Concepts Compositional aids. Pointless?

[Ed Sutton]

In the inspirational videos thread the overlaying of various aids for composition came up. Then I saw a series starting on Youtube that was about how to compose pictures. It seems that when it comes to trying to help people compose photos it always involves drawing lines over examples, often grids. My tongue in cheek theory is that you can overlay the popular grids on any random picture and a justification for one of them can usually be found!

More seriously I'm not sure how this helps anyone. Nor do I believe good photographers use these tools consciously, particularly when taking photos of anything that is in a state of flux.

One of the recent videos was fitting a certain grid to a picture which ,IMO, was badly framed. Sure all the lines coincided with the subject details, but the overall picture was out of balance. And this is where I think the grid approach falls down. You have to arrange the whole picture space, not just the individual elements within it.

Here is one picture selected at random from one of my collections with Lightroom 'aids' laid over. With a bit of imagination I think you can justify any of them as 'fitting'. I had none of them in mind when taking the photo.



What this kind of thing does is ignore important aspects of picture making. In this example it pays no attention to how we notice where people are looking and follow their gaze. The judge's gaze leads us to the sheep's head, the OOF woman in the background's gaze leads us into the picture preventing our eye wondering out of the right hand side of the frame

What I do quite often to judge if a picture is going to 'work' is to squint so what I see in the viewfinder goes blurry. This stops me looking at details and helps me see the overall arrangement of shapes in the frame. I spent about a year before my cataract operation being unable to focus on the viewfinder image and my pictures didn't suffer at all!

In stead of dropping grids over your pictures I'd like to suggest some 'tricks' I learned as a student to help you look at pictures you've taken with fresh eyes, so as not to get caught up in what you think you've shot.

First of all you can do the squinting thing looking at a picture on a screen or at a print. The next are easier with prints, but can be done digitally. One is to turn the picture upside down. Rotate it in an processing/editing program. Another is to reverse the image. With prints that means looking at its reflection in a mirror. It's surprising how different pictures can look when you do this. You can combine two or more of these tricks if you like. (If you are a ground glass screen viewer you'll already be doing this!) The idea is to see how the picture space is arranged as a whole.

The best way to learn how to make pictures, arrange the picture space, or compose pictures is to look at lots of good ones and soak up what works in them. Paintings and examples of other graphic arts, not just photographs. You don't have to understand what's going on, only recognise it when you see it in the viewfinder. The old advice about always checking the edges of the frame is good, but looking at the whole picture is what it's all about.

Of course there's a lot more to making pictures that 'work' than this, often subject dependent. Gesture and expression, even micro-gesture, are important in people pictures for example. Not normally thought of in terms of composition, but important in making pictures of people. Enough!

I'll just wanted to get this off my chest after shouting at Youtube.

 

[Harlequin565]

Heh... Shouting at YouTube. Go Dave!

After watching that video, and subsequently looking into Christopher Nolan's work with Memento, I had a bit of an epiphany. Or it could have been a brain fart...

Humans like looking at art. But they also like looking at the sort of art they like best. When you start clumping majorities together, you get certain artists that are liked more than others. Then the eggheads try and work out why this art is preferred over other stuff. I think that's where all the "rules" came from. You deconstruct the genius, make it into rules, apply them to someone else and you have an instant genius! I guess that's the thinking behind it anyway.

I don't think I'm gifted with great compositional skills. I think I can take a pretty good picture, but after 15+ years of taking photography "seriously", I'd hope I could! However I had a ton of students come through my classes at night school who only knew auto. And some of their compositional skills were exceptional. My 'instinctive' composition is built from 15 years of practise (and very little gift) which is pretty much my brain shortcutting those rules so quickly I don't even know about it - a bit like driving. Deconstructing their images in class for the benefit of those who didn't have those skills was amusing. Often the photographer learnt the "rule" after taking the photo. They just "did it that way". One guy ran an events company and at one of his events just took a camera round for fun. People told him his photos were pretty good, and when I saw them I couldn't believe he was a beginner with no knowledge off auto. He's now making a very successful career out of it!

If you look at some of the photographers who share their work here (not naming anyone!), some are clearly gifted at what they do, whilst some clearly are working hard to get there. I reckon compositional rules are really helpful to those of us that don't instinctively "see" the picture. They're great to take pretty good pictures and get off the ground.

That said, the volume of Lightroom overlays is ridiculous, and probably overwhelming to some. And as you say, you can pretty much make anything work. The trick is to be able to recognise it when the viewfinder is in your face.

I'm not sure if I read it in Ansel Adams' book, but with Large Format, you're composing upside down which also aids with the "arrangement" of things in the frame. Could be mistaken though. I do the squinty thing all the time. It's easy when you're half-blind

 

[StephenM]

Now, to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravity before going for a walk.
Edward Weston. A favourite quote of mine, but one which I haven't been able to source. I came across it first as a quote in a David Ward book.

I heartily concur with the upside down approach, and personally find composing with a view camera the easiest way for my limited abilties; upside down and laterally reversed gives a very useful detachment from reality and from assuming we know what is in front of the lens. Usually we see what we expect and are blind to the rest - unless we make an effort. Perhaps read "I for "we" in that sentence.

I recall a story told by someone who ran a large format workshop that one of the attendees produced a print of a somewhat abstract subject, puzzled as to why it was not as successful as he hoped. The instructor turned it upside down, and it then "worked".

I have to admit I very often look at prints upside down at the artist's open houses we visit; and usually if a print "works" upside down, it is also successful the other way. Sometimes, upside down is better - and I once got agreement to that effect from the artist...

In writing on composition, I entitled the section "composition or imposition" which expresses my attitude to the rules.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Heh... Shouting at YouTube. Go Dave!

After watching that video, and subsequently looking into Christopher Nolan's work with Memento, I had a bit of an epiphany. Or it could have been a brain fart...

Humans like looking at art. But they also like looking at the sort of art they like best. When you start clumping majorities together, you get certain artists that are liked more than others. Then the eggheads try and work out why this art is preferred over other stuff. I think that's where all the "rules" came from. You deconstruct the genius, make it into rules, apply them to someone else and you have an instant genius! I guess that's the thinking behind it anyway.

I don't think I'm gifted with great compositional skills. I think I can take a pretty good picture, but after 15+ years of taking photography "seriously", I'd hope I could! However I had a ton of students come through my classes at night school who only knew auto. And some of their compositional skills were exceptional. My 'instinctive' composition is built from 15 years of practise (and very little gift) which is pretty much my brain shortcutting those rules so quickly I don't even know about it - a bit like driving. Deconstructing their images in class for the benefit of those who didn't have those skills was amusing. Often the photographer learnt the "rule" after taking the photo. They just "did it that way". One guy ran an events company and at one of his events just took a camera round for fun. People told him his photos were pretty good, and when I saw them I couldn't believe he was a beginner with no knowledge off auto. He's now making a very successful career out of it!

If you look at some of the photographers who share their work here (not naming anyone!), some are clearly gifted at what they do, whilst some clearly are working hard to get there. I reckon compositional rules are really helpful to those of us that don't instinctively "see" the picture. They're great to take pretty good pictures and get off the ground.

That said, the volume of Lightroom overlays is ridiculous, and probably overwhelming to some. And as you say, you can pretty much make anything work. The trick is to be able to recognise it when the viewfinder is in your face.

I'm not sure if I read it in Ansel Adams' book, but with Large Format, you're composing upside down which also aids with the "arrangement" of things in the frame. Could be mistaken though. I do the squinty thing all the time. It's easy when you're half-blind

I'm sure that's how the 'rules' originated. There's no way anyone could invent rules for making pictures without seeing pictures first. Is there?

I have to admit that I do find composition intuitive. I was told I had a 'good eye for composition' when I was at school. I have a friend who tries to get into photography but gets frustrated by the technicalities. He has a good eye for a picture and I keep telling him to get out of manual and shoot in P. But he wants to do it 'properly'. Mostly he uses his phone these days because he likes the results better...

As I said earlier, I look at the whole picture space and fill it with things - and that can include lots of negative space. Which raises the old 'rule of thirds' for landscapes.

Generally putting the horizon on a third will make a pleasing composition, but there are times when a narrow strip of land at the bottom with an interesting cloud formation above it, or a thin strip of sky with an elaborate foreground works better. The same applies to placing on a vertical third. It's all about balance, but very difficult to explain.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Usually we see what we expect and are blind to the rest - unless we make an effort. Perhaps read "I for "we" in that sentence.

I think that is universal. My very first lesson in this regard was when I was given my first, 'toy', camera when I was about seven. I took a photo of a wild rose in a hedge. I can remember it vividly almost 60 years later, and the exact location. I'd 'seen' the rose as filling the frame. When I got the black and white print back there was a tiny pale blob in the centre of it. There could have been some influence from a less than 100% viewfinder, but not much. None of the other photos stuck in my memory, and I didn't use a camera again until I was bought an Instamatic four years later. I've been aware that what we see (eye and brain) and what the camera records (lens and film/sensor) can be widely different.

 

[StephenM]

The two most eye opening (or should it be "mind opening"?) books I read were Gombrich's Story of Art and Zakia's Perception and Imaging. I've got many other books since by Ernst Gombrich, and added in Rudolf Arnheim's book on Art and Visual Perception. Personally, I think these taught me more about photography than the technical "photographic" books I've read, valuable as these are. The former helped me keep a sense of perspective (pun intended) about what was really important in an image.

 

[Ed Sutton]

The two most eye opening (or should it be "mind opening"?) books I read were Gombrich's Story of Art and Zakia's Perception and Imaging. I've got many other books since by Ernst Gombrich, and added in Rudolf Arnheim's book on Art and Visual Perception. Personally, I think these taught me more about photography than the technical "photographic" books I've read, valuable as these are. The former helped me keep a sense of perspective (pun intended) about what was really important in an image.

Thanks for those recommendations. Three more for the bookshelves now ordered from AbeBooks for under £12.

There seem to be a few on here who think this kind of stuff is pretentious nonsense, but I enjoy reading around art and stuff.

 

[StephenM]

You might find it useful to look up Ernst Gombrich to get a list of his books. There are others that are also relevant. All are probably worth reading though. But then again, what I think is worth reading may not be everyone's cup of tea...

Edit to add:
I just looked at archive.org entering Rudolf Arnheim as the search term. Although there aren't any that can be freely downloaded, there are a number that can be borrowed. It will at least give an idea of the range of his writing, and may suggest some that are worth looking into.

 

[Ed Sutton]

You might find it useful to look up Ernst Gombrich to get a list of his books. There are others that are also relevant. All are probably worth reading though. But then again, what I think is worth reading may not be everyone's cup of tea...

I know the name and feel like I might have read at least one of his books in the distant past. I'll see how I get on with this one first. I found myself shouting at Barthes when I was reading Camera Lucida a decade ago (it wasn't available in English when I was a student so I missed out at the time).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

There seem to be a few on here who think this kind of stuff is pretentious nonsense, but I enjoy reading around art and stuff.

If it's your thing, go for it, say I.

I long ago decided that, for me, photography is not an art form but a method of communication, just like these words. Hence, my primary aim is to share something, which I found interesting at the time.

Where this approach meets yours, is that in order to show something that I found interesting, in a way that communicates my own experience, requires a certain amount of arrangement in the image. So the "rules of composition" do come into it, at least in part, if they focus the viewer's attention on what I wish to illustrate.

There are many "tricks" that I used as I attempt to communicate my experience to the viewer and these correspond, I suppose, to "rules of composition". I don't claim that they make my pictures "better", just that I hope they make my intent clearer.

Using empty space to denote conflict...



Crowding the frame with the subject...



Capturing a pattern to illustrate the event...

 

[StephenM]

Barthes - I know the feeling! The same, I'm afraid, goes for the various books on photographic critical theory I've come across. Graham Clarke's book The Photograph in the Oxford History of Art series was a book I emphatically didn't enjoy reading (seemed a bit pretentious in parts to me) but was worthwhile to persevere, and I'm glad I read it. I see that you had it in your suggested book list in another thread in this section.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I long ago decided that, for me, photography is not an art form but a method of communication, just like these words. Hence, my primary aim is to share something, which I found interesting at the time.

Where this approach meets yours, is that in order to show something that I found interesting, in a way that communicates my own experience, requires a certain amount of arrangement in the image. So the "rules of composition" do come into it, at least in part, if they focus the viewer's attention on what I wish to illustrate.

Which illustrates that photography is both art and not-art at the same time, and that making pictures that 'work' as pictures helps them communicate. This is the constant challenge that keeps me taking photos.

Barthe - I know the feeling! The same, I'm afraid, goes for the various books on photographic critical theory I've come across. Graham Clarke's book The Photograph in the Oxford History of Art series was a book I emphatically didn't enjoy reading (seemed a bit pretentious in parts to me) but was worthwhile to persevere, and I'm glad I read it. I see that you had it in your suggested book list in another thread in this section.

I've read the Clarke book but can't remember it. I'll dig it out for a browse.

 

[Harlequin565]

There seem to be a few on here who think this kind of stuff is pretentious nonsense

I get that. I used think like that too! I'm reminded of the Tony Wilson quote re: Jazz [musicians].

Jazz is the last refuge of the untalented. Jazz musicians enjoy themselves more than anyone listening to them does.

Also, to some people, photographs are money. And in that case, it's what the customer wants that matters. If you're lucky enough that your artistic vision aligns with that, more power to you. Most of the photographers I know who have a business doing it will do it the way their picture editor, or customer wants it done.

I suppose it's a good thing these discussions are buried away

 

[Ed Sutton]

Jazz is the last refuge of the untalented. Jazz musicians enjoy themselves more than anyone listening to them does.

I make him right on that!

It's a rare photographer who can get paid for taking the photos they want to take. Probably those right at the bottom of the tree who can only do it one way and are cheap with an un-discerning target market, and those at the very expensive top who are selected because of who they are and what they do. The rest do whatever pays the bills.

 

[myotis]

I've read through these and I haven't much to add beyond what I said in the other thread that inspired this one.

I agree with benefits of screwing up your eyes to help with composition because it allows a better assessment of tonal balance without it being confused by subject detail. For similar reasons I often switch to B/W on the computer to balance tonal relationship without the influence of the colours, before finalising the balance with the colour back on.

Betty Edwards book "Drawing on the right side of the brain" suggests learning to draw with the subject upside down so you are no longer trying to draw your mental image of a hand or knife etc, but forced to look closely at the relationships between lines and shape, and I agree with what has been said about the benefits of an inverted image.

I subscribe to the "Draftsmen" Youtube channel, which used to publish regular videos on drawing, and art in general, but they now only occasionally publish a video. I have found it an excellent learning resource.

I've just rewatched their video on learning composition (from 2020), and see that it has obviously influenced my current views on composition, or it supported views I already held,

Either way I think it’s a useful video, well illustrated with paintings and drawings, and it recommends two of the books I recommended in my other post: The one from Molly Bang; "Picture This: How pictures work" and "Framed Ink" by Marcos Mateu-Mestre. But they also recommend other books and painters that are paricualry useful (well really only Marshall, as he is one doing the "teaching")

The video is an hour and ten minutes, and it's Marshall (college art teacher who teaches composition) discussing composition with Stan (who runs an online anatomy drawing course), who confesses he knows virtually nothing about composition.

It’s a bit chatty, especially the first 2 minutes and last 10 minutes, and I know some don't like the talking heads format, but I, obviously, think it's well worth watching as it directly covers some of the points raised in this thread, but also other questions commonly asked about composition.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOYkXEGkXx0

 

[Ed Sutton]

I've read through these and I haven't much to add beyond what I said in the other thread that inspired this one.

I agree with benefits of screwing up your eyes to help with composition because it allows a better assessment of tonal balance without it being confused by subject detail. For similar reasons I often switch to B/W on the computer to balance tonal relationship without the influence of the colours, before finalising the balance with the colour back on.

Betty Edwards book "Drawing on the right side of the brain" suggests learning to draw with the subject upside down so you are no longer trying to draw your mental image of a hand or knife etc, but forced to look closely at the relationships between lines and shape, and I agree with what has been said about the benefits of an inverted image.

I subscribe to the "Draftsmen" Youtube channel, which used to publish regular videos on drawing, and art in general, but they now only occasionally publish a video. I have found it an excellent learning resource.

I've just rewatched their video on learning composition (from 2020), and see that it has obviously influenced my current views on composition, or it supported views I already held,

Either way I think it’s a useful video, well illustrated with paintings and drawings, and it recommends two of the books I recommended in my other post: The one from Molly Bang; "Picture This: How pictures work" and "Framed Ink" by Marcos Mateu-Mestre. But they also recommend other books and painters that are paricualry useful (well really only Marshall, as he is one doing the "teaching")

The video is an hour and ten minutes, and it's Marshall (college art teacher who teaches composition) discussing composition with Stan (who runs an online anatomy drawing course), who confesses he knows virtually nothing about composition.

It’s a bit chatty, especially the first 2 minutes and last 10 minutes, and I know some don't like the talking heads format, but I, obviously, think it's well worth watching as it directly covers some of the points raised in this thread, but also other questions commonly asked about composition.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOYkXEGkXx0

I'll give that a try, but the older I get the shorter my attention span is becoming.

Edit. Fourteen minutes in I've started shouting at the screen. Not shouting in my head, out loud shouting!

 

[myotis]

I'll give that a try, but the older I get the shorter my attention span is becoming.

Edit. Fourteen minutes in I've started shouting at the screen. Not shouting in my head, out loud shouting!

Sorry, I know I have a different take on these things to you, but would be interested to know why it warranted out loud shouting.

And did you manage to persevere? You haven't. really got to, what I think of as being the best parts by that point.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Sorry, I know I have a different take on these things to you, but would be interested to know why it warranted out loud shouting.

And did you manage to persevere? You haven't. really got to, what I think of as being the best parts by that point.

I think it was the older bloke saying there must be something in Astrology because it's been around for so long. Anyone who thinks that is a bloody idiot IMO. I dipped in to some other sections but had had enough. This kind of stuff is interesting in its way, but I'm not sure it helps. Making 'good pictures' is about so much more than composition, or perhaps I should say composition is about much more than arranging shapes in the picture space when it comes to photographs. You have to start with the subject. What's that cliché? If you want to make more interesting photos stand in front of more interesting things.

What does interest me, and has helped me, is reading or listening to what 'creatives' have to say about the creative process. In The Creative Habit: Learn It and Use It for Life choreographer Twyla Tharp has some exercises to help generate ideas (idea generation is what inspiration is in reality). One is to take some coins and put them on a table, then move them around to make pleasing arrangements. Completely unconnected with dance or photography, but it gets the brain working in a loose way. I've always thought that making art is only a sophisticated form of play. Better to let go and mess about than get bogged down with grids and rules.

A bit more back on track, one of the best books about making photos that I've read is the second edition of Paul Hill's Approaching Photography (the third edition seemed to have lost its way in the updating for me). That and the classic On Being a Photographer by Bill Jay and David Hurn are two must reads in my opinion.

Teatime now. As Ted Forbes would say, "Later".

 

[Ed Sutton]

Talking of Ted Forbes some of his early videos were about composition. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGEE7pGLuppTEjrviNCTwDHA00VsMzsAl

The best advice I've read on the web for photographers is on Ken Rockwell's site - Take some drawing lessons. As someone who spent most of their time as art student in the life room I'm probably biased. But drawing intensely really does make you look at things, to see how objects relate to each other in space, how things don't actually look as we think they do.

 

[myotis]

I think it was the older bloke saying there must be something in Astrology because it's been around for so long. Anyone who thinks that is a bloody idiot IMO. I dipped in to some other sections but had had enough. This kind of stuff is interesting in its way, but I'm not sure it helps. Making 'good pictures' is about so much more than composition, or perhaps I should say composition is about much more than arranging shapes in the picture space when it comes to photographs. You have to start with the subject. What's that cliché? If you want to make more interesting photos stand in front of more interesting things.

That was the point of the video, and the main reason I posted it. I of course agree with the rest , Except I also think there is a place for uninteresting subjects made interesting by the way they have been painted or photographed.

What does interest me, and has helped me, is reading or listening to what 'creatives' have to say about the creative process. In The Creative Habit: Learn It and Use It for Life choreographer Twyla Tharp has some exercises to help generate ideas (idea generation is what inspiration is in reality). One is to take some coins and put them on a table, then move them around to make pleasing arrangements. Completely unconnected with dance or photography, but it gets the brain working in a loose way. I've always thought that making art is only a sophisticated form of play. Better to let go and mess about than get bogged down with grids and rules.

Again, a key message of the video. I'm not familiar with the book, but I agree with the idea generation, which along with the ideas in the video seem all aimed at improving your ability to see the world "creatively"

A bit more back on track, one of the best books about making photos that I've read is the second edition of Paul Hill's Approaching Photography (the third edition seemed to have lost its way in the updating for me). That and the classic On Being a Photographer by Bill Jay and David Hurn are two must reads in my opinion.

I've read Jay and Hurn, but a long time ago.and I have the third edition of Hill, and have read the first edition, but the 2nd has passed me by. Maybe I should look for a 2nd hand copy (as well as the Tharp book).

Teatime now. As Ted Forbes would say, "Later".

 

[myotis]

Talking of Ted Forbes some of his early videos were about composition. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGEE7pGLuppTEjrviNCTwDHA00VsMzsAl

I'll have a look, but I'm pretty sure, I will have watched,them because a) I'm interested in composition, and b) I think over the years I've watched all of Ted Forbes videos, especially the earlier one

The best advice I've read on the web for photographers is on Ken Rockwell's site - Take some drawing lessons. As someone who spent most of their time as art student in the life room I'm probably biased. But drawing intensely really does make you look at things, to see how objects relate to each other in space, how things don't actually look as we think they do.

I agree, I've not done any classes, but I've done some online courses, and a few teach yourself things - like the Betty Edwards book I mentioned.

I'm also old enough, as a one time biology student, to have spent a fair amount of time drawing dissected animals and various things through microscopes.

 

[Ed Sutton]

That was the point of the video, and the main reason I posted it. I of course agree with the rest , Except I also think there is a place for uninteresting subjects made interesting by the way they have been painted or photographs

I got the idea that the younger bloke was anti-grids etc. The older bloke got on my tits TBH.

There are no uninteresting subjects!

Rather than making them interesting by the way they're photographed the very act of photographing them gives them interest. Think William Eggleston and that man Parr.

 

[myotis]

I got the idea that the younger bloke was anti-grids etc. The older bloke got on my tits TBH.

They both were.

The difference was that the older bloke saw them as a useful learning tool, and the younger one hadn't really thought about it. At the end of the video the younger bloke said you was now inspired to learn more about composition

There are no uninteresting subjects!

I suppose that was what I was implying, but I was responding to your more interesting photographs need more interesting subjects. I concede that "more interesting" is the opposite of "less interesting" rather than "uninteresting".

Rather than making them interesting by the way they're photographed the very act of photographing them gives them interest. Think William Eggleston and that man Parr.

I admit, I often struggle a bit with some photographers work, Eggleston being one of them. I find them interesting because they are Eggleston's, but I don't feel any connection to them.

 

[benc98]

There's a YouTube channel that I watch from time to time, and on two videos I've seen they talk about composition. The video involved showing their favourite pictures and then overlaying the thirds grid, or the golden spiral. On most of the pictures the link between the composition and the grid was tenuis at vest. I've not sure if it's the video being discussed in this thread, I think not. I guess it can be a good thing to analyse why a photo works after the fact - but a lot of it is square blocks in round holes

 

[myotis]

There's a YouTube channel that I watch from time to time, and on two videos I've seen they talk about composition. The video involved showing their favourite pictures and then overlaying the thirds grid, or the golden spiral. On most of the pictures the link between the composition and the grid was tenuis at vest. I've not sure if it's the video being discussed in this thread, I think not. I guess it can be a good thing to analyse why a photo works after the fact - but a lot of it is square blocks in round holes

You are correct, this isn't the video you mention, and although it discusses grids, it's only a small part of it's content, and is rather dismissive of them, other than a tool to help you look closely at your composition. I wonder if the YouTube channel you refer to is Tavis Leaf Glover, who somewhat (in my view) oversells the value of dynamic symmetry.

In terms of grids derived from the golden section (dynamic symmetry) there are some paintings that follow these principles very closely, maybe because of the way it was derived (discovered by the Greeks) and considered by some as "God's ratio". Michelangelo comes to mind as someone who seems to have been heavily influenced by it.

Cartier Bresson, as you suggested some might do, used to analyse his photographs using dynamic symmetry principles, but didn't consciously apply the principles at the taking stage.

I find both dynamic symmetry and harmonic armature grids, useful as a tool to help understand why I think one photograph "feels" better than another, and using them has helped me me become more aware of how all the elements in a picture (placements, alignments, colour, tone, texture, shadows. etc) interact and work as a "whole"

 

[benc98]

You are correct, this isn't the video you mention, and although it discusses grids, it's only a small part of it's content, and is rather dismissive of them, other than a tool to help you look closely at your composition. I wonder if the YouTube channel you refer to is Tavis Leaf Glover, who somewhat (in my view) oversells the value of dynamic symmetry.

Nah, it was a different channel. I probably won't name them because I don't want to call them out - as this thread proves, they're not the only ones doing it

In terms of grids derived from the golden section (dynamic symmetry) there are some paintings that follow these principles very closely, maybe because of the way it was derived (discovered by the Greeks) and considered by some as "God's ratio". Michelangelo comes to mind as someone who seems to have been heavily influenced by it.

Cartier Bresson, as you suggested some might do, used to analyse his photographs using dynamic symmetry principles, but didn't consciously apply the principles at the taking stage.

I find both dynamic symmetry and harmonic armature grids, useful as a tool to help understand why I think one photograph "feels" better than another, and using them has helped me me become more aware of how all the elements in a picture (placements, alignments, colour, tone, texture, shadows. etc) interact and work as a "whole"

agreed.

I also think talking about grids and overlays is a simple (lazy?) way of talking about photos - so I guess in one sense it's accessible.

 

[myotis]

I also think talking about grids and overlays is a simple (lazy?) way of talking about photos - so I guess in one sense it's accessible.

I agree, it's of no relevance when talking about photographs in any meaningful way, but I still think it can be a useful personal development tool, but not if it's the only tool being used.

 

[Nod]

I use the grid overlay quite often - I find it better to align one of the lines with a vertical or the horizon than to use the built in level (which always seems to have a couple of degrees of tolerance!)

 

[Ed Sutton]

I use the grid overlay quite often - I find it better to align one of the lines with a vertical or the horizon than to use the built in level (which always seems to have a couple of degrees of tolerance!)

I've noticed that built in levels aren't always spot on, too.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I've noticed that built in levels aren't always spot on, too.

For my sort of photography, I occasionally find that switching on the grid of a digital camera can help me find what I want to emphasise or hide in a "static" picture, such as a landscape or a building.

There's no guarantee it will make anyone like the final image any better but it takes just a moment and if nothing else, it halps to keep verticals from "leaning backwards".