Composition: can it be learnt or is it built in

[weka2000]

I read a lot, I understand what I read but why are my photos flat. I see others that seem to be able to compose well is it an "artistic" bent they have? Or do others take time untill the penny finally drops?

Just frustrated.

Have others gone throught this feeling and made it, if so what helped. I am wondering if I need a cue card on my camera to slow me down and remember the things I have read untill It becomes second nature.

[Sam]

When you say "flat" you need to help me understand your meaning. It can have a lot of different meanings, some of will be learned over time as you get used to your equipment.

As far as picking up artistic ability, I would have to say that you have what you have. It's up to you to find out what your artistic eye sees and learn how to capture it on film. Trying to emulate another photographer has helped me learn new techniques, but I don't think it will ever give me something I don't have.

Did that make any sense?

[jbkalla]

Maybe you could post a couple to give us an idea? If I understand you right, your pics look like bad snapshots and you see others posted here with great colors and incredible composition? Or am I understanding you wrong?

[weka2000]

Here is some from the other day

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141659&page=2

I dont think they are bad snap shoots but they are lacking. I do often wonder how much a photo we see posted here is photoshoped to the max.
I check pbase PAD everyday to see what is been offered and 60% seem to be composed well IMHO. Some jump out. The question is in my mind the saying about good photography only display their best. What are the other 99% like?

If I can go from growing kiwifruit to managing a high school network I can learn to compose :lol:

[Big_B]

FWIW, I think the biggest problem is the exposure in your photos. I would have taken the exposure down a couple of stops and then lightened selected areas of the photo in photoshop. Either way, that's a technical issue and should be easy to resolve. Alternatively, it might just have been the wrong time of day to take those photos.

I agree that the composition could do with some work, but the fundamentals are there. Just keep working at it and trying new things! :D

[weka2000]

Its a funny spot Ive tryed mid day and late afternoon the sun seems to find the gap. I will tell my boss I will be in late to try a morning shot :)

Practice practice I do need to slow down and look, exposure and composition do need work but is that a skill that develops with time?

[Big_B]

Practice practice I do need to slow down and look, exposure and composition do need work but is that a skill that develops with time?

Definately. When I first started, my composition was absolutely rubbish. It's still not great but a damn sight better than it was! :)

[SkipD]

Here's a tip: The camera's format (the shape of the film or sensor frame - what you see in the viewfinder) is not always the best format for presenting a subject.

If I cannot get the best presentation (composition) for an image by using the full frame in the camera, I am not afraid to crop to some other height/width ratio to present the image in the most pleasing way.

One has to visualize the final product when taking the photo, and deal with the final image in the darkroom or with digital post-processing.

Along the same line - don't be afraid to use darkroom/post-processing tricks to remove a wierd element in the photo or to change the intensity/contrast/color, etc., of part of the image

[queenbee288]

I think that you can train your eye. I look back at the photos I was taking just a year ago and I cringe. Yesterday I took my camera to a civil war park and took pics of a cannon. I took pics from every angle you can imagine. Even got down on my knees.I was trying to see it from different perspectives. A year ago I would have just snapped a shot and not thought anything about it. When I get ready to crop my photos in PS I do a lot of experimenting until I get what I think is the best. It takes me a lot of time but I am training myself to look and see differently.

[Benji]

The most often used compositional rule in photography is the rule of thirds, also known as the golden rectangle. In your waterfall shot, you have the horizon dead center instead of 1/3rd in from either the top or bottom, and the waterfall itself is dead center instead of 1/3rd of the way in from one side. Dead center is usually a killer (pun intended) to great images.

I have posted an image below showing a prime example of the rule of thirds. Note that both 'waterfalls' are about 1/3rd of the way in from either side, the gristmill is 1/3rd of the way down from the top and 1/3rd of the way in from the left, there are two 'horizons' neither of which are dead center. NOTHING of any importance is dead center. Everything of any significance is off center by about 1/3rd.

Benji

[cdifoto]

Last year I would have taken photos of my nephew (if I had a nephew) straight down, from a standing position. These days I know to crawl around with him or even get lower than he is by laying on the floor.

When I first started shooting at the track, I looked at what the "official" photographer was putting out and tried to figure out why it didn't sell. I decided then to shoot from different angles. Inside the track, outside the turns, get low on the inside so the racers looked like they're going to run over me, zoom in tight to see helmets and in some cases their faces, etc.

I also shoot a lot and don't show anyone everything. ;)

[cdifoto]

Your image isn't showing up Benji.

[In2Photos]

Your image isn't showing up Benji.

Yes it is, and I think it is a great example for this thread and for me to mearn from.:D

[cdifoto]

I see it now. It appeared when I hit another thread and came back. Excellent example!

[saravrose]

I think anything can be learned. were human so it's possible. As to some folks having a natural flair for composition sure they do. The same as other's having an innate sense of the perfect exposure, ISO etc... there are soo many considerations when shooting it's a bit like a puzzle where you often have everything but one piece to the puzzle. It takes time and practice to learn how to put everything together.. the composition part comes easy to me. It's everything else that I obsess over, and I really envy the folks that are great at all the 'others'...

sari

[ScottE]

Some people can use good composition intuitively, but others have to learn. There are lots of books and courses available to help those who have to develop their expertise the hard way.

[Thornfield]

This may seem an odd way to learn composition but it has worked for some friends of mine that had absolutely no idea at all about composition.
When looking through your viewfinder think of the scene as an actual print. Now with a needle take that mental print and pin it exactly in the centre onto an imaginary piece of cardboard. Better yet take one of your prints that you don't like and do this for real.
Seeing as the print is balanced by the needle at dead centre it will not take much to make it lean one way or the other. Now look at everything in that picture and give it weight. Going by the sample that I have added you can see that if you give the space that the mother on the top left takes up compared to the incubator at the bottom right they will ballance each other out. The midwife though slightly to the right is positioned (head wise) to be pretty close to the center and this keeps the weight stable. The thing that lets this composition down is the big box to the right edge of the frame. If we were to give this weight it would tip the print to the right of it's axis of the needle. Just remember to give weight to all things that are in your picture. Just like th waterfall pictuer the building would have weight by the amount of space it takes up compared to the trees opposite etc etc. Personaly I don't like the word composition....it creates a lot of conflict for me. It makes it sound more complicated than what it realy is. I prefer the word balance. If the picture has good balance it can be said to have good composition. Try this with your own pictures before you press the shutter button ....just ask...will this picture fall over if I pin it in the middle.
I hope I've made sense rambling on the way I have.

[ImagineTNT]

I think your question is great because photography contains both mechanical components (just requiring knowing what to do and experience doing it) coupled with "talent" components (having an innate artistic bent, etc). I do believe that anyone can learn the mechanical components (exposure, lighting, rule of thirds, etc) as these are just rules/guidelines and when you follow them your images come out better than when you don't follow them. However, I think that really great photographers have an innate talent for knowing when to break the rules. Many really great photos are such that they break certain rules/guidelines but you have to know the mechanics to know which ones to break, which to bend, and which to keep :) I'll define how I use talent (naturally recurring pattern of thought, feeling, or behavior). For example, some people (without any mechanics) just see the world differently. Everyone looks at the world through a different lens or frame. Some are just more artistic than others. So while this might not be the answer you want to hear that's my viewpoint.

With that said I definitely think you've got a good eye (talent piece). As you practice and gain more experience you'll definitely get better and better as everyone else does. :)

[weka2000]

One has to visualize the final product when taking the photo, and deal with the final image in the darkroom or with digital post-processing.



I have never been able to do that. I cant see the end result. I know when I have arrived though. I can draw a future network and plan 5 years ahead but to visualise a photo I have no idea. I shoot what I see at the time.

Oh well we cant have all the gifts :)

[simatbirch]

I don't think your composition is far off. I agree with Benji's comments about the rule of thirds. It's an over used term, but i think it can be applied to your photography (i've only looked at the shots you took in the woods in the linked thread).

You've got a good eye, but you're putting everything slap bang in the middle. There's no flow, even of the river! There's no mystery.

But then different types of photograpy need different compositional rules. Portraits benefit from the subject being placed centrally. It depends what you're shooting.

Either way, in answer to your question, yes, i think composition can be taught, it's an art, but art CAN be taught. It just takes PRACTICE. It comes more easily to some than others, but it does come.

EDIT: Just looked at your PBase account. Yes, everything's nice and central. Great for the odd bird, but not so great for everything else. Mix it up a bit.

[Hellashot]

Composition mostly needs to be learned. I like most people was putting my subject in the middle of the frame when I started shooting. Eventually you'll learn to "see" pictures framed as you go about your day.

[Oliver Dugayo]

post a couple of your shots so that we can have an idea if your photo's need some enhancement.

[weka2000]

post a couple of your shots so that we can have an idea if your photo's need some enhancement.

See page 1 or my Pbase site in my sig

[Seefutlung]

To answer your question, Yes composition can be learned. Some people are very inclined towards photography and require less time on the learning curve to reach a certain photographic proficiency, while others are less inclined and take longer. With photography, as with a lot of things in life, the more you do the better one gets. A couple things will be helpful:
1) Get a basic photo composition book and go through the chapters;
2) Apply #1 to you photos and evaluate everything you shoot as to what looks good and what look bad.
3) Learn to pre-visualize the photo. Look at a scene ... say the waterfall, and before you release the shutter think how you want the final image to look. Do you want the water to show movement ... do you want to the leaves floating on the water be the principle focus or do you want the viewer to feel the shear walls raising from the water ... (one has to choose otherwise there will be conflict in the viewer's mind what they are supposed to be seeing) ... take your time.

*** The closer your computer image reflects the pre-visualized image the better photog you are becoming.***

4) Keep an open mind. Look at the photography of others and try to reproduce an image that inspires and avoid the look of images that you soon forget (but now you have to remember the bad photos).

The basic photo composition book is just the start. Before you can break the rules ... you first must learn them.

[weka2000]

I need on camera cue cards to remeber all the things I need to remeber :)

Have the books just keep forgetting to apply when Im out shooting.

[10102668]

I don't want to let you down, but I'd say it can't be learned to see creatively

[weka2000]

I don't want to let you down, but I'd say it can't be learned to see creatively

Sorry the word "can't" does not exist in my vocabulary.

[cdifoto]

I don't want to let you down, but I'd say it can't be learned to see creatively

No one starts out great.

[saravrose]

I don't want to let you down, but I'd say it can't be learned to see creatively

that's a loaded statement, and untrue. I think that it's not the 'seeing' creatively but learning to translate it to photographs. It's also about finding your niche in photography. There are incredible urban photographers that don't take great portraits. Beautiful Portrait photographers that don't shoot landscapes. A lot of the learning process is figuring out when your own personal style, creativity and sense of composition is at it's best. That takes time. But, just my two cents.... from somebody who takes great candids, landscapes and urbans, but can't do a posed portrait to save my life... to each their own.:D :D

sari.

[cdifoto]

I agree Sari. I'm a "My Nephew" photographer that can't take a photo of anything else to save my life! :D

[rdenney]

Composition can be learned to the point of competence. That still might not get you to the level of the rare greats, but it will get you consistently pleasing results.

I have learned to ask two questions when I give myself time to think about composition.

1. What is my purpose in making this photograph? Another way to ask this is, What story do I want to tell? Or, what feeling do I want to impart to the viewer? What is our previsualization of the print? These are variations on the same issue, that we make photos on purpose.

2. What in the scene supports that purpose, and what in the scene interferes with that purpose? Compose such that the former is in the frame and the latter is not, and that the former gets the attention and the latter does not distract from that attention.

If you get this right, you'll lead yourself to tips like moving your main subject over to a one-third point, making sure elements in the composition lead you into the picture rather than away from it, and paying attention to backgrounds. Those are all things you do to make sure your story gets told without distraction.

I have zillions of pictures, some good, that I made without giving myself time to ponder those two issues. In some cases, I was spending so much time fiddling with the camera (as with a view camera) that I forgot to look at the ground glass for image value rather than image values, if that makes sense. In other cases, the convenience of the hand-holdable camera made it easy to just fire away. Often, I rush myself instead of looking for what it is about the place or the scene that makes me want to photograph it. And too often I just shoot out of sheer habit without purpose. Some pictures I make just because I want to explore a particular piece of equipment or a newfound technique. As I said, some of these are good in spite of my carelessness. And some of those where I really do the right thinking don't turn out like I expect because my technique isn't up to it. Asking those questions has brought my photography up quite a bit.

That said, I know photographers who have a sense of balance and simplicity that I don't have and that I envy deeply. In every case, they were born with it. They seem to instinctively know what they want to say and how they want to say it--without the thinking I have to do. In the absense of that talent, I have to settle for competence.

Rick "now asking 'why' more often than 'how'" Denney

[weka2000]

As I read in a photography book last night "What was it that caused you to want to photograph that scene?"

There is a shift from what the eyes see to what the camara captures. Learning to see as a camera does and knowing "how" to do that will be the key.

Thanks to all who have said that im on the right track, it helps. I think we are often our own worse critics.

[JayHawk]

This is a great thread with some good examples and suggestions. Ironically, the problem I run into most is constantly reminding myself that I'm not limited by the amount or cost of film and processing. Some of my better pictures since I've switched to a DSLR are frames I wouldn't have made with film, because I either wouldn't have picked up the camera afraid to waste the film on an "experiment," or I would've stopped with a certain subject or location much earlier.

I guess my point is you can improve in just about any area of photography much faster now that everyone is digital.

[saravrose]

This is a great thread with some good examples and suggestions. Ironically, the problem I run into most is constantly reminding myself that I'm not limited by the amount or cost of film and processing. Some of my better pictures since I've switched to a DSLR are frames I wouldn't have made with film, because I either wouldn't have picked up the camera afraid to waste the film on an "experiment," or I would've stopped with a certain subject or location much earlier.

I guess my point is you can improve in just about any area of photography much faster now that everyone is digital.

I've noticed that with my uncle since he went digital. We'll go out together I'll have two or three hundred shots a day and he'll take forty or fifty shots.. He just hasn't adapted to all things digital yet..;) ;)

sari

[Seefutlung]

I've noticed that with my uncle since he went digital. We'll go out together I'll have two or three hundred shots a day and he'll take forty or fifty shots.. He just hasn't adapted to all things digital yet..;) ;)

sari

Remember 'tis better to have 50 shots that were previsualized and thought out than hundreds which were merely point and shoot. But hundreds of previsualized shots is a ton better than 50.

[sharpfocus]

I looked at all your stuff on Pbase and think that you could use a little more post processing. The pictures on the string seem to be under very harsh lighting conditions. You had extremes of contrast to contend with. I would want to try the waterfalls around dusk or with a cloudy sky. Use a tripod if the exposure gets to be too long. At dusk with a long exposure the water will take on a silky appearance. Some like that effect. If I have a tripod with me and I am taking a picture with extremes of contrast, I will shoot it several times and expose for each extreme. Then I can layer them in Photoshop and get a scene a lot closer to what you see with your eyes. Wish I could be more help. ...Bob

[sharpfocus]

By more post processing I mean curves, saturation, density, contrast and cropping etc. :-) ...Bob

[weka2000]

here is a couple from last night. Have they improved?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1293775#post1293775

[sharpfocus]

Those are very nice images. :-) ...Bob

[DocFrankenstein]

It is learnt

Elements of design is the study of composition.

[weka2000]

So I need to look around more and see all the different things that make up the shot and work out what I do and dont want in the photo.

[Tess320]

As others have said, I think it can be learned..but some people are naturally gifted from the get-go.

When I first started reading and learning photography, a few ppl told me I was naturally using the rule of thirds. When I found out what it meant I went back over my images and yes, most of them were using it, or to a degree, I "knew" not to center things dead on etc, but the more practice I have the better composition I have, so obviously even if you are "adequate" at the beginning, you can still learn to get better.

Nat

[blinking8s]

I think if you want to understand and see a photograph, you have to study, practice is a big art of it, but if you cant understand the basis of good photography to start off with by knowing its history and greats, then you have no steaks as to understanding your composition to start off with.

Lets look at Sam Abell's "Branding" which to a large degree is argued as one of the best composed photographs ever.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0206/sam02.htm

Things such as layering and truncation are things many photographs dont seem to apply as compositional techniques...yet can add a lot to a photograph.

[Benji]

I have learned throughout the years that the more compositional aids you can place into one image the more impact it will have. For example, if an image maker has incorporated the rule of thirds, framing, and leading lines all in one image, chances are it will be a dynamic and pleasing to look at image.

The reason a lot of images lack impact is that the maker didn't think before he (or she) made the exposure, they just pointed the camera at the scene and fired away. One must also keep in mind that the word "photograph" comes to us from two Greek words, 'photo' which means 'light' and 'graph' which can mean writing or drawing. So the word literally means 'light written' or 'light drawn.'

When I critique an image the first thing I check out is the lighting. Good lighting generally means a good photograph, and bad lighting usually means a bad photograph.

Benji

[Seefutlung]

When all else fails ... use the Rule of Thirds.

[gasrocks]

I teach a class in composition, and others invloving composition - I hope it can be learned. Rule of thirds is a bunch of "junk." Sorry, my opinion.

[rdenney]

I teach a class in composition, and others invloving composition - I hope it can be learned. Rule of thirds is a bunch of "junk." Sorry, my opinion.

I tend to agree. The "rule" of thirds is not a rule at all, and when you serve it as if it is a rule, you will still miss the point of good composition.

A good composition leads the viewer to the same emotional conclusion that led you to want to make the photograph. You have to know your emotions, and then critically review what's in the scene to determine what serves that emotion and what detracts from it. If it detracts, remove it or reduce its emphasis.

In many cases, a centered subject will be static, when balance is the real objective. But if the subject is too far to the edge, it may lead you out of the picture instead of into it. Or, it creates confusion instead of drama. So, photographers and artists who exercise good composition look for dramatic balance that leads the viewer to their emotional conclusion, and those who don't understand those issues think, "wow! their subjects are about a third of the way in from the corners!" A new rule is born, but it is just a way for those who don't understand composition to try to characterize the decisions of those who do.

Here's an image where my best attempt at composition happened to follow the rule of thirds:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/tidal-flat-4x8-lores.jpg

And in this one most definitely does not follow the rule of thirds:

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/1007-lighthouse-and-clouds-.jpg

But I still think the second one is a stronger composition.

Rick "who will always be a student of composition" Denney

[Andrew Khan]

How are some people just born artistic or talented in a certain area? I have several friends that are lik e this. My friend Jake, is 18, and is one of the best artists I have seen, all naturally with out lessons at all, he takes lessons now just to practice and peak his pre-established skills........how do people do this? Someone said there are people that just see the world differently....what do you/they mean? Just have a different outlook on the world, or everything just looks different? The word "Can't" and "Impossible" certainly exist in my vocabulary. I know there are things I will never be able to do and just "can't". That's reality. You can become better though, better than how you orignally started, but the people with natural skill will always have the damn advantage.

[gasrocks]

I will agree that composition comes "naturally" for some and harder for others. Sorta like music talent. But it can be taught.

[weka2000]

I teach a class in composition, and others invloving composition - I hope it can be learned. Rule of thirds is a bunch of "junk." Sorry, my opinion.

So what do you teach then? I am a student I want to learnt to compose my shots well. You have now told me the rule of thirds is junk. Is that my lesson from all your teaching? If it is then I have less to work with than I did before your comment. Are all the authours books I have wrong who talk about the rule of thirds, and how our eyes work based on how we are taught to read?

If "you" teach composition then it must be able to be learned. So what do you teach them if not the rule of thirds?

[mackb]

I've looked at your gallery and I think you are (as you said) your worst critic. The most recent pictures you've taken are really good. I think composition can be learned, let's think about it, all our friends and family have gone out and bought point and shoot cameras. Out of all the techniques I try to explain composition seems to be the one that makes the most sense to a "beginner". (And for the record, Weka200=not beginner).

[DocFrankenstein]

all naturally with out lessons at all, he takes lessons now just to practice and peak his pre-established skills........
Please.

So with lots of practice and lessons your talent shines through.

99% perspiration and 1% inspiration

[rdenney]

If "you" teach composition then it must be able to be learned. So what do you teach them if not the rule of thirds?

How do you teach someone to write? You could spend all your time teaching them about verbs and nouns, and have them diagram sentences and so on. They might get to the point where they don't make grammatical errors, but they still won't be able to express themselves clearly.

It turns out that the best writing teachers teach writing the same way we each learned to speak. The classical way to teach at Oxford, for example, is for the tutor to give a reading assignment from the great literature, and then ask the student to write an essay about some aspect of the reading assignment. The student then reads the essay at the weekly tutelage, and the student and teacher discuss it. In that plan, they 1.) fill their head with good examples, 2.) decide what they want to say, 3.) practice saying it, and then 4.) discuss their practice with their teacher.

As I said, it's how we learn to speak. We listen to our parents talk to each other and to us. We imitate their talk as best we can, and when we get it wrong we get guidance on what is right. I learned to speak YEARS before learning to diagram sentences!

In music, it's the same way. Good music teachers assign music to be studied and learned, which is performed at the next lesson. When a mechanical process needs to be addressed, the good teacher sets the instrument aside, and deals with the physical issue as a physical issue outside the context of making music. When the physical problem is resolved, the student goes back to making music.

One doesn't teach technique of art as a mechanical process, but rather gives assignments designed to provide both examples and practice in areas that are weak.

When I studied art, each lesson we were presented with something to draw or paint. We represented it as best we could, and then the teacher would make suggestions. The suggestion I heard most often was, "Rick, what is that? Nothing looks like that. What do you see?" We might be asked to use different rendering techniques, but we never received more than the minimal instruction on the technique, and did most of our learning by studying those who did it well and practicing it ourselves.

So, if some misguided soul were to seek me out to teach them composition, I would assign them tasks like looking at two or three similar photographs or paintings from great artists, and asking them to make photographs during the week in the same style. Or I would ask them to look at a great photograph, and figure out what the photographer wanted them to feel when looking at the image, and then make photographs that invoke the same feeling. Then, during the lesson, I would suggest things that might strengthen the students purpose in the photograph, etc.

I'm an engineer by trade, but the approach I took to learning engineering just doesn't work when learning art, and it has taken me a long time to realize it.

Rick "who thinks art is the whole, not the sum of the parts" Denney

[Seefutlung]

Are all the authours books I have wrong who talk about the rule of thirds, and how our eyes work based on how we are taught to read?

If "you" teach composition then it must be able to be learned. So what do you teach them if not the rule of thirds?

Weka- I cannot speak for the teacher ... but in an earlier post stated what I learned from my professors, that, once again, when all else fails then goto the rule of thirds. The rule of thirds will more often than not give you a pleasing photo ... but to get a truly unique, spectacular photo ... one may have to go outside the box ... push the envelope. But I also believe that one has first to understand the rules before they should break them.

[weka2000]

Ive just come back from a 4 hour shoot will put a link to the pics. I have learned much from this tread, and I put it into practise tonight. I hope I have done well. Please tell me what I did right and what I could have done better.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1298183#post1298183

I see a lot more than a few days ago but have noticed Im still missing some of the elements

[rdenney]

But I also believe that one has first to understand the rules before they should break them.

That's where Weka (and I, so that I can speak for myself and not him) differ with you. We don't think it's a rule at all. In my case, I think the best that can be said is that the rule of thirds is a model. If we wanted to characterise pleasing results, we might say that pretty often good compositions seem to have the focal points of the composition about a third in from the edges. But to make it a rule means it will drive decisions rather than result from them, and that's the problem I have with it.

I'm a big believer in Do Not Break the Rules Before Learning Them, but it requires an understanding of what the rules really are. The true rules are that photographs should be clear and expressive, telling a story (or evoking a feeling) without distraction. We use the word "dramatic" when a photograph tells a story compellingly, or evokes strong feelings. Clarity is what makes the photograph effective. One of the greats (Adams?) said that we don't need more focused lenses as much as we need more focused photographers, or something to that effect.

Another analogy: I went through a triathlon phase a few years ago, and to meet my goal of doing an Ironman triathlon I had to learn how to swim. I marveled at how well the best 12-year-olds could swim with so little study, and then a basic truth occurred to me.

The best swimmers have a feel for the water. They instinctively know what to do, and how to experiment with their technique in order to go faster with less work. Good coaches don't teach them much of anything, though they might offer a pointer here and there. Good coaches observe the great swimmers, to try to understand what those swimmers are doing successfully based on their instincts. Then, they turn their observations into a technique that can be taught to the rest of us who have no feel for the water. We might gain a feel for the water and become quite good by learning those techniques, but more likely we will just have to memorize them and be content with mere competence. The best coaches, though, teach those with no instincts what they should be feeling in the water, so that they can learn how to modify their own techniques to improve their efficiency.

The rule of thirds may help an inattentive photographer improve, but it will not take anyone past the next step. To go beyond that next step, they have to go beyond mere models of some good work, and learn why the work was good in the first place. Then, they can think about those whys when they do their own work, and they become their own teacher rather than merely a technician of someone else's technique.

Rick "who knew the rule of thirds long before making his first photographs that really expressed anything" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

Another analogy: I went through a triathlon phase a few years ago, and to meet my goal of doing an Ironman triathlon I had to learn how to swim. I marveled at how well the best 12-year-olds could swim with so little study, and then a basic truth occurred to me.

The best swimmers have a feel for the water. They instinctively know what to do, and how to experiment with their technique in order to go faster with less work. Good coaches don't teach them much of anything, though they might offer a pointer here and there. Good coaches observe the great swimmers, to try to understand what those swimmers are doing successfully based on their instincts. Then, they turn their observations into a technique that can be taught to the rest of us who have no feel for the water. We might gain a feel for the water and become quite good by learning those techniques, but more likely we will just have to memorize them and be content with mere competence. The best coaches, though, teach those with no instincts what they should be feeling in the water, so that they can learn how to modify their own techniques to improve their efficiency.
No offense, but what you explain isn't even close to what happens.

The main factor might be summed up in saying about the old dogs and new tricks.

That's about it. Then to swim faster you just practice. I've seen three nations train their best swimmers and competed myself.

You learn one thing at a time, slowly, repeating it over and over until it's in muscle memory. First standing outside the pool, then in water, but with a board... legs only... then arms only... after keeping theck of your technique and a few months of training you "talent" starts to shine through.

When I got the best mark in multi-variable calculus class, my friends said that I'm "smart" and "talented" But to add to my "talent", I've had systematic education in math starting with the definition of a number and had I had to be able to prove every damn theorem by memory. Add to that a couple thousands of hours of solving the equations and voila: "I have talent"

Same with art. If you want to be successful, you take a systematic approach, put the time and concentrated effort... and after lots of work you get the results.

If you had the choice to take four years of education in "art and design". And you did the work required to succeed in the courses... You'd be guaranteed that your photographs will reach a whole new level.

The truth is the vast majority of dudes with cameras are just that - dudes with cameras. To produce art you need to actively and systematically educate yourself.

Doc "who thinks the oxford model might've been borrowed by the russians" F

[rdenney]

No offense, but what you explain isn't even close to what happens.

The main factor might be summed up in saying about the old dogs and new tricks.

That's about it. Then to swim faster you just practice. I've seen three nations train their best swimmers and competed myself.


Well, sure. I never said you didn't practice, no matter what your instincts. In fact, the one thing that distinguishes a prodigy from the rest of us is the compulsion to practice. But the best swimmers taught their coaches how they swim as much as learning from their coaches how others swim. In your observations, they aren't starting with a doofus like me. They are starting with someone who already has a built-in feel for the water, and the are putting the polishing touches on their technique. Nobody as incompetent in the water as I am would be swimming competitively in the first place, so the effect I'm talking about is nearly invisible to competitive swimmers. We triathletes always got laughed at by the competitive swimmers (except for the triathletes who came from swimming, of course), because even simple concepts of technique were beyond us. But in the end, I put in a solidly average time on my 2.4-mile Ironman swim, which tells me that even wtihout talent, we can become solidly competent, even if being great is out of reach.

I was taught art by several very good artists, including Henry Gadbois in Houston, and also studied design and architecture in college for several years before switching to engineering. I was also taught music by Michael Sanders (of the St. Louis Symphony), Lee Hipp (of the San Antonio Symphony) and Gil Corella (of the U.S. Air Force Band). I was never taught method to the exclusion of purpose, and all my work was evaluated on the basis of purpose rather than method. You may work on technique, but if you lose sight of the artistic purpose, the technique is wasted. Arnold Jacobs, one of the greatest teachers of brass musicians in the 20th century, talked about this constantly, and always stressed the importance of focusing on the musical (i.e., artistic) product rather than the physical methods, which he thought distracting if we thought about them in the context of playing music. And he was noted for his understanding of the physiology of brass playing, but always worked on those issues outside the context of music to solve specific physical problems.

So, learning composition is a little like learning language, music, or any other art. You fill your head with good examples, understand the purposes of the greats, and practice defining and serving your own purpose. You evaluate your results on the basis of whether the purpose was served effectively. If there is an item of technique, you always put that in the context of your artistic purpose. But artistic purpose is not a matter of applying rules and procedures like technique is. If you have talent, doing the above will build you possibly to the level of greatness. But if you don't have talent, applying rules without understanding purpose won't even make you competent.

Edit: I forgot to address the math and engineering issue. Math requires talent, but like everything it requires massive amounts of practice and technical learning. Engineering is the same way. I'm a talented engineer, and hardly recognize that what comes easily for me does not even to engineering peers. Is it because I studied harder? No, it's not. It's because I have a feel for the subject of my expertise, an intuition built on study but having something more than that. A lot of what sets me apart from my peers (to the extent I'm apart from them) is my artistic approach to it--my willingness to leave methodical analysis aside and focus on the purpose of the thinking that I'm doing.

Even so, as an engineer (and I presume it's the same for most mathemeticians) I'm never concerned with the emotional impact of what I'm engineering. I'm never concerned about trying to tell a story or evoke a feeling. I'm merely trying to satisfy requirements cheaper than I did the last time. Engineering and science are built on technique, while art uses technique to achieve an entirely emotional purpose. Get the purpose right, and the technique will follow. Lose sight of the purpose and the technique is wasted.

Rick "whose wife gets pictures of people that bring out their characters despite having never heard of the rule of thirds" Denney

[weka2000]

For me the Rule of Thirds is a guide. What is next for me is learning to see all the elements and placing them correctly.

Exposure needs some work. Last thing is PP if your photo is off for a start there is no amount of PP can help.

[weka2000]

The truth is the vast majority of dudes with cameras are just that - dudes with cameras. To produce art you need to actively and systematically educate yourself.


Thats me. Dude with a expensive hobby who dosnt have the money for an art degree but is intellegent enough to educate himeslf (spelling no good :) )

[DocFrankenstein]

In your observations, they aren't starting with a doofus like me. They are starting with someone who already has a built-in feel for the water, and the are putting the polishing touches on their technique.
They are starting with kids from 4 to 6 years old. The concept of "feel for the water" is unknown to them, because they simply can't swim. The ones that manage to persist daily for 14 years get to compete at a high levels.

You could say that the successful ones "have a feel" for it. But somehow the ones who don't have a "feel" train less.

This is off topic anyways, so let me ask something more productive. I want to commute to university and back. ~20km on city roads. I have a "student" budget... 300 dollars MAX.

What are my options? I want an old quality road bike with probably a steel frame, because aluminum is just too hard on my posterior.

[rdenney]

This is off topic anyways, so let me ask something more productive. I want to commute to university and back. ~20km on city roads. I have a "student" budget... 300 dollars MAX.

What are my options? I want an old quality road bike with probably a steel frame, because aluminum is just too hard on my posterior.

Ask yourself what makes a kid want to train for 14 years. I played Little League for six years, until I had to actually be good to make the team. Then, I found better things to do with my time. Those who are remarkably talented often have no idea how much their talent contributes to their abilities. Those who are not talented get tired of mediocrity and find other things to do. Most are in between, of course. One of my tuba teachers could do little to instruct me on how to improve--he was so good that he had no idea why he was good. He had won an orchestra gig while a teen--a most rare accomplishment and one that absolutely requires great talent. He started out on the tuba at the same age as I did. I can achieve competence; he is a great player. I learned most from him just by listening to him play up close. 20 years later, it still shapes my sound concept. I also learned not to quit my day job.

Road bikes:

Your budget limits you. I once paid $275 for an old (old!) Cannondale touring bike that would absolutely change your perspective on aluminum. Aluminum bikes ride rough only because they are built for short-circuit racing (criteriums) and have too short a wheelbase for a comfortable ride. Aluminum is only one-third the stiffness of steel as a material, and it has the same specific stiffness (stiffness per weight).

The problem with old bike-boom era frames is that the rear triangles are too narrow for modern gearing. They are typically 120 or 126mm, when 130 is now the standard. You can find stuff that will fit in the old frame, or you may be able to make what comes on the bike work. Most road frames are optimized for racing, and you'll do better with bikes that were set up for touring, though they will be hard to find.

I suggest giving Harris Cyclery in Boston a call. Talk to Sheldon Brown. His advice is the best in the business, particularly for cummuter bikes.

Rick "http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/index.html" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

Ask yourself what makes a kid want to train for 14 years.
I think it's the parents. You do what they tell you. ;)

Thanks for the bike advice.

[DocFrankenstein]

"http://www.sheldonbrown.com/harris/index.html"
I think I'd love a fixed gear bike