Camera aside, what helps you learn to compose?

[Heroique]

I’ve noticed a lot of people here enjoy historical painting, and they often apply lessons from the masters – Medieval, Renaissance, Modern – to their LF work. I’ve certainly made that claim about Claude Lorrain, the 17th-C French painter who teaches me a lot about composing summertime trees, heavy with foliage, in the low-angled light of various landscapes.

But maybe what teaches me the most about composition – short of actually using my 4x5 Tachi – is taking a sketch book & pencil into the forests of my region. (I’m not a too-serious sketcher, but I remember enough from my 8th grade art class to get by.)

Sometimes I sketch because carrying camera gear isn’t an option; other times, I sketch for its own sake. It slows me down – even slower than when my camera is w/ me – and at this leisurely, contemplative pace, I absorb lessons about light, lines, perspective, masses, space, and their interaction (but usually not color).

Not all sketched compositions are compatible w/ my camera and three-lens kit, but the lessons do seem to stay w/ me, increasing the diversity of imaginative options.

Short of actual camera work, what has taught you the most about practical composition?

[E. von Hoegh]

"Short of actual camera work, what has taught you the most about practical composition?"

Borderline OCD and a strong visual orientation; an understanding of goemetry and therefore perspective.

[Eric Rose]

There is a great book on the psychology of composition. I'll be darned if I can't remember the name.

[Doremus Scudder]

I think I've mentioned that I learned about using shift/rise/fall to move the optical center of a composition off-center from Canaletto. I studied a bit of art history in my university days and am an avid museum-goer. I have applied things I've learned from Whistler (composition), Turner, David, Picasso and Braque, among others, to my photography.

Also, as strange as it seems (or as synesthetic as it seems) I often correlate elements of visual and musical form. Some of the great symphonists have influenced the way I arrange things on in an image (think introducing an element and then varying or repeating it, or developing it). Mozart, Beethoven, Mahler, Bach... et al. Having your eye led around an image is a temporal exercise, much like a musical one. I think you can arrange an image to guide the viewer's attention and have him/her take in certain elements of the composition before alighting on another. It's certainly not as precise as music unfolding in time, but seeing one element and then later seeing another and recognizing a variation or repetition of the first lends an otherwise temporally static image some drama and suspense.

Best,

Doremus

[Jody_S]

In my photographic 10-year hiatus, I collected and studied Canadian landscape painting. I started looking at Canadian abstract as well, but I'm reliably informed that I can't tell a good one from something a baby made in his diaper.

[Heroique]

There is a great book on the psychology of composition. I'll be darned if I can't remember the name.

Maybe it’s Perception and Imaging by Richard Zakia?

A great book about what contributes to composition.


Also, as strange as it seems (or as synesthetic as it seems) I often correlate elements of visual and musical form.

Reminds one of the young, budding concert pianist, Ansel Adams.

Later in life, I bet he “heard” music when he composed his best landscapes.

I’m curious, however, if he ever “saw” compositions when he listened to music.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Drawing. It's all I ever used to do.

[sun of sand]

please show me your Joan Mitchell and Sam Francis landscape photographs


I'M CALLING BS ON YOU ALL

:) -this is so mods know it's meant to be light-hearted




compositon isn't sketchbooks, charcoal, piano, violins or musical notes or whatever notes are drawn on

it's just balance



where do I learn composition from

football


take the time to see space and you're learning composition
no phd or vest needed





PS
Love how you won't take the time to spell WITH but will right afterwards "..leisurely, contemplative pace, I absorb lessons about light, lines, perspective, masses, space, and their interaction "

it's like you're trying to make it not so evident that you're REALLY TRYING HERE

[Vaughn]

By looking at a negative on the light table and realizing, "Well, that did not work like I thought it would." Then I turn it upside down and think, "That's what I saw on the GG and it works!" But alas, upside down landscapes are not considered a new movement in photography. :cool:

[Heroique]

By looking at a negative on the light table and realizing, “Well, that did not work like I thought it would.” Then I turn it upside down and think, “That's what I saw on the GG and it works!” But alas, upside down landscapes are not considered a new movement in photography. :cool:

Maybe do more of those lakeside landscapes w/ upside-down reflections – that way, your composition has something for everyone, no matter which way you turn it!

[coisasdavida]

Frequent critic and pressure.

This is about a very small sample of photographers, I should say that in advance. I often find myself thinking about what were/are the best qualities in each of the assistants that help me in my commercial work. And the one that stands out the most has a newspaper in the past. You know? Daily exercise of being criticized, having 5 minutes to make 3 different portraits that work in horizontal and vertical ways. This person learned to learn, quickly.

[andrew gardiner]

But alas, upside down landscapes are not considered a new movement in photography.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Rodney+Graham+upside+down+photographs+of+trees&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=v7Q_UbnNAaPw0gX164CQDw&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1424&bih=764

[Heroique]

Daily exercise of being criticized, having 5 minutes to make 3 different portraits that work in horizontal and vertical ways. This person learned to learn, quickly.

“Composition comes down to three considerations,” I heard somewhere. It’s a pretty good tip, especially for one on the fly, as long as you don’t equate the three things for composition. I’m pretty sure it was John Shaw (in Closeups in Nature) whose three considerations are:


1) What’s your subject?
2) How will you frame the subject?
3) Where in the frame will you place the subject?

I think the first step sounds the easiest, but is usually the most difficult – be it LF, painting, sketching, or any other art. To be sure, all three steps are trickier than they sound.

[coisasdavida]

Ok, but should we really stop and consider these things? Or should we give the tricky stuff to our subconscious and play with the "easy" stuff (focus, metering, leveling, etc)?

[Vaughn]

Ah, Andrew! So there is hope for me!

Heroique -- Light is my subject and it fills the frame. so those three steps do not help me much. However, I do find myself thinking more about corners than I do the frame as a whole.

Random examples that I have posted before:

[mdm]

The waterfall is beautiful, I think you posted a carbon from a medium format negative of it once.

[Heroique]

I think it’s nice, too. The portrayal of space is a bit disorienting, in an entertaining sort of way. Speaking of music, I hear a splash of dissonance. ;^)

Vaughn, if it’s possible, can you simply describe your thoughts and/or behavior that led to that composition?

And to address coisasdavida’s interesting question, to what extent did art (intuition) and craft (conscious technique) share the job? Who worked hardest in this case?

[Chuck P.]

By closely examining the edges of the GG and trying to avoid tunnel vision-----an 8x10 piece of mat board with a 4x5 opening cut out helps tremendously.

[jnantz]

painting, sculpture and architecture from between 1900 and world war 2

[jp]

As a teen, page layout. Aldus Pagemaker. A little bit of Corel Draw. Here's an 8.5x11 sheet. Make it neat but emphasize certain things without being obnoxious. Don't use too many fonts. Where do your eyes go when you look at the finished printout?

Now, $2/shot for 4x5 or $7/shot for 8x10 makes me think about composition. Get it right with minimal wasted $ worked well for photographers of all generations past.

[Peter Gomena]

Ruining many sheets and rolls of film, looking critically at contact sheets, and trying again.

[Leszek Vogt]

Probably watched too many films. Wouldn't mind getting my hands on that psycho-determination book....it sounds interesting. Roughly 30yrs ago I wanted to study painter's motivation, etc., and use time lapse technique. The artist chickened out at the last moment - she'd feel too exposed (excuse the pun).

Anyway, most likely trial and error...to obtain that balance.

Les

[N Dhananjay]

I think it was Edward Weston who said that consulting the rules of composition before making a photograph is like consulting the rules of gravity before taking a walk.

I think it is life experiences (I mean visual experiences although I am sure there are other psychological aspects as well) and thinking about them and working with them. In other words, it is engaging with a visual process as deeply as possible. Its all the millions of tiny little personal Aha! experiences in the past and how they have shaped one's eye. In one way, I think photography is a unique visual medium in that you are restricted to some extent by what is out there. A painter is free to move objects around, delete them, add them as s/he sees fit. And sometimes I think that is a drawback because it permits facile compositions without personal growth. It takes great work and drive to get around that. With photographs, you have to extract the composition (or visual experience) that is there. And I'm not bashing painting because I happen to paint as avidly as I work with a camera. The media are different not only in the substance but also in the experience.

Cheers, DJ

[Vaughn]

I think it’s nice, too. The portrayal of space is a bit disorienting, in an entertaining sort of way. Speaking of music, I hear a splash of dissonance. ;^)

Vaughn, if it’s possible, can you simply describe your thoughts and/or behavior that led to that composition?

And to address coisasdavida’s interesting question, to what extent did art (intuition) and craft (conscious technique) share the job? Who worked hardest in this case?

MDM -- I do not remember a medium format image of first waterfall -- though this is a tiny little 4x5 negative (and scanned carbon print). The image of the waterfall on the far right is a 16x20 silver gelatin print from a 4x5 negative (TMax100, using a 150mm lens).

Heroique, I am going to guess that you are referring to the image of the waterfall on the far right. It is near the end of Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand. I spent about 4 or 5 days in this area, a long time compared to other areas...the only other places I spent that much time was Tongariro National Park and a couple one-week backpack trips. Lots of rain and thus lots of wet rock and waterfalls. Spending the time there helped me to get a good feel of the place...which was very active. High water in the river, new waterfalls popping up, and rock slides.

The glacier has been in retreat for a long time. The area in the photograph was covered by the glacier 20 years before this image was taken (1997). The glacier held up those big slabs of rock, which fell after being no longer supported by the glacier. That large rectangular rock -- one could park a couple Greyhound buses on it with extra room. The fall is about 80 feet tall perhaps...at least 60 feet anyway. It has been a long time. Scale is fun to play with.

What attracted my eye was the quality of light reflecting off the smooth rock face. It glowed in the strong, but overcast light. My choice of camera position was limited, I had only the one lens. The rule I broke was to put what most people would consider the subject (the fall) in the center of the image, but really the subject was the light. The decisions were mostly intuition, but a lot of conscious decision making was done concerning the placement of the top of the frame. It was tempting to include a little more on the top, but in the end I decided to limit what was seen up there -- thinking to encourage the viewer to imagine the rock continuing upwards. I remember working with the lower triangle of rubble to anchor the image, and everything else sort of just fell into place...the dark center behind the fall and the light radiating from it into the three sections of the image. Or falling into that dark center, if one is so inclined to see it that way. It should be a stable centered image, but somehow I caught the energy of the place where the retreat of the ice has left over-steepen slopes.

A few more of the same area:

[Heroique]

Heroique, I am going to guess that you are referring to the image of the waterfall on the far right. It is near the end of Franz Josef Glacier in New Zealand. I spent about 4 or 5 days in this area, a long time compared to other areas...

Funny, I was referring to Chilnualna Creek (post #15, second from left), but my comments about dissonance could apply to your Franz Joseph Glacier shot, too – even though its absence of far-interest and glowing rocks make it different. Your narrative about composition is quite instructive.

In your post just above, I think you’ve touched upon an oft-overlooked element of composition: “I decided to limit what was seen up there – thinking to encourage the viewer to imagine the rock continuing upwards.”

That is, do you want your borders to keep your viewer’s attention inside the frame, or invite their attention to “jump the fence.” The former is, of course, a Renaissance convention, the latter more modern. Most of my landscape photos, now that I think about it, try to keep my viewers inside the borders. Kind of like I’ve posted a natural “no trespassing” sign that the viewer, one hopes, feels no need to read.

[Vaughn]

...
In your post just above, I think you’ve touched upon an oft-overlooked element of composition: “I decided to limit what was seen up there – thinking to encourage the viewer to imagine the rock continuing upwards.”

That is, do you want your borders to keep your viewer’s attention inside the frame, or invite their attention to “jump the fence.” The former is, of course, a Renaissance convention, the latter more modern. Most of my landscape photos, now that I think about it, try to keep my viewers inside the borders. Kind of like I’ve posted a natural “no trespassing” sign that the viewer, one hopes, feels no need to read.

I want to do both in the same image...keep their eyes within the frame, but keep their imagination free to roam. To give the viewer the gut feeling that there is more than what they see. When photographing in the redwoods, this will often determine a vertical or horizontal image for me.

I was going to post two good examples of this, but I got a new computer and the lay-out of this forum is all weird -- and the "Manage Attachments" button does not work. Perhaps later when I am on a different computer.

The other waterfall -- all I particularily remember is being able to isolate the large rock by surrounding it with light (water), and giving the viewer a little bit of ground to stand on, but not much.

Edited to add photos (in a different browser). The vertical is meant to give that sense of continued height of the central tree, and in the horizontal (sorry a little dark), the eye movement is suppose to circle around the central tree.

[Alan Gales]

Drawing and painting and going to art school.

I had a great teacher in college who I credit with teaching me a lot about composition. He didn't just teach and was also a working artist. I remember that he did these fantastic illustrations for a children's folk/fairy tale book which was published.

[DrTang]

whipping thru flickr most recent pix - hours at a time

just looking at a lot of pix and seeing what I think is good - which is very little..but still
when I find it - it just stands out

I also have a ton of books / magazines I've collected that I go back thru for inspiration/ideas

[chassis]

Took a photography course 35 years ago; it started my journey in photography
Practice
Looking at photographs, from:
- well known photographers (initially AA, then others)
- museums and galleries
- websites, including this one and flickr

Composition is something that I have only recently become conscious of in my work, and have started making efforts to improve.

[Maris Rusis]

Looking critically at pictures I find sharpens my sense of composition. I try to get at least 10 000 new images in front of my eyes every year.

[Drew Bedo]

I joined a local photography club in the late 1980s; The Houston Photographic society ( www.hpsonline.net ). Each month there is a print competition with a judge who awards 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in various categories.

The judging criteria are left up to each judge and the feed-back from them is varied. One learns to have a tolerance for criticism.

The most value to me was seeing my work (my favorite images) next to the work of many other photographers working with any format both film and digital. This is where I learned the most about composition and framing . . . .That and the feed-back and interaction with wonderfully sharing people who were obviously (to me) better at it than I was.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know that "composition" is necessarily all that important. But to the extent that it's important I think it's about 80% innate talent and 20% learned by whatever means one chooses. For me that's been a lot of different things - painting, workshops, college courses, attending exhibits, reading books, making mistakes, attending movies, watching TV, looking at light, and probably many other things that don't come immediately to mind. But basically I think it's something some people are just good at and others aren't. Someone who isn't can still make decent photographs by learning a few "rules," e.g. "to create a sense of depth include some object in the foreground," "don't center the main subject," that kind of stuff. But IMHO those kinds of "rules" quickly become crutches and lead to making the same photograph over and over again.

[Brian C. Miller]

Thinking and feeling.

Photography is either about bare facts or emotion. Is the photograph a document, or is it trying to evoke a feeling of some sort?

+1 on what Brian Ellis said above, rules do become crutches, for a lot of people. I read one editor saying in an interview that the vast majority of photographs coming across his desk had objects exactly on 1/3 lines in the photograph. The photographers had grid lines on their camera screens, and were composing exactly to those lines. The editor was glad when a photographer sent in photos where the subjects weren't precisely on 1/3 grid lines.

And I also agree what has been said previously in the thread, that it takes a lot of time, film, and looking at other photographs and art. (Usually I think to myself, "why was that photographed?" and I don't have an answer for that. Usually, the photographer also doesn't have a coherent answer, either.) When a composition I've made doesn't work, I think about what it was that I thought would work, and then try to get that right.

[sun of sand]

What in the world is the point of this thread for you, Heroique?

I swear the point is to just talk

[John Olsen]

What in the world is the point of this thread for you, Heroique?

I swear the point is to just talk

And what's wrong with talk? I got some interesting perspectives from this talk. Thanks to the other contributors.

[Heroique]

...I think composition is about 80% innate talent and 20% learned by whatever means one chooses. ...Someone who isn’t [good at it] can still make decent photographs by learning a few “rules,” e.g., “to create a sense of depth include some object in the foreground,” “don’t center the main subject,” that kind of stuff. But IMHO those kinds of "rules" quickly become crutches and lead to making the same photograph over and over again.

Your 80/20 split has me curious about how high one should rate the influence of culture on our habits of composition. I imagine that you include culture in the “20% learned” portion? Me, I’d probably rate culture higher than 20%, maybe much higher, on both conscious and less-conscious levels.

Also, the “rules” you mention remind me of the useful “Rule of Thirds.” Below are two images I shared in a related thread about composition; they’re from John Shaw’s Closeups in Nature (post #13). Shaw likes the horizontal image better because the chipmunk’s eye falls very near one of the rule-of-thirds intersections. In the vertical image, the eye is a bit off, and sure enough, the fellow in that shot just doesn’t seem as interesting to me.

One might be curious if Shaw composed the “better” horizontal shot due to his recollection of a rule, or because it felt better to him, on an innate level.

[adam satushek]

Eyes, two of them.....though one works in a pinch.

[Brian Ellis]

Your 80/20 split has me curious about how high one should rate the influence of culture on our habits of composition. I imagine that you include culture in the “20% learned” portion? Me, I’d probably rate culture higher than 20%, maybe much higher, on both conscious and less-conscious levels.

Also, the “rules” you mention remind me of the useful “Rule of Thirds.” Below are two images I shared in a related thread about composition; they’re from John Shaw’s Closeups in Nature (post #13). Shaw likes the horizontal image better because the chipmunk’s eye falls very near one of the rule-of-thirds intersections. In the vertical image, the eye is a bit off, and sure enough, the fellow in that shot just doesn’t seem as interesting to me.

One might be curious if Shaw composed the “better” horizontal shot due to his recollection of a rule, or because it felt better to him, on an innate level.

The 80-20 numbers weren't derived on any scientific basis, 70-30 or 60-40 probably would have gotten the point across just as well and have been just as accurate.

[Kirk Gittings]

One might be curious if Shaw composed the “better” horizontal shot due to his recollection of a rule, or because it felt better to him, on an innate level.
If its the former hes not composing just regurgitating someone else's idea of composing. If its the later he still has hope.

[Laura_Campbell]

I use intuition to compose. It's a feeling thing for me. If I feel it it's right, if I don't I move on.

[C. D. Keth]

I use intuition to compose. It's a feeling thing for me. If I feel it it's right, if I don't I move on.

Ditto. I've been through years of classes on photography, drawing, painting, history, etc. but I can't ever recall thinking about any of that while put working. I'm sure all of those things inform my feeling that a composition is right but it's always just that.

[Alan Gales]

Ditto. I've been through years of classes on photography, drawing, painting, history, etc. but I can't ever recall thinking about any of that while put working. I'm sure all of those things inform my feeling that a composition is right but it's always just that.

I agree. That's how it should be.

I went to art school too and I'm sure I learned a lot of the same things. I don't think about those things while shooting but they do come out. Occasionally, I completely go against what I learned because it works in that situation. You just hopefully develop a feel for that.

I have also learned to take chances. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but at least I learn something. I just don't take chances with 8x10 film though. It's too expensive and I make enough mistakes as it is. :)

[sun of sand]

And what's wrong with talk? I got some interesting perspectives from this talk. Thanks to the other contributors.

I have a hard time believing that, John. You may have HEARD some other perspectives but what have they truly done for you?

Heroique asks a question as if looking for some insight and then after essentially every single reply has some quote from a book he's read that supposedly equates to that posters thought process or asks another question related to that posters thought process almost completely unrelated to composition
The real point of this thread is to blabber on and e-hobnob with people

"80/20 split has me curious about how high one should rate the influence of culture on our habits of composition"
LOL


"One might be curious if Shaw composed the “better” horizontal shot due to his recollection of a rule, or because it felt better to him, on an innate level."


WELL ONE MIGHT SAY THAT FOR THERE TO BE A "RULE" THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOMEONE AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHO DID HAVE AN INNATE SENSE OF COMPOSITION. ...so there is your answer.
DONE.

"..better because the chipmunk’s eye falls very near.."

He has posted this before.



I'm so SICK of people with this ANSEL Classical Pianist Music BS ....BS!!!!!

"Give your image a tune"
OMG


FAKE

[Heroique]

…I went to art school too and I'm sure I learned a lot of the same things. I don't think about those things while shooting but they do come out. Occasionally, I completely go against what I learned because it works in that situation. You just hopefully develop a feel for that. I have also learned to take chances. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but at least I learn something…

That’s an approach I like to take to the field. That is, I try to learn all the lessons I can from the Masters I like, but when it’s time to set up, I “forget” everything to minimize distractions and concentrate on personal work. However, these lessons aren’t really forgotten on any but the more conscious level; that is, they’re ready for quick recall if I need them, or choose to use them (or go against them). Many times, of course, they must influence me w/o my knowing it fully. This is part of what AA means, I think, when he says that chance favors the prepared. It works not just on the technical level, but on the deeper level of composition, too.

[Laura_Campbell]

I have a hard time believing that, John. You may have HEARD some other perspectives but what have they truly done for you?

Heroique asks a question as if looking for some insight and then after essentially every single reply has some quote from a book he's read that supposedly equates to that posters thought process or asks another question related to that posters thought process almost completely unrelated to composition
The real point of this thread is to blabber on and e-hobnob with people

"80/20 split has me curious about how high one should rate the influence of culture on our habits of composition"
LOL


"One might be curious if Shaw composed the “better” horizontal shot due to his recollection of a rule, or because it felt better to him, on an innate level."


WELL ONE MIGHT SAY THAT FOR THERE TO BE A "RULE" THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOMEONE AT SOME POINT IN TIME WHO DID HAVE AN INNATE SENSE OF COMPOSITION. ...so there is your answer.
DONE.

"..better because the chipmunk’s eye falls very near.."

He has posted this before.



I'm so SICK of people with this ANSEL Classical Pianist Music BS ....BS!!!!!

"Give your image a tune"
OMG


FAKE

Sheesh! Cut the OP a break for starting the thread, and those who might wish to contribute to it. There's no harm being done here. But there is the potential for harm when folks communicate in harmful ways with each other. I always enjoy a good constructive debate, but unnecessary criticism is, well, a tad unprofessional. Just sayin'. Lighten up. Life's too short. It's a beautiful day...

[Doug Howk]

Adam Marelli, in his lecture at B&H, emphasizes rules of design over rules of composition, see Video (http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2013/02/bridging-the-gap-adam-marelli-at-bh-photo/) As Bruce Barnbaum has stated, the so called "rule of thirds" is bogus. Adam uses the "rebated square" that achieves better results for subject placement.
I often wish I had taken more art/design courses; and am primarily self-taught as to design principles. Did work as a landscape/garden designer for 5 years in Virginia;and did teach landscape design at a community college. So hopefully there is some carryover of that experience in my photography.

[sun of sand]

Laura? Just last night I was thinking how LFF needs more women posting. If Heroique wants to go so far as questioning whether culture puts demands on composition I think I'm perfectly fine questioning whether a culture of "toasting each other by turns" is helpful in finding the truth


If I were to start a thread on whether Athletics/Sports is an artform
It really wouldn't go anywhere
Why?
Because "artists" need to distinguish themselves from others and admitting that athletic prowess is artistic mastery ...shiiiiii
RUINED

What is art? What is composition? What is an artist?
Photographs don't have any deeper meaning behind them

It isn't aesthetes talking about classical music or what to serve at the show opening or wine trails or pipe smoking or the wealthy or "the light" or





READ IT ANYWHERE
GOOD COMPOSITION IS BALANCE

THAT IS IT

talking any more about it is just patting each other on the back for having the same ideas no matter how ridiculous they may be




Are people trying to learn something here or are they merely just stating what they have already learned in the most imaginative way they possibly can so it seems "new"

just like an artist statement
All the same BS about all the same BS in 1 million different words

[Laura_Campbell]

There's much more to "good composition" than just balance. It is so instinctual that there may not be words to describe it.

[C. D. Keth]

READ IT ANYWHERE
GOOD COMPOSITION IS BALANCE

THAT IS IT

That's every bit as false as any other rule. Balance is one approach to composition. Composition is a language, a method to creating a picture that communicates something. Lack of balance is every bit as useful as balance.

[Heroique]

Lack of balance is every bit as useful as balance.

Yes, or “dissonance,” to use the musical term (from a few posts back) for the slight, but pleasant disorientation of Vaughn’s woodland images.

[Heroique]

...As Bruce Barnbaum has stated, the so called “rule of thirds” is bogus. Adam uses the “rebated square” that achieves better results for subject placement...

I had to refresh my memory on this compositional technique.

I think it’s more widely known as the rebatement (or rebattment) of the rectangle – and may be worth a quick glance.

Basically, the two short sides of any rectangle (like 4x5 film) imply two squares that can be formed inside the rectangle. (The closer the rectangle is to a square, the closer the two lines are to the border.)

This work by Gustave Caillibote seems to be a common example, though I really doubt the impressionist painter “knew” anything about it. If he did, you might hear a good-natured French chuckle. Yet there it is.

Interesting note – when it comes to a 2:3 aspect ratio (like 35mm film), the rebattment lines coincide perfectly with the shorter pair of “Rule of Thirds” lines. Hmm, perhaps it makes sense that things would “come together” w/ such a pleasant aspect ratio...

[Vaughn]

Yes, or “dissonance,” to use the musical term (from a few posts back) for the slight, but pleasant disorientation of Vaughn’s woodland images.

:) If a photograph is perfectly balanced, how does one keep the viewer on his/her toes?! And if they are not on their toes, they tend to stop paying attention and fall asleep...

This discussion has got me wondering about a recent image I posted -- it is divided evenly into horizontal thirds. Not at all like the examples previous shown in this thread where the bottom is more weighted, etc. And I was wondering if I should re-do it to be more classically composed. Perhaps I still will, but this dang thread will probably cause me to over-think my compositions for awhile!

[C. D. Keth]

:) If a photograph is perfectly balanced, how does one keep the viewer on his/her toes?! And if they are not on their toes, they tend to stop paying attention and fall asleep...

This discussion has got me wondering about a recent image I posted -- it is divided evenly into horizontal thirds. Not at all like the examples previous shown in this thread where the bottom is more weighted, etc. And I was wondering if I should re-do it to be more classically composed. Perhaps I still will, but this dang thread will probably cause me to over-think my compositions for awhile!

I like it as is. I often like somewhat unconventional compositions. These, for example, are all a bit strange but it felt right to do what I did:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8359/8332892052_c6a1c38c96_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8332892052/)
Streetlamp on Overpass; 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8332892052/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8497/8296286536_4b0ae4941a_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8296286536/)
Slackrope Walker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8296286536/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8459/8005216066_9b42822ed4_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8005216066/)
Architectural Abstract 1; 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8005216066/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

[Drew Wiley]

Learn the rules. Then ignore them.

[Bruce Barlow]

My book, "More Finely Focused."

There. A blatant plug, but feedback seems to indicate it might be one of the better uses of $9.95 that one will find in photography.

The camera won't be "aside," however. Actually doing the exercises is essential.

To find it, click on the link in the signature below.

[Alan Gales]

I like it as is. I often like somewhat unconventional compositions. These, for example, are all a bit strange but it felt right to do what I did:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8359/8332892052_c6a1c38c96_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8332892052/)
Streetlamp on Overpass; 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8332892052/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8497/8296286536_4b0ae4941a_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8296286536/)
Slackrope Walker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8296286536/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8459/8005216066_9b42822ed4_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8005216066/)
Architectural Abstract 1; 2012 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdketh/8005216066/) by CKeth (http://www.flickr.com/people/cdketh/), on Flickr

They are a bit out of the ordinary but that's what makes them interesting.

[Laura_Campbell]

:) If a photograph is perfectly balanced, how does one keep the viewer on his/her toes?! And if they are not on their toes, they tend to stop paying attention and fall asleep...

This discussion has got me wondering about a recent image I posted -- it is divided evenly into horizontal thirds. Not at all like the examples previous shown in this thread where the bottom is more weighted, etc. And I was wondering if I should re-do it to be more classically composed. Perhaps I still will, but this dang thread will probably cause me to over-think my compositions for awhile!

Vaughn, I like the way it is too. Check it out upside down. Quite nice that way too. :-)

[sun of sand]

That's every bit as false as any other rule. Balance is one approach to composition. Composition is a language, a method to creating a picture that communicates something. Lack of balance is every bit as useful as balance.


This is the problem that enables people to go off the deep end into mysticism

I said Balance
I did not say Symmetry

Imagine yourself atop a balance beam
you begin to lose your balance
what do you look like?
How do you regain your balance?
You thrust out a leg, an arm, or both to bring enough of your weight back to center
you're not thinking about symmetry
you're trying to equalize

If you have all the subject off to one side ..that's unbalanced
but you also have something on the other side that makes the composition balanced ..empty space big enough to counter that object
negative space has weight
this is the rule of thirds

You place a main focal point subject 1/3 into frame that dominates the scene in emotion etc
you now have 2/3 of the frame to balance it all out that's full of rather empty negative space contrasted against the dominance of that subject
usually more pleasing that symmetrical "stick it in the center" composition
Or perhaps I should say ..is also pleasing but in a more dynamic way.

THE RULE OF THIRDS EXPLAINED. DONE
Only became a "rule" when people neglected to study why it worked.

S-Curve? Same thing. Splits the weight into fractions where opposing corners balance one another? Ying yang style. fat end thin end


Harry Callahan had a telephone pole through Eleanors head
Beautiful photograph one of my favorites
Not because of eleanor but the pole and the roofline of the building/wall behind
Eleanor simply provides a shape to break up the pole as does the car above her head through the pole as well

It is not a photo of a woman, roof, telephone pole, 1 1/2 automobiles and street

you have cobblestone railway texture, vertical streaking all along the midline of the photo, roof tile mimics the cobbles, half round roof, circular manhole on walkway, quarter manhole on right edge to spread those arcs into a balanced triangle centerpoint being his wifes face, streamlined autos with one to take away from it being a mere portrait by stretching her head into a white slashd stroke counterbalance to the darkness, streaky clean horizontals of the street and wall edge, the lines that form from the cobbles converging towards the center along with strong vertical lines dispersing the telephone poles line along with a perfect white slit through the pole ending in her white rounded face and even a little whiter button glint on the dark coat to balance the face out ..you think he dodged that insignificant coat button just a little? Just enough white sky to balance the overall dark mood.
that's a fkn masterpiece
..people say OOPS pole through head!


See I think abstract artists are the true masters of composition
Can't fool people with pretty trees or faces or flowers
strictly compositional mastery
elegant repetition of form



If I can see music in a photo that would be one my leading examples



but some people just don't get abstract art. Wonder why

[C. D. Keth]

This is the problem that enables people to go off the deep end into mysticism

I said Balance
I did not say Symmetry


Yeah, I know what balance means. You're reading things into my answer that are not there. I am talking about balance. To put a frame off balance communicates something. To put a frame on balance communicates something. That's all it is: communication. You don't say that Shakespeare is right and Jim Harrison is wrong because Harrison writes n kurt, simple language and Bill is flowery to the extreme. They're different and they have different purposes.

[Vaughn]

Good examples, Chris! And thanks, Laura! Having the lighter portion on the bottom and the darker on top reverses what we expect in landscapes, so flipping it is fun..
Thought I'd toss in two images of the same bridge taken from about the same place -- just shifted over a bit. The right one is a much later image on 8x10 -- contact print (silver gelatin), the other on 4x5 enlarged to 16x20 silver gelatin. Fun seeing them together as thumbnails -- never noticed how they work together, being very different sized prints. Light is quite different in each, of course. Thick fog vs medium-strong sunlight.

[Alan Gales]

I much prefer the one on the left, Vaughn. I love the "moodiness" of it!

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Alan. Unfortunately the scan and then image on the screen drops out the egret rookery on the right side (a large isolated grove of trees in the middle of the bay)...barely visible in the actual print. That brings up another fun compositional use, if it can be called that -- having something in the image that takes time and attention to see. A way of rewarding the viewer willing to pay attention and really look at one's image...not everything needs to be laid out for the viewer to see easily.

I have used that idea with the nude in the landscape, and with my boys. Though not at the same time...but at 16 yrs old, perhaps they might enjoy it?! ;)

I have a 5x7 carbon print with a nude in the redwoods (not pictured below)...it was in a show and a 'street person' wandered in saw the label (Prairie Creek Trail, Nude) and stared at the print for a long time before stomping out yelling. "There's no nude in there!" Others have thought it was some strange reference of the redwoods having no clothes. I guess one can hide things too well!

[Alan Gales]

Where's Nudo? :)

[Jody_S]

This thread has brought back a few memories for me. I took a photography course when I was 15 or so, I remember sitting in class and watching as all these 'rules' were written out on the blackboard and illustrated, and we had to do exercises. The next time I picked up a camera on my own, just for fun, I remembered the 'rule of thirds' and decided to place my subject exactly on the left third line. It was a pelican on a post in Florida somewhere. I rebelled, I could not take photos like some mechanical rule-following machine, so I placed the pelican on the line but I left him facing out of the frame. When I got the slide back (ah, Kodachrome, how we miss you), I remember putting it in the projector and looking at the screen and it was just wrong. There was no other word for it, it just felt wrong. I put the slide in a drawer and never looked at it again.

I think what we learn isn't rules, but aesthetics. We learn to appreciate certain forms of art, certain schools, and we tend to find those pleasing because we understand them, they appeal to our sense of beauty. When composing our own photos, we then tend to compose along the lines of whatever we have learned, whatever we are used to seeing. The good news is that nothing stops us from learning more visual styles; in fact, it's positively a requirement for growth. As we do, our palette of compositions will extend itself as we learn to appreciate new (to us) styles. But I certainly don't compose by glancing at a cheat sheet of standard compositions and picking one, and I don't know anyone who does. I compose in my mind how I want the image to look, and I set about getting to that point using whatever craft is at my disposal, and I do this because the image I've fixed in my mind is pleasing somehow, or then again I might construct a photograph with some other goal in mind and choose to be visually dissonant.

The rules of composition, or learning such rules, is helpful in the stage of looking at art and learning to recognize choices made by the artist, learning why certain styles are aesthetically pleasing, why some are still in use after centuries. But I don't find them at all useful while staring at a ground glass.

[sun of sand]

Yeah, I know what balance means. You're reading things into my answer that are not there. I am talking about balance. To put a frame off balance communicates something. To put a frame on balance communicates something. That's all it is: communication. You don't say that Shakespeare is right and Jim Harrison is wrong because Harrison writes n kurt, simple language and Bill is flowery to the extreme. They're different and they have different purposes.

"Balance is one approach to composition. Lack of balance is every bit as useful as balance."


Then you just don't fully understand what it is that you're saying
I say Balance is all there is to composition
You say Balance is only one approach
I SAY YOU ARE INCORRECT
JUST 1

It's strange that when I say you are wrong by explaining how the weight of negative space brings back into balance an object placed heavily to one side

you fire back with your "MORE THAN ONE WAY"
..then proceed to only give one example ..the very example I just explained away as actually BEING IN BALANCE


The burden is on you to show some more ways of achieving good composition that can't be explained away as BALANCE



Don't fall into this communication mysticism aura light language BS that can't be explained

Ah, I like that.

Light Language
DON'T STEAL IT ON ME






Sabres game has a little girl signing the anthem ..almost lost it, shaky
the crowd gets behind her and she quickly giggles every time they cheer
she gets it back and does a nice cute job

Bailey Morrison





The photos you posted display Asymmetrical Balance pretty well
You're just confused a little. It's OK

[sun of sand]

These are not rules of composition
They are a single rule exemplified
Understand the balance behind the rules and you understand the rule
you then have no use for the rules

[C. D. Keth]

I think you're confused as to who is confused. Very little of your writing makes sense but you know what? You're right, 100% correct. Maybe that'll keep you from writing, and therefore save me from reading, another of your long, ranting, only slightly readable posts.

[Heroique]

To supplement the earlier portion of our discussion about composition & music, below are some very interesting remarks from Johsel Namkung, the landscape photographer whose work is the subject of an ongoing thread titled “Johsel Namkung: a retrospective - book review.”


I spend a lot of time looking for subjects. ...And finally, when I find something, there always has to be a unifying, kinetic force. Which means the rhythm, and in musical terms the melodic lines. And polyphonic melodic lines especially, like Bach, for instance, or Handel and Mozart. Linear structures. And then its juxtaposition, its counterbalancing, which is called counterpoint in musical terms. And I find almost every time, when I see something, I always see melodic lines, and counterbalancing forces, and weight, and harmony. And that becomes the skeletal form of my photographs. So my photographs could always be interpreted through musical forms. (from “Artist’s Statement,” 2012)

Synesthesia indeed! I can’t be sure about his intentions for his viewers – he may have none – but when I view many of Namkung’s compositions, I certainly “hear” music, and it has to do, I’m certain, w/ the rhythmic lines of his work. Especially interesting is his phrase, “Kinetic force,” and his claim that it means “rhythm” and “melodic lines.” It’s a description that reminds me of many of AA’s famous compositions, full of their own dynamic, kinetic forces – that is, their own music.

[sun of sand]

I think you're confused as to who is confused. Very little of your writing makes sense but you know what? You're right, 100% correct. Maybe that'll keep you from writing, and therefore save me from reading, another of your long, ranting, only slightly readable posts.

I bet a lot of people would look at that post and say you're taking the high road

I'd say those people are a little confused, as well.



I'm not looking to be Mr Right here
But I am right and you are wrong and it needs to be corrected so we may grow up out of the swamp of elitism
Maybe I am as complex as these asymmetric compositions are and this explains why you cannot fully comprehend my writing

Again
you said there were other ways to acheive good composition besides through Balance. You have yet to provide any that are not
in the end ..all about Balance.





"..And finally, when I find something, there always has to be a unifying, kinetic force"
Called BALANCE?

"its juxtaposition, its counterbalancing,"
It's ..well, it's BALANCE

"counterbalancing forces, and weight, and harmony"
..?

Why doesn't he just say that and leave out all the musical crap? OH, RIGHT! People love that crap.



You need to stop pretending you can hear and see music so that others pretending to see and hear music because they read ansel could play the piano and want to pretend they are "equals" will like you




If you are impressed with the word rhythm look up geometric abstraction and I'm sure you will find it a few words away from the word BALANCE


Balance is all there is.
Or
Are you going to tell me you're actually going to start walking around looking for music?
Buy some new vinyl for a compositional skills tune-up?

[barnninny]

Just wanted to say, as a newb to LF, I've found this discussion enlightening. First and foremost, I've learned some new and interesting ways to think about photography; even if I end up not keeping them, they're interesting to "try on." Very secondarily, I've also learned how to easily identify the posts to skip over.

[C. D. Keth]

Very secondarily, I've also learned how to easily identify the posts to skip over.

I think that is the primary victory. To learn that early in one's time on an internet forum is to make your stay infinitely more pleasant and helpful.

[Heroique]

…I rebelled, I could not take photos like some mechanical rule-following machine…

I think your entertaining story about the pelican – and your teenage struggle to compose it – illustrates an age-old question about composition: namely, whether beauty is (at one extreme) objective, unchanging, “out there,” independent of culture, and waiting to be perceived by the photographer, so that it can be composed in a photo & communicated to others; or whether it is (at the other extreme) something that really doesn’t exist “out there” at all, but is much more subjective, “interior,” personal, created (not discovered) by the photographer, and therefore more problematic to share through a composition.

The former approach, I think, has greater faith in common ground, and is probably more tolerant of “rules of composition”; the latter approach would naturally be more skeptical about common ground and the so-called rules (and teenagers, of course, love this).

The photographer Johsel Namkung (in my previous post) falls in the first category. His descriptions of classical music make that clear. But I think this thread has attracted partisans from both sides of the eternal issue. Maybe we need a poll and settle the issue once and for all!

[barnninny]

It's been 3-4 years since I spent any time looking into this, but at that time it was pretty clear that at least some aspects of human beauty were universal. I don't know if beauty perception in general has ever been studied intensively. I would imagine it has, though; it's the kind of thing scientists & sociologists would be curious about.

Maybe that mysterious book on the psychology of perception mentioned way upthread would shed some light.

[barnninny]

I think that is the primary victory. To learn that early in one's time on an internet forum is to make your stay infinitely more pleasant and helpful.

It's a problem all internet boards share, unfortunately, so once you've been on a few it becomes sort of automatic, doesn't it.

[sun of sand]

What helps one learn to compose

That's what I thought this was about
I gave the best advice here
The only thing to study that is really of any use

Learning how to balance weight

what else are you going to do? Learn and relearn the rule of thirds for eternity? Diagonal lines? OOOh
I'd have thought the people here were beyond this. Or do you just want to talk about golden means and crap that makes you seem super uber intelligent and sensitive?
I think we all know. Chicken or the egg. Is it golden mean or is it balance that people can find a golden mean within
There is no answer to it. People have never relied on it. It's fake.

If you go back to musical melododrama photographer and think about his "unifying kinetic force"
I'm pretty sure what he's actually trying to communicate is FRICTION.

Friction -or rather a pulling force perhaps- keeps a composition tight by having anchors within an image that keeps the momentum of a dominate object from spiraling out of control and out of the picture ..taking your attention with it.

you could say harmony creates balance and balance creates unification
or maybe they're really all the same thing.



Funny how someone can say another is WRONG
Provide no evidence but what had already been explained away with what had been called Incorrect
Then when you demand to see something they can just fold up and play victim and insult that person and in the eyes of most
win

Believable


No point in studying 50 different rules we've all heard of thinking we're missing some key elements to it and need to "work em"
Just learn BALANCE. They are all about RECOGNIZING BALANCE.




Learn what is behind the rules and you have no need for them. GET IT RIGHT
It's not that hard

There is no forgetting/ignoring of what makes the "rules" important to understand because without that understanding you're back at square one

think about it. THINK ABOUT IT
you will tell me I'm right. I don't need it ..already know it. NOT THAT DIFFICULT.





But it's hard to sound learned when all you can say is "look at how this counters this"
Much more enjoyable to talk about fake garbage that relies heavily on advanced mathetics and phd level science fiction to ALMOST explain what is going on

[Heroique]

...It’s been 3-4 years since I spent any time looking into this, but at that time it was pretty clear that at least some aspects of human beauty were universal...

Yes, it’s astonishing what 3-4 years of aging can do to the human figure – from universal beauty to universal ugliness. ;^)

More seriously, the book you mention is Perception and Imaging (by Richard Zakia) – worth underscoring as an excellent source about composition and the conscious, semi-conscious, and sub-conscious influences at work as we compose.


This discussion has got me wondering about a recent image I posted – it is divided evenly into horizontal thirds. Not at all like the examples previous shown in this thread where the bottom is more weighted, etc. And I was wondering if I should re-do it to be more classically composed. Perhaps I still will, but this dang thread will probably cause me to over-think my compositions for awhile!

I missed this the first go around. But like C.D. Keth and Laura, I like it as it is. I’ll only add that for me, your horizontal creek also offers a vertical interest. That is, the sharply defined rocks on the bottom get relief as I lift my gaze to the blurry, submerged rocks; and likewise, the blurry, submerged rocks get relief as I lift my gaze once again, to the sharply defined rocks on top. Works in reverse, too – and this vertical up-and-down interest offers a counterpoint to the horizontal flow of the water. For me, your photo would keep working even if you re-weighted the bottom portion as you suggest you might – hope you re-post it for comparison if you do.

[barnninny]

Yes, it’s astonishing what 3-4 years of aging can do to the human figure – from universal beauty to universal ugliness. ;^)

Heh. Especially at my age.


More seriously, the book you mention is Perception and Imaging (by Richard Zakia) – worth underscoring as an excellent source about composition and the conscious, semi-conscious, and sub-conscious influences at work as we compose.

Thanks. I knew somebody suggested that might be it, but it wasn't clear to me it actually was the book the earlier poster was talking about.

[Robert Langham]

This is an easy one. Buy my book, even an electronic version, and solve many problems quickly and simply. The Blackfork Guide. It's a crescent wrench of a book- easy to use without instructions and valuable to beginner and expert. Blurb.com. Search for The Blackfork Guide or Robert Langham.

91858

[sun of sand]

[QUOTE=Vaughn;1004389]Thanks, Thomas. I think I got too caught up with including that little bit of shrubbery on top of the top rock when I was photographing...I felt I had to include it for some reason. I still like it, but perhaps it belongs in a different image than I was actually trying to take. I have another negative that I moved a tad closer (and ever so slightly to the right) and only the the base of that little piece of shrubbery is included. QUOTE]

I was going to ask what that thing was. Like a stalk of something with a drop of water on top like a sphere ..or looks it. Too cute, I think. I'd have done the same thing and have


I cropped it like this. An exercise in composition. Finding other possible compositions within an artwork
I think you've been open to suggestion before
I think it's too flat and too tall and too warm.

I think your "closer and to the right" would be right on. That center rock has an itneresting shape to it ..like it's growing weston pepper-like and the archipelago on top as though birth of an island
A little too big for the frame.

And a close crop that could be even closer as the upper archipelago makes it messy

I think a problem I see with the original is that there are numerous shapes all over the image. Figurelike, streaks, circles
If all were similar a much stronger design would result. All streaks on dark rocks or all lichen on dark rock.


Even if my composition isn't improving due to this thread at least my photoshop is

9194291943

[Vaughn]

SoS...interesting crops and many images can be often found within a single image.

However, my 'closer and to the right' were very minor shifts (a matter of several inches)...certainly not as radical as you presented. The movement of the camera still kept the central shape of the white water intact...and was the subject of the image -- supported by the black, but glowing racks that defined it. But without that wonderful glowing white shape, the rocks around it seem a bit glarish, a bit gaudy.

I'll have to take a couple of 'L' shaped pieces of matboard to the print tomorrow and play a little with the composition myself.

[sun of sand]

Oh, I'm not telling you to go take those exact photos. I just think closer and to the right puts you on track to what's interesting -at least to me. The water there does nothing for me. I see large boulders of varying shapes with fast water flowing through and think a tight crop -in that area- would find many subjects all at least half worthy of a photograph. Some extreme close-ups and semi-macro's
Maybe that's where the real magic is.


I have a favorite boulder creek just downstream of a largish waterfall that has many of these scenes. I know there are great phtographs there
at least a couple not of the waterfall itself
half the fun is walking through butt deep barefoot trying to not step on broken radios and keep balance on the slick rocks with camera over the shoulder

[andrew gardiner]

I'm not sure if watching films counts here -maybe it's too closely related -but I would say the films of Antonioni are masterclasses in composition. 'La Notte' and it's perfectly balanced, black and white 'chequerboard' compositions. 'Il Desserto Rosso' for exquisite lessons in handling colour ( this from the man who famously painted the grass green because it wasn't green enough).

[rdenney]

So, what have we learned?

1. Sun of Sand actually DOES know where the shift key is. He used it for shouting, but that's okay. (He still hasn't found the punctuation, but then neither did e e cummings.)

2. But in reading the whole thread (which I guess I missed earlier, and now I'm glad I did), I'm agreeing with him. Completely. And. Without. Reservation. (Those are some extra periods you can use, SoS.)

I was asked to explain the Rule of Thirds once in a discussion on another forum, and it went like this: Things are static when piled in the middle. They are dynamic (another word I found only in SoS's posts) when they are off-center. But if they are off-center without any counterweight, the composition looks as though it's falling over, which is another way of saying it leads the viewer out of the image. When it's dynamically balanced, it leads the viewer back into the image. It may be a zig-zag path, as with Friedlander (as I learned to appreciate from Paul and Struan), or it may be direct and simple. But the motions of the gymnast trying to find balance on the beam is an exact metaphor for what I'm thinking. The Rule of Thirds or the Golden Mean or the Square Rebate are just models of compositions that are asymmetrical but balanced.

The distinction between balance and symmetry was absolutely spot on. If a composition is symmetrical, it will be balanced. But if it is weighted at the bottom, that balance will be static, which is not always inappropriate. If it's weighted at the top, then it can toppled even if it's in balance--that's what makes it dynamic. But it can certainly be asymmetrical, and in unusual ways that create a dynamic response that still pulls us to the the center.

What do I do to make myself better at it? Apparently, from looking at my own work, nothing.

But I know it when it happens. Just look at Jiri's, Nana's or Austin's photos, as those who achieve dynamic balance in different ways. "Balanced" is the word that comes to my mind every time I see one of their photos.

Now, here's how artists learn to develop this sense: They do gesture drawings. The idea is to get the essential dynamism--motion--onto paper in a minute or less, as an exercise in focusing on the movement and how it balances, rather than on the details of the subject and the drawing skills. I sucked at it.

(Musicians do this, but in dimensions that are neither visual nor verbal. When I have to play a melody, I give it words in my mind, as a tool for triggering the right emotion, and for phrasing. But I do not expect those words to form in the listener's ear, and in many cases would be aghast if they did.)

Rick "who still sucks at it" Denney

[Heroique]

I’m not sure if watching films counts here – maybe it's too closely related – but I would say the films of Antonioni are masterclasses in composition...

I think it’s a great observation. I remember certain movie scenes that suggested how I might compose landscapes, both color and b/w. The movie director’s use of cropping is what I usually notice first, if I’m thinking of LF at all w/ popcorn in hand. :D

Your remarks also remind me of the classic cowboy movies that must have taken inspiration from compositions by Frederic Remington (1861-1909). A quick example below – a painting called Fight for the Waterhole.

“Right out of the movies,” one might think, but really, the famous cowboy movies are “Right out of Remington.”

LF landscapers, too, not just movie makers, might take inspiration from Remington (not just Renaissance masters, etc.). In this case, love the circular arrangement of space. Plus, the circular actions – the circular aim of rifles, the circling “Injuns” – reinforce the circular space. Check out the circular reflection in the water, returning attention to the horizon. The painting also goes a considerable way in “satisfying” not just rule-of-third axes, but central axes. Many lessons of composition here, I think, for multiple film formats. (And I didn’t even touch use of color, light, shadow, texture...)