A solitary duck

The composition of a photograph can be the key to its success or failure, but more often than not the photographer actually doesn’t have total control over how a picture is framed.  A fast moving situation might require the photographer to concentrate on the technical things like focus and exposure to get the shot (or even in extreme cases, having the camera pointed roughly in the general direction) leaving little time to worry about composition.  Similarly the constraints of the space you are shooting in, the lens you are shooting with or the background you are shooting against can all work against your ability to really freely compose an image.   Reduce an image to its simplest elements – a single subject, a plain background, acres of space to play with – and all of a sudden the shot is all about the composition.

This shot of a duck (I believe a female mallard, but I’m open to correction) was actually taken in Dublin Zoo, not that you need to go to the zoo to photograph ducks.

As an image, it is one of the simplest shots I’ve posted (without being abstract) and the more I look at it the more I like it.  The background is the slightly disturbed water of the lake, reflecting what was a very overcast sky.  The subject contrasts with the background in a number of ways – it is 3 dimensional against the flat, shapeless background; it is detailed and interesting against the bland, soft water; it has a warm feel against the cold reflection of the sky.

As a photograph therefore, there is enough in the image to lift the subject from the background and make the photograph stand on its own merits. It doesn’t need two other ducks in the frame, or a branch sticking out of the lake, or context as to where the lake is relative to its environment.

What it does need however is some thought about composition. The duck was alone in that area of the lake, and when I took the photograph I could have put him anywhere in the frame.  Why did I choose to put him where I did?

I went back to one of the most basic rules of composition, which I’ve mentioned and illustrated in the past here – namely, the rule of thirds.  Without trying to understand why, at least one variant of the rule advises (for that is all any of these so-called “rules” can do – they’d be better thought of as guidelines, in fact) the photographer to place important elements in the frame on the intersection of those horizontal and/or vertical lines that divide the frame in three.  The eyes of a portrait, the lone tree in the landscape, the horizon, or the lone duck in the water.

I chose to follow that rule, mainly because I reckon it was devised by people who know more than I do, but even having decided to do so, I still had to decide in which of the four possible positions in the frame that met that requirement (see the grid on the right) to place the duck.

To me the selection I made was intuitive, but if I was to try to explain it I would do so as follows.  The duck is moving from left to right.  In general, where a subject is moving (or even facing) a certain direction, it’s better to leave space for the subject to move (or look) into.  This is another of those “rules”, but I think most would agree that aesthetically this particular one has merit.

So with the duck going from left to right, I’m inclined to pick one of the two intersections on the left (i.e. 1/2/4/5 or 4/5/7/8).  Which one?

Well let’s apply that rule again, but this time recognizing that the duck is moving also from bottom to top.  Leaving space for the duck to move into once again, we end up with the framing as I shot the image.

Is it the only possible composition?  No.  Is it the best possible composition? Probably not. But is it a pleasing composition?  I like to think so.