The key to good photography is composition

I’m reposting a comment from the learned Grommit - one of only a few of us who has actually had formal artist training, comes from a family of exceptionally talented artists, and has a psychology degree to boot (never say our readers aren’t highbrow!) He very kindly shared his words of wisdom on the Weston veggie shots a few days ago. It’s interesting because a) I can’t write this sort of arty language for toffee, and b) because he says what all photographers already know of course, but it’s news to me because I have about as much understanding of composition as Gordon Brown understands the UK economy.

You can read Grommit’s full comment here (scroll down) but I’ve repeated the critical bit below.

"It's odd, I've followed many of the links to other photographers mentioned on your blog and tried to come up with why some work for me and many just don't. Often, it comes down to 2 principles.

Can I see with my own eyes the person to person connection that existed between the photographer and model, or subject? This is not the same as what the photographer thinks is a connection. S/he might believe that there was a great vibe on the day of the shoot. My question is can *I* as an external viewer see and relate to that connection? Without that, the shared understanding of what passed between the two is lost to me as a viewer. The performance of the moment is gone and all that is left is a sculpture, or worse still a dead shape. This is most prevalent when the model just doesn't look "present" at the scene. I am always drawn to the face and body language to see if the model seems to be actually into what s/he is doing.

Second, does the photographer have any sense of 2d space within the 3d photograph? Does s/he understand composition and the need to think in both 3d and 2d at the same time? I've seen many a picture and thought "for heavens sake, take an evening class in the theory of design and you could transform these". There is a reason why fine artists have study art theory throughout the centuries - it works. The same rules of balance and form apply to not only paintings but any form of visual layout, from magazine design, typography to - most certainly - photography. And I really think that's a vital step in the transition between amateurs and professional status - moving beyond understanding the physical technique to a mastery of aesthetic technique as well, until it become instinct. A very few people have that aesthetic understanding naturally (lucky bastards). The rest of us have to work at it.

So to answer your original question as to why the first image works and the third doesn't - it's all down to success in the composition."

Richard’s comment on this: “Yep! I told you this last month, but you never listen to me.” (smug bugger)

My comment: “Dammit, I wish I could have said it that well in the first place.”

Incidentally Grommit, if you want to see some exceptional fine-art photography where the model really “engages”, go look at some of Dave Rudin’s work , particularly his shots of Sarah Ellis. They knock my socks off! (Actually Dave Rudin knocks my socks off because he really is gorgeous, but let's not go there.)

On another, totally unrelated topic, I’d like to introduce bloggers who haven’t tried it yet to the (now very old) Gender Genie. This was developed many moons ago by Israeli scientists and claims to be able to tell you, with 80% accuracy, whether a piece of writing has been done by a man or a woman. (I’m guessing that our resident psychologist, Dr Grommit, will make mincemeat of this program.)

Needless to say, after extensive analysis of our blog posts, my writing is predominantly male, and Rich’s is predominantly female.

Rich’s comment: “That’s because artists and engineers think with different parts of their brains to most people.”

My comment: “Girlie! Girlie! You’re a big Girlie!”

Rich’s comment: Unrepeatable!



The amazing Syd, engaging with Rich rather intensely if you ask me.