For years, I have studied the science of Photography. I suppose it's expected that a Civil Engineer would follow that route, rather than thinking of Photography purely as an art-form. I know that I will never be a HCB, (or probably an Appleby, or a Collier for that matter)

What are the last things you guys think of, just before you release the shutter? In other words, you've already determined the subject, and taken care of the EV work; so how do you do the last bit that makes the difference between "ordinary" pix and an HCB? Or am I really just asking, "what is talent"?

P Nelson

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), January 31, 2001

Answers

For a long time I always centered a person's head/face within the frame too much. Lately, then, I've been trying to remember to adjust my composition to avoid this.

Some people merely "react" to a situation as they're making the exposure and may find this question very difficult to answer because whatever goes through their heads at the time the shutter is released may long be forgotten.

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), January 31, 2001.

I look at the light. I always look at the light. To me, it's far more important than composition, because in good light, I can find a good composition, but if the light is not right, there is no good composition. That doesn't mean there's only one good light either, I shoot at mid-day a lot of the time. But if the light's not right for the subject, there is no picture, the quality of the light is always in the image. If you look at the "masters," or any great photographer's work, you will see that the light is what makes it happen.

X-Files, copyright 2001 Jeff Spirer

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), January 31, 2001.

Just like anything else, for example music, there are a couple of levels that you have to go through. After watching people like Eric Clapton and BB King, I wanted to "be a guitar player"... I was stupidly watching the highest level of achievement, and forgetting the fact that these guys were at point "B", and I haven't even entered the threshold of point "A". Trying to be at "B" without a firm grasp of all of those basics, fingering for chords, scale position in seven different keys led to great frustration. I had to be realistic and go back to square one, (or square negative one in my case), and very systematically go through all of those boring basics, the ones that you couldn't figure out how they will come into play later... but everything you learn is part of a bigger picture (pun intended). Many of my friends learned songs right away, while I learned the basics. The result was that my friends could find their way through that one song... but over time, I could use my basics to play dozens of songs.

Using this analogy with photography, yeah, you can go out an try for that grand landscape, or perfect portrait, but if you are working on the end result without the beginning and middle basics, any positive result would be luck. If you took a great shot on Monday... could you go back and take the same shot on Friday? If the shot was the result of utilizing all of those basics... f-stop as it applies to depth of field, big light source versus small light source as it applies to shadow harshness, compressed or expanded perspectives, and the other litany of compositional tools, then you should not be surprised by good results, but expect them. Take care of the basics, and the pictures will take care of themselves. A person with an autofocus, auto exposure camera can shoot ten rolls of film, and while they will have a high percent of technically good shots, (exposure and focus), could they articulate how a certain shot came out good? I'd bet most of the people on this forum could pull out any random handful of slides or prints, even from over a decade ago, and tell you the f-stop and shutterspeed used to within a single stop. And they could go back out and take the same shot tomorrow. For all of the "limitations" of a small manual camera with only a few lens choices, this total immersion into the process is an intangible benefit that can't be blown off. You will become a photographer or you won't, but if you do, the computer won't be in the camera, it will be in your brain. That computer will not be rendered obsolete by the next model.

While in college, one of the things we learned in photography class was to work on any single task completely. We didn't go out and do 36 lessons on a single roll of film, we had to go out and work a whole roll (or more) for each thing. For example, the lesson might be "Leading Lines as a Compositional Tool". We did the class time, saw some examples and then hit the streets... shooting nothing but the leading lines. The next lesson might be "vertical versus horizontal compositions". It was amazing how many of those shots had leading lines. Each step led to the next, but you didn't just stop thinking because you were looking for something else. The last week in that course was interesting... we shot slides and everyone reviewed everyone else's work. You couldn't see a single slide that didn't have at least three of the compositional tools we worked on. Many of the photographers were surprised when these things were pointed out... they were on auto pilot, but the previous lessons were not lost. I recommend getting a good book on composition, pick a topic, "Repeated patterns", study the examples, and hit the street. When you feel your eye has become attuned to the patterns, move on. Not every shot lens itself to every tool, but you will be better at figuring that out. This takes time, and assumes a certain competency with your camera... but the pay off is worth it. It is certainly better than shooting randomly and wondering why the shots didn't work.

Good Luck.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), January 31, 2001.

I have believed that part of composition is innate and intuitive and some of it is learned: the rule of thirds and the flaunting of the rule of thirds... Regarding what you think about just before you release the shutter, I digress to a sports anology: I think it was Reggie Smith of the Balimore Orioles, he was a good hitter in his day and when asked how many times he saw the ball hit the bat during the season he said, "Maybe once or twice at the most". Out of 600+ at bats, thats not much. To me, it speaks of practice, intuition and some talent.

Good luck.

-- Jeff Voorhees (debontekou@yahoo.com), January 31, 2001.

I feel compelled to answer this as I am in the same boat as Paul. All my professional life I have been taught to view the world objectively and rationally. To strip away the non-factual, the subjective and the noise (or error). While an artistic viewpoint or rendering does not imply that all those things are added back in, there is something about the sensibility of a 'artistic' image that invokes an emotion such as pleasure, or uneasiness or even revulsion that a scientific image does not (except for boredom).

I think rules are good if you have none and don't know how to handle a situation. The danger is that no rule can be complete enough to work well in all situations. eg. the rule of thirds. Most images are improved by having the subject off center. Some are definitely not (like Alfred Krupp's portrait by Newman). Some static images are made dynamic by adding a diagonal. Would a formal portrait be improved by tilting it 37 1/2 degrees?

As you get more experience you will find balances or imbalances or even tensions being formed by the relative positions & sizes of the subject(s). Colors, blurriness & framing acquire interesting properties and capabilities. At this point you're not simply taking a picture you are composing an image and have some tools and techniques at your disposal to direct the viewers attention to the important parts.

A book I can recomend is "Photographing the world around you" by Freeman Paterson. He calls it a "Visual Design Workshop". It doesn't cover everything by any means but it helps you identify your style and shows you some ways to use the techniques. It's not about formal composition but rather about pleasing (or displeasing) composition.

Cheers,

Duane

BTW, IMHO HCB was more of a photojournalist with his adage of the "decisive moment". His images have a certain look & feel but are not necessarily 'properly composed' - how could you in a split second? I think he did have an inate sense of how to place his subjects to give the desired effect. I think HCB's compositions are more in the temporal than the physical 3 dimensions. My 2 bits anyway.

-- Duane K (dkucheran@creo.com), January 31, 2001.

What needs to happen before I press the shutter isn't so much a thought as a feeling. There needs to be a feeling of excitement that tells me this is a good shot. There is a sense of urgency to it.

The subject alone doesn't make a picture. The light doesn't. A good picture happens at the point of intersection of the light, the subject, and the photographer.

Some things that don't look like much, photograph well. Some things that look good, don't photograph. We learn to know the difference.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), January 31, 2001.

Like other rules, this one doesn't work a lot of the time, but I think the most common problem I see from people who could improve their approach to taking pictures is to move closer, and fill the frame more. Working at a newspaper really helped me tighten my compositions as soon as I realized the editor would chop a column off the edges or my photos and use it for text, if he could :-) (We did everything at 100% then--no computers.)

I think the main effect of following this concept is that it teaches you (forces you?) to use the available space more effectively, and results in being more conscious of what's going on in the finder.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 01, 2001.

I think there is a lot of intuition involved in good composition, but intuition can be trained to some extent by studying great photographs and great art. Composition cannot be learned from books, but it doesn't hurt to read a few either. I can recommend "Pictorial Effect in Photography" by Henry Peach Robinson (Helios, 1971); "The Structure of Dynamic Symmetry" by Jay Hambidge (Dover, 1967); and "Art and Geometry" by William M. Ivins (Dover, 1964).

-- Ed Buffaloe (edb@unblinkingeye.com), February 01, 2001.

The most interesting aspect to me is camera-to subject distance and its affect on perspective, proportion and the relationship of the subject to other elements. I suppose you can tell I've taken up view camera recently).

Subject distance is also the area most often forgotten by fans of zoom lenses. I've read that Ansel Adams worked on distance and viewpoint constantly, visualizing photographs even when he didn't have a camera in his hands, and didn't intend to actually take a photo.

-- Joe Buechler (jbuechler@toad.net), February 01, 2001.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. When I got a zoom lens my pictures immediately changed for the worse because I didn't use my feet to get the picture I'd seen in my mind. So I stopped using the zoom.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), February 01, 2001.

Yes, one of the earliest directives from a typical photography instructor is to move in closer and eschew the superfluous. The rule of thirds is frequently cited. One of my instructors at the junior college said that most people will choose to place the subject in the right side of the frame, which he said evokes a calm feeling. He felt that one could evoke a more unsettled response in the viewer by placing the subject to the left of center.

I think it may be that the rule about moving in tight on the subject might have been inspired by the limitations of 35mm or MF film, and small enlargements. I think so because in studying the work of master painters like Degas and Renoir, they didn't seem to necessarily place their subjects according to these rules. One of Renois' paintings is of a young girl and her older sister seated outdoors. The entire upper half of the painting is blue sky. Degas usually placed his ballerinas near the right edge of the frame, with empty stage filling most of the frame. So much for the rule of thirds, or moving in close on the subject. I wonder what the photo instructors would say if we took photos to class that precisely recreated these classics, without initially letting on what we were up to; and later pulling out reproductions of the paintings. And I wonder how many of our ideas about composition are culturally conditioned by these teachings, until they begin to look right to us. I do find Degas' off-center compositions unsettling. Is this because the "right" way has been ingrained into me until anything else looks wrong? Or did Degas intend to go beyond a pretty picture to convey something more? Do we know better thsn he did, now? Does correct composition, and what looks right, change with the times?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 01, 2001.

I agree with a lot of what Bob says here, I'd just like to add that IMO one of the limitations of the 3:2 negative format is that it constrains you to place the subject off-centre because otherwise it looks dorky and in consequence the "rule of thirds" is pretty much self-imposing. The square format allows far greater freedom of composition, I believe. However this is a Leica forum, right?

One more point - when I first saw Garry Wino's snaps of parties and demos in the 60's I was very struck by the _absence_ of a central subject - the interest was uniformly distributed over the entire visual field. I think this makes for a much more dynamic style. One example that comes to mind is a picture of a fight between (I think) Norman Mailer and someone else at a cocktail party which has _four_ points of interest, all of them equally powerful and witty. In my own snapping I often try to distribute interest in this way. A wideangle lens is especially useful for this, of course.

As for thinking, that doesn't come into it much for me - I just wait till the frame looks well-balanced (often intentionally _not_ concentrating on any one thing in it, even defocussing my eyes) and fire the shuter.

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 02, 2001.

Thanks, mate! You all have some very helpful comments. P Nelson

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), February 02, 2001.

Placement within the frame also has to do with the size of the final image being viewed. Central placement, close-in composition (tightly cropped shots) and the rule of thirds all seem almost essential in a 5x7 or 4x6 print. But hold a board mounted 16x20 in your hands and the need for these classical approaches to composition is much less apparent. An even, all over placement (ala Winogrand), or idiosyncratic approaches to distributing the picture elements over the space work just as well.

Try blowing up some of your boringly composed pictures to 16x20 or larger and look at them from close up. They will work very differently, and may well succeed where they fail in the smaller version.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), February 04, 2001.

Mani, it's true that size is generally impressive, but I don't think that just enlarging it more will make a bad picture good. I shoot slide, and one of the beauties of slide is that the picture is right there for you to evaluate. Of course you can always crop, but on the whole if the slide looks good then so will a screen-size scan, and on the other hand, if the slide is ugly, then the scan will simply give you a larger ugly thing. That's how I see it anyway.

About the famous - and I think, totally crap - rule of thirds: although I said in my previous post that the proportions of the 35 mm frame tend to enforce it, I think there are many powerful pictures which exploit the rather unsettling look of a centrally-placed subject in the 2:3 frame. It's a default reaction for me to off- centre my subjects, but often i resist it, and I find this can give a certain tension, paradoxically, to the snap.

And another thing! ;-) Despite the fact that HCB built his career or at least brand around the Decisive Moment, many of his snaps are not at all decisive. They are often static, built around a strongly designed frame in which someone happens to have placed themself at the moment he went click. Which is decisive in a way I suppose. But the strength of the image comes mainly from the static framing of the subject - the person is often just the cherry on the cake. Of course I'm not talking about his terrific wartime pictures, more his personal work, which is what he's mostly known for. I think he was very much a formalist, despite his statements about hunting for the essence of life. Definitely not very interested in people. My opinion, anyway. But now we're getting into the ethical side of it, perhaps.

And now... back to work!

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 05, 2001.

Rob, what wartime pictures? The only one I'm aware of is the dead soldier lying by a bridge with the top of his head blown off.

-- Bill Mitchell (bmitch@home.com), February 05, 2001.

About the famous - and I think, totally crap - rule of thirds: although I said in my previous post that the proportions of the 35 mm frame tend to enforce it

The problem is that the "rule of thirds" isn't a "rule", it's a dumbed-down version of a concept in art called the Golden Mean or Golden Secion. It's more complex than the "rule of thirds" and has a mathematical connection, but somewhere along the line, it was discovered that most people with cameras didn't want to bother with art concepts, so the "rule of thirds" was invented.

Also, it's worth noting that the Golden Mean is not considered a "rule" in art, but simply a common way of dividing the frame (it's not about placement either)that produces a specific result, but it has always been considered just one way of dividing the frame. If the Golden Mean was the only way to "compose" a painting, I suspect we would all be bored with paintings. Same thing with photographs.

One other irritation - it seems that HCB is always treated in Leica groups the way Adams is in large format groups. This elevation leads to ignorance of the vast numbers of other photographers, equally influential and creators of great photographs, and reduces the universe of photography to two or three names. Check out someone like Fosco Maraini, for instance, to see a totally different perspective on the world by someone who happened to use a Leica.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), February 05, 2001.

"One other irritation - it seems that HCB is always treated in Leica groups the way Adams is in large format groups."

I totally agree. Although he could be brilliant, many of his snaps are pretty hohum today, I think. (Wartime pictures, I meant stuff like the woman being denounced as a collaborator - or was that Capa?!). Another Leica man (who tends to annoy people for no reason I can understand) is Eggleston - brilliant, IMO. But then he _is_ a colourist...

As for the Golden Mean and all that, I'm not unaware of it, it's just that I think these things are completely useless in actual picture taking.

It's like the lengthy discussions about colour as an "element" in making a picture - how is it an element? Either what's in front of you turns you on or it doesn't, either the colour goes or it doesn't, that's all. It's a holistic thing. Clickinyourhead/snapinthecamera! On to the next one.

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 05, 2001.

"Wartime Collaborator" - believe you're thinking of Alfred Eisenstaedt. He did a bunch during WWII. I know, they start running together in my head, too.

-- Ken Shipman (kennyshipman@aol.com), February 05, 2001.

I figured the golden section would show up in this discussion. The way I learned it, it's supposed to be a mathematical determination of the most pleasing proportions for a rectangle. 1: 1.618, as I recall. So theoretically the best dimensions for a picture frame could be 10 inches by 16.18 inches. Now, let's see how this could be translated into the rule of thirds. One third is 0.33. Two-thirds is 0.66. How to get from 1.618 to .66? How about taking the reciprocal of 1.618. Pardon me while I hunt for my Hewlett-Packard. Ok, the reciprocal comes out--whadda know--0.618. Interesting result, but not exactly 0.66. So I dunno. I do know that one of my favorite photos is Edward Weston's "Nude, 1937." Or is it 1934. Somewhere in there. You know the one, where the center of interest, or focal point, is the oval shape of the model's dark hair. Then the oval shape of her arms leads my eye all the way around the picture, and smoothly back to the final resting point, her head again. It's not easy to see the rule of thirds at work here. Wait a minute. It could be that her right arm is 0.66 of the way from the left edge. Or is it 0.618 of the way? I may post the measurements later, but only if somebody asks. I doubt that the success of the picture can be traced to the location of one arm. It probably has more to do with everything coming together to form a gestalt. I think it's in the sense of closure that I get from going around the ovals. Still, she's off-center to the left, in a way that seems to have something to do with thirds. I think you could say that the rule of thirds--or any other-- is a helpful, but not sufficient condition for a worthwhile picture.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 05, 2001.

"I figured the golden section would show up in this discussion. The way I learned it, it's supposed to be a mathematical determination of the most pleasing proportions for a rectangle. 1: 1.618, as I recall. So theoretically the best dimensions for a picture frame could be 10 inches by 16.18 inches. Now, let's see how this could be translated into the rule of thirds. One third is 0.33. Two-thirds is 0.66. How to get from 1.618 to .66? How about taking the reciprocal of 1.618. Pardon me while I hunt for my Hewlett-Packard. Ok, the reciprocal comes out--whadda know--0.618. Interesting result, but not exactly 0.66. So I dunno. I do know that one of my favorite photos is Edward Weston's "Nude, 1937." Or is it 1934. Somewhere in there. You know the one, where the center of interest, or focal point, is the oval shape of the model's dark hair. Then the oval shape of her arms leads my eye all the way around the picture, and smoothly back to the final resting point, her head again. It's not easy to see the rule of thirds at work here. Wait a minute. It could be that her right arm is 0.66 of the way from the left edge. Or is it 0.618 of the way? "

Confused? You will be...

BTW, it ocurred to me while reading all of the above that the Golden Mean is of course a kind of early version of fractals: the proportion of the smaller to the larger division is equal to that of the larger division to the whole. And so on. Seems this idea has been fascinating people for a long time. Also features in the Fibonacci numbers, of course.

Now, think hard of the fifteenth term in the fibonacci sequence, take a deep breath... click! Damn, I really wanted the 23rd term! No wonder that picture's crap!

Rob.

-- Robert Appleby (laintal@tin.it), February 06, 2001.

Paul, You stated that "you will never be a HCB." Thank goodness. The only true artists are those who create their own art form and refrain from replicating what has already done in the past.

By the way, right before I press the shutter, I usually say to myself, WOW. ~Tom

-- Tom (tc92fsu@aol.com), February 06, 2001.

HCB is one of the greatest photographers ever.The portraits,the scenics,the journalism and the droll are all rendered superbly.In an age of more and more equipment,my bag is so heavy!!,what a joy to see what could be done with a Leica M3 and 50/35 mm lens.The trouble with HCB there are decisive moments not necessarily moments of impact. An understanding and knowledge of art/painting and French/European history is reqd to truly appreciate the Photographs.

-- jason gold (leeeu72@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.

I´m provably slow, when I say wow the picture is gone, snapping shall be more part of the process of seeing than an effect of it.

-- rwatson (1231234@hotmail.com), February 10, 2001.

I got more than I bargained for! Again, Thanks mates,PN

-- Paul Nelson (clrfarm@comswest.net.au), February 11, 2001.

You've had a pretty comprehensive set of answers Paul but they partly conflict as expected. I have learnt my strongest lessons by looking at photographs by great photographers say Brandt, Kertesz, Adams etc. and asked myself how I would have framed the picture. In many cases I can see why my framing would have been wrong and ineffectual. You will learn to see how they would view something and follow the same ideas yourself.

-- Anthony Brookes (gdz00@btinternet.com), February 12, 2001.

I agree with Anthony in that I have learned by studying the photos of others, as well as a few classic painters. An example would be a photo of a person placed at the edge of the frame, and facing out of the frame, not into it. I think this can be powerful, and I don't know that I would have ever thought of it on my own. BTW, it later occured to me that Degas, in particular, might have been influenced by photography! Maybe he was trying to emulate the spontaneous look of a photo. In one of his paintings, of a ballet studio, there is a man walking out of the frame at the extreme right. I can hear the photo II instructor saying, "Now you should have been looking more more carefully, and waited until he was gone. You want to include only the important elements. The man is leading the eye out of the frame, which is wrong." But is it? ALways?

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), February 12, 2001.

I have a thread on rule of the thirds in Minox Photography forum

About Rule of the Thirds

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 20, 2001.

Visual art begins with seeing

Seeing and Image

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 20, 2001.

Lines, straight, curved, serpentine .....are one of the basic elememt of visual design.

William Horgarth in "The Analysis of Beauty" had extensive discussion on the beauty of serpentine lines.

Lines play a even more important role in Oriental arts

One Lines

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 20, 2001.

Paul

Kodak site has a good introduction to composition in photography

http://www.kodak.com/global/en /consumer/education/programs/composition/photoProgramCompMainClass.sht ml

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), March 20, 2001.