“There are no rules for good photographs,
there are only good photographs.”
– Ansel Adams
guidelines to great composition in photography
Most or all beginners tend to ‘shoot’ pictures – the camera is aimed at the subject and then the shutter is fired. The result is one of most common errors in photographic composition – the feet of the person being photographed are cut off and lots of empty sky or dead branches or irrelevant whatever in the top half of the picture.
Also, the placement of focusing sensors in the camera tend to be clustered around the center. Especially true for older film cameras – the split-image prism or micro-prisms were dead-center.
In order to help photographers break out of this non-thinking way of taking photographs, various Rules are proposed for better composition:
– the Rule of Thirds
– the Golden Mean (which has even been ascribed some divine meaning).
The Rule Of Thirds was devised by traditional painters as a guide to improve the balance of a picture. When the main or dominant points of interest lie on lines that intersect the picture in ‘thirds’, the picture is purported to have a dynamic equilibrium.
With the Golden Mean, the image is analyzed in terms of a concentric spiral. Composition is explained with the spiral swirl connecting seemingly random elements in the photograph.
These rules are presented as a mechanical aid to better composition. They are meant to force the photographer to actually look at what is presented visually.
These rule were meant to be guidelines – and they do dramatically improve composition over aiming dead-center – but these rules have somehow become near-inflexible formula for dogmatically traditional photographers. These become hard-and-fast absolute rules to some photographers. And here is the problem … rigidly applying The Rule Of Thirds has made composition an intellectual decision instead of an emotional reaction.
Dogma about these Rules of Composition would mean the composition of a subject is immediately questioned or discarded if the main subject is placed anywhere else in the frame, eg. at the edges, or even at the center of the picture, regardless of the initial emotional impact.
And I kick against that idea. It reigns in creativity. For me, there is only one absolute guidelines to photographic composition:
Frame. Don’t just aim
That is the only guideline to good composition that I can think of which encourages the photographer to be creative.
Take your time to look at what is actually presented in the viewfinder.
Scan the whole frame; look at the sides and corners.
Is everything that you see, everything that you want?
Is this the best way that the subject can be represented?
Do you need to re-frame or move to another position?
It is this simple and it is this complex.
This idea of course relies on the hope that the photographer will intuitively recognize when the picture presented in the viewfinder ‘looks good’ – when the best composition and framing is achieved.
It is up to the thinking photographer to decide when the picture is best presented. And this should not by necessity follow what the chapters on Composition in the photography handbooks have to say. To blindly follow the idea that specific rules will achieve the best result, the photographer is really restricting him/herself. Interesting and creative photography will NOT be achieved by following a set of fixed composition rules slavishly.
Photographic Composition should be your deliberate choice.
With the image at the top as an example, I deliberately framed the violinist, with her face centered, surrounded by the out-of-focus trees in the background.