Excellent Lecture on Composition

I've been taking photographs for most of my adult life, and most of that time has been spent for "corporate" or "journalistic" purposes. Now that I'm retired, I'm trying to be more of an artist than a technician. In my former career as a print editor & publisher, I became familiar with how the human eye moves across a space, but this video talks about composition in a way I've not heard before.

• The Biological Mandate of Vision
• What is "Foveal Vision" and why does it matter
• Saccadic Eye Movements: Leading the Eye

What do you think about his ideas?

LOL, in the first 15 minutes or so of this wordy youtube, he argued with me even though I said nothing. And in that time he didn't say anything that was new or worth learning.

And I disagree with his premise. He sets it up like a straw man. We are devoted to rules - and he is going to show that that is wrong.

My experience with almost all photographers that I know is that they are dismissive of the rules. They know them, they talk them, they might even promote them, but ignore them when actually making pictures.

I also disagree with what he states a rule is. The word rule has more than one meaning. It can have a strict sense, as in the rules of chess. Those rules must be followed. It can also be a suggestion or an item of knowledge, such as a rule of thumb. If you take the first meaning, then you can have fun attacking those who are devoted to them. The correct meaning IMO is the second one.

And since photographic rules are just rules of thumb, then you can't break them.

"Learn the rules, and then learn when to break them" - makes no sense if a rule is just a rule of thumb.

He knows these things, of course, but he is a great presenter and needs to make a story.

I do agree with him that our images must please viewers other than just ourselves. That can be difficult when the preferences of other viewers conflict with our own preferences.

I also agree that clutter is bad and that there has to be a center that quickly gets the viewer's attention. That is usually correct - but even that is just a useful guideline. Some photos with tons of clutter can be successful.

He implies that we need to consider how the visual elements in our photos affect the viewer. Said another way, WHY are we applying a compositional rule? I agree with that.

It is a good video. As is often the case, I get inspired by the example images just as much as by the words that are spoken.

Here's my take:

In no particular order....(and I'm paraphrasing him)

"Rules" are foundational, but not everything. I kind of knew that. You have to know the rules in order to break them. I rely a lot on serendipity. I see things, and take the picture. I am not firmly grounded in the rules, and I'm still learning, so I go with what ever composition "looks right" to me. I should consider things more ahead of time instead of flying by the seat of my pants. I do like to be spontaneous, though.

One of the things that caught me was his idea that I'm only taking photographs for myself and not others. It used to be that I thought that, but if I'm honest with myself, I AM taking photographs for others, and there is an observational component to doing this in the first place. I actually enjoy the small dopamine hit when I get a like on Lightroom Community. I remember the first time somebody complimented me on a photo I posted on here. I was over the moon, because the folks on here know what they are talking about, and it meant a whole lot coming from you folks. This site is a master class in composition.

Foveal Vision is new to me. I liked the exercise where you put your hand out in front of you and look at the palm, and notice that everything else is blurred, and then vice-versa. Extrapolating that out to framing and composition makes sense. He nailed me when he talked about the student wanting to get everything in the frame to tell the whole story. There was so much stuff in the photo that you got distracted from whatever the subject was supposed to be. I need to work on that. Not that everything has to be minimalist, but I need to start thinking about getting rid of what doesn't need to be in the frame.

Lastly, I liked the analogy of the symphony. Everything makes music, even the little triangle. The parts add up, and sometimes they don't even have to be aligned.

Lot of food for thought in the video. Thanks for sharing it with us.

I will watch the video linked above at some point, but as it happens I watched Simon D'Entremont last night talking about aspects of the same issue here:


His discussion of the science of perception is good, as far as I can tell, but his key point is that more than any rule, observation - the development of an "eye for a picture" - is what makes for a good photographer. And he explains some of the elements of how you develop that. Compositional "rules" are perhaps better considered as guidelines - starting points only.

I don't pretend to any sort of expertise beyond competency, but looking around me for things that might make a good image is deeply ingrained after my many decades with cameras as pro, semi-pro, and over-capitalised amateur. I do try to keep my eyes on the road ahead, though. ;-)