How can I improve my composition for portraits?

andre mueller said:
So far my portraits are mostly head and shoulders but I really would like to get better at wider, more environmental compositions.

In the last days I learned about Fibonacci and the golden ratio.
Do you know of any good resources on composition, especially for portraits?

A great inspiration on this for me is Jan Scholz' work.


11 by micmojo, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Watch the background. Even in this pic, the bright boat in the background that the model's body over-laps, is distracting to me, and I'd call this pic a fail.
 
Agreed!

My main cameras are a Rolleiflex and RZ67 and I use their waist level finders in the way you suggest with the iPad so I see every picture before I take it.

I now started using a tripod to force myself to be more stationary. Just like a painter is. I then take my time and look at the image for some moments.


mfogiel said:
The best way of learning, is through doing. Looking at other people's work is very important, so that:
- you know what has been done
- you know what has not been done
It is also handy to understand the impact of lighting, focal length, dof, etc. Nowadays, the digital technology comes conveniently to the rescue. I would recommend you to use an Ipad exclusively for some time, and take the photos only when what you see on screen from half a meter away looks right to you. It will be like looking at paintings.
Click to expand...
 
Spend some time with Arnold Newman's work.

I love this quote by him.
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

Love this shot of the painter Mondrian. Mondrian is best known for his geometric paintings where he would put a strong primary color near the edge. The way Newman uses the easel to mimic the geometric structure and then places the artists hand in one of the place the artist would have placed a strong primary color in one of his paintings is brilliant.
http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/arnold-newman-piet-mondrian-new-york-1942.jpg

This famous photo of Stravinsky where the piano looks like a musical clef on its side. Brilliant again.
http://taruskinchallenge.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/newman_arnold_312_198511.jpg

And the Nazi industrialist Krupp that used slave labor during WWII. He made him look like the devil.
http://corporate.gettyimages.com/marketing/m05/edit_newsletter/source/newman_gallery11.jpg
 
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.
 
airfrogusmc said:
Spend some time with Arnold Newman's work.

I love this quote by him.
"There are no rules and regulations for perfect composition. If there were we would be able to put all the information into a computer and would come out with a masterpiece. We know that's impossible. You have to compose by the seat of your pants." - Arnold Newman

Love this shot of the painter Mondrian. Mondrian is best known for his geometric paintings where he would put a strong primary color near the edge. The way Newman uses the easel to mimic the geometric structure and then places the artists hand in one of the place the artist would have placed a strong primary color in one of his paintings is brilliant.
http://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/arnold-newman-piet-mondrian-new-york-1942.jpg

This famous photo of Stravinsky where the piano looks like a musical clef on its side. Brilliant again.
http://taruskinchallenge.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/newman_arnold_312_198511.jpg

And the Nazi industrialist Krupp that used slave labor during WWII. He made him look like the devil.
http://corporate.gettyimages.com/marketing/m05/edit_newsletter/source/newman_gallery11.jpg
Click to expand...

Rules of composition in each photo:
#1. Rule of thirds. Leading lines.
#2. Rule of thirds. Leading lines. Negative space.
#3. Leading lines. Symmetrical balance.
 
A great photographer once told me the only thing you should remember is that either everything in the frame is either supporting the photograph and if it's not supporting the photograph it's hurting the photograph.

I love this quote by Weston and it is so true and one reason it's hard today to tell one photographer work from the next.
" so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston
 
In Newman's portraits Stravinsky is way off the side maybe a rule of fifths, Mondrian the same with his hand being near the edge and Krupp is almost dead center. So much from him using the RoTs.
 
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams

"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs."-Garry Winogrand

"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
 
Roger Hicks said:
Yeah, but what do [did] they know?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Probably, but they didn't let it drive their vision. I think things like the RoTs create real problems for new photographers because they dismiss things both in their own work and the work of others that don't fall into the RoTs. And then which rule do you use.

Some photographers (landscape and some street photographers) came up with a rule of 4/5ths or a rule of 5ths as some referred to it which pushed the comp more towards the edges and used more of the frame.

I think all the photographers I mentioned believed as that great photographer did that told me everything in the frame was either helping and if it wasn't helping then those elements were hurting the visual statement.

All of those photographers were very fluent in the language which should never be confused with rules. I believe, as Weston stated, if everyone is following the same rules of composition, there can be freshness of vision.

We see that today. You see all of these photographers following the same rules and all the work is looking the same. I can't tell one photographers work from the next.
 
airfrogusmc said:
"And in not learning the rules, I was free. I always say, you're either defined by the medium or you redefine the medium in terms of your needs." - Duane Michals

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." - Ansel Adams

"Photography is not a sport. It has no rules. Everything must be dared and tried!" - Bill Brandt

"a photograph can look any way. Or, there's no way a photograph has to look (beyond being an illusion of a literal description). Or, there are no external or abstract or preconceived rules of design that can apply to still photographs."-Garry Winogrand

"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
Click to expand...

You can fling out all the quotes that you want. Look at their photographs. There is ALWAYS going to be a standard compositional element in every one of them.

So you managed to maybe disprove the rule of thirds in the Mondrian and Stravinsky portraits (it's debatable depending on how you look at it), but you still have leading lines and an asymmetrical balance using negative space.

What do they know? Obviously a lot. Also every single one of those quotes were likely taken from a larger conversation and have a deeper context within the whole rather than appearing as truncated "sound bites".

If there were no rules to take visual cues from then how would you know what a good photograph was? As I said, the rules of composition were determined by what is pleasing to the eye. What makes it compelling to the viewer are things that are hardwired into the human brain.
 
Interaction with the subject. Really great artists can bring out something in the person through the image and probably something of themselves as well. Portraiture is more about people than rules.
 
rivercityrocker said:
You can fling out all the quotes that you want. Look at their photographs. There is ALWAYS going to be a standard compositional element in every one of them.

So you managed to maybe disprove the rule of thirds in the Mondrian and Stravinsky portraits (it's debatable depending on how you look at it), but you still have leading lines and an asymmetrical balance using negative space.

What do they know? Obviously a lot. Also every single one of those quotes were likely taken from a larger conversation and have a deeper context within the whole rather than appearing as truncated "sound bites".

If there were no rules to take visual cues from then how would you know what a good photograph was? As I said, the rules of composition were determined by what is pleasing to the eye. What makes it compelling to the viewer are things that are hardwired into the human brain.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Baby of Macon said:
Interaction with the subject. Really great artists can bring out something in the person through the image and probably something of themselves as well. Portraiture is more about people than rules.
Click to expand...

+1

What makes an image a "portrait", rather than an ID picture on your driver's license, is that it reveals something about the subject that is not visible in a mere ID pic. Understanding the subject and interacting with the subject is crucial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
How has your photography changed over the years?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
Bolo Kukus
B
J
  • Article Article
The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of the 110 Cartridge Format. Part 1: Drop-in cartridge film formats: Prioritizing user convenience.
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
neal3k
neal3k
J
  • Article Article
The Rise & Fall of the Kodak Empire:Part 1: How Kodak came to dominate the photographic industry
Replies
10
Views
3K
rick oleson
rick oleson
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
redimp
Contax S2 vs S2b vs Aria to improve my photography?
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
8K
Freakscene
Freakscene
Back
Top Bottom