Working on Landscape editing

[MrB]

Number 1 is my preferred edit, but with amendments others have suggested. I think it might also need a very slight clockwise rotation.

Philip

[Donald]

Carefully said, when you crop you are definitely changing the composition of the image.

In your opinion.

[pnodrog]

In your opinion.

In my opinion I can change the composition just by burning and dodging...😮

[Rufus]

In my opinion I can change the composition just by burning and dodging...😮

Whereas in my opinion dodging and burning changes the appearance but not the composition. For me cropping changes the composition because it changes the positioning of the elements of the image within and relative to the frame even to the extent that some may no longer be within the frame.

[pnodrog]

There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding and some rather narrow views about composition. I suggest it would be worthwhile as photographers to make sure you understand the term. There is plenty of information available on the internet. The following link may be worth a visit. I have had a quick look at it and it seems to cover the basics.

[pnodrog]

Whereas in my opinion dodging and burning changes the appearance but not the composition. For me cropping changes the composition because it changes the positioning of the elements of the image within and relative to the frame even to the extent that some may no longer be within the frame.

Has the basket tone changed the composition? Yes...

It's importance in the image and relationship to the other elements in the photo has been significantly altered. Composition is about the relationship of the elements within an image and this relationship is not limited to just size, shape and position.

[Donald]

There seems to be quite a lot of misunderstanding and some rather narrow views about composition. I suggest it would be worthwhile as photographers to make sure you understand the term. There is plenty of information available on the internet. The following link may be worth a visit. I have had a quick look at it and it seems to cover the basics.

I would agree that there is a massive misunderstanding about what composition is and I'd suggest reading some academic art texts to get an accurate picture.

[Round Tuit]

I can do no better than Guy Tal, in an essay in his book, 'More than a Rock' - "Composition is the grammar of the visual language." (p105).

I have read that book and several others from successful photographic artists and yet I still don't understand what that means from a practical point of view.

I find your idea that the composition can be created through finishing the cropping the picture, fascinating.

The frame is the only element that is present in every picture(photo, painting, drawing) and has such a strong influence on how we scan a picture and on what balance we can achieve within it that to me its importance seemed obvious.

[Donald]

I have read that book and several others from successful photographic artists and yet I still don't understand what that means from a practical point of view.

Start by asking - What is grammar? That should help you see that what Tal is saying makes such perfect sense and is perfectly practical.

[Round Tuit]

Start by asking - What is grammar? That should help you see that what Tal is saying makes such perfect sense and is perfectly practical.

Donald, my confusion arises from the definition of "grammar" which, according to Wikipedia and the Oxford dictionary, is a set of structural rules that govern the composition of phrases and sentences in a natural language. The operative word is "rules". Grammar is not a set of guidelines or principles; it is a set of rules.

Bruce Barnbaum in 'The Art of Photography' states "Rules are foolish, arbitrary, mindless things that...". Guy Tal, Alain Briot, Michael Freeman, David DuChemin and, I suspect, many more photographic artists all echo the same sentiment about rules of composition. So when Guy Tal defines composition as the grammar of the visual language, I don't understand what he is trying to say.

I have been looking for guidance on how to compose an expressive picture for a few years by now and in the process have read over two dozen books. I actually own books by all the authors that I mentioned except for David DuChemin. I am slowly getting better but the subject matter is far from clear and simple.

I would be sincerely grateful if you could elaborate somewhat on your definition of composition and on how that translate into practical advice.

[DanK]

Andre,

This may be taking us off the original topic, but I agree with you: "grammar" is poor choice of terms, even metaphorically. Grammar entails both structural rules and a large number of arbitrary conventions, all of which have to be followed with an extremely high degree of precision. I volunteer to teach English to immigrants, and I am confronted with this all the time. I'll give you one recent example. In many languages, an initial verb is generally followed by an infinitive, while in English it is often followed by a gerund. Recently, I was doing conversational practice to people who made the common error of using an infinitive when one wouldn't in English, or when using the infinitive has a different meaning. I started to explain this to them, and then I realized that there are examples in which we can use either. I was searching for a substantive explanation of this, but then I called over the lead teacher to ask him. He responded that it's simply verb-specific, and he came back a few minutes later with tables of verbs that always take the gerund, verbs that always take an infinitive, and tables of verbs that usually take one but can take the other.

I didn't know the rule, but the fact is that I can reproduce it in speech with essentially 100% accuracy, and I will wager that every other native speaker of English on this forum can as well. This is something I learned many years ago, when a teacher showed that the entire class knew the (complex) rules governing the pronunciation of the letter "y" in the sense that we always produced the right sounds, but even given time, none of us was fully aware of it or could articulate it.

An interesting article about this recently appeared in the New York times in which a linguist was quoted as saying that even 99% accuracy in following these rules is usually enough to mark someone as not a native speaker.

Applying this to composition would be paint-by-numbers.

Dan

[Donald]

... "grammar" is a set of structural rules that govern the composition of phrases and sentences in a natural language. The operative word is "rules".

So when Guy Tal defines composition as the grammar of the visual language, I don't understand what he is trying to say.

I would be sincerely grateful if you could elaborate somewhat on your definition of composition and on how that translate into practical advice.

Far from it for me to be trying to say what Tal meant. I have my view of what he meant. Take your statement "is a set of structural rules that govern the composition of phrases and sentences in a natural language." Replace 'phrases and sentences in a natural language' and replace with something like, "elements in a visual image."

I think you've got to stop looking for the words that are going to point you what is and what is not, composition. There is no 'painting by numbers' approach to this. It is a feeling. You have the grammar at your fingertips. Like a wordsmith to whom grammar is the means for them craft and create his/her written work, we use the visual grammar to craft and create our image. No two great works of literature are the same, but they still use the same structure of grammar to create the work. These people 'felt' the work. The same with music where there are 'rules' that are then used as the basis/platform for the creation. Then so it is with our visual art.

I am afraid that is best I can do. I cannot tell you how to apply the 'rules' of our grammar, that has to be about your mood, your vision for what you are trying to create. All I can say is that you should stop looking for what looks like a 'recipe' for a cake.

[xpatUSA]

I feel that the choice of focal length 39mm has diminished the subjects a bit much compared with the foreground. This comment applies to all four shots. Perhaps shoot at more like 60-70mm and perhaps from further back and, as someone already suggested, from a lower angle in order to reduce the expanse of water betwixt the foreground and the subjects.

I realize that this is a composition comment but, as I only edit globally, I have little to offer in terms of fancy stuff like dodging, burning, brushing, etc. Sorry.

[george013]

Language is not static. It is changing all the time. New elements are added,old elements are removed etc. The same with composition.

George

[DanK]

Language is not static. It is changing all the time. New elements are added,old elements are removed etc. The same with composition.

George

Indeed. Otherwise none of us would be speaking the languages they do; they wouldn't exist. Some of the changes persist; others die out; yet others should die out but don't.

At any one time, however, there are rules, and unlike the guidelines of composition, breaking them matters--it can make one incomprehensible or convey the wrong meaning. To take a trivial example that came up in class: in English, "I stopped eating" means that you were eating but no longer are. "I stopped to eat" means that you stopped doing something else in order to eat, e.g., "we were driving for 5 hours but finally stopped to eat." I have students whose native languages do not have that distinction. If you incorrectly use the infinitive, you convey the wrong meaning.

[Manfred M]

In your opinion.

The real issue is that different people have different views of what composition is. That applies to academics (who may or may not agree) down to the photographers and artists themselves. The view ranges from a purely almost mechanical view of "how the elements are arranged in the image" to a more ethereal and all encompassing of how the whole image comes together.

When I studied photographic composition I had two different instructors in two different courses. One came from a photo journalism background and the other from a fine art background. Both were "practical" photographers rather than photographers I look at in the artist / philosopher category. In my view this would include photographers like Guy Tal, David DuChemin, etc. Both these instructors tended to suggest composition was all about how the elements that the photographer has included come together. Composition alone does not make a strong image; lighting, technical considerations, point of view and many other factors all build on the elements that make up the image to produce the result we look at and comment on.

Taking things a step further regarding the question asked in this thread, Images 1 and 2 are the same composition, but the image has been manipulated to provide a different final result. Images 3 and 4 are different compositions because significant elements have been changed in the cropping. That may be my opinion, but based on my studies I suggest that it is likely a mainstream view. A significant crop, whether it is done in a camera or in post, can change the composition. A minor one might not even be noticed.

Continuing on with the discussion on the use of language, that too is very important and clarity is a challenge that all writers face. When it come to a particular subject area, there is a "jargon" that is used and as long as everyone follows the convention of what the various terms mean, then communications have a reasonable chance of being clear. Math and sciences tend to have universal conventions that are well understood by any trained practitioner working in that field. If I use the term "stress" when talking with another mechanical engineer, we will both know that I am talking about a force applied to a cross sectional area. Mention the same term to a psychologist and a whole new area of discussion comes up, with its own definition(s).

The arts tend to be a bit less precise in their definitions so we can sometimes talk or write at cross-purposes. Add the element of lay people who have not studied the topic and the interpretation can become even more muddied. Even worse, throw in an academic or two with differing opinions and they can completely confuse the matter. Their academic standing can add to the confusion...

[xpatUSA]

<> ... Taking things a step further regarding the question asked in this thread, Images 1 and 2 are the same composition, but the image has been manipulated to provide a different final result. Images 3 and 4 are different compositions because significant elements have been changed in the cropping. That may be my opinion, but based on my studies I suggest that it is likely a mainstream view. A significant crop, whether it is done in a camera or in post, can change the composition. A minor one might not even be noticed.

Quite so, Manfred. So much literature on composition is related to the image frame, either explicitly or implicitly. Different crop = different frame = different composition almost by definitition, irrespective of what else was done to the image.

[Round Tuit]

Far from it for me to be trying to say what Tal meant. I have my view of what he meant. Take your statement "is a set of structural rules that govern the composition of phrases and sentences in a natural language." Replace 'phrases and sentences in a natural language' and replace with something like, "elements in a visual image."

I think you've got to stop looking for the words that are going to point you what is and what is not, composition. There is no 'painting by numbers' approach to this. It is a feeling. You have the grammar at your fingertips. Like a wordsmith to whom grammar is the means for them craft and create his/her written work, we use the visual grammar to craft and create our image. No two great works of literature are the same, but they still use the same structure of grammar to create the work. These people 'felt' the work. The same with music where there are 'rules' that are then used as the basis/platform for the creation. Then so it is with our visual art.

I am afraid that is best I can do. I cannot tell you how to apply the 'rules' of our grammar, that has to be about your mood, your vision for what you are trying to create. All I can say is that you should stop looking for what looks like a 'recipe' for a cake.

Thanks Donald.
It is now clear to me that we have very different understanding of the meaning of grammar and of its role in languages. So, I don't think that pursuing this analogy would be useful for either one of us.

I am not looking for a recipe; I am trying to fill a gap in my understanding of the visual language. And it is entirely possible that what I am looking for is does not exist. An example might explain better what I am looking for:
Suppose that I am walking through a wood. The birds are singing, butterflies are flitting about and I feel a sense of peacefulness and serenity. I create a picture that portrays the scene and expresses those feelings. That picture will "speak" to me of peacefulness and serenity. How do I create that picture so that it carries the same message to you?

[DanK]

Thanks Donald.
It is now clear to me that we have very different understanding of the meaning of grammar and of its role in languages. So, I don't think that pursuing this analogy would be useful for either one of us.

I am not looking for a recipe; I am trying to fill a gap in my understanding of the visual language. And it is entirely possible that what I am looking for is does not exist. An example might explain better what I am looking for:
Suppose that I am walking through a wood. The birds are singing, butterflies are flitting about and I feel a sense of peacefulness and serenity. I create a picture that portrays the scene and expresses those feelings. That picture will "speak" to me of peacefulness and serenity. How do I create that picture so that it carries the same message to you?

Andre,

I am certainly no expert in composition. However, I am not certain that your question has an answer. Rather, it has many different answers. Different artists do this in different ways, often with very different ideas about composition. The "rules" many people talk about are, in my poorly informed opinion, just approximate tools that you might find useful for that purpose.

I don't know whether you like jazz, but I think jazz offers a possibly useful analogy. There are a large number of "changes"--sequences of chords--that are widely used in jazz. To improvise well, musicians need to know these changes well enough that they can draw on them in real time. Wynton Marsalis, unquestionably one of the most versatile jazz musicians of our day, tells a story about playing with his father years ago, when he was still a student. Before they started a piece, Wynton asked his father what key they would play in. His father answered something like this: "no key. You need to be able to play the changes in any key I start in."

Different musicians, however, improvise with different sequences, which is one reason they have distinctive styles. And from time to time, a musician appears to finds a way to use sequences that are very different from the common ones--e.g., Theolonious Monk. I think of compositional rules as being a bit like that.

Given that I am not very good at this, I spend time now and again looking at photographs by masters that really grab me--Weston, for example--and try to understand what they did that makes those particular images so appealing to me. I do the same with other forms of art that I find particularly gripping, in particular, impressionist painting.

Dan

[george013]

Thanks Donald.
It is now clear to me that we have very different understanding of the meaning of grammar and of its role in languages. So, I don't think that pursuing this analogy would be useful for either one of us.

I am not looking for a recipe; I am trying to fill a gap in my understanding of the visual language. And it is entirely possible that what I am looking for is does not exist. An example might explain better what I am looking for:
Suppose that I am walking through a wood. The birds are singing, butterflies are flitting about and I feel a sense of peacefulness and serenity. I create a picture that portrays the scene and expresses those feelings. That picture will "speak" to me of peacefulness and serenity. How do I create that picture so that it carries the same message to you?

I don’t think composition is wat you’re looking for. Off course a composition is part of the image. But it doesn’t include emotion.

George