Anyone Want to Talk About Composition?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Composition is a huge subject encompassing a lot of ideas including: position of major image elements in the frame, leading lines, implied sight or motion lines, balance including use of negative space, framing provided by elements in the frame, etc. But one big point that's stuck with me from a very early photography instructor is the idea that painting or drawing are basically additive arts where you start with a blank canvas and decide what to add to your image to tell your visual story. Photography is the opposite where we often start with a cluttered frame and look for ways to remove distracting elements that don't add to the visual story.

That idea of image simplification via changing shooting position or choice of lenses or selective focus through shallow DoF or selective lighting that spotlights the subject but casts shade into the background, even something as simple as getting up a bit higher or down a bit lower to control the background can all be used to remove distracting image elements and to help tell the visual story you're after whether that's a portrait, landscape or something else.
 
Last edited:
Composition is a huge subject encompassing a lot of ideas including: position of major image elements in the frame, leading lines, implied sight or motion lines, balance including use of negative space, framing provided by elements in the frame, etc. But one big point that's stuck with me from a very early photography instructor is the idea that painting or drawing are basically additive arts where you start with a blank canvas and decide what to add to your image to tell your visual story. Photography is the opposite where we often start with a cluttered frame and look for ways to remove distracting elements that don't add to the visual story.

That idea of finding of image simplification via changing shooting position or choice of lenses or selective focus through shallow DoF or selective lighting that spotlights the subject but casts shade into the background, even something as simple as getting up a bit higher or down a bit lower to control the background can all be used to remove distracting image elements and to help tell the visual story you're after whether that's a portrait, landscape or something else.


Good points. Somewhere is that line separating taking the photograph vs. making the photograph.
 
There is lots of rules, guides and theories. I guess they can be a guide, the trouble us it can create photos that are like pop songs... they all sound / look the same. I use the simple principle of “what looks right to me”. For landscape or static objects it’s hard to describe but I sort of “see” the photo beforehand. For moving objects (BIF etc) it’s about trying to position yourself in the right place where possible. For cropping, unless something needs to be printed in specific format, again I use the “what looks right”.
 
...one big point that's stuck with me from a very early photography instructor is the idea that painting or drawing are basically additive arts where you start with a blank canvas and decide what to add to your image to tell your visual story. Photography is the opposite where we often start with a cluttered frame and look for ways to remove distracting elements that don't add to the visual story...
Yes. The art of exclusion vs the art of inclusion. Often times in photography what is excluded from the image can make an average photograph exceptional. IMO learning to pay attention to the BG is one of the last and hardest things that photographers learn.
 
The author of one book - whose title escapes me - pointed out that contrast is what draws the viewer's eye. It can be a contrast in tone, color, textures, shapes... it's what draws our attention and when an animal or human is the subject of a photo the image is most effective if the point of maximum contrast is the eye(s). This is why the catchlight is given as much attention as it has, it's a point of high contrast. There is much more to composition than this (and the catchlight is not a 'must have') but it's a good point to consider.
 
Hi folks. Recently I have been doing a lot of study on composition and have gathered a number of excellent resources - books, ebooks, tutorial videos, etc. My favorite is a composition course by a brilliant young man named Ian Plant. He runs a site called Shuttermonkeys, and his new course is called The Ultimate Photography Composition Course. I am using it in a photography workshop I lead in the virtual world, Second Life. Strongly recommended, the best I have found.

~ Russ
 
There are so many books! Michael Freeman has done many on rules and technique etc grounded in his many years as a travelling photographer in the tropics and especially Asia. He has a history of art background I think.... Jay Maisel's 2 books are firm favourites of mine. Yes he's ex commercial but very well rounded and his formal education in fine art shows. The man is an institution - just watch the interviews with the man. As Jay says, "Look at Art....it's being going on for 50 000 years...Photography only started 200 years ago".


Dating myself, but I became interested in the natural world very young when the first decent colour images were being published out of East Africa (I was in the then Rhodesia, became Zimbabwe). I still rate the late Hugo van Lawick's works as pioneering especially with his MF lenses. He's probably better known for the recently released NG documentary about Jane Goodall at Gombe. More directly, I got to know the late Peter Johnson who was one of the first successful pro wildlife photographers in southern Africa. Like many of us growing up in rural Zimbabwe, he also started young. By the time I met him he had retired from photography, however. Some of his shots late 1970s-1980s remain classics. He was core inspiration when I started with a FM2 and 3 lenses in 1984 (!) I often revisit their images as a witness to those landscapes and subjects in that era.... So yes excelllent photography is also an inspiration.

So as Jay Maisel says to "learn composition" then above all immerse yourself in excellent art, especially pieces by the Dutch masters who adopted chiaroscuro and the subtle use of light and tones. There are many beautifully reproduced collections of the well known painters and their works published in large format art books. I also enjoy Hugh Brownstone's teachings and advice in photography, and he's possessed of a profound appreciation for art. The late Galen Rowell is yet another, epecially his published anthology of essays from the magazine Outdoor Photography. He mentored many photographers, notably Thom Hogan.

When one faces the challenges of capturing the proverbial moment with the 'Gesture' I also find inspiration from the best rock art of southern Africa, especially the freizes preserved in the Maluti-Drakensberg Mtns and Zimbabwe's Matobo Hills (which I know intimately and it is the most densely painted landscape in the world). Those hunter-gatherers saw the jizz of animals in profound depth and they each probably forgot more than a modern will ever hope to learn about the natural history of their tropical environments. And they captured aspects in the canvas of rock surfaces.

Here's what I still rate as one of the best photographs captured of a wild lion taken, circa 1979 by Peter Johnson [scanned image below] on Kodachrome 64 with a F2 and 400 f5.6EDIF (which also my very first telephoto!). It is published in the book 'The Bushmen'. A lasting tribute to the Maisel maxims of Light, Gesture, Colour

Lion Kalahari Peter Johnson_rd 20210320_165856.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
I may have posted the following here some time back, but I cannot remember nor find it. So here follows some notes I compiled some months ago:

Origins of Art

It must be nature as well as nurture ie learning, which also depends on many factors eg where one grows up and learns in the local environment(s).

There is a large body of primary scientific literature in cognitive psychology, The development of these abilities in children has also been studied. Many of these researchers use controlled experiments. Tenets of this knowledge have been applied by many authors exploring artistic talent eg The Artful Eye by Gregory et al and the library of books written by Michael Freeman.

The scientific study of cognition and behaviour began with Charles Darwin, in his Expression of Emotions (1872) extending and developing the implications of his discoveries introduced in his earlier works, including Descent of Man (1971). And Darwin used images by pioneering photographers to depict his concepts and arguments. (The tenets of Darwin's genius are made plain by Michael Ghiselin in his Triumph of the Darwinian Method, Dover Edition.)

Our species' ability to identify patterns in nature is not only inherited but shared with many organisms, not only mammals. As to whether these cognitive traits are deeply ancestral or have evolved repeatedly is still being studied. Chimpanzees can see patterns but it is the ape genus Homo that evolved abstract-thought at least 1.5 million years ago with the ability to make complex 3 dimensional objects eg knapping stone tools. The ability to track animals and read signals in natural history is also part innate and part learnt. Humans can learn to track, even a city dweller, but A grade trackers are born, and also learn as children. This is well known from training counter insurgency operators in central Africa.

Whoever knapped the fine crafted lancelet blades of Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures held a clear idea of what they planned as the final product. This ability appears in the central African archaeological record of approx maximum age of 300 thousand years - the Lupemban culture (~300 - 180 Kyr tenure). The first known images and abstract art appears in more recent MSA cultures: eg engraved artefacts and a drawing using ochre attributed to the Howieson's Poort culture of coastal S Africa (73 000 yr), and these early people were also hafting arrows the they used with potent plant poisons. The very earliest rock art appears significantly later, however~40000 yrs ago, with a hand painting in Spain dated at 64000yr. Whoever painted and/or etched these images had an aesthetic "eye", especially for rendering from experiential memory the nuances of the behaviour of the different species of animals depicted by the artists.



Gestalt

Identity of pattern underlies much of what human art has depicted over the past few thousand years. The fact is we all see the same patterns in an image/object. The rendition of patterns is a complicated subject - complicated by both abilities of the artists and also technologies of the culture. The discovery - also invention - of mediums has been integral to the evolution of art. This history has been retold many times (with differing success) in richly illustrated tomes.

It is interesting Art teachers have to teach most pupil's how to see perspective and learn the other "rules" of composition in drawing and painting. The talented art teachers appreciate this pedagogical process has to do with enhancing creativity and instilling confidence in the pupil. The key seems be in training innate cognitive skills, principally cognition of geometric patterns ie edges and spaces, and their relationships, and advancing to appreciate patterns of light and dark ie tones, and "seeing" the whole ensemble.

As eloquently explained by Betty Edwards (see her classic Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain), these elements of pattern recognition are key to understand how we draw, and can learn to draw; and it's hard to see why photography differs in the core processes

A clear thread in the history of artistic endeavour is the trend in increasingly sophisticated use of light to display patterns eg perspective, and applied applications eg to evoke/portray emotions. New mediums and pigments were important in this progression. And enter photography as a technology to paint with light, and capture the image in an instant....

Progress continues in the latest printing technology. This ability to paint with light is key to the success of modern photographers. Some use artificial light eg Jeff McNally.

There are others eg landscape photographers - who photograph making do with natural patterns of lighting in all their capriciousness. This ability can be learned, but some artists are naturals and "see" patterns and related opportunities almost instinctively. One certainly learns much of this in wildlife genres, but ability is also subject to how well one knows and also respect one's subjects.

For all genres, in any artist endeavour probably the defining skill is one's ability to "see" the whole ensemble - the Gestalt. Too often, the talented artist identifies the gestalt in a scene almost instantly. Ability in one's tools, chisel, pencil, brush or camera is obviously vital to how successfully one renders what one identifies.
 
Okay enough waffle - final Collection of some quotable quotes...

  • “…never anything ugly in nature…Artist is the confident of nature - awaken your eye to the language of forms.” Rodin
  • “The photograph should be more interesting or more beautiful than what was photographed.” Gary Winograd
  • “Four Things make images that ‘Work’: Light, Subject, Composition - and the Idea.” Ming Thein — Gesture is the 5th
  • “The Painter Constructs. The Photographer Discloses” Susan Sontag; “Shadows are Canvas — Light is Paint”
  • Leading and Pleasing the Eye by balancing Optical Phenomena = Principle of Visual Harmonics — Galen Rowell
  • Photography is the pursuit of learning to see again “Make Visible, What without You, Might Never be Seen” Robert Bresson
  • “We Learn by Shooting to see Better without a Camera” Ernst Haas “Chance favours the prepared mind.” Galen Rowell
  • “There are only coincidences… I don’t take photographs… It’s the photograph that takes me.” Cartier-Basson
  • Break out of One’s Mold. “Only Difference between a Rut and a Grave are the Dimensions” Ellen Glasgow
  • “If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough” Robert Capa
  • Share scenes that are unique; take Viewers by the Hand and Reveal to them the Unrepeatable Node in Time
  • Strive for Insightful, Personalized Gestures; Images demanding Viewer seek out the Missing Key(s)
  • Shoot What Moves you. If it’s Fun. If it’s Unique; “Find your own path” Michael Freeman
  • Failures and Successes — Learn from Both; Fail Better! Nothing can Compare to the Joy of Securing Something New
  • “Photography is About Everything Else besides Photography” Jay Maisel
  • “Painting with light, within slivers of time, within the frame of our image” David duChemin
Have Empathy for Subjects “Don’t shoot what it looks like. Shoot what it feels like.” David Alan Harvey
 
Composition is a huge subject encompassing a lot of ideas including: position of major image elements in the frame, leading lines, implied sight or motion lines, balance including use of negative space, framing provided by elements in the frame, etc. But one big point that's stuck with me from a very early photography instructor is the idea that painting or drawing are basically additive arts where you start with a blank canvas and decide what to add to your image to tell your visual story. Photography is the opposite where we often start with a cluttered frame and look for ways to remove distracting elements that don't add to the visual story.

That idea of image simplification via changing shooting position or choice of lenses or selective focus through shallow DoF or selective lighting that spotlights the subject but casts shade into the background, even something as simple as getting up a bit higher or down a bit lower to control the background can all be used to remove distracting image elements and to help tell the visual story you're after whether that's a portrait, landscape or something else.
I like this. Since photography is just a hobby for me I am by no means a purist but I think a photo is better on camera as opposed to spending hours with a clone tool in LRC.
Now I just have to get better at it.
 
Hi folks. Recently I have been doing a lot of study on composition and have gathered a number of excellent resources - books, ebooks, tutorial videos, etc. My favorite is a composition course by a brilliant young man named Ian Plant. He runs a site called Shuttermonkeys, and his new course is called The Ultimate Photography Composition Course. I am using it in a photography workshop I lead in the virtual world, Second Life. Strongly recommended, the best I have found.

~ Russ
That looks like a treasure trove of resources. I watched a couple videos and looked at the free ebook. I have a few more videos on my watch list. Any one in particular you recommend?
 
I like this. Since photography is just a hobby for me I am by no means a purist but I think a photo is better on camera as opposed to spending hours with a clone tool in LRC.
Now I just have to get better at it.
I can see it both ways. If the composition is right but trash in the stream ruins it, I won't always crop the trash, I might go to content aware fill or similar instead.
 
I may have posted the following here some time back, but I cannot remember nor find it. So here follows some notes I compiled some months ago:

Origins of Art

It must be nature as well as nurture ie learning, which also depends on many factors eg where one grows up and learns in the local environment(s).

There is a large body of primary scientific literature in cognitive psychology, The development of these abilities in children has also been studied. Many of these researchers use controlled experiments. Tenets of this knowledge have been applied by many authors exploring artistic talent eg The Artful Eye by Gregory et al and the library of books written by Michael Freeman.

The scientific study of cognition and behaviour began with Charles Darwin, in his Expression of Emotions (1872) extending and developing the implications of his discoveries introduced in his earlier works, including Descent of Man (1971). And Darwin used images by pioneering photographers to depict his concepts and arguments. (The tenets of Darwin's genius are made plain by Michael Ghiselin in his Triumph of the Darwinian Method, Dover Edition.)

Our species' ability to identify patterns in nature is not only inherited but shared with many organisms, not only mammals. As to whether these cognitive traits are deeply ancestral or have evolved repeatedly is still being studied. Chimpanzees can see patterns but it is the ape genus Homo that evolved abstract-thought at least 1.5 million years ago with the ability to make complex 3 dimensional objects eg knapping stone tools. The ability to track animals and read signals in natural history is also part innate and part learnt. Humans can learn to track, even a city dweller, but A grade trackers are born, and also learn as children. This is well known from training counter insurgency operators in central Africa.

Whoever knapped the fine crafted lancelet blades of Middle Stone Age (MSA) cultures held a clear idea of what they planned as the final product. This ability appears in the central African archaeological record of approx maximum age of 300 thousand years - the Lupemban culture (~300 - 180 Kyr tenure). The first known images and abstract art appears in more recent MSA cultures: eg engraved artefacts and a drawing using ochre attributed to the Howieson's Poort culture of coastal S Africa (73 000 yr), and these early people were also hafting arrows the they used with potent plant poisons. The very earliest rock art appears significantly later, however~40000 yrs ago, with a hand painting in Spain dated at 64000yr. Whoever painted and/or etched these images had an aesthetic "eye", especially for rendering from experiential memory the nuances of the behaviour of the different species of animals depicted by the artists.



Gestalt

Identity of pattern underlies much of what human art has depicted over the past few thousand years. The fact is we all see the same patterns in an image/object. The rendition of patterns is a complicated subject - complicated by both abilities of the artists and also technologies of the culture. The discovery - also invention - of mediums has been integral to the evolution of art. This history has been retold many times (with differing success) in richly illustrated tomes.

It is interesting Art teachers have to teach most pupil's how to see perspective and learn the other "rules" of composition in drawing and painting. The talented art teachers appreciate this pedagogical process has to do with enhancing creativity and instilling confidence in the pupil. The key seems be in training innate cognitive skills, principally cognition of geometric patterns ie edges and spaces, and their relationships, and advancing to appreciate patterns of light and dark ie tones, and "seeing" the whole ensemble.

As eloquently explained by Betty Edwards (see her classic Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain), these elements of pattern recognition are key to understand how we draw, and can learn to draw; and it's hard to see why photography differs in the core processes

A clear thread in the history of artistic endeavour is the trend in increasingly sophisticated use of light to display patterns eg perspective, and applied applications eg to evoke/portray emotions. New mediums and pigments were important in this progression. And enter photography as a technology to paint with light, and capture the image in an instant....

Progress continues in the latest printing technology. This ability to paint with light is key to the success of modern photographers. Some use artificial light eg Jeff McNally.

There are others eg landscape photographers - who photograph making do with natural patterns of lighting in all their capriciousness. This ability can be learned, but some artists are naturals and "see" patterns and related opportunities almost instinctively. One certainly learns much of this in wildlife genres, but ability is also subject to how well one knows and also respect one's subjects.

For all genres, in any artist endeavour probably the defining skill is one's ability to "see" the whole ensemble - the Gestalt. Too often, the talented artist identifies the gestalt in a scene almost instantly. Ability in one's tools, chisel, pencil, brush or camera is obviously vital to how successfully one renders what one identifies.
Intersting. The book I mentioned in the first post also based the principles on Gestalt theory.
 
I enjoyed this book (borrowed it from the library a little over a year ago)
Art of Seeing - Freeman Patterson (not exactly nature photography specific, but still)

I enjoyed this article on Composition (and tons of others by Robert Berdan on his website)

An art teacher who also taught photography recommended, or required, Freemann Patterson's "Photography and The Art of Seeing" in aphotography course I took between high school and college. It was, and is, one of my essential photography references to this day, and I still have my first copy. It would be one of the last books on photography I'd ever give up, along with Ansel Adams' books, "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print."

Without composition, a photo is just a snapshot. Even when you see a photo without the best, or even good, composition, you still recognize that it is better than a photo wothout composition at all. However, some subjects can eclipse most composition rules with significant impact.

This site from the PPA explains a lot about how photos are judged, and composition is high on the list: Elements of a good photo
 
Last edited:
Why not clean the trash out of the stream?

I think the "trash" in this example would be anything that doesn't support the intent of the image. More like simplification I guess. I recently removed the whole distant parking lot visible from the top of mammoth hot springs, because I otherwise liked the image.
 
Last edited:
An art teacher who also taught photography recommended, or required, Freemann Patterson's "Photography and The Art of Seeing" in aphotography course I took between high school and college. It was, and is, one of my essential photography references to this day, and I still have my first copy. It would be one of the last books on photography I'd ever give up, along with Ansel Adams' books, "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print."

Without composition, a photo is just a snapshot. Even when you see a photo without the best, or even good, composition, you still recognize that it is better than a photo wothout composition at all. However, some subjects can eclipse most composition rules with significant impact.

This site from the PPA explains a lot about how photos are judged, and composition is high on the list: Elements of a good photo
I found that book used on Amazon for only a couple bucks. I'll give it a try.
 
I think the "trash" in this example would be anything that doesn't support the intent of the image. More like simplification I guess. I recently removed the whole distant parking lot visible from the top of mammoth hot springs, because I otherwise liked the image.
Did you remove it by positioning the camera or post-edit? Like I say, I am no purist but I prefer the first way. Same way with composites, I am just not interested in those personally but some folks love them.
 
Did you remove it by positioning the camera or post-edit? Like I say, I am no purist but I prefer the first way. Same way with composites, I am just not interested in those personally but some folks love them.
Using content aware fill in Photoshop. To me an image is just raw material to be painted on, moved around, or combined. I don't claim it to be journalism or documentary photography, so anything goes.
 
Using content aware fill in Photoshop. To me an image is just raw material to be painted on, moved around, or combined. I don't claim it to be journalism or documentary photography, so anything goes.
Yeah it is popular for sure.
 
It certainly is something to think about and even ponder for a bit. But I am a visual learner and looking at photos that "click" with my sensibilities and shooting lots and lots of frames and examining them for the ones that make me sit up and take notice is how I learn. So for me, reading about composition and the elements that define composition don't really do it as much as just trying to figure out what makes an image look good to me. So I guess I'm of the "...I know a good photo when I see it..." crowd.
 
Some photos "speak to me" more than others; those that do, I study them especially the lighting and composition. I study Ansel Adams photos for those two reasons especially. I quote Mr. Adams, "There are no rules for good photographs there are only good photographs." Only a couple of things I mind when I compose....make sure I do not bisect the image with the horizon line equidistant from top to bottom of the image; and as noted above, when photographing and/or cropping a critter or bird shot leave enough space in the direction the critter is facing/pointing. That is one of the first things I learned from Steve's ebook, "Secrets To Stunning Wildlife Photography." TY, Steve!!!
 
Back
Top