Steve Mccurry Composition

J

Jod100

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Name
Josephine
Edit My Images
No
Does Anyone know composition techniques or rules that he follows when approaching a scene or subject - ive seen videos on him and there are some out there that say lines, diagonals,framing etc but what would be his workflow when approaching a subject i.e 'this is too cluttered ill move on' all his images are so easy on eye, easy to look at and figure out whats happening instantly
 
Hi Josephine
The only person who could describe that in that level of detail would be tha man himself.

But, don't be disheartened by that, because the secret to learning from others is the art of reverse engineering, and you've already discovered this. Now you just need a clear head and to put it into practice.

Just remember that light is a huge part of the equation, newbies often get hung up on composition because it's easy to draw lines on a sheet of paper? Steve's light is sublime too.

In short, composition is easy, great photography takes a lot of planning.
 
McCurry also uses colour thoughtfully.

Colour, light, composition. All three help make pictures. But without an interesting, engaging subject they don't make much.
 
Ed Sutton said:
McCurry also uses colour thoughtfully.

Colour, light, composition. All three help make pictures. But without an interesting, engaging subject they don't make much.
Click to expand...

That may depend on how you define the subject. I've seen interesting, engaging photographs of dull and boring subjects - it all depends on what the photographer does with it.

As to how Steve McCurry (or any other photographer) approaches his subject, as Phil said, only he can really say.
 
Ed Sutton said:
McCurry also uses colour thoughtfully.

Colour, light, composition. All three help make pictures. But without an interesting, engaging subject they don't make much.
Click to expand...
Actually
As a portrait artist, engagement with the subject is about the most important thing, and the one that's most about the photographer therefore the hardest to learn. Some people just have it.

There's a couple of people who post portraits here that are brilliant, a few others that are good.
I've lost all hope of making it to brilliant, but I'm still trying to improve.
 
Steve McCurry Got his first award in 1980 by then he had six years of photo experience behind him and thousands of photographs to his name.Even when he started he came from the world of Theatre arts so was visually aware.

Experience from "Doing"" failing" and "Learning" and visual awareness, are all the hall marks that make up many great photographers. Of course he had grown up during the 50's and 60's which were steeped in a Visual and graphic content, quite different to that of today.

To be a McCurry you need to have lived his life, which is impossible.
However you can be the first Josephine... But with no less effort than he put in.
 
Last edited:
Visually Aware - this is interesting how can one practice being visually aware - and how does theatre arts help in that also

Jo xx
 
Jod100 said:
Visually Aware - this is interesting how can one practice being visually aware - and how does theatre arts help in that also

Jo xx
Click to expand...
You practice, hone visualise, practice and hone

Rinse and repeat.

Theatre is about creating illusions with a minimum of clues. Lighting cistume and a minimum amount of staging are required to feed the audiences imagination.
 
Jod100 said:
Visually Aware - this is interesting how can one practice being visually aware - and how does theatre arts help in that also

Jo xx
Click to expand...

Do you walk round the world 'seeing' fleeting images? Do you walk into social situations and assess the light and try to work out where you'd shoot it from? Do you find yourself staring at lighting patterns on people's faces instead of listening to what they're saying?

If you don't, you haven't 'got' photography yet. As Terry said, you can't emulate a great, you can only learn the technical stuff and try to be the best 'you'.
 
Jod100 said:
there is a photographer online which comes close to his style obviously not being in india and what not but what do you guys think

https://youpic.com/photographer/xenamalhi86/xenamalhi86-from-east-sussex-united-kingdom?flow=pic

and also they have some stuff i found on

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+XenaMalhi

JO XX
Click to expand...
There's definitely an influence there of lots of photojournalists, the genre hasn't moved that much for a long time, but those images don't come close to McCurry's, the use of light, colour isn't close, and there's no hint I could see of repeating patterns often seen in Steve's work.

Have you got any of his books? His pictures are beautiful but there's no hint of anything composition wise that stretches any boundaries. Study of composition from any source would allow you to see how it's done. But at the risk of flogging an equine cadaver, it's Steve's use of light and colour that sets him apart, and the fact he's a master portraitist and great photojournalist, telling a story with a picture is a rare enough talent.
 
Jod100 said:
there is a photographer online which comes close to his style obviously not being in india and what not but what do you guys think

https://youpic.com/photographer/xenamalhi86/xenamalhi86-from-east-sussex-united-kingdom?flow=pic

and also they have some stuff i found on

https://plus.google.com/u/0/+XenaMalhi

JO XX
Click to expand...

Those are very nice street shots but they look nothing like Steve McCurrys work. I don't even see a slight similarity.

As for what sets his work apart Phil has nailed it. In my opinion it's mainly the colours he's brought together. Afghan Girl - Piercing green eyes but with a beautifully coloured head scarf and backdrop. You don't just stumble across that kind of scene. You go and look for it. That might take ten minutes or ten weeks. That's the kind of assignments he's famous for.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Have you got any of his books? His pictures are beautiful but there's no hint of anything composition wise that stretches any boundaries.
Click to expand...
-sorry, forgive me are you asking of steve mccurry or the guy from the link posted earlier
 
Jod100 said:
-sorry, forgive me are you asking of steve mccurry or the guy from the link posted earlier
Click to expand...
Steve (in fairly sure the they guy hasn't had any published books)
As I said Steve McCurry produces some jaw dropping work, but compositionally he's not doing anything unique.

The guy you linked to is a bit ordinary, there's better work shared here almost daily.
 
Phil V said:
But at the risk of flogging an equine cadaver, it's Steve's use of light and colour that sets him apart,
Click to expand...

UaeExile said:
As for what sets his work apart Phil has nailed it. In my opinion it's mainly the colours he's brought together.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
As I said Steve McCurry produces some jaw dropping work, but compositionally he's not doing anything unique.
Click to expand...

I often see posts about composition, and the "rules" thereof (and I hate the word "rules" in this context). But do you know what - all the ones I see referred to commonly are applicable to black and white. No one seems to care that colour has a different element, and composing using colour isn't a common accomplishment. Steve McCurry's photographs normally look as though they would lose something important if converted to mono, and most colour photographs don't. That (to me) is an important part of what he does.
 
Phil V said:
Do you walk into social situations and assess the light and try to work out where you'd shoot it from? Do you find yourself staring at lighting patterns on people's faces instead of listening to what they're saying?

If you don't, you haven't 'got' photography yet.
Click to expand...

And if you do, you probably need some more interesting people in your life. ;)
 
Jod100 said:
Visually Aware - this is interesting how can one practice being visually aware - and how does theatre arts help in that also

Jo xx
Click to expand...

When i was a photographiv student in the 1950's it was called learning to see.
we spent more time in art galleries of all sorts, and doing graphic design and drawing in life classes. Than we spent taking photographs.
The technical side of photography is the easy bit. "Seeing a picture" takes practice. It can only be learned by looking and thinking about what you see, being selective, shooting and being critical, and trying again and again.

Some photographers never get it, they get too hung up on the technicalities, Others who have an artistic background or a natural talent, take to it like ducks to water. Seeing is always central to memorable photographs.
 
Phil V said:
As I said Steve McCurry produces some jaw dropping work, but compositionally he's not doing anything unique.
Click to expand...

when you say this it seems like you know what hes doing - can you elaborate - when you say its not unique - please explain then the composition techniques used with detail if possible. joxx
 
Jod100 said:
Does Anyone know composition techniques or rules that he follows when approaching a scene or subject ...
Click to expand...

In all probability he uses all the 'rules' and 'techniques' at some time. Whichever work best for the subject in front of his lens at the time.

Sit down and look at one of his photos. Really look at it. For a long time. Work out what's going on in it. Which 'rules' it follows. How the colours work together. How the light falls.

Then do it again with another photo. And another. And another. And....

That's the best way to understand how photos work.
 
Jod100 said:
when you say this it seems like you know what hes doing - can you elaborate - when you say its not unique - please explain then the composition techniques used with detail if possible. joxx
Click to expand...
How much composition studying have you done?

It's quite a lot of stuff to put into a forum answer.

Are you aware of:
The rule of thirds
Leading lines
Repeating patterns

I looked through one of his books the other day and they were all there.
 
Ed Sutton said:
In all probability he uses all the 'rules' and 'techniques' at some time. Whichever work best for the subject in front of his lens at the time.

Sit down and look at one of his photos. Really look at it. For a long time. Work out what's going on in it. Which 'rules' it follows. How the colours work together. How the light falls.

Then do it again with another photo. And another. And another. And....

That's the best way to understand how photos work.
Click to expand...

I do not know any experienced photographers who use any rules or sets of techniques.
Composition is instinctive and comes from experience, it is usually a question of chosing a viewpoint and balancing the elements that you are presented with and to their best advantage.

Rules of composition are what viewers use to analyse other peopls work. Mostly it is a waste of time as it achieves nothing positive.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not know any experienced photographers who use any rules or sets of techniques.
Composition is instinctive and comes from experience, it is usually a question of chosing a viewpoint and balancing the elements that you are presented with and to their best advantage.

Rules of composition are what viewers use to analyse other peopls work. Mostly it is a waste of time as it achieves nothing positive.
Click to expand...

I agree - except the bit about analysing pictures being a waste of time. If it didn't achieve something positive painters wouldn't make 'copies' of great works. Auerbach has done it, Hockney has done it. They aren't the only ones. It's not a waste of time understanding how pictures work.
 
Edward Weston said[1] that “to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection”.



[1] The quotation is found in David Ward's Landscape Within.
 
Some time ago I posted a tutorial on reading photographs; and in the introduction I said that it came from a book I was writing. Pages 72 - 104 (approx) deal with composition. If you'd like a link to download the pdf of it (so far as it's got) send me a PM. Zero obligation - I won't be offended if you don't.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I agree - except the bit about analysing pictures being a waste of time. If it didn't achieve something positive painters wouldn't make 'copies' of great works. Auerbach has done it, Hockney has done it. They aren't the only ones. It's not a waste of time understanding how pictures work.
Click to expand...

And there are plenty who don't do it.

You and take pictures. Take pictures you want to take, that you think look good. Don't worry about what other people thought looked good in a different time and place.
 
Jayst84 said:
And there are plenty who don't do it.

You and take pictures. Take pictures you want to take, that you think look good. Don't worry about what other people thought looked good in a different time and place.
Click to expand...

Who's worrying about it?:thinking:
 
I think I'm slightly worried though.

If my aim is to take pictures that I think look good, I might be at least interested to know what makes me think something looks good. That way, I might stand a chance of doing it deliberately. And if I think that someone else has made a picture that I thinks looks good, I'm not sure that I wouldn't think it a good idea to study it to find out why. It's age wouldn't worry me overmuch, because I don't have a mental set that says "not made recently - looks bad". And if I didn't like something - well, I'd think it even more important to work out why.
 
Jayst84 said:
Umm, the OP, thought that was the whole point of this thread? Plus I guess, lots of people who bang on about looking at the work of others, instead of just doing what you want.
Click to expand...

I do what I want. But guess what - the more I look at the work of others (and study it) the more I find I produce pictures that I like as well as want to take. You can do what you like, without liking what you do (so far as the results go). I prefer to attempt both.
 
Jayst84 said:
And there are plenty who don't do it.

You and take pictures. Take pictures you want to take, that you think look good. Don't worry about what other people thought looked good in a different time and place.
Click to expand...
There's a whole spectrum though...

From pure technician to pure artist, with most of us lying somewhere in between.
Whilst I considered myself quite artistic as a kid, when I took up photography I was quite pleased I could achieve stuff that my painting just couldn't.

Then I saw what properly talented people were achieving :(

I do consider myself more a technician than an artist. I do try to flex my artistic muscles, but I have to admit that plenty of my work owes more to my understanding of 'how' than it does to any artistic talent.

My Mrs has virtually no technical expertise, she's purely an artist and produces some great stuff, but she also ruins lots of opportunities due to technical issues.
 
These posts are great - i was wondering though has anyone been on any of steve mccurry workshops - does he explain his workflow from finding a subject to how compositionally deal with the subject - i know ill get answers like 'just go yourself and find out' id love too if i could afford it but does anyone have any details on thats? xxjo
 
Be careful you don't get too hung up on individuals as well. There are millions of people out there taking photos as good and better than McCurry. And there are hundreds or more, producing bodies of work more important than him.

I don't see any real value in delving too deep into what he does. Work hard, hire a fixer, a lighting assistant and a business manager, and see how you go. ;)
 
Jayst84 said:
Be careful you don't get too hung up on individuals as well. There are millions of people out there taking photos as good and better than McCurry. And there are hundreds or more, producing bodies of work more important than him.

I don't see any real value in delving too deep into what he does. Work hard, hire a fixer, a lighting assistant and a business manager, and see how you go. ;)
Click to expand...

Absolutely this.

Anyway, as if by magic DPS have just released a short clip on Steve McCurry's work and the elements he looks for in an image...... So pretty much the same as everyone else, there is no magic McCurry potion.

http://digital-photography-school.com/9-composition-techniques-to-use-to-improve-your-photography/
 
Jayst84 said:
Umm, the OP, thought that was the whole point of this thread? Plus I guess, lots of people who bang on about looking at the work of others, instead of just doing what you want.
Click to expand...
Maybe the OP is fretting over this but not other people who 'bang on' about looking at other people's pictures.

Anyone who thinks looking at other people's pictures won't help their visual awareness is either so arrogant they reckon they don't need help or an idiot. Or maybe both. :D
 
Jod100 said:
These posts are great - i was wondering though has anyone been on any of steve mccurry workshops - does he explain his workflow from finding a subject to how compositionally deal with the subject - i know ill get answers like 'just go yourself and find out' id love too if i could afford it but does anyone have any details on thats? xxjo
Click to expand...

Don't take this personally, it's designed to make you take stock.

How much time have you spent with your camera at your eye since you started this thread?

It's fine to study and take inspiration, but you'll learn more by doing and analysing your own work than by trying to understand how others work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top