Richard,
I understand what you are saying. Gosh the only person that you have to please is yourself.
If you or I, for that matter, saw things exactly as someone else does than someone is not needed. I encourage you to follow your vision.
Printable View
This is an interesting thread, and may become one of the longest on record. Quite simply, there is no answer.
Over the years I have known photographers who have spoken on this subject, among them Wynn Bullock, Minor White, and Edward Weston. All of them had very different ideas and conclusions. I have a vivid memory of an afternoon with Wynn while he described his theory of composition and the fourth dimension to me.
However, in my opinion, Edward Weston gave the best definition: "Composition in photography is the strongest way of seeing". A simple concept.
There is some very fine work already on this thread, I look forward to seeing more.
Thanks,
mergross.com
"Composition is the strongest way of seeing" I wonder who said that?
I believe it was Edward Weston.
I usually just look through the camera and move it around until I find shapes that are pleasing! They usually end up being something along the 'rule of thirds' or some other rule, but I have trouble composing when I'm trying to think of various criteria, so I just shoot what looks pleasing.
In retrospect, I can usually find a 'rule' that fits the photograph after I've shot it and am looking over it. So maybe the 'rules' are with me subconsciously, or the 'rules' are such that if you look at an image hard enough, you can find a 'rule' that comes close to fitting the image! I'm inclined to go with that last notion, that an image which is pleasing can probably be looked at in such a way that one of the 'rules' can be made to apply to it! So in that light, just shoot what pleases you, and let the 'rules' lay where they may :-D
However, I do enjoy hearing analysis of peoples images from other folks, it's interesting to see thought processes on images, even if those thoughts weren't active when the photograph was taken!
I have always enjoyed those compositions that let the eyes travel in circular motion endlessly, the prime example being "Satiric dancer" by Kertesz.
This is an image I shot this 4 th of july at friends house.
35 mm, sorry.
http://i33.tinypic.com/10wqykm.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2efm0bc.jpg
Here are my own stripped-down ideas on composition. (I joined LF recently and I feel a bit like a taxi-driver who turned up at a vintage sports-car rally.)
1. Get the viewer oriented by giving him a plane of reference - a surface, a horizon, whatever, (the lake in your shot was good).
2. Let the viewer know how close he is by showing some solid item that has it's own perspective, (a building, a box, a path or whatever)
3. That done, just let the light do the composing for you. Dark areas against light areas, light against dark as though you had to draw with pencil shading and no outlines.
3. Stay out of the shot. If you really want to intrude, add structure, exagerate with diagonals that converge somewhere interesting.
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/m...rs_2008/2a.jpg
http://i318.photobucket.com/albums/m...rs_2008/3a.jpg
Contrived scenes always bored me, Edward Weston pushed it to the limit. At least he knew what the limit was. Sometimes it's better to leave the guy behind the curtain unknown. When you look at the egg slicer of AA it shows what he is like when he is given some objects to arrange and photograph. He's no better than most on this thread. Get him out doors and it's a different matter all together.