Article
written by Andy Mumford |
 |
The art of composing, or designing, an image is one of the most important
aspects of creating good photographs...and also one of the most difficult to learn.
Just what is the best way to arrange the various separate elements of a three dimensional
scene into an effective and cleanly composed two dimensional image?
The first thing to understand is that a camera doesn’t see a scene in the same way that
our eyes do, and therefore we need to teach ourselves to see the world as our camera does.
When we look at a scene, our vision often automatically “edits out” various
distracting elements in order to simplify and make less complex the huge amount of visual
information our eyes actually take in.
A camera though, no matter how sophisticated it’s image processor, never does this, it
records everything it sees with equal importance. Often a scene that may have appeared to
our eyes as a ordered, uncluttered vista can be recorded with our cameras as a confused
and jumbled mess if not composed properly.
This concept of composition, of arranging and designing elements within an image is a
pretty abstract, and because of this, most books and articles give general rules on
composition that originate from painting techniques.
Concepts like “the rule of thirds” and “leading lines” are all good places to
start and are based on sound theories on the way our eyes move through an image.
As I said though, these ideas are widely known and any Google search will be enough to
explain them to anyone who’s not already familiar with them.
They are however, only general guidelines, not “rules” to be slavishly followed:
Photography, like any art form, is about creativity and while it’s always a good idea to
be aware of things like “the rule of thirds” so we can use them as a starting point,
it’s also just as likely that there will be times when they need to be broken and/or
ignored to create the image the way we see it in our mind. |
|
|
|
So in this article I want
to explore some other aspects of composition, to try to look at ideas which I have found
always help me to get a clearer idea of how I want to compose an image in my own
photography.
One of the best quotes I’ve ever come across on composing an image is this one:
"In photography, as in life, the most important mathematics is subtraction.
Subtract all that is distracting and unnecessary until only the essential remains''.
One of the biggest problems I used to have with composition was the desire to “get it
all in”, but as I explained above, our eyes don’t see the world in that way, and
trying to put too much in an image will almost always result in that image looking messy
and over-complex.
Even in landscape photography, our eyes and brains respond to ordered and simple designs,
and whenever we look at a scene with an eye to photographing it, we should be attempting
to identify the core of the scene, what it is exactly that moves us, makes us want to
photograph it. What is the essence of the scene, and how can we refine that essence, focus
on it and remove everything from the image that isn’t part of the essence, and therefore
doesn’t add to a photograph?
Remember, that anything that doesn’t add to an image, will in actual fact detract from
it, as it will divert focus and attention from what is important about the photograph, so
if you are composing an image to include a particular element, ask yourself WHY you are
including it, does it improve the image, or will the shot be better without it?
Do we really need to include so much foreground? Are there trees that might be distracting
from the overall scene? Can I remove some of the rocks from the composition of the
foreground? How much sky do we need in the frame, and is the amount of sky we’re
including detracting from the shot?
These are the kind of questions I ask myself when composing an shot. |
|
|
|
In the photograph above with the backlit
trees, I thought about what it was that really attracted me to the scene…the light on
the forest floor, and the long shadows in the small clearing that I was standing in. That
was my essence, so it was important to make sure that nothing else in the image distracted
from it. The most significant part of the scene that I saw before my eyes that I “subtracted”
were the tree tops. Shooting into the sun, I knew all of the trees would be silhouetted,
and the tops of the trees would just be blocks of shadow that would distract from the
essence of the photo. Removing the tops of the trees from the shot made sure that the
essence of the photograph wasn’t diluted by superfluous elements.
In the photograph of the hills at sunset that is at the top of this article, the same
principal applies.
Identifying the essence of the picture meant removing many of the aspects I could see
before my eyes from the composition. What attracted me to the scene was the way the form
of the hills repeated themselves seemingly into infinity until the haze caused the land to
merge into the sky. To focus the eye on this meant removing the foreground, leaving just a
little of the corner of the hill to give some context. I removed most of the sky, leaving
just the clouds which complimented the hills until the final image was arranged in my head
in a panoramic ratio. Because I can’t crop in camera, of course the image was shot with
foreground and more sky, but this was cropped from the RAW file as soon as I imported the
images to my computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I used the
same process of subtraction for the image above. One misty morning on the Amazon river I’d
composed some wide shots of the scene including plenty of river, lots of submerged trees
and a lot of the far bank.
Using a telephoto lens though, I started to isolate trees against the mist, knowing that
the trees wouldn’t blend into the far bank because of the mist. Using a tight
composition eliminated any sky, which was adding nothing to the scene, and left only
enough water for the reflection. I including enough of the far bank to give a suggestion
of what lay behind the fog, and in the end I thought that the minimal composition of the
scene, even though it showed only a tiny part of the rainforest and river I could see with
my eyes, communicated the atmosphere and spirit of the scene far more successfully than a
busier wide shot.
Another thing I always bear in mind when composing a shot is to make sure that each
element in the shot is resolved, and if possible, resolved separately.
By this I mean that it’s important to ensure everything that is included in the image
has a sense of completion and isn’t left unfinished, and neither does it meet or cross
over a different element.
For example, in the image below I wanted to make sure that the concrete pier in the
background didn’t touch the left side of the frame, and also I made sure that the metal
railing didn’t break the horizon or the line of the pier on the right.
I also tried to make sure that the wire cables didn’t interfere with the line of the
concrete quay, and finally make sure that there was nothing too close to the edges of the
frame (like the plate where the railing is bolted to the concrete). |
|
|
|
Designing an
image like this requires us to see the three dimensional elements in an image and arrange
them into a 2 dimensional composition where each element is separately resolved.
In the image above, if the metal structure or the cables had crossed another element in
the image, it would have been a weaker composition.
Always check to see how parts of the image are breaking the horizon or other lines in the
composition, and see if there is a composition possible where these lines aren’t broken.
It’s even more important to remember this when an image contains silhouettes.
To our eyes, we may be able to clearly distinguish a rock against a cliff, but our camera
may record them both as silhouettes that blend into each other.
Likewise a tree shot against a backlit sky at sunset will appear as a silhouette, so it’s
important that the black branches aren’t absorbed by another silhouette, losing the
shape of the tree.
Connected with the idea of resolving elements in the image is that of cleaning the edges
of the frame.
Images always look weaker if they have elements too close to the edge of the frame or
touching the edges, so whenever I compose a shot I make sure that nothing is touching the
edge of the frame or too close to the edge. Of course sometimes it’s impossible, for
example a big rock on a beach, but in those cases it’s better to cut the rock completely
in half rather than have just a tiny part of the rock projecting into the image, or
kissing the edge of the frame.
So scanning the edges of the viewfinder to make sure nothing is pushed up against the
frame or broken by the edge of the image is a good habit to get into. |
|
|
|
Finally,
another aspect of composition that I always think about is camera height. As human beings,
we spend most of our time looking at landscapes from eye level, and it’s amazing how
much the impact of an image can be changed by shooting the image from above or below
normal eye height.
Certainly when there is an interesting foreground, a low camera angle can really bring the
texture of that foreground into focus, leading people into the image. Look for rocks (as
in the image above, where I lowered the camera to a few centimeters above the rocks) or
waving grass that runs right up to the camera lens.
Alternatively, and particularly with telephoto shots, see how getting higher can change
the perspective of a landscape. World renowned photographer Charlie Waite never goes
anywhere without a set of stepladders in his car to give him elevation, and while I’m
not suggesting anything so extreme, there have been several times in the past when I’ve
set the tripod up in the roof of my long suffering car to get the perspective on the
landscape that I really wanted.
So, here are my composition bullet points:
- Camera height
- Subtract any elements that aren’t essential to the image
- Resolve all the element separately
- Scan the edge of the frame |
|
Andy Mumford Official Website:
www.andymumford.com |
|
|
|
|
|
