Composition – A New Approach

We are introducing a new series of articles on Great British Landscapes, trying to cover one of the most difficult aspects of photography to talk about and to actually do well, and that is composition. I’ve spent the last four or five years of my photographic life obsessed with composition. My obsession has probably been detrimental to many other aspects of my photography but in my limited opinion, the most important parameter that defines a great photographer is the way in which they compose pictures. The conscious creation of a composition from the visual material around us demonstrates the difference between letting the camera doing the work and the photographer working the camera. Just as a meals ingredients may taste nice on their own and they can certainly improve a meal – a good cook one is who transforms the ingredients into something new.

The majority of people will have bought books that profess to offer a series of rules of composition and this ‘rule’ based education, a very western way of teaching, dominates nearly all literature of composition. Most people will also know that the rules are almost irrelevant to great landscape photography. I’ve written previously about the rule of thirds and it’s virtual irrelevance and there are a few other rules that have similar ‘issues’.

What is composition taught so badly though? Well, firstly it’s an incredibly complicated subject and the success or failure of most photographs depends on many different criteria. One persons great composition is another persons head scratcher.

However, there is a strong parallel between a few different creative subjects and photography. The first of these, and most commonly mentioned, is probably music. The choices of musical composition can be compared with photographic composition in many ways. Another subject matches very well though, but needs a little more thinking about, and that is graphic design.
A graphic designer typically works with a fixed area (the page) and places subjects within to create a balanced and attractive whole. The sense of balance and energy has great parallels with photography. However, this doesn’t help a lot as graphic design isn’t taught particularly well either. However, there is a great deal of evidence that people learn graphic design through studying other graphic designers and

Both myself and Joe have been thinking about better ways to teach composition and we have a few different ideas, some of which include

  1. Visual excercises in balance
  2. Analysis of well pictures to:
    • look at how they work
    • look at what doesn’t work
  3. Use examples from the field at how to hone a composition
  4. Tactics to work the edges of a composition and cropping
  5. Learning to see colour
  6. Learning to see 2D shapes not 3D objects
  7. Layer Alignment
  8. Cropping

We’ll be using all of the various facilities that the web gives us to enable some of these, such as video, animation, etc. and hopefully we’ll be able to fine tune these techniques with feedback from yourselves.

We’ll start with a little bit of workflow that a lot of professional photographers may use instinctively but that I’ve found is helpful to think consciously. This really covers only one ‘group’ of composition types so it isn’t a general workflow.

This starts with my search for ‘interesting ingredients’, as I like to think of the environment around me. These interesting ingredients may be plants, frost, ice, stone walls, etc. So

1) Find an interesting item that will become the ‘foundation’ of your picture. These items will be placed in the bottom are of the frame.

2) Now, through physically moving and using the zoom, you can move the back or background of the picture by making it bigger or smaller and by moving it left, right, up or down.

In order to get an idea how this ‘zooming’ and ‘moving’ technique works, think of the horror film effect (or the part of ‘Thriller’ by Michael Jackson) where there is a shot of the ‘star’s head and the background suddenly drops away but their head stays the same size. This is done by moving backwards and zooming in at the same time.

The technique allows you to ‘scale’ the background up and down and obviously by moving left right, etc to relocate the background.

This technique allows you to choose a background position and scale that works to complement the foreground, either by making edges and lines align or by providing space between them or positioning key highlight elements in the foreground against dark areas in the background (which is a topic we’ll cover in a future section). This works just as well with a vista as with a detail shot, as long as your picture includes the bottom of the frame nearer to camera than the top.

3) The final step is to just work out the available crops that you can use to simplify your composition. This may be an iterative approach where you go back to step 2 and try again, gradually honing down onto better compositions.

In a future issue we’ll go over this workflow technique in more detail and use it out in the field to show how it can be used in practise (for an example of this sort of technique – take a look at this old blog post – http://www.timparkin.co.uk/blog/finding-your-landscape-photographs)

10 Responses

  1. Simon Miles

    Tim, some good points here. But – and I hope you will prove me wrong – I can’t help wondering whether composition is something that can really be taught at all. I would happily agree that you can teach techniques, such as Adams’ pre-visualization and post-rationalization, that can be used to develop and nurture artistic vision. But more than this? I am not sure.

    My admittedly very limited experience in this area tells me that composition is an inherently intuitive and deeply personal process, underpinned (but no more than this) by careful study and observation. I am not sure I like the idea of applying a workflow to composition, at least not in a fine art context. After all, why do you insist on sticking your head under a dark cloth and looking at an upside down image if not to quieten down that rational analytical left-side brain of yours?

    • You’re right on the Michael Jackson but I have to disagree about learning composition. Just like music, you can learn to compose, you can learn melodic structure, song structure, dissonance and resolution, tempo and can learn language, grammar, linguistics, the rhythms of poetry, formal devices, etc. However, expressing yourself and creating beauty are two things that perhaps you must learn for yourself but without learning the visual grammar of photography, it’s difficult to express yourself beyond the basics. I suggest that most people learn composition in an ad-hoc way, as you say, through analysis and observation. We should be able to help make this analysis easier for people by communicating some of our learnings – hopefully giving people a quicker route to the point where they can start expressing themselves (I should add that I don’t mean through rules of photography as we are given in many magazines).

      • FWIW the film special-effect in question is known as a Dolly Zoom.

        You’re right about the potential for analysis and guidance in music and poetry. The only concern I have with that is the risk of taking the formalisation too far – recall the Pratchett book in which the character Fool learns “the five approved forms of humour”, etc.

  2. garyeason

    I think Simon is right: you either get it or you don’t. That’s why some people have tried to invent rules to assist the clueless. On a technical point, I think the ‘horror film shot’ you reference is the other way round: the camera tracks IN while zooming OUT – pioneered by Hitchcock but made famous by Spielberg in Jaws, if I’m thinking of the same thing you are. Useful point though and a thought-provoking article. GE

  3. Tim makes an interesting comparison with music. I have had music lessons myself and I have to concede there is a lot that can be taught. I still think it is down to the individual to provide the spark that brings it all to life. After all, most people can learn to play a musical instrument in a technically proficient way, but good players bring something more to the performance, something in and of themselves. Anyway, this all sounds very interesting and I look forward to seeing what comes next.

  4. You’ve set yourself a real challenge here Tim. Good luck! But ultimately, paying attention to and then making a choice of its composition is the underpinning of every ‘good’ photograph – so what you’re addressing is important. How to teach it is a conundrum.

    I’ll offer four things which I do which all of which to varying degrees help or contribute to making composition decisions.

    First, when I’m not in the field, I study lots of other people’s work. Not so I can copy but to immerse myself in the possibilities and see what kinds of structures and arrangements work for me. Ok, I’m sure we all look at lots of other peoples work, but perhaps the key is consciously to search for what lessons there are rather than to simply to like or dislike.

    Secondly, in the field, I’m an advocate of the viewing frame. I’ll search all around a location with my frame for my composition such that it’s largely sorted before I even think of unpacking the camera. And in the process I’ll have weighed up many possible compositions. This in itself doesn’t tell me which works best for me, but the slow deliberate search does allow me to explore possibilities before committing. It’s easy to get carried away with the rush of enthusiasm when there’s a potentially great location only to be disappointed later when you realise that the old maxim – more haste less speed – should have been applied. Or perhaps that should be ‘more satisfaction, less speed’. Taking it slowly is almost always better. A beneficial by-product of this slower more deliberate approach is that with practice and experience you can get faster.

    Thirdly, and also in the field, I find that I can get a good idea of the overall composition of the scene by deliberately putting my vision out of focus. By defocussing it enables me to ignore (temporarily of course) the detail and concentrate on the contrast blocks and positional relationships of components which are sometimes overlooked whilst being concentrating on finer detail. I have heard that not everyone can defocus their eyes – but if you can it might help. You can of course do this too in camera to similar effect.

    And fourthly, back at base, I am uninhibited when it comes to cropping images. I know that for some the whole viewed and captured image is sacrosanct. But to me many images can be dramatically improved by even a modest trim. However, an improvement in one person’s eyes is often defacement to others, so it’s our choice. Again this doesn’t say what it is about a composition that works, but it is a way to explore different presentations once you have the image in the can.

    None of this is a panacea, and it only touches on aspects of composition. I do suspect that whatever we do to learn about what works as a composition, and what doesn’t, there’s a degree of necessary innate aptitude required before any amount of tutoring will work!

    Steve Gledhill

  5. CathR

    Yes, good luck with the project, Tim. I am very interested to see how it unfolds.

    I think we are all different. There are some people who will never “get it”. Others seem to have an instinctive feel and just know what works without perhaps being able to explain it. I suspect most people are somewhere along this spectrum, with some measure of innate feel but also benefitting from practice, learning and analysis. Steve’s approach is very similar to my own. For me photography is a marriage of the creative/instinctive and the technical/learned, the right and left sides of the brain working together.

    Best wishes

    Catherine

    • Thanks Catherine – I’m not sure how successful we’ll be but I have some confidence.. Creating compositions is definitely part art and part craft – hopefully the craft can be learned..

  6. I’ve taught photography, and photographers, for over 20 years, and in my experience composition being taught as an ‘additive’ process is not necessarily something that works as well as doing it as a ‘subtractive’ one.

    I take this approach with the folks I teach telling them that “all the stuff you need to make a compelling image is all lying around you, you just need to find it and isolate it”.

    We then have a process of talking and looking and analyzing what it is about a scene that is important, or that conveys the mood/atmosphere/message. Then its really a case of stripping away the extraneous, and irrelevant, to leave what should be close to the desired composition.

    But I agree that some people just ‘get it’ and have an eye for a good image. A class I am currently running has a couple of excellent ‘eyes’ but they lack the analytical ability post-snapping to actually deconstruct their work and determine what it is about it that makes it work.

    There’s an interesting essay in Lois Greenfield’s book of dance photography ‘Breaking Bounds’ which underlines a lot of thoughts I’d had on composition. Its worth a read, and the images are stunning too.

    • I hate to disagree with a teacher but FWIW my own experience is that additive – where I start from a blank frame and add a simple handful of elements – gives me more favourable results. To date I’ve never found a reliable way to limit the process of removing things.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.