• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

There are no rules in composition, really?


To illustrate, probe, demonstrate and refute guides
or schemes for enhancing composition of pictures.

Free wheeling social discussion and anecdotes,
will likely be moved
here.



Every time I hear people say that there are no rules to producing good photography, or even worse there are no composition rules, I can only smile. Of course the making of a photograph can serve many goals. One may want to evoke a feeling, or just document a happening. But for those who want to earn their keep, or even just want to make more appealing images, the saying "beauty sells" will have an attractive ring to it. It becomes interesting if we realise that most people recognize 'beauty' instinctively and instantly, and that there are indeed rules. When we realise that there are rules, we can try and use them to make our images more "beautiful", or by deviating from the rules perhaps create something a bit unsettling (if that's the emotion we are after).

Here is a short lecture by Chris McManus, professor of psychology at the University College London, a fascinating lecture about the difference between looking and seeing. He uses some of Piet Mondriaan's later paintings to get his message across. It was recorded in the Netherlands and (unfortunately) has a Dutch intro and subtitles for the TV broadcast, so just skip the intro and go to 1:07 and enjoy (you can also skip the 2 following contributions in Dutch in that video if you like):
http://www.hetgesprek.nl/archief/3000/


http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/publications/reprints2009/2009-ThePsychologist-Beauty-V2.jpg


Interesting stuff, isn't it?

Cheers,
Bart


P.S. Here are some related papers by Prof. McManus, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/reprints/1997EmpiricalStudiesArts-GoldenSection.PDF and "Beyond the golden section".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

John Angulat

pro member
Thanks Bart, very interesting piece.
One of the highlights of this video was the bell curve.
Sadly, I'm generally found on the far left (including my attempts at discerning the real works of art).
Oh well, at least I finally have found validation for the decorating scheme of my home!
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Bart_van_der_Wolf;99952. Here is a short lecture by Chris McManus said:
Bart,

I enjoyed so much the first lecture. Having the lecture in English and the subtitles in Dutch and knowing some German was a beautiful way of getting feeling for expressions in Dutch. Chris McManus did not say how he controlled for prior knowledge of Mondrian's work. That, after giving a Google survey demonstrating how Mondrian's designs had penetrated every part of our culture, is surprising. Although he keeps repeating he's a scientist throughout the lecture, he doesn't even raise the issue of prior knowledge and bias from the mass marketing of Mondrian's designs.

All he said was that we can sort of agree on choices of what's more agreeable. However, he didn't give us anything much we can be sure of or use.

Asher
 
Bart,

I enjoyed so much the first lecture. Having the lecture in English and the subtitles in Dutch and knowing some German was a beautiful way of getting feeling for expressions in Dutch. Chris McManus did not say how he controlled for prior knowledge of Mondrian's work. That, after giving a Google survey demonstrating how Mondrian's designs had penetrated every part of our culture, is surprising. Although he keeps repeating he's a scientist throughout the lecture, he doesn't even raise the issue of prior knowledge and bias from the mass marketing of Mondrian's designs.

Hi Asher,

That's correct, but he did start out with the apparent preference for certain rectangle proportions in pairwise comparisons. That's already stunning. So there seem to be certain ratio's that appeal to our sense of aesthetics more than others (see DaVinci, or Fibonacci). Mondriaan raised it to a whole new level by combining shapes and colors into stunning combinations, and the majority of people have relatively little problem picking out which is which, the real thing or a computer altered version. So Mondriaan did something that appeals more to our sense of beauty" than the alternative does.

The question/quest then becomes, what is it that makes the difference, and how solid a predictor is it.

All he said was that we can sort of agree on choices of what's more agreeable. However, he didn't give us anything much we can be sure of or use.

In one of his papers (The golden section and the aesthetics of form and composition: A cognitive model) he discusses that:
"Preference for placing objects within a pictorial field has demonstrated (as did preferences for rectangles and other simple figures), that the golden section may well not actually be the 'most liked' but rather the 'least disliked' - the lowest common denominator of a range of different preference functions.".

While not as clear as a definite 'yes', it also is not an absolute 'no'. And indeed, 'beauty' could also be described as a relative lack of 'ugly'. Ultimately it's the amount of either harmony or tension that sets the stage for how an image is perceived. Other experts, in the field of human perception, show that we start with rough pattern recognition and then gradually fill in the details if they are useful for the task at hand, so the atmosphere of an image is determined before the details enter the equaton.

Cheers,
Bart
 

Leonardo Boher

pro member
As far as I know, all nature is made from the golden proportions because it fits in all the stuff inside the Creation (which stomps out the chaos theory, btw). And all what you see that catches your eye always is in some manner, in harmony.
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Psychologists are nothing more than consultants; if you ask them for the time, they look at your watch
and tell the time.

Human nature...that is what psychologists tell you. About you and others.

People read from left to right? Wrong, some do it from top to bottom. Cross the street, look left, Wrong if you are in Britain and the Commonwealth. Built-in biases. Upbringing.

Golden rules? The Greeks knew about it! See sea shells..you will know about spiral algorithms.

Contrasts? Nature is all around you. Color combinations? Look at the forest, the leaves, the tree trunks the sky.

Yell ' fire ' in a crowded room? I do not need a psychologist to tell me what happens.

Just observe. See what humans do, how they behave. How you behave. What appeals to you, in
a photograph, in a painting etc.

Want to direct someones attention in a direction? Don't need a psychologist. Just let a persons eyes
look in tht direction. You will too. Guaranteed. It is inbuilt. Within ourselves.

Psychologists have value. If you want someone to tell you what you should know but do not think you know.

Blank slate, all white. one red dot somewhere on it. Where do your eyes go first? That is what a
psychologist tells you ( and charges you for the why? )
 

Rachel Foster

New member
Sometimes, Fahim. Sometimes.

Put two psychologists in a room and you'll often have three opinions. You should see faculty meetings in a psych department! All by way of saying that while psychology (and psychologists for the most part) base their opinions on scientific research, we can never prove anything. It's a process and there are always factors, "third variables" we didn't account for. Thus, rules are "made to be broken."
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This is a subject worthy of attention! So.......



What guides us in composition?

  • Native intuition

  • Experience

  • Actual rules that one tried to apply as often as possible

  • Creating pleasing look

  • Attention-GettingA sense of "Unity" or disorder

  • An experience of "balance" or "harmony"

  • A sense of going against expectations

  • Some other factors



Let's share our approaches to "composition" and any references that serve as a great guide!


asher
 
Every time I hear people say that there are no rules to producing good photography, or even worse there are no composition rules, I can only smile......

Bart, I think you are absolutely correct.

Years ago I lectured on "The Rules of Composition" as part of a 8 week certificate course in photography. Most of the students were teenagers and their attitude to the lecture was along the lines of "Leave it out guv. We don't need no steenkin' rules of composition. We're artists and we break rules because we're after exciting new vision." The lecture never went really well and occasionally degenerated into argument.

When the material was retitled: "Secret Techniques - how to make people unwittingly fall in love with your pictures. They won't know why but you will" the acceptance rate was much better. Of course it was the rules of composition all over again. And I think the students made better pictures too.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Maris,

Bart, I think you are absolutely correct.

Years ago I lectured on "The Rules of Composition" as part of a 8 week certificate course in photography. Most of the students were teenagers and their attitude to the lecture was along the lines of "Leave it out guv. We don't need no steenkin' rules of composition. We're artists and we break rules because we're after exciting new vision." The lecture never went really well and occasionally degenerated into argument.

When the material was retitled: "Secret Techniques - how to make people unwittingly fall in love with your pictures. They won't know why but you will" the acceptance rate was much better. Of course it was the rules of composition all over again. And I think the students made better pictures too.

A great story! Thanks so much.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
My oh my. The dreaded rule game and aesthetics.
Good luck on this one. Separating the facts from fiction will be hard enough, let alone sorting through the opinions. I'm not confident about leaving the decisions in the hands of a psychologist either. The ones I know wouldn't know a Rembrandt from a rattle snake.

The thing that puzzles me is the way 'art' uses mathematics to justify ideas. The math is precise; the art is full of conjecture. Applying precision to art seems contradictory.

Unlike Maris, I don't teach 'rules'. Nor was I ever taught the rules. I don't know if our results differ. That's too subjective. In both our cases I'm confident in suggesting the students are satisfied with their progress.

There is always room for rules in art if one chooses, as there is for creativity in science.
Being a teacher of physics as well as art (photography) it's possible and advantageous to blend the two but not so much that the value of each is lost in the other.

Creative thinking and 'breaking the rules' in physics has brought us a long way. It has enabled us to set new parameters. With art, limiting thinking to rules will prevent diversity. The good thing about this is that science needs to be understood; art doesn't.

The beauty in both art and science are different yet of equal value. Doug's beautiful math is as intriguing as any painting or sculpture. For him, rules are imperative.

Beauty in art is at the whim of the public. If they need rules to appreciate it, so be it.
I'd much prefer my hormones to control me.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I am not sure what this thread is talking about, given that more than half the links cited for discussion are dead. The only links which are still live are the two scientific papers discussing people's preference for rectangles (I am not making this up!). Surprise, surprise, they found that even so many people like rectangles, some don't.

Jerome,

I will try to hunt down the references, but in the meanwhile, this link works


2009-ThePsychologist-Beauty-V2.jpg


and to me is an important opening to the discussion. However, I am not sure how much his study of rectangle popularity is relevant to art appreciation.


Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Don't you love that bit.
"Somewhere there must be something structural, formal, compositional ...."
I bet he believes in a god as well.
Why do such people need to have a reason.
Think of it like sex. Some days you don't need a reason; just lay back and enjoy it. The last thing you want is a shrink peering over your shoulder reminding you there might be a reason for it all. When that little tingle of enjoyment comes at the end that should be reason enough.
The same goes for art.
I can't say the same about maths. Help me out here Doug.
 

Wolfgang Plattner

Well-known member
Hm

... breaking rules or ignoring rules?

The main reason for rules may be the desire of reproducing things in a way they last and rest useful and/or reproducable, at least that's the reason why I think our "godfathers of rules" in the old Greek or Egyptian cultures recognized them and made them the base for their statues and temples.

Ingoring rules may be funny at the moment but it's a blind alley.
Breaking rules presumes that I bother about them, that I study them and get to know about them, and that's the base for something new, that may point to a new way with open end ...
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I will try to hunt down the references, but in the meanwhile, this link works

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/medical-education/publications/reprints2009/2009-ThePsychologist-Beauty-V2.jpg

and to me is an important opening to the discussion. However, I am not sure how much his study of rectangle popularity is relevant to art appreciation.

The image shows apples. I am not sure how much rectangular apples are...

We have had more interesting discussions about compositions. Probably the most complete is Reading the reading by Mark Hampton, even if it suffers since Mark decided to remove all his pictures. Another one is Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, Guest Artist Photographers. I think that one picture from that last thread is particularly relevant to the subject of composition:

P_Grindivik_Iceland_2004.jpg


Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004

No rectangle, no apple, only an abstract subject. Yet the composition mysteriously work, if you remove any of the elements, the picture is not so good (my apologies to Tom for discussing the removal of elements). Now, I am expecting a clear set of rules, based on rectangles and formulas, to construct this kind of picture on a regular basis.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The image shows apples. I am not sure how much rectangular apples are...

We have had more interesting discussions about compositions. Probably the most complete is Reading the reading by Mark Hampton, even if it suffers since Mark decided to remove all his pictures. Another one is Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee, Guest Artist Photographers. I think that one picture from that last thread is particularly relevant to the subject of composition:

P_Grindivik_Iceland_2004.jpg


Paul Chamlee: Grindivík, Iceland, 2004

No rectangle, no apple, only an abstract subject. Yet the composition mysteriously work, if you remove any of the elements, the picture is not so good (my apologies to Tom for discussing the removal of elements). Now, I am expecting a clear set of rules, based on rectangles and formulas, to construct this kind of picture on a regular basis.

Jerome,

I am particularly pleased that at least one other person here recognizes the balance and beauty in the apparent haphazard disorder of Paula Chamlee's photograph above. Michael and Paula were a little taken back that there was limited response to their contributions. I now feel, because of your current remarks, that their work and ideas did indeed resonate with us, even though we didn't respond as much as we could have at the time.

....furthermore, your analysis above is helpful beyond just referencing Paula's picture, as your questioning of simplistic explanations is necessary to allow us to begin to unravel the fabric of what might constitute beauty or good composition in art.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
I am particularly pleased that at least one other person here recognizes the balance and beauty in the apparent haphazard disorder of Paula Chamlee's photograph above. Michael and Paula were a little taken back that there was limited response to their contributions. I now feel, because of your current remarks, that their work and ideas did indeed resonate with us, even though we didn't respond as much as we could have at the time.

I had a look at that thread again. Quite frankly, I find that the contributions to that particular thread were excellent. If Michael and Paula were expecting more, their expectations were unreasonable.


....furthermore, your analysis above is helpful beyond just referencing Paula's picture, as your questioning of simplistic explanations is necessary to allow us to begin to unravel the fabric of what might constitute beauty or good composition in art.

Interestingly, even if we do not have a real satisfying theory on composition, we do have workable theories on why we find other things beautiful. For example, colour harmony works reasonably well as a theory. I think I posted something about it in a thread that was quickly overwhelmed by the technicalities of look-up tables.

On non-photographic but abstract subjects, musicians have quite good frameworks about harmony and counterpoint.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I had a look at that thread again. Quite frankly, I find that the contributions to that particular thread were excellent. If Michael and Paula were expecting more, their expectations were unreasonable.




Interestingly, even if we do not have a real satisfying theory on composition, we do have workable theories on why we find other things beautiful. For example, colour harmony works reasonably well as a theory. I think I posted something about it in a thread that was quickly overwhelmed by the technicalities of look-up tables.

On non-photographic but abstract subjects, musicians have quite good frameworks about harmony and counterpoint.

I will try to separate the over- technical from the great ideas and concepts on color appreciation that are easier to follow when I write an article or two.

My apologies for getting over technical. I also tried to show that such technical detail is not often needed with today's cameras and common sense use of a grey card.

From that point on, being able to use map to pleasing combinations of colors is an enjoyable pastime!

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Asher,

I will try to separate the over- technical from the great ideas and concepts on color appreciation that are easier to follow when I write an article or two.

"Over-technical"?

What a repugnant notion.

Perhaps you mean to speak of separating the "technical", or the "very technical", from the other aspects of the topic.

My apologies for getting over technical.

What was "over technical? Why, I didn't even see any color transform matrix equations, or discussions of the Purkinje shift, or anything.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Colour theory is a "technique" as well...

There is nothing wrong in discussing look up tables or in discussing how to correct metamerism for accurate colour reproduction under different illuminants. But I wanted to point out that some photographers to not always seek accurate colour reproduction and, in that case, the colours they chose for the end pictures are not selected randomly.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
.............and, in that case, the colours they chose for the end pictures are not selected randomly.


Jerome,

Do you mean that

  • "Whether they realize it or not, their selections are not "random" but actually based on innate preferences for certain combinations of colors in human perception of what is pleasing to the eye""

  • "The colors they choose are likely to be more pleasing if they select colors from the various color wheels you have shown us" in the thread here, post #24.?

  • or perhaps both!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Sundays contribution.

If you want beautiful photos, take photos of beautiful things.

When in doubt, obfuscate.

When self assured, obfuscate even more.

If you are ugly, fat, old and/ or self-conscious, stand behind the camera.

If you like it, enjoy it it. If you don't like it, leave it be.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
If you want beautiful photos, take photos of beautiful things.....

This is another aphorism that while on first glance seems self-evident, it's actually too simplistic, as it excludes a lot of potentially beautiful pictures!


Look again at post # 26 above by Jerome and these.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Still, Jerome, I believe that fundamental to both our perception of "good composition" and "beauty" there are fixed elements in neural mechanisms from which the mind builds dynamic "constructs" such as the complex emotions/experiences in "love", "loyalty", "beauty" and yes, even "good composition". None of these multi-component perceptions by humans, (found across disparate cultures), are describable as perceptions with sharp boundaries from other related experiences, rather these complex feelings are made themselves of dynamic zones of reference to many primary innate and learned responses and memories, each of which enriches and colors the current evoked experience when seeing something evoking such a response.

While I do not expect, nor need rules from understanding such complex perceptions described above, I would enjoy the insight that would further facilitate my awareness of the process in my appreciation of art and my own efforts.

I do think that some parameters of an image can be understood and accessed without making a set of cookie cutter rules resulting "sameness" and the equivalent of elevator music.

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
I am not well versed in design theory. I can merely ( that too not clearly ) describe what and how I might experience an image. Forget the message for the time being.

Forget color( colour ) too.

It appears to me to be ' silly ' to say that rules of composition are hogwash, don't matter, or that
Thousands of years of analysis of visual and cerebral perceptional dynamics have been in vain.

I will just give a simple example or two and shut up.

Diagonal lines give me a different ' feel' than just straight lines. Some lines lead me to another point.
I am visually and mentally attracted in different ways as to the composition of light, dark and shadows.

It is ' silly ' of me but the ' weighting ', the mass, the center ( centre ) of gravity in an image does have an impact on me. And for some ' sillier' than me.

But that is to be expected. These ' silly ' people are in august company here.
 
Top