Composition glossary

[Proske]

Hi there!

Lately I've read up quite a lot on what techniques you can use to make your photo/composition more interesting, but I didn't seem to encounter a summary of the possible techniques with a short description of possible use. Let alone in one place.
So I felt like making a list of what I found and could come up with myself and hereby I present to you my 'composition glossary'.
It's conveniently split up in 2 parts (first "subject", then "lines") rounded off with an expression.

But first a guideline that, if not used, makes all the other techniques useless in my opinion:

Have an interesting subject!

Although sounding obvious it might not be. "This wide landscape" or "that random macro flower" doesn't cut it. Your eyes want to go somewhere to enjoy them when looking at a picture, give it to them.


Now, enough with the introductions!


Techniques involving subjects:

Rule of Thirds

• where you place your subjects
• the amount of subjects (meaning: don't overdo it, 3 is often a great amount)
• placement horizon
  

Visual Weight: subjects that draw the attention of the viewer

• eyes
• text
• size, colour, contrast
• emotions (erotic, horror,...)

Balance: placement of the visual weights

• spread them to create a nice and balanced feeling
• concentrate them to fill the photograph with 'tension' between a heavy and a light part of the picture

Juxtaposition: ties in nicely with balance, but not through the use of visual weights but of objects that are not subjects

• fill the picture with a 'faux' subject that doesn't draw attention to create a tension towards the smaller but attention drawing subject
• make the picture more complete by filling gaps

Levels: filling a foreground, middle scene and background (emphasis on the and)

• wide landscapes look flat with only one (often far away) level

Single Point: one, small object as subject; no real other objects of interest to speak of

• lends itself great for a calm and relaxing picture
• good focus on the subject while it only fills a small part of the frame

Frame: adding objects along the sides of your picture

• forcing focus into the frame
• easy way to provide a nice foreground

Frame in a Frame

• adds depth
• forces eyes to follow the frames (or arches) inside

Techniques involving lines*: (you can always choose to mentally add "imaginary", if you feel like it)

Depth

• The use of (converging) lines to create more than a flat, 2D looking picture

Eye lines

• first drawing attention to the eyes themselves and then following the line of sight
• bonus points of this line can follow another lines (e.g. some branch, hillside,... in the back)

Triangles; using (imaginary) lines to tie subject together often make for an interesting picture

• use them to give form or/and draw attention
• base down triangles (pyramid style) tend to leave a stable picture
• top down tend to leave more fragile/unstable pictures
  

Dynamic Tension: using movement or lines that go all over the place to draw the attention out of the picture


*Lines can be pretty much what you like them to be: from the obvious pillar or horizon over the subtle extension of a long shape (e.g. a ship) to absolutely imaginary line the body language of a person might suggest. The frame within a frame is a good example of this as well. It's all yours to go out, try it and enjoy it.


~If it doesn't add, it takes away
(my second version: add more of it)
Why am I twisting it around like this? Sometimes removing those annoying leaves in the foreground may leave a flat photo that's actually worse than what you started with. Adding some more might provide a nice frame instead.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



This list shouldn't be viewed as 'rules for good photography' but more as a mnemonic device to help us when shooting and the picture doesn't come out that great.
I also find that if I manage to add more rules in my pictures that the end result looks better. Or conversely: when selection my good pictures the best ones always contain a lot of them while the deleted ones shine in their absence of these rules


Any opinions, remarks or techniques I looked over are absolutely welcome!

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC, Willem.

There is a short section on Composition here on CiC.

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...-of-thirds.htm


When I first started getting seriously into photography, I spent a lot of time learning the "rules" of composition, which are more like suggestions or guidelines, rather than "rules". My views on composition changed drastically after I ran into a few quotes and books by some famous photographers:

1. I ran into a quote from Ansel Adams, the famous American landscape photographer; "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.";

2. I read a quote by the well known Hungarian-American photojournalist, Robert Capa "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough.";

3. Finally I read one of the books that Yousef Karsh, the Armenian-Canadian photographer who is often considered the best portrait photographer of all time. As I went through the magnificent images in the book, I quickly realized that he had broken one or more "rules of composition" in most of his works.

I stopped thinking about the rules of composition and all of a sudden my images got a lot better. I started looking at more general principles like symmetry and asymmetry, balance; patterns and colours rather than the oft quoted rules.

The other thing I learned was that good composition with poor lighting will result in a mediocre image. Concentrate on understanding and working with light, and this will complement any work you are doing on your compositional skills. In order to get great images, you also have to understand the basics of how shutter speed, aperture and ISO impact your image.

Just about any book on photography will give you an overview of the "rules of composition"; some go into such great details that it almost seems that they are proposing composition rules that are so detailed that they seem to propose that great composition is little more than following a cookbook.

Do yourself a favour and stick to the basics; the "rule of thirds", simplification, concentrating on the subject and ensuring that the background complements the subject. Concentrate on Henri Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment".

I think you should spend more time behind your camera and critiquing your work (or ask others to do so). I think you will become a much better photographer doing this, and experimenting that you ever will by following a list of "rules", like the one you have started on this thread.

[William W]

Hello Willem,
I read your Opening Post with great interest earlier, just after you posted it and I then put an alert on responses to it.

I hoped (and also anticipated) that Manfred would respond. Others will too, most surely. But I anticipated what Manfred’s main thrust would be and I was reasonably correct in my assumption.

I want to get in quick and make a few comments, to continue along the thoughts that Manfred has initiated.

***

It’s a Personal Journey. Manfred outlined his. But there are really no shortcuts for your Journey.

I suggest that you make your list and add to it, if that suits you.

Do keep in the back of your mind Manfred’s advice to simply stick to the basics: that’s very good advice.

Simplicity is usually very important for executing the Vision of the Image that you want to make.

Replay Manfred's advice in your mind and think on it as you make pictures. But launching forth and ONLY sticking to the basics simply won’t work for you, while you still have a burning desire to make your list.

When you’ve got your list and you are happy with it - then learn when and why to ignore it.

I bet a Mars Bar that’s really how Manfred makes those wonderful pictures that he posts here – because he knows when to ignore the ‘rules’ that he knows.

*

Most importantly, if you spend 1 hour this week making your list, then spend ten hours making Photographs and Two more hours reviewing and seeking advice as to how you could have made better.

WW

[Proske]

Thank you guys for your help!

I have a little document where I keep my list and I sure added your advise as a cautionary notion on top of it.

The hours spending photographs is at the moment a bit impossible due to exams (also probably the reason I could bugger myself into making this list), but definitely what I'm going to do afterwards. So you can be expecting me here more often shortly.

Also, I realized a bit of of your advise myself: that's why I put the last paragraph at the bottom of my post in the first place.

Your advise does speak volumes though of how it isn't mentioned anywhere that these techniques are devices we can use to play on general principles like symmetry and asymmetry, balance, patterns and colours.
Okay: most people mention the first two, but patterns and colours?
Just goes to show you that indeed: doing some reading up can be useful but if you really want to learn something you have to spend time behind your camera.

And while I expected your comments against using these rules (no one likes his art to be reduced to a few lines) I also feel they have proven the use of them in two ways:
First of all, it's like playing sports: you don't become a good player ignoring your trainers advise. But from a certain point on you will have grown to far for the general rules to do it for you. And then you are a true master at what you do.
So I'm not going to lose a Mars Bar on William's bet.
Secondly: these techniques are great ways you can play on the general principles and not 'rules' as such (I didn't perhaps say rules anywhere, did I? I hope I didn't)

[Manfred M]

Okay: most people mention the first two, but patterns and colours?

Two of my most recent postings are nothing more than repeating patterns and colours. Both are seating areas of a cricket stadium in Northern India.










Willem - good luck with your exams. That was one part of the school year I never looked forward to and was always happy when it was finished.

I'm not an artist and do not pretend to be one. My education background is that I have an engineering degree and spent most of my working career designing many things from physical devices to computer systems to business processes, so these skills drive the way I do my photography. This means I follow a very analytical approach in the things that I do.

One of the most important principles I have always followed in both my professional work and in my photography is the KISS Principle (the letters stand for "Keep It Simple, Stupid". And frankly the so called "Rules of Photography", especially as they become more complex (with their various exceptions), quickly break the KISS principle, so I ignore them.

My own view is that there have always been views in the creative community that beauty or something that is pleasing can be boiled down to some simple "rules"; whether that is the "rule of thirds" or the even older "golden ratio". In my readings and observations / analysis I have not seen one shred of evidence that these "rules" actually work or have any scientific basis when it comes to photography. In fact, I've started to suspect that the reason these "rules" work is because we have been taught to think pictures that follow the "rules" are beautiful; i.e. so many "nice" pictures follow the 'Rule of Thirds", so the rule must result in "nice pictures". Go have a look, there are lots of terrible images out there that follow the rule of thirds and lots of great ones that don't follow it at all.

What I do believe is that we can create images that through their subject matter and presentation can elicit certain emotional responses from the viewer; harmony, balance, tension, pleasure, etc. Some of these are related to our living in a natural world that is lit from above (the sun) which casts shadows, so if we see an image with multiple shadows or the lighting comes from below, we find these images have tension because they are a break from the way we normally see things.

Of course, I can't prove any of my views any more than someone can prove that the rules of composition actually work...

That being said, I find that these "rules" are useful "trick" to getting a novice photographer thinking about composition and moving him or her away from taking "snapshots" down the road of producing "photographs". Once the photographer has reached this point, the rulebook must be firmly closed because he or she will never consistently produce compelling images until they have done this.

One other thought; photography has two "real" properties that need to be considered when creating an image:

1. It's all about the light. Without light, we cannot produce a photograph, so lighting will make or break a photograph; and

2. A photography (with very few exceptions; like photographing a painting or another photograph) is where we look at something that is 3-dimensional and turn it into a 2-dimensional representation of that 3-D object. Understanding this can also greatly influence how well your image works.

[Proske]

Well now Manfred, your first post is something that I expected. Your second one is the one that opened my eyes.
And you pretty much did it all by underlining one word (and the sentence it belongs to).
In fact: if it was rewritten a bit I believe you could make tons of new photographers happy.

And indeed, colour and pattern is very important as you've just shown with these brilliant pictures.

btw: tomorrow I have my "English for engineering exam", I suppose that won't be a problem

[Manfred M]

Well now Manfred, your first post is something that I expected. Your second one is the one that opened my eyes.
And you pretty much did it all by underlining one word (and the sentence it belongs to).
In fact: if it was rewritten a bit I believe you could make tons of new photographers happy.

And indeed, colour and pattern is very important as you've just shown with these brilliant pictures.

btw: tomorrow I have my "English for engineering exam", I suppose that won't be a problem

Good luck on your exam.

One of my university professors was Dutch and I remember him telling me that at the time he was at university all mechanical engineering text books were were in either English or German. The Dutch market was simply too small for publishers to put out engineering text books in that language, so they had to know both these languages. This was back in the late 1970's when I was at univeristy. I remember in first year Chemistry, some of the reference books (Landolt–Börnstein - chemical phase diagrams) were in German.

[Tringa]

Another interesting thread. It is true that the eye finds the rule of thirds pleasing, but this does not exclude other proportions and as noted, they are more guidelines, but they are not a bad place to start.

A comment in Manfred's first post reminds me of something I read on another forum -

Beginners think it is all about the cameras.
Enthusiasts think it is all about the lenses,
Photographers know it is all about the light.

While there are lots of other aspects to a good photograph, if the light is not right then it is going to be difficult. I'm not suggesting there must be a lot of light but what there is has to be used appropriately.

Dave

[chauncey]

Have an interesting subject!

It's sometimes said that one of our goals as a photographers is to make the mundane beautiful.
While that may be true...starting with a beautiful subject is a whole lot easier.

[tclune]

I would note that you might start by considering what makes a photograph interesting to you. I find that I tend to be drawn to the layered look in photographs. So any of the injunctions to simplify just don't work for what I hope to accomplish. You may find that a photo that I find visually interesting would be too busy for your tastes. So the kinds of suggestions that I might make as guidelines would simply be counter-productive for you.

[Aeros]

^$&%*^&!! Just keep shooting 'till you get it right, remember, it's all about the print.

[Proske]

Good luck on your exam.

One of my university professors was Dutch and I remember him telling me that at the time he was at university all mechanical engineering text books were were in either English or German. The Dutch market was simply too small for publishers to put out engineering text books in that language, so they had to know both these languages. This was back in the late 1970's when I was at univeristy. I remember in first year Chemistry, some of the reference books (Landolt–Börnstein - chemical phase diagrams) were in German.

Well, since then a lot of Dutch books were released but what you said still rings a bit true.
First of all: engineers still have about 50% of their books in English.
And secondly: since I'm studying mechanics and automation and Germany is just next door... Yeah, you guessed right
I hope that exam will be just as good (I suppose not though, though language to learn. And that coming from a native Dutch speaker...)

Getting a bit off topic now though.

Found some time to get my hands on a camera and tried to play with the lights a bit.
Didn't really manage to get what I wanted but I'm going places I didn't know how to get before.
Thanks for the advice and you'll know when feel I arrived where I want by the pictures I'm asking advice for