Is this a great composition?

You're a brave and gracious man Harry. Photography is tough. At times mysterious. I seldom bother to offer feedback: it is rarely welcome. I've learnt a hell of a lot on RFF, especially visiting the Gallery, posting in the Gallery and joining in the weekly Gallery Picks or looking at them. And I'm through my first 10,000 bad pictures of my own, but still productive in that genre too of course. Editing from one's own shots is a difficult skill. The one photograph of mine on the wall here was taken with care but then forgotten. My wife picked it out from my Lightroom catalogue. It's been on the wall for months and I am not sick of it. Mike Johnston on The Online Photographer site proposed that. Print it and put it on the frig. If in a week you haven't binned it, then it may have some promise. All the compositional rules have elements of truth, but it seems to meet that making a good composition comes largely automatically after learning from all the bad shots, and looking at lots of photographs and paintings.
 
I'm gonna jump in a bit late to the party because this is one of the forum areas I don't look at often. Interesting opinions above, from people with many more years behind them than I. But crashing on...

It's a good picture, but I don't know if it could be a great picture. Good layers, I think maybe moving around the better their angles would have helped if the opportunity were there, but they aren't always. I think in this format though the sky balances the foreground, so in that it isn't excessive; to crop more off the top would unbalance an outdoor picture, where the sky is a significant element. In fact this would work well as a square picture I think, taking a bit off top and bottom. I agree the subject herself isn't terribly clear in her motives, but nevertheless is quite different from the geometric architecture.

Just my opinions. I'm not sure I would have spotted this as a photo opportunity, which is something that still impresses me, how people look at a scene and see a picture in it.
 
airfrogusmc said:
When you think about composition, in my opinion, it is great if it is part of the way you compose. Not the way others compose or what might fit into a preconceived idea of what a good composition is. Heres a few quotes by some that have had a bit of visual success.

"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

"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

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

"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 shortcuts, no rules." - Paul Strand

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

"I came from the outside, the rules of photography didn't interest me... "-William Klein

" ...... 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

and maybe my favorite which gets directly to this thread
" ......so called “composition” becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing." - Edward Weston

So I guess the real question should be does this composition look like one of your compositions and does this image fit in with other images that you have created.
Click to expand...

Thanks airfrog, and yes, I see elements in this shot that appear often in my compositions. For better or worse.

HFL
 
Richard G said:
You're a brave and gracious man Harry. Photography is tough. At times mysterious. I seldom bother to offer feedback: it is rarely welcome. I've learnt a hell of a lot on RFF, especially visiting the Gallery, posting in the Gallery and joining in the weekly Gallery Picks or looking at them. And I'm through my first 10,000 bad pictures of my own, but still productive in that genre too of course. Editing from one's own shots is a difficult skill. The one photograph of mine on the wall here was taken with care but then forgotten. My wife picked it out from my Lightroom catalogue. It's been on the wall for months and I am not sick of it. Mike Johnston on The Online Photographer site proposed that. Print it and put it on the frig. If in a week you haven't binned it, then it may have some promise. All the compositional rules have elements of truth, but it seems to meet that making a good composition comes largely automatically after learning from all the bad shots, and looking at lots of photographs and paintings.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Richard. In fact, a ~12x18 (piezography) print of the shot sits on the coffee table in our living room; been there for months. I'm having some problems with the cropping suggestions. Definitely, the handle on the left should go; don't know how I missed that. But, eliminating a good deal of the sky is a problem for me.

I expect that DrMcCoy is wondering why I'm still trying to "polish that turd." Just stubborn I guess.

HFL
 
hlockwood said:
Thanks airfrog, and yes, I see elements in this shot that appear often in my compositions. For better or worse.

HFL
Click to expand...

Then in my opinion you should always play on that and that along with a consistent way of processing can become a personal way of seeing and thus develop into your own style.
 
Well as long as we're still here. My opinion on the first photo: no.
It's not interesting, and the composition doesn't lend any interest to the subject.

That's my two cents. You have to ask yourself what makes it interesting to you. Once you've figured that out you can work on making better compositions.

The "handle" or whatever it is, if it can even be considered a fault of the composition is hardly a major issue. In fact I'd say removing it would only make the image even less interesting.

If somebody put a gun to my head and told me they'd give me one change to make it better, I'd just crop the top of the photo off down to about the shoulders of the cyclist. It wouldn't be great, but it would be a much more interesting image for a number of reasons. No cluttered background, therefore: stronger lines, more emphasis on repeating shapes and scale, and with the cyclist's head gone the figure is anonymous, mysterious in a way. Plus their head being out of frame would at least be unexpected, which is interesting in a way.
 
It's not my photo in the image below, but I'm a sucker for a subject close in to the camera, while juxtaposed to an interesting background.

14957222931_807d2df539_k.jpg
[/url]Untitled by Wil Onstott, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
If it was a truly great image, the little picky things that some are talking about would not matter much. The Bresson image someone posted of the spiral stairs and the blurred cyclist has has a problem with the head of the cyclist. It's right on top of the dark line of the curb. Would have been better if there was separation of the head and that line. It is a great image though.

I think the bike rider in the OP's image is just distracting and there really is no way to make her more interesting. The railings are great and I like the angles, but I get too distracted by the rider.

Although not the greatest image, here is a shot that would be totally ruined by someone fiddling on their phone up on the deck.

OrBbLOt.jpg
 
Again the bigger question isn't if it fits into some formulated or pre conceived idea of what is a good composition because as those photographers I quoted earlier have said that there really are no rules.

So then it becomes does this image fit into the body of work that looks like the creators work?

Haas once said something like (and I am paraphrasing) I would rather make crappy photos that look like my photos than pretty photos that look like everyone else's.

I have also read that some think his head touching that line ties it all together by anchoring the cyclist and helps tie the elements of the image together.
 
Bill Clark said:
... but I believe it is a great composition.

That's all that counts.
Click to expand...

How so?

I think the composition is too busy. There are too many main elements, six by my count, one of which is just a distraction. The middle is too cluttered. The shore line is uninteresting. The horizon tilts to the right making the water seem to be traveling downhill. My eye travels all over the image looking for something to land on but just picks up things to niggle on about.

Not trying to be a jerk to the OP, just offering my opinion. Not meant to demean.
 
hlockwood said:
I know i'm sticking my neck out with that title, but I believe it is a great composition.
HFL

original.jpg
Click to expand...

Brave that you are putting this out for critique. When I respond to these kinds of things, I try to put myself in the shooters position and make approximation of what could be done to improve. This is not knowing the actual physical location.

I would think two steps to the right and 1/2 toward the railing and down a bit. Make the foreground railing go from lower left toward upper right. This angle might also increase the angle of the background railing more steep from upper left toward lower right. Then you would have three prominent triangles with intersection points off the image. This would make it more dynamic via the stronger angular lines of the railings.

Of course, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback. Might not have been possible for any number of reasons.
 
compositionally it has elements that could work, particularly the lines. great is an overstatement, but also a subjective one - great according to who? Photographically, it does nothing for me - it is uninteresting. As an exercise on how fickle this whole thing is, consider envisioning the same photograph without the cyclist and without the distracting piece of fence/bump on the left side?

Ignore the terrible masking work, but notice how the image becomes both simpler and bolder.

sasas_1_of_1.jpg
 
Agree with bonato. I would have parked myself there and waited for the moment. Maybe something traveling left in the water and something going to the right on the path.

At least the OP has an eye for something interesting. Just need to slow down and work the scene a bit and take a bunch of shots.

One-off brilliant images are rare unless you are shooting a war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Max: Foot-Clown on Line 10? No Thanks!
Replies
0
Views
100
matine86
M
E
Curious — What defines a perfect street shot for you?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
boojum
boojum
Jbennett68
Bessa RF door latch.
2
Replies
28
Views
575
WoodallP
WoodallP
Pioneer
Any Zeiss Ikon ZM flash trigger voltage restrictions
Replies
7
Views
177
Coldkennels
Coldkennels
B
A Great Day in Harlem - Jazz and a group photo to beat them all.
Replies
0
Views
1K
Brooktaw
B
Back
Top Bottom