How can I improve my composition for portraits?

[Coopersounds]

Yeah, I'm embarrassed that I noticed it.

The lightest/brightest visual element in the picture, and it looks like she's holding it between her legs. 😱

That's what I see too. Now if I took the shot she would have been more left of frame. The boat would be fully in shot but I think, less distracting.

 

[rivercityrocker]

Yeah and every one of those larger conversations supports what I am saying. Its all out there for you to read if care to. As Weston pointed out that if everyone is using the same rules everything starts looking the same.

Composition should become part of a personal style. And thats what separates those that are no longer part of the herd that are the herd and all using the same rules. Those that look for the RoTs or the rule of 5ths tend to dismiss those things that fall outside those rules and that would be a lot of great work that either others have created or they neglect to see things when shooting that fall outside those rules.

Show me ONE example of a famous photograph from just ONE of those photographers that doesn't use at least one of the rules of composition. Just one example and I'll concede my point.

The funny thing about the rules of composition is that you need to learn them before you can break them. All of the photographers that you claim to eschew the rules simply follow them innately. Without thinking about it. That's where practice comes in.

 

[mdarnton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

 

[Brian Legge]

Perhaps 'rules' - really just example patterns or relationships which may be worth leveraging - is helpful for those who have struggle with space? Or who have a difficult time determining why they like particular photos?

The video linked in post 6 in this thread for example has some ideas were noting. I found some of the explanations about elements in photos that made them stronger very interesting. For example, there is discussion about work by Adams and HCB which was interesting.

I know I have tend to compose in a particular set of ways. I can appreciate others who 'have a different eye' but often have trouble understanding exactly why it works. Some 'rule' discussion helps me see in different ways - and that is often based on classical ideas that come out of painting, etc. Ideas which are intuitive to some and are relatively ageless.

That doesn't mean applying them blinding makes good imagery but I as someone without any actual art background, I do find some of this useful.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Yes the greats were all fluent in visual language for sure. Line, shape, color, etc. That should never be confused with rules because what might work in A will fail miserably in B. Thats why the statement either everything in the frame is helping the photograph and if those elements which can be made up of line, shape, color, tone, composition etc are not helping then they are hurting the photograph. That can mean those elements might be fighting one another or could a comp not supported by those other elements or a background that has no context to the for ground etc. How fluent you are in the language, which is a long journey, the more you see in your own work and the work of others.

 

[Bill Clark]

Please consider reading and, if you care, practice, practice, practice:

http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/

Of course, you may not be interested in "Classical" portraiture. In that case pay no attention to this post!

Then, once you have this down, go ahead and break the rules.

This gent was Monte Zuckers mentor.

Hope this helps.

 

[andre mueller]

Thanks! This ist what i was looking for next!

Please consider reading and, if you care, practice, practice, practice:

http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/

Of course, you may not be interested in "Classical" portraiture. In that case pay no attention to this post!

Then, once you have this down, go ahead and break the rules.

This gent was Monte Zuckers mentor.

Hope this helps.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Show me ONE example of a famous photograph from just ONE of those photographers that doesn't use at least one of the rules of composition. Just one example and I'll concede my point.

The funny thing about the rules of composition is that you need to learn them before you can break them. All of the photographers that you claim to eschew the rules simply follow them innately. Without thinking about it. That's where practice comes in.

There's almost always at least one "rule" that can be found to fit a picture ex post facto, and the more "rules" you recognize, the better the chance is of finding at least one that applies, especially if you bend it a bit: "almost" on the thirds, for example.

The basic dispute in this argument is whether a rule is a rule when it is not consciously applied, which is a rather philosophical or even metaphysical point. My own view is if you can't see instinctively in the viewfinder how to compose a picture, you then trot out the "rules" of composition to see if they can help.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bill Clark]

Thanks! This ist what i was looking for next!

Clothes, hair styles and how folks are positioned is from the 1970's!

Things have changed so the position of people, male is sometimes, maybe usually, not in a dominant position. Women have made strides for equality, more is needed, but things are changing, usually for the better. Love seeing the upward mobility women are having attaining leadership roles. Breath of fresh air at GM.

I have more clients looking for this style of portraiture. The classical never becomes obsolete, it ebbs and flows but it was classical societies, especially the Greeks and Romans who studied human body positioning to give a flattering rendition of objects they made by hand.

Interesting story from Monte. When he was married he would go back and forth spending a lot of time with Joe. Monte knew he could make money incorporating his methods into his vision. One time he told his wife, "I'm going to see Joe. Have a couple questions." His wife said, "You're going to be nothing more than a cheap clone of Joe's." Monte said, "I may be a clone of Joe but I'm not going to be cheap!"

 

[raid]

Look at as many portraits as possible, ideally at real exhibitions. That's all there is to it. There are no rules.

Cheers,

R.

Roger gave a very good advice. Learn from others, and then go for it your way.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Roger gave a very good advice. Learn from others, and then go for it your way.

Agree!!!!!

Also read what those that did it well had to say about how they approached it.

 

[shadowfox]

Every time I see some quote by a famous photographer that espouses the "no rules" concept I go and look at their photographs and inevitably they follow the rules. Whether consciously or not a well composed photograph always has one or more of the "rules of composition" in use. It's part of the human psyche to find certain compositional elements pleasing and that's why they are referred to as rules.

Find me ONE good photograph that doesn't follow any rules.

They combine existing rules with something that they came up with, with these, they create their own set of rules and turn it into a style when consistency over time is added into the mix.

 

[airfrogusmc]

They combine existing rules with something that they came up with, with these, they create their own set of rules and turn it into a style when consistency over time is added into the mix.

Weston said it best.
"When subject matter is forced to fit into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial cliches." - Edward Weston

 

[airfrogusmc]

Just a few more words from me and then I will take PMs.

I think a great portrait is one that gives glimpses into the real person being photographed as Newman tried to do. I think the ultimate compliment a portrait photographer can get isn't how good you made them look good but that really looks like the person.

The way to do this effectively, in my opinion, is to be conscious of first what needs to be said visually to communicate this. Then you need to make sure that visual elements help support all of that. Does the background support the subject? Do the lines in the frame lead the eye where it needs to go to also support the subject and intent? How are all of the visual elements supporting the intent?

Most important are we seeing who the person being photographed is or is to the photographer? And then, where it really gets tricky , are we also seeing a bit of the photographer in the images? One way to do that is the way we put out images together visually. If we do it the way everyone else's is doing by following the same rules the work starts all looking the same. Just take a look around the web. Usually can't tell one photographers work from the other.

The way we use all of those elements as in the examples of Newman's work I posted earlier will help determine if the photograph is successful in communicating who the person is. There are a few portrait photographers like Newman that you can tell their work buy just looking at it.

Now the world of commercial portraiture is an entirely different world and that world is filled with rules and trying to make people prettier or something they are not. My advice is if the desire is to take the work to a different level then take the journey of trying to find who the people really are or at least are to you the photographer and then try to find a way to visually capture that. Move beyond the obvious (as Weston would say).

Thats my 2 cents...Take it for what it's worth...

Merry Christmas everyone and Happy New Year.

"It seems dangerous to be a portrait artist who does commissions for clients because everyone wants to be flattered, so they pose in such a way that there’s nothing left of truth." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

 

[FrankS]

This is one of my favourite:

 

[Damaso]

Roger is correct about learning through looking at great photographers though I don't agree that "all there is to it."

Spend some time thinking about what you are trying to communicate in your portrait. Is it an idea, an expression? Something in particular about the person or place.

Now practice!

Look at as many portraits as possible, ideally at real exhibitions. That's all there is to it. There are no rules.

Cheers,

R.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Heres one of my portraits and I'm not trying to imply it's great though I do think it is effective. The reason why I am using this as an example is I can full explain the reason I shot it this way.

Many might not have shot it like this especially if you are using rules which dictate the woman should be facing into the negative space. I wanted to show that her life as a nurse for the most part was behind her so I thought the negative space behind her visually showed that. And that the time ahead was short as compared to what was behind. In her era caps showed the nursing school that she went to. The pin also is a less obvious symbol of the school. I think that when you look at her face you can almost see the patients that she cared for in all the lines. Whether it was part of a pre thought rule never entered into my process when shooting this though it does fall into a RoTs but what I mentioned earlier was my process. Oh well enough talk.

 

[andre mueller]

I love it! Thanks for sharing it.

Heres one of my portraits and I'm not trying to imply it's great though I do think it is effective. The reason why I am using this as an example is I can full explain the reason I shot it this way.

Many might not have shot it like this especially if you are using rules which dictate the woman should be facing into the negative space. I wanted to show that her life as a nurse for the most part was behind her so I thought the negative space behind her visually showed that. And that the time ahead was short as compared to what was behind. In her era caps showed the nursing school that she went to. The pin also is a less obvious symbol of the school. I think that when you look at her face you can almost see the patients that she cared for in all the lines. Whether it was part of a pre thought rule never entered into my process when shooting this though it does fall into a RoTs but what I mentioned earlier was my process. Oh well enough talk.

 

[bobbyrab]

I just wonder with all the rules available, is there any position in a frame that positioning your subject in would fall outside all of the rules. If yes, where is it?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger is correct about learning through looking at great photographers though I don't agree that "all there is to it." . . .

You are quite right, and your additional advice is WELL worth heeding. All I'd say in my defence is that looking at great photographers should (but won't necessarily) cause you to "Spend some time thinking about what you are trying to communicate in your portrait. Is it an idea, an expression? Something in particular about the person or place."

In fact I'd add something else. Look for a characteristic "prop". For example, in my 'teens I had a girlfriend who always wore a favourite, distinctive bracelet.

Cheers,

R.