I’ve just stumbled across this video by Peter Evans, who gives a short course on composition in little over half an hour.
10 Likes
I gave it a watch…he does a good job of packing a lot of information into a single video. I’d say it’s more or less on a par with what a lot of other guys are offering as paid content.
I just watched it a found it exceptionally good. I definitely would recommend it to anyone stumbling upon this post.
1 Like
Within seconds he’s overstating “point of interest” and failing to give the important context that his lessons are relevant only for a very specific goal in photography. A type of mainstream or “pop” type photography suitable for advertising or other audiences where the goal is to communicate something simple instantly or even just grab attention with nothing to say. This type of approach is common in many fields but it’s not an ambitious one.
There’s lots of photography that relies on complexity, multitude and layers upon layers. Compare empty or just well honed rhetoric to poetry.
His lessons are fine as part of a toolbox but to many internet people overstate their rules and unthinkingly push a rather simplistic view of photography. In any art a “grammar” is useful but learning and following the grammar is the lowest form of the art.
The photo of the woman in the alley is distinctly mediocre, at best. Meeting all those rules doesn’t help the photo.
2 Likes
I guess this just shows that art is in the eye of the beholder.
Sounds like you should make a video!
3 Likes
I thought it was a nice succinct exposition of some elements of composition and at the same time, I didn’t really like his photos. 
EDIT: Here’s a famous example of how breaking all the compositional guidelines can make a great photo:
3 Likes
But in fairness to him he did compare rules to handcuffs and he provided so good food for thought. As an artist we decide what we can take away from his video and apply to our photography to grow as photographers. It was a well produced video with clear examples of what he talked about. He only had two hard rules which are hard to argue against. A photo needs a point of interest or why are we bothering to take it in the first place. We also need to frame the photo. The rest were optional.
2 Likes
I dunno, given how many photos I see without any point of interest at all, it seems like a good place to start.
5 Likes
Which he says several times in the video… There are reasons those rules are still taught, and most people who break them do not create better images because they “break the rules”.
2 Likes
Its just a trope that gets repeated way to much imho. A photo can also be a surface of hundreds of equally weighted things. As I mentioned I think the focus on point of interest has an implicit assumption that photography should “sell” and that the quick way to success is to adhere to the most banal formalities. Now, I do quite some architecture photography which may well be one of the most rule based genres out there and I do mostly follow those rules. My verticals are vertical in 98% of my photos, but it only makes sense in a very specific context and with very specific reasons for taking the photographs. You shouldn’t leave that implicit stuff unsaid when teaching imho. The interesting thing is what it means to follow the rules, what you’re saying when doing it.
It’s way more important to learn to see with your eyes (most people don’t) and learn to more or less instinctively frame in such a way that the point of view is expressed. @TonyBarrett article linked above is a great example. Thing is that most of us are have been so image saturated our whole lives that much of the grammar is instictive and we can be creative out of the box.
The point of interest doesn’t have to be a tangible physical object. It could simply be the amazing light, a pattern or something else that is fairly abstract. To me the point of interest can be answered by why do I want to take this photo. Surely we must all be able to answer that when we pick up our camera or we would be no different to a blind person picking up a camera and randomly pointing it.
5 Likes
Discussions around point of interest and similar terms revolve around there being one or very few things of interest in a photo. This reduction is fine and works well for certain end results. It’s important to know and understand though that some scenes or results need the image to be a complex field with very little hierarchy. Images where they eye can wander and discover.
The complexity and contradiction of the Brandt image above is useful. Your eye wanders back and forth even in this rather simple composition. Locking on and understanding the image in a split second is imho much less interesting. When there is a single subject making it non obvious which it is makes looking rewarding even when this hesitation is only a couple of second.
1 Like
But do you really need a video about basic rules of composition once you’re able to create such complex images? And conversely, is it useful to spend too much time (*) on such more advanced approaches in a video aimed at less experienced photographers?
When I learned to write publications, I was told to always keep in mind the target audience…
It’s a bit as with spoken/written languages: native speakers use their language instinctively. But that means they may not be able to explain why they use certain constructs. And they may have trouble with more literary or old-fashioned/archaic forms (e.g. the “were” in English).
Someone learning the language in a more structured version will have trouble with idiomatic use, but he knows the grammar conciously. As he advances, he’ll get more familiar with idiomatic usages that may “break” some of the grammar rules.
(*: the video did give an example of an image where the “point of interest” was the light and its interplay with the landscape. An image with very little “hierachy”).
1 Like
I find it remarkable how seriously and controversially the discussion here is. It’s about a video, not a religious scripture.
I regarded the video very interesting because it shows the basics of composition clearly in a very short space of time. And that without being too dogmatic. This forum is often focussed on the technical details of hardware, software, or even the scientific principles of color. When I look at the pictures we post here, I have the feeling that composition is often somewhat neglected. That’s why I found this video a very illustrative resource, especially for beginners but also partly of interest for advanced photographers.
So please don’t take it too seriously and rather photograph than theorize 
.
2 Likes
A lot of the discussion here seems to be people talking passed each other, imv. Following some basic compositional guidelines can help a photo, relative to just pointing the camera at things, but following them slavishly as rules will likely lead to a boring body of work. Artworks work, I think, by combining the expected and comforting with intrigue and surprise. Musically that might be intentionally creating dissonance and resolving that, or returning home, or in narrative creating conflict and resolution. Even then we get bored of that, like Marvel movie overreach, and have to find a new way to surprise and delight ourselves. Something like that
2 Likes
I think its a video aimed at newer photographs, and those usually tend to struggle with composition or making interesting photos. With that context I found the video to be quite good:
- the presenter doesn’t babble on excessively, he’s quite to the point
- the information is clear and concise
- he provides examples, I though it was cool and really helpful how he edited the cows, trees, and people out of his example photographs to illustrate his point. It was also helpful that he showed multiple takes of the woman sitting down to show how other compositions were not as strong.
- he seems nice and welcoming, it felt like a friend helping you rather than a lecture.
All in all I thought it was well done.
Now, having been making photos for line 25 years do I need this video? Probably not. I do like watching some more beginner oriented content (because there is a lot of it) to reinforce the basics. Also the amount of good, advanced content isn’t a lot. I haven’t found a reliable source on YouTube… Maybe the photographic eye? Sean Tucker?
The daily podcast of lenswork is really good.
6 Likes
Interesting video. Well-produced and densely informative, at a basic level. The given “rules” of composition are evident in old movies, eg The Thomas Crown Affair (1968 film) - Wikipedia . Less so in modern movies.
We might say those rules form a recipe for making pretty pictures. If the goal is to make a pretty picture of a pretty girl, the recipe is useful.
I don’t suppose Brandt wanted to make a pretty portrait of Francis Bacon. We might use words like: bleak austere threatening angry ugly and foreboding.
2 Likes
Depending on ones background you have a different relationship to critique. Comments on this thread were to highlight some weaknesses in the video and point out that “the internet” seems to be reaching a flawed consensus partially because of how content and narratives are structured for clicks.
Thinking seriously about photography makes sense on a photography site? The technical stuff is discussed with quite some seriousness and so should the other aspects. Doesn’t mean there no fun or lightheartedness.
How would you approach explaining composition to beginners?