Composition: Conscious Thought or Natural Tendency?

[Speedway]

With Landscapes, buildings and other static objects I find myself searching round the viewfinder for the most pleasing comp. For birds, other animals and field sports it depends on how quickly they are moving but I use the centre single point focus and recompose in pp if necessary. For motorsport or anything that the direction of travel is predetermined I use the left or right single points to put the focus where the object is entering the frame from. I also find that now even most of my quick snapshots are a lot more pleasing than they were a few years ago, so I guess it is a subconscious learning over time, some quicker than others.
Keith.

[Tannin]

^ Top post, Xebadiir!

Borrowing some bits from it that rang especially true for me:

• my pet hate is images of a beautiful scene with no direction
• if that breaks some rule then I am not concerned
• I guess subconciously I shoot to lead the eye
• compositional rules fade into the background while getting the viewer to see what I am seeing, thinking or feeling

Remind me to keep an eye out for your photographs (which I confess I am not familiar with) as I like your approach. Does this mean I'll like your work? Or have no bearing on that. We shall see.

-------------------------------------------------

On another slant completely, a little story, perhaps to illustrate how we grow and change and improve over time.

The other day I was on the Victorian coast, looking for the rather rare and shy Eastern Bristlebird (without success on this occasion) and gradually wandering back in an approximate homewards direction wishing the light would improve properly instead of just coming good for two minutes every half hour. I called in to London Bridge, one of those wonderful but over-photographed rock formations down close to the Twelve Apostles. I took one or two scenes - just good quality happy snaps really, nothing important - admired the view for a few moments longer, and was about to wander back to the car when the only other people there that day (it was windy and bitterly cold) asked me to take a picture of them.

This group consisted of three girls, maybe 20 years old at a guess, two of them Japanese (by the accent) and the other Australian. One handed me a tiny P&S camera about the size of two matchboxes. So I put my fancy SLR back in its bag and spent a moment puzzing out this little camera, found the shutter button, put it to my eye .... eh? Where is the viewfinder? Oh, it hasn't got one. You have to hold it at arm's length.

That was OK. So I held the camera up and automatically took a couple of steps to my right and one back to frame the three of them together on the left against a neutral background and, on the right, the massive bulk of the London Bridge island with the waves crashing white against its cliffs. It was one of those silly cameras with a very long, shallow field of view (16 x 9 or some such rubbish) but that worked quite well in this instance as I could have the three friends together and also have the attraction they had come to see in plain sight instead of behind them. Click! Handed the camera back.

All of this took ... what ....10 seconds? I probably spent less than half a second deciding how to compose the shot. It was just the obvious thing to do. Most of you here on AP would have done exactly the same, I reckon.

I handed the camera back. They smiled politely and said "thankyou", I smiled back and said "not at all", then turned back to my seascape, wondering if it was worth pulling out the 50D and murdering another batch of photons. (It wasn't.) Then I hefted my camera bag and, on the way out, glanced back at the three girls, just as they were replaying the picture I'd taken. WOW! Their faces lit right up! They were so happy! You could see the surprise and pleasure as each one looked at it in turn, and they called out a few happy words to me over the wind.

So I waved and smiled and got back into the car. And I smile even now as I think of it - I know that this casual picture of the three friends at London Bridge will be the one that best captures the day for them and the one that they print out or set as wallpaper or send to their families back home.

The thing is, though - it was completely automatic. My mind was unexpectedly asked to compose a photograph (of a sort I don't ever do - I'm strictly a nature 'tog) and without the slightest difficulty it computed the scene and spat out a good answer. I bet that you, the person reading this thread, would have done the same - because we, all of us, have spent so long composing photographs and done it so many times over that the fundamentals of working out what is important in a picture and of good basic composition are almost instinctive. Hand us a simple task and we will do it competently without the slightest trouble. Fast rewind back a few years and we wouldn't have been able to do that. We do learn as time goes by.

[Tannin]

I also find that now even most of my quick snapshots are a lot more pleasing than they were a few years ago, so I guess it is a subconscious learning over time

^ posted while I was writing my post. Exact same point!

[jim]

I found that as I learned more about photography there was a period when the quality of my compositions actually declined, partly from paying attention to the more technical side of things (which I've never been good at, of course) rather than just looking for something interesting to photograph, and partly from a loss of spontaneity. While I've never consciously tried to use things like the "rule of thirds" or even given much real thought to my compositions, my oldest photos, taken when I knew nothing, are often compositionally more adventurous.

[Kym]

If you get 100 'average' people and show them series of images, some composed according to the rules, and some not.
Then ask these people to rate the images, the ones that meet the rules will rate higher.
This study has been done may time in the past, do a bit of Googling to find some of the studies.

I think we are hard wired for it.

This is especially true when golden ratios come into play, of which the rules of thirds is loosely based.
http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/Euge...enSection.html

[James T]

I try to take pictures that look good.

I don't think, hmm, I will put this on a third, or let me look for some leading lines now...

I think, that might look good, and then take a picture of it.

[ving]

i wish i could say i am a natural... sometimes i hit it naturally other times i have to work hard at it. such is life hey.

[Xenedis]

Good topic!

It's sure turned out that way!

I don't look for composition, in a very real sense I listen for it. I better explain what I mean ....

It's very Zen-like, but I think I get it.

You let the image present itself to you, rather than looking for the image.

I have found from experience that sometimes the best images come along and grab you when you're not actually looking for them. Sometimes, going out with a pre-conceived image can result in disappointment.

I'm certainly in favour of pre-visualisation, and find it very satisfying when I've seen an image in my mind and then gone out and replicated it with my camera.

However, what's also very satisfying is producing a great image when it wasn't in the plan.

I think the above sentiment relates to photography in broader terms. As far as composition, I somehow just know what's 'right', and fortunately I rarely struggle with composition.

Being a technical rather than artistic photographer, I tend to be acutely aware of what is in my frame, and I will compose to either include or exclude subject matter; so there is a certain conscious thought process going on, although it's probably automatic or even second-nature that I don't break it down.

It's a bit like breathing. You simply know how to do it, but don't actually break down into conscious steps what is actually taking place.

I find it difficult to produce decent work with subjects I don't know and have an understanding of. Landscapes in particular - if I travel through a district and take some shots along the way to somewhere else, I get holiday snaps. Meaningless stuff. I have to spend some time there, get to know it in all its moods, understand it - only then can I hear what it is saying and do some justice to it with a camera. Once I've got to know some country, it's different: I might be just passing through briefly but I can hear it telling me how to photograph it.

Interesting observation, and one to which I can certainly relate.

I am predominantly a landscape shooter (which, for the sake of simplicity also encompasses seascapes and cityscapes). I don't know why I shoot those subjects; I just have some sort of passion for them. I fell into it almost (and sometimes literally did so).

On the flip side, I'm not the least bit interested in sport, which is why I don't photograph it. I can recognise a great sport image when I see one, but being a subject that has no interest to me, it's not something I'd set out to photograph, nor necessarily photograph well.

Were I to shoot sports, I'd be wanting tightly-framed shots of the faces of the players rather than a bunch of people on a paddock chasing a ball. I'd probably employ the same sorts of techniques I use in portraiture (ie, filling the frame tightly with the person's face; it's all about the eyes).

As for the mechanics of composition, no, I don't usually think about the "rules" of composition, certainly not rule of thirds! In general, I make a point of not thinking about those things. If the subject wants to be photographed with a ROT composition, that's fine. If it wants something else, so be it.

I've found that for most images (especially 'scapes and 'traits), ROT composition (which I'll hereafter call 'ROTC', as I cannot be bothered typing it multiple times) works 99% of the time. It just has a natural, balanced, pleasing look about it. If I'm shooting a symmetrical subject such as a wine glass or a bunch of rounds of ammunition lined up, I'll use central composition, as the symmetry of the subject lends itself to that, and if I were to place the subject on a third, it'd look inherently wrong -- almost as if I bumped the camera.

[Xenedis]

It`s probably just you creative side coming out.

That's a point of internal conflict for me.

I don't consider myself creative. I'm not doing anything that hasn't been done before; I'm not doing something off the map or super-creative.

After reading and seeing all these aspects that make a good photo into a fantastic image it just comes natural.

That's certainly how I feel.

Time constraints seem for me to be the major problem....and I`m retired.... We have just been to France and Italy for a holiday, doing two Trafalgar tours, back to back and you just wish you had more time in one place whether early or late in the day to get the magic light and sus out shooting positions etc.

Travel photography has its own challenges.

In my view, you're either there to see something you've not seen and be a tourist, or you're there for photography specifically. It can be difficult to combine the two, unless you're doing it solo or with someone who's also a photographer and understands the need for good light.

As for retirement, the notion that retiring will suddenly free up a big chunk of time is a fallacy. From what I've seen, retirees are busier than the working classes.

I think my answer to this is ' a bit of both '
Usually, I don't go out to take an S or spiral composition but if that's what the lay of the land is doing, then I'll try to compose it with that in mind and then to see if the rule of thirds will fit it.

Interesting. I bet that 99% of the time, ROTC does fit; it seems to work well with landscapes, given that there are no straight lines in nature, and seldom any symmetry.

Because I shoot alot with live view, the compositional elements of thirds is something that is quite easily done and I do tend to use that 'rule' alot.

I didn't know you used the live view function. I never had it until my most recent camera (5D Mark II, purchased in May of 2010). My previous DSLRs didn't have it (I've been shooting DSLRs since 2005, and digitally since 2002), and despite having had the feature for over a year, I never think to use it.

[bobt]

We have just been to France and Italy for a holiday, doing two Trafalgar tours, back to back and you just wish you had more time in one place whether early or late in the day to get the magic light and sus out shooting positions etc.

Those tours are possibly the worst way of achieving great photos! I try and avoid them whenever possible, but for we older people sometimes it's just the most practical way of seeing places. The problem is, they never stop long enough at any given place, the sun is always wrong, the crowds are usually too big and you're locked into a group and its destinations. I can share your sense of frustration - groups like this are hell for photographers.

I'm heading off to circumnavigate the UK by sea shortly, and some of the time I'll be ashore in groups - but some days I'll do my own thing and take my time about it. There are few things more frustrating than being at an ideal location and not having the time to both absorb and photograph it. I gain a little time ignoring the ramblings of the guide and just taking photographs. What they say might be interesting, but I know I'll never remember it, but the photos will stay with me forever. I can look up the facts when I get home.

I find that I take fewer photos now than I used to on trips, but the number of "keepers" is growing. I put that down to having learned more about getting it right the first time rather than the 6th. I think the best way to see how much we have learned is to look back on photos we took some time back - if you're learning, then the improvement should be obvious.

[Geoff79]

I didn't get to read through as much of this as I wished as I never seem to have time to do such things. But anyway, it's funny I was just discussing this kind of stuff with my brother a few weeks ago. He's just learning to use his SLR after going through a course. He was saying how his teacher didn't really acknowledge the 'Rule of Thirds.' I then proceeded to tell him that I am so hungry for knowledge about photography - I really want to know all I can about everything, BUT, one thing I refuse to factor into it is a conscious effort to take photos specifically applying the 'Rule of Thirds.'

Now, I'm not saying I might not naturally look for images which magically slip into the rule, but it'd never be something I'd consciously calculate when taking a photo. I think it'd take a bit of the joy out of it for me, and it would seem more like a mathematical equation of sorts rather than just taking a nice photo of something I like. Too mechanical, for lack of a better term.

Anyway, I have not a single doubt in the world that, as per Kym's post, photos that do stick to the 'Rules of Thirds' are more visually appealing than those that do not, and as I said, I hope it's stuck somewhere in my sub-conscious, because it's certainly not a conscious thing for me.

[Tannin]

I think Kym's research is very dangerous! You need to be really, really careful about stuff like that. What it is showing is that a statistical majority prefer ROTCs a statistical majority of the time. It is not valid to then assume that this provides a guide to composition! No! The artist must compose (be that with camera or brush) according to her vision of the subject. More often than not, executed well, that will actually fit neatly into the ROT rules. But not always! Indeed, I think there is a lot to be said for not teaching beginning photographers ROT until they have had a chance to let their eye develop and mature.

I made a conscious decision not to learn any of the compositional rules until I had been photographing seriously for a few years and felt confident enough to take such rules onboard and accept or reject as appropriate to my own style and desires. I'd recommend that path to anyone. I'm glad I did that as I think it helped develop my eye. These days I like thinking about composition and applying rules and seeing where that thinking leads, but not generally as a part of the composition process, only afterwards when I'm looking at pictures, not making them.

[cam bicknell]

Very interesting topic.
Most of my photography has been when backpacking or travelling and usually the thought suddenly occurs 'That's a photo' and then the process is of getting the elements of the scene that first caught my eye to balance in the composition. I like to have an impression of depth or three dimensionality to it if possible.
Balance outweighs rule of thirds, leading lines etc for me and is usually decided by when it looks right than any concious application of rule of thirds or considerations of figure-ground relationships, positive and negative space or the relative weight of colour etc. Often if I get a picture that really works for me then I can determine why based on these design principles after the fact but I don't see that at the time of taking the photo.

So for me it would be natural tendency.

[Xenedis]

I think of it more this way, John - I trust my eye. Maybe you do too.

That's a fair assessment.

I know about the ROT, sure, but I don't think about it when framing a shot; at least not consciously unless there is a good reason to do so. The Rule of Thirds is only a "rule" at all because most of us have found, through experience, that images composed by that rule will usually be pleasing to most eyes; so I frame in a way that's pleasing to my eye first!

Very true. What I've found is that newcomers to photography tend to place a subject smack-bang in the centre of the frame.

I did the same, and I shudder at the thought now.

I've found that new photographers (or people who aren't photographers, but are asked to, say, photograph you standing in front of some tourist attraction) often not only centre the subject, but include miles of background clutter.

If you look at your photo from your 1981 European holiday hard enough with a magnifying glass, you might see yourself in standing front of the Eiffel Tower.

If I have trouble framing a shot, and the initial result ISN'T pleasing to my eye, I will try to see whether I've been forced to break the ROT or similar to get the subject in frame. If that's the case then I will try to re-compose in PP so the finished product is pleasing to my eye.

So there's definitely a level of conscious thought there.

Sometimes I will deliberately break the ROT or similar to achieve a different "feel" to an image. I expect that people will look at those images and they will confront or disturb them in some way. I hope they will then take a second look and ask themselves why that is so. If they do then the off-rule framing has achieved my purpose.

You raised an important point there.

Sometimes when composing, we can create tension by distorting the 'rule'. For example, positioning a human subject on a third, but such that (s)he is looking/facing away from the frame. This does create a level of tension, as it's almost always more pleasing when a subject has space into which to look or move. There's also the understated question of what's out of the frame at which the subject is looking.

If it is an important element to an image, go for it, I say.

I hope I've explained that adequately.

Very much so.

[Xenedis]

Great thread!! Especially for people who are learning.

Hopefully it helps. :-)

I am always conscious of the ROT, framing, seeing if there is anything in the outer frame that is a distraction etc etc. This is mainly because I am still learning and, just like Bob said, it will all become second nature after we have learnt and practiced alot.

It's interesting to hear the viewpoint of someone who is still fairly new to photography, and thanks for sharing that.

I think you're on the money there. You're fairly new to this thing of ours, and from all you've read and heard discussed, you're probably over-consciously thinking about the 'rules' and trying as much as possible to apply them to your images.

When you analyse composition objectively you'll see why certain rules of composition just work. At this stage you're particularly aware of it, but I think over time you'll think less about it and just do it more, instinctively.

Think back when you were learning to drive. Shift to neutral. Key in ignition, etc. These days you are so used to driving that you're not actually thinking about what you're doing. Do you ever even realise you're putting on your seatbelt? I bet you don't.

And I think with composition you'll get to a point where you're using ROTC and leading lines without necessarily being aware of it.

I think, certainly in my case, that there is a certain level of compositional awareness, but composition shouldn't be a means unto itself; it should support the subject matter and the story you're trying to tell.

Composition should be like equipment; it's a tool one uses to achieve a higher objective. Perhaps not so much with composition, but definitely with equipment, people can get so caught up in equipment and techniques that the image plays second fiddle.

Look at the Strobist movement. Everyone goes on about lights, brollies, snoots, shadow softness, etc., but what about the girl in the picture? The lighting should enhance the image or play a big part in its mood without becoming the image.

To (possibly badly) paraphrase some expression, average photographers worry about equipment; good photographers worry about light; great photographers worry about the image.

I think it may be instantly natural to some people but for many, many others it will be a conscious thing.

That's also a fair assessment.

It can be viewed like any skill. When you're learning some skill, you're much more conscious of it and its effects. Once you move up, it becomes second nature and you find yourself less consciously aware of the tool (ie, composition) and more results-oriented (ie, the more important image, of which composition is a participant).

I can see where Tony is coming from too....I read that alot photography is waiting, listening and seeing to get that great image. In one of the magazines I just read, a guy waited for 6 WEEKS at a river to get the right shot. He camped on the shore and just waited and waited. (My hubby said he was a very strange man and must not have many friends!)....but thats the whole point; he was patient enough to wait for the magic moment.

Landscape and wildlife photography can be very much like that. Think of all the great wildlife shots you've seen.

The guy who snapped that shot didn't toodle out one day with a 500mm lens and hit pay-dirt. He would have waited for many hours and more often than not come home with nothing useful.

It takes a lot of patience, a lot of commitment, and a liberal lifestyle to be able to do that stuff well.

[Xenedis]

The thing is, though - it was completely automatic. My mind was unexpectedly asked to compose a photograph (of a sort I don't ever do - I'm strictly a nature 'tog) and without the slightest difficulty it computed the scene and spat out a good answer. I bet that you, the person reading this thread, would have done the same - because we, all of us, have spent so long composing photographs and done it so many times over that the fundamentals of working out what is important in a picture and of good basic composition are almost instinctive. Hand us a simple task and we will do it competently without the slightest trouble. Fast rewind back a few years and we wouldn't have been able to do that. We do learn as time goes by.

Great post, T., and so true.

I've been asked to photograph tourists before (they see me with a big lens and think I am a photographer and know how to work their miniscule P&S).

Being the fussy sod I am, I very consciously compose the shot to:

1. fill the frame;
2. position using ROT if appropriate;
3. place the background icon as a part of the scene, but a secondary subject; and
4. avoid all the other crud that detracts from the image.

A few weeks ago someone asked me to photograph him with Ken Duncan, which I did using the guy's iPhone. I naturally filled the frame as much as possible with the two people. The background clutter needed to be avoided as much as possible.

So yes, I do think about these things, but it happens very momentarily.

You and I both know that those people whose memories we captured in a simple photo won't look at that photo and think "Cool, he composed using the rule of thirds, and that leading line really works well"; it will remind those people of the great times they had and the great placed they saw. The memory is more important than the composition or the lighting.

If those people ever become photographers themselves and look back at that image, they might think "Oh yeah, he composed using the rule of thirds; I see why he did that, and thankfully he composed out all of the distracting background clutter".

[nzmacro]

And yet I'm sure we have all seen shots where the subject is bang in the centre and it works. Its only rules and they are made for breaking I guess, but you need to know the rules first for sure. Impact comes first for me and not so much the comp

[James T]

And yet I'm sure we have all seen shots where the subject is bang in the centre and it works. Its only rules and they are made for breaking I guess, but you need to know the rules first for sure. Impact comes first for me and not so much the comp

That would conform to one of the 'rules' though. There's more to life than the golden ratio.

[peterb666]

While I am conscious of the rules of compensation I know rules are meant to be broken. I quite often use symmetry when it suits a subject and other non-standard methods to help convey an atmosphere or feeling.

Whether I am successful, you sometimes need to try.

I love leading lines and vanishing viewpoints. When processing my images, I look at the effects of applying the rule of thirds but if it doesn't suit, it is out the window.

For those that are cemented to the rule of thirds, and I think an image may be controversial I can usually find some obscure content to help people think in thirds.

I am not anti rule of thirds; I use it in most of my rectangular format images.

[Xenedis]

I subconsciously seem to follow the rule of thirds, but one thing I do consciously check before I do the final "click", is to have a quick look around the edges of the frame for any "foreign object" that shouldn't be there, and that could be removed from the frame fairly easily with a slight change of angle / but would take me half an hour to clone out / delete later on in photoshop!

You've raised an important point here.

In composition, what you exclude is as important as what you include.

People can sometimes get so focused on the included elements that they tend not to notice distracting elements near the edges of the frames.

Scanning the scene through the viewfinder as a final pre-flight check is a good idea, but one thing of which to be aware is that many DSLR viewfinders do not provide a 100% coverage, so while you may that the distracting tree branch is absent when looking through the viewfinder, it may still appear in the final image.