borrowing from other photographers, artists, musicians, etc. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve recreated “Flag raising on Iwo Jima (once with a ceremonial tree planting)” and Michelangelo’s “Last Supper.”
I would tell a beginner to learn the rules, follow them for a while, and then slowly start breaking them.
You talk a lot about the dichotomy of following the rules and following one's intuition.
I find that my photography is a hybrid of the two.
As when I take the photo, I rely more on feeling and and instinct and raw perception. But when I get to processing the RAWs, it is easier for me to look for patterns and rules and lines.
Of course, having 24 mpx to trim and crop is quite useful.
And it also compensates for whatever mistake on leveling the camera and having excess space around my main subject.
I'd say if people get stuck on the idea behind creativity and cthe rules, go watch of the Jay Maisel documentaries. Most of his work has some level of thought put into the composition, but some of it too is more focused on capturing a moment, and composition is somewhat of an afterthought. One picture I remember him showing in one of his books was basically taken from a department store parking lot of blue hour and a golden light post contrasting the blue hour sky, which sort of gave a warm feel to it, but it wasn't composed in any particularly way and otherwise would just have come across as a snapshot but in that photo, it was more about the light than anything.
To me as a (alleged) landscape photographer composition is the tool or the framework through which a landscape is presented in a coherent manner, ultimately -- and hopefully -- eliciting a desire in the viewer to be in that place. However, I'm not sure how that translates to other genres, aside from the more fundamental graphical context all design has in common.
The rules of composition stem from great paintings. Their artists started with blank canvas/wall. Except for studios, there's no "tabula raza" in photography thus there is ample opportunity for creative adaptations.
I've learnt photography in a photo club. They were very academic, no blur, and third rule. And if you wanted to be creative, you had to give a good justification, why do you break the rules. And to me, it was the best school and mindset. You have to learn the rules if you want to break them: academism.
@chriscard6544 “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist” is attributed to Pablo Picasso, although I wonder if the term "pro" was in use in his day. It's also been attributed to that great photographer, the Dalai Lama! 📷 🙂
@@veivoli ok thank you :)
Alex (or anyone else) . . . do you find yourself thinking about composition more through the viewfinder or in post? For me it’s probably 50/50. Maybe 70/30. Great video!
I think; To realise, that it "feels off", is one step. The next is to realise why it does so. Thats what rules are good for. Am I right?
I'm the middle child. Rules don't apply to me. That is my sister's favorite comment. I frame up a picture however it looks good to me but I only shoot for myself, for fun, and nobody sees my pictures very often.... so I guess I cannot make much of a comment here. i still like to listen to what you say because I will never be able to say "I got a handle on this photography stuff".
Isn't "composition" more about "pleasing to the eye" in any art form? The master oil painters like Michaelangelo, Renoir, Van Gogh, Monet didn't really follow any composition rules. They made their paintings for the reality of pleasing to the eye.
I think the photography problem child is Nikon (Nick-con) vs Nikon (Ny-con)
Have I been saying it wrong the whole time?
Its all , or mostly about parallax
If you are always trying to make your shots fit your frame bad mistake. Crop in post to make it fit your composition. You're in charge of your creativity, not some twat who designed a square, or an oblong etc.
I like how you use the word twat. It's edgy. Them twats. Twats coming up with ways to make things work. Doing things "efficiently" within the space theyre allowed. What a bunch of twats. With their oblongs. Twat oblongation! that's what that is. The oblongated twat who came up with "the square". Who needs that sort of twattedness.
Twats.
A physicist starts with a hypothesis, then undertakes an experiment to try and debunk their own hypothesis (prove it false). If they fail to debunk it then other physicists will try to as well. If the hypothesis is robust it will gain respect and may eventually become a law. Photography rules are also hypotheses. I could come up with a new hypothesis that I call the rule of two sevenths, where key components must be on a line drawn 2/7th from the edge of the image. A single good photograph that has the key component in the centre would debunk the hypothesis. Essentially all photography rules have been debunked, which means they are fallacies, or put less politely lies.
have they all been debunked?
Philosophically 'all' of course is contentious, are 'all' ravens black, (the Raven paradox). Yet, I find it hard to imagine a composition rule that all good photographs must adhere to. What would that rule be?
@@RogerBays Flatness.
@RogerBays Of course one of the other parts of the scientific method is to use the hypothesis to predict something that hasn't been observed yet, such as Einstein's prediction that gravity alters the path of light, tested in the eclipse of 1919. Unfortunately that doesn't explain my bad photos. "Oh, gravity must have altered the path of the light!"
@@veivoli excellent lol.
What is it with the Bresson photo with the bike going past? It’s just a photo on top of a staircase, and the lines going across is nonsense. The one before this is much better and all the others he took. That staircase is in the way lol❤
I find I am my own worst critic.
You haven't even given me the chance yet.
Rules are fine and you should have knowledge of them, but IMO, if you are afraid to bend or break them you are stifling your own creativity.
Also, any iPhone app recommendations for 1:1 monochrome?
Best is always debatable - that said Halide Mk 2 is worth a look and free for week of testing
What makes me laugh is the idea that in photography composition you need a rock in the foreground to lead your eye to an equally uninteresting rock in the mid ground. The history of art and photography is littered with examples of composition that break all the ‘rules’ like that which many amateur photographers adopt, the only problem is nobody in amateur photography looks at art or other photographers to learn anything in a wider context.
Who cares as long as it looks good lol. Sometimes rule of thirds work and other times it don’t. You can take a photo of a brick wall with a couple of plants in the foreground and make it look great😢👍
This doesn’t pertain to the subject but Alex what iPhone do you use?
It's a 15
If you have a talented eye rules and references are not necessary.
rules... #1 Feel free to break the rules (at your own risk)
For what it’s worth, rules in composition are a bit of a nonsense for me. Rules that were created by painters who spend all the time they want to set out their creations with total control from scratch (often with vague and spurious application) don’t make any sense for photographers who usually have limited time to choose a split second to capture and make sense of what’s around them as they find it. For me, I go with what looks right/interesting, keep it simple, try different things, review and evolve (that’s also my interpretation of developing/finding a “style”). And if someone else happens to think the image is awesome and finds sense in your composition, then that’s great too.
I have concluded that one is a true photographer only when it takes longer to take a picture than it would to paint the scene on a canvas, or so it sometimes seems with the manual, tripod a must, perfect light evangelists.
At the risk of sounding like a wanker I think rules are more for technology rather than art. Let the images speak for itself, like it, be indifferent or hate it, it's your opinion.
In the image by Dorthea Lane at 3:18 I wish she should have done that. Writing about it has ruined that image for me.
So maybe I'm imposing a rule! 🤣
Show what otherwise wouldn't be seen.
Again and again photographers talk about “rules” as they pertain to composition. They're not rules, they are tools. When you think of them as rules you'll make the composition fit the rule and all to often accept a good adherence to the rule as the criteria of success... most of the time you'll only be expressing you know and follow the rules... boring, besides, that what AI does.
Painters, great Painters... start out with one compositional tool, and then switch, moving to another, there's never just one geometry in great Art, and there no: one rule, just like in real life.
Rules lead to laziness, tools are for expression. Learn them all, and then and throw them as they aren't what makes Art.
In the comments, it seems that people take the word "rule" literally, as though someone has arbitrarily decided these are the parameters you can take a photograph within. I'm sure the video covers it, but it's the other way around. Thousands upon thousands of observations made of paintings, drawings and photographs show that there are ways to more aesthetically position and show a subject. It's fact. Not every subject fits to every rule and I'm sure, just as the human body in different cultures has different ways of being appreciated, different cultures and different times allow variation and interpretations.
The rules aren't literal, they're observations. A feeling. Some are more pertinent with different scenes and subjects. Some change depending on the audience.
But to those ground-breaking visionaries that are uttering the phrase that no one in the history of art has ever said, "know them, break them." OH MY GOD!! YOU ANARCHIST!! You're going to start a revolution! Such deep insight. Will you have us throw away the ten commandments next! Honestly, I believe if it weren't for the regurgitated aphorisms and drudginging absence of any of your own work, you would have your own youtube channel, if not hosting talk shows. Of course, I'm kidding. I don't know you. ;)