Author Topic: I need a good read about composition. (Read 2993 times)

adash · « **on:** May 30, 2011, 10:07:31 AM »

It's time to admit it - although I am playing with expensive gear, I know little about making good photos.
While exposure is easy to handle, the biggest challenge for me seems to be framing, so I am looking
for a good read about composition, preferably well illustrated and with explanations about each photo.
Online resources are for the moment strongly preferred as funding is scarce, but if you can recommend
a good, focused book, I will be more than happy to consider it when the next paycheck arrives.
Thanks a lot in advance!

E-M5 Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:02:35 AM »

Here are few links that may get you in the right direction... but, remember, I call them a starting point, things to keep in mind as you see photographic opportunity, you decide what compositional technique to use.

There will some overlap, but, sometimes, a different explanation makes more sense than others because of we are different in how we learn.

10 Top Photography Composition Rules (Guide Lines)

Photography Composition - Your Photo as a Story

Learn Photo Composition

Click on each link for some great explanations.
Guidelines for Better Photographic Composition

Photography Composition Articles (5* IMO)

Plenty more by Goggling "Photo Composition Rules"

This should get your started

WheeE-P1 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:12:18 AM »

I read about Phil Douglis' pages on DPReview the other day -

http://www.pbase.com/pnd1

Any good?

Ray · « **Reply #3 on:** May 30, 2011, 11:58:34 AM »

Readings about composition I never really cared for personally, it is all a matter of experimentation in a variety of personal tastes: http://webecoist.com/2008/12/22/nature-environmental-photographers-photos/

adash · « **Reply #4 on:** May 30, 2011, 12:57:13 PM »

Thanks, Friends! I will certainly read these!
I did google myself, but only found basic explanations of rule of the thirds, etc.
Jus, I ain't that good, I prefer to read something and then apply in practice, and then experiment.
One of the ways to increase one's creativity is to know the subject very well (yes, I googled "increase your creativity" a while ago). Thanks for the link!

Ray · « **Reply #5 on:** May 30, 2011, 01:25:17 PM »

Quote from: adash on May 30, 2011, 12:57:13 PM

Jus, I ain't that good, I prefer to read something and then apply in practice, and then experiment.
One of the ways to increase one's creativity is to know the subject very well (yes, I googled "increase your creativity" a while ago). Thanks for the link!

Well, perhaps you are but just dont know it yet, perhaps your creativity will be 'triggered' by such images. As a personal advise, if I may be so bold, I would try to find out first one's interest in which particular field of photography to narrow down the criteria and to be able to read and do some experimentation in that particular direction as the criteria for portraits are worlds apart from wildlife photography thus need another adaptation of one. Then again there's variety in every different direction as well, shoot a static portrait or add some dynamics instead by adding a fan or by shooting outdoors in windy conditions in which you could shoot against the sun or with the sun in your back etc. Every different scenario needs its own approach and its very own framing style will also depend on the focal length of the lens, its F stop, distance from photographer to the subject and then the distance from the subject to the background etc. Perhaps its not a question of learning to frame but just to narrow down your field of interest as is the case with many others as well. There are just to many variables to take a count for, narrowing it down will certainly speed up the creative process.

voyager · « **Reply #6 on:** May 30, 2011, 02:39:36 PM »

I don't want to take good photos of things that I have no interest in taking photos of. That's always a good starting point, figure out what you like!

corgifan · « **Reply #7 on:** May 30, 2011, 03:12:24 PM »

I've found it useful to study the photographs of the great photographers who's work I admire. I try to dissect the image and ask myself why it works, what makes the image hold my attention, what elements within the image lead me eye to each point.

I've also found it useful to study the paintings of some abstract or impressionist painters like Van Gogh or Mondrian.

I don't know that my photos have gotten enormously better but I like to think that what I've absorbed from studying other's work has at least allowed me to make fewer mistakes.

As an exercise it can be useful to pick a scene or subject that is of interest and then shoot from a tripod so you can detach yourself from the camera and really look at what's on the view screen or in the viewfinder. Make a small framing adjustment, step back, look again, make another adjustment and ask yourself what made that change better or worse than the last.

I really do think the most of us shoot too quickly and it is beneficial sometimes to slow way down and shoot like the large format photographers do. I often think of a quote from Ansel Adams: "The ‘machine-gun’ approach to photography – by which many negatives are made with the hope that one will be good – is fatal to serious results."

As for books, you might poke around Google Books: http://books.google.com/
Google has scanned a great many books now and you can read for free.

Doug

WheeE-P1 · « **Reply #8 on:** May 30, 2011, 05:25:10 PM »

The beauty of digital is that you can go out with a memory card and take hundreds of images without worrying about the cost of film and processing. Then come back and look at what you got. If you end up with one good photo out of 200 on your first creative trip, you've won. If you get none you've still won because you know what doesn't work.

So think about something that's interesting to you and pick up your camera. Choose one lens and leave everything else at home. You're using your imagination, not your collection. Forget the rules - many of the best photos break them. Break some yourself. Break all of them. And if you don't know all the rules, great, you won't have to make any effort to overcome them. You're far less likely to re-make somebody else's photo.

In the 90s Walt Disney World's EPCOT Centre presented a pre-show called "True Colors" with Cyndi Lauper's song as a background. The presentation was a sort of "open your mind and use your imagination" promo on behalf of the show's sponsor, Kodak. It was presented using a huge array of slide projectors all synced together - an impressive feat in itself. Sadly time moved on and the show was replaced. All the remains is a rather poor quality and very shaky home video. Even though it's nothing as impressive as it was when standing in front of the screen it's still worth a look. Here's the link to it on Vimeo


True Colors

or Youtube

http://youtu.be/-sUFv7QLOUE

And if you get seasick from the wobbling, somebody has remade the presentation with some of their own choices of photos

http://youtu.be/9cP37091EjY

lisandra · « **Reply #9 on:** May 30, 2011, 06:05:57 PM »

while I fully support the experimentation aspect of things, the hundreds of photos idea can make you sick and frustrated of photography real fast. I took classes. First time I was cocky, turns out I learned a lot. Went to the second class with the same attitude, turns out I learned even more. Ive taken 2 more after that, and I still read anything I can find on amazon. They seem expensive, but you take a lot from them. Things like the rule of thirds and perspective compression really do make your stuff stand out.

adash · « **Reply #10 on:** May 30, 2011, 10:35:59 PM »

WheeE-P1, thanks for the suggestion, but I agree with Lisandra more - not having a good one after 200 attempts is frustrating and may give negative motivation for taking pictures in the first place. I ain't that persistent either.
Great presentation with amazingly great photos!
Doug, That's a great approach too. A friend of mine recommended it, but I needed to have a basic read on what to be looking for. It is sometimes lines, sometimes figures, sometimes colour spots, sometimes contrast, I guess.

lisandra · « **Reply #11 on:** May 31, 2011, 01:02:08 AM »

Like mark says, take your time to take the scene in, figure out how you want it to look and what you don't want in there and then try. Move with your feet even if you have a zoom lens. If by a couple of attempts it doesn't look like you want then move on. Either look for something else or come back another day.

WheeE-P1 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 31, 2011, 01:10:39 AM »

I'm quite happy to be disagreed with

I would say though that if somebody goes and takes even 50 shots and doesn't come back with something pleasing then maybe it's time to put down the camera and bring it out just for snaps of the kids. I'm certainly not implying that's you adash!

While the technical aspect of composition can be taught you can just end up with a rather mechanical output with no soul. There are plenty of people doing that. Dull as dishwater in my opinion. Technically great though. Classes can be useful, and education in how to take advantage of the camera is important, no doubt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to your reason for taking a photo. Is it to capture a memory? To get published? To get accolades? To do something that's new? Just because there's a camera sitting there? Maybe considering the answer to that is the step before going out and taking shots.

The following is quite funny set of critiques on some famous "not-very-good" shots that might at least raise a smile.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

E-M5 Pete · « **Reply #13 on:** May 31, 2011, 08:30:25 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on May 31, 2011, 01:02:08 AM

Like mark says, take your time to take the scene in, figure out how you want it to look and what you don't want in there and then try. Move with your feet even if you have a zoom lens. If by a couple of attempts it doesn't look like you want then move on. Either look for something else or come back another day.

Great advise and something I do all the time...
I have walked away from many possible photo ops that I just couldn't seem to "see" a pleasing composition. Even though I thought there was a photo there. There may still be, but, maybe on another day when I "see" it a different way.

E-M5 Pete · « **Reply #14 on:** May 31, 2011, 08:39:27 AM »

Quote from: WheeE-P1 on May 31, 2011, 01:10:39 AM

I'm quite happy to be disagreed with

I would say though that if somebody goes and takes even 50 shots and doesn't come back with something pleasing then maybe it's time to put down the camera and bring it out just for snaps of the kids. I'm certainly not implying that's you adash!

While the technical aspect of composition can be taught you can just end up with a rather mechanical output with no soul. There are plenty of people doing that. Dull as dishwater in my opinion. Technically great though. Classes can be useful, and education in how to take advantage of the camera is important, no doubt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to your reason for taking a photo. Is it to capture a memory? To get published? To get accolades? To do something that's new? Just because there's a camera sitting there? Maybe considering the answer to that is the step before going out and taking shots.

The following is quite funny set of critiques on some famous "not-very-good" shots that might at least raise a smile.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Yes, I agree here also, Education in technique can save a lot wasted time trying to figure what works and what doesn't work as far compositional guidelines (not rules) on the technical side. But, the "Soul" of the photograph must come from the photographer, and this takes even more time, and exploring your own soul in what you want to "Say" or "Convey" in your photography.

lisandra · « **Reply #15 on:** May 31, 2011, 11:12:02 PM »

Quote from: M5-User on May 31, 2011, 08:39:27 AM

Quote from: WheeE-P1 on May 31, 2011, 01:10:39 AM
I'm quite happy to be disagreed with

I would say though that if somebody goes and takes even 50 shots and doesn't come back with something pleasing then maybe it's time to put down the camera and bring it out just for snaps of the kids. I'm certainly not implying that's you adash!

While the technical aspect of composition can be taught you can just end up with a rather mechanical output with no soul. There are plenty of people doing that. Dull as dishwater in my opinion. Technically great though. Classes can be useful, and education in how to take advantage of the camera is important, no doubt.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to your reason for taking a photo. Is it to capture a memory? To get published? To get accolades? To do something that's new? Just because there's a camera sitting there? Maybe considering the answer to that is the step before going out and taking shots.

The following is quite funny set of critiques on some famous "not-very-good" shots that might at least raise a smile.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Yes, I agree here also, Education in technique can save a lot wasted time trying to figure what works and what doesn't work as far compositional guidelines (not rules) on the technical side. But, the "Soul" of the photograph must come from the photographer, and this takes even more time, and exploring your own soul in what you want to "Say" or "Convey" in your photography.

It might not seem like it, but that's exactly my point! The "soul" of things come from the person. You gotta be passionate about what you're doing, otherwise there's no "soul" in the end result. Being part of a forum tells me the person is at least a bit passionate about it. But all the soul in the world doesn't do you any good if you don't know what you're doing or how to do it. Classes offer much more than tell you what an f stop is. Being able to tell whats wrong with what you just did is invaluable, and it saves you the time and frustration of taking 100 photos of what you don't want. Think about it, your beautiful voice might get discovered at a local talent show, but the label company rep isn't gonna cut you a check right there is he? no, hes gonna make you take lessons to learn how to use what u have, as well as dance lessons and stage lessons to complement it. Even the pros that broke the rules and became famous knew what they were doing, in fact, to be able to do so and get the results they did requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill.

Quote

I have walked away from many possible photo ops that I just couldn't seem to "see" a pleasing composition. Even though I thought there was a photo there. There may still be, but, maybe on another day when I "see" it a different way.

I walked away from the photo titled "my happy place" like 10 times, turns out I wanted too many beautiful things on the same scene, it took me a non-photo day there to figure it out. And I broke a very important rule in that one (I split the horizon down the middle) but I made sure I used leading lines both on top and the bottom (the dock and clouds) AND placed everything relevant where the rule of thirds tells us to. Leading lines I learned in a class, rule of thirds from a book. Id say the result is "dishwasher dull safe". In the end Im just having tons of fun and reading anything I can get my hands on about photography.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #16 on:** June 01, 2011, 01:19:54 AM »

imho

the most valuable thing you can do is look at great images , stare at them minutes on end
look at the great painters too and how they organize space
color light and dark and arabesque movement form pattern ......
negative and positive and so forth

this will become internalized eventuallly

ask yourself why great images work

to me learning image making with or without a camera is like riding a bike
at first you must learn to balance and not fall and shakily you concentrate and learn to turn go stop start bankand so on.

and then at some point it becomes internalized and you ride as if effortless as if it is natureal as walking , almost "without thinking"

but you are thinking it has just moved deeper into your mind

think and think and thinkso you can shoot "without" thinking[seemingly

]

sometimes the greatest photos break all the so called rules , thats true compositional wisdom
but the rules , are a good start

WheeE-P1 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 01, 2011, 05:17:58 PM »

Quote from: lisandra on May 31, 2011, 11:12:02 PM

It might not seem like it, but that's exactly my point! The "soul" of things come from the person. You gotta be passionate about what you're doing, otherwise there's no "soul" in the end result. Being part of a forum tells me the person is at least a bit passionate about it. But all the soul in the world doesn't do you any good if you don't know what you're doing or how to do it. Classes offer much more than tell you what an f stop is. Being able to tell whats wrong with what you just did is invaluable, and it saves you the time and frustration of taking 100 photos of what you don't want. Think about it, your beautiful voice might get discovered at a local talent show, but the label company rep isn't gonna cut you a check right there is he? no, hes gonna make you take lessons to learn how to use what u have, as well as dance lessons and stage lessons to complement it. Even the pros that broke the rules and became famous knew what they were doing, in fact, to be able to do so and get the results they did requires a tremendous amount of knowledge and skill.
Quote
I have walked away from many possible photo ops that I just couldn't seem to "see" a pleasing composition. Even though I thought there was a photo there. There may still be, but, maybe on another day when I "see" it a different way.

I walked away from the photo titled "my happy place" like 10 times, turns out I wanted too many beautiful things on the same scene, it took me a non-photo day there to figure it out. And I broke a very important rule in that one (I split the horizon down the middle) but I made sure I used leading lines both on top and the bottom (the dock and clouds) AND placed everything relevant where the rule of thirds tells us to. Leading lines I learned in a class, rule of thirds from a book. Id say the result is "dishwasher dull safe". In the end Im just having tons of fun and reading anything I can get my hands on about photography.

I've just had a look at "my happy place" and I agree - but the emotion attached to that image is probably what makes it so inspiring for you isn't it? That feeling you get. But to me it looks like a pseudo HDR composite. Your picture "The Darkness" on the other hand is in a different league, rules or not.

I'm really not disputing the usefulness of education. But you can give singing lessons to a tone deaf person until you're blue in the face and it'll make no difference to the end result. They can be as passionate about singing as Pavarotti - they're still tone deaf and will make a horrible noise.

Some people just don't have an eye for interesting photos and maybe they are the ones that need to fall back onto the mechanics of things (I don't think anybody here falls into that category). Nothing wrong with that though. But it goes back to the question I asked before, why take the picture? But if they enjoy those mechanics that's great. As cosinaphile says "shooting without thinking" is how it should be IMO. I can't imagine taking a picture and thinking about any composition rule other than "does this look as good as possible"?

So there are those who just aren't that creative, as much as they'd like to be, which is perhaps the reason the next camera round the corner is such a turn on for them - they unconsciously think it's going to make them into Ansel Adams or Annie Liebovitz. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice to have a little more low light sensitivity or dynamic range but it's just not that important in the grand scheme of things. The issue I have is that people seem to almost forget the soul/art/passion in the image, substituting it with rules/better lenses/better sensors; doing what should work rather than what does.

Here's a good rule though - take the lens cap off


How to NOT use a Leica

E-M5 Pete · « **Reply #18 on:** June 01, 2011, 05:45:19 PM »

Funny Video.

I no longer use lens caps... for my Leica RF, I just cover the front of my lens the palm of my hand. Leica RF have Cloth Shutter curtains, (he has a digital M8 or M9), and in less than 10s with a lens/camera aimed as you walk towards the Sun, can burn a Pin Whole right though the shutter curtain. Voigtlander Bessa's have a second metal curtain in front the main shutter curtain. So, I can relate why he had a lens cap on his Leica. A NEW curtain is a $300.00 repair!. With m4/3's, the sensor is exposed, but it has an AA filter over it, plus. I don't think they can be damaged with a focused light ray hit it through the lens.

cosinaphile · « **Reply #19 on:** June 01, 2011, 06:08:42 PM »

oh my that leica lens cap video is .... :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ing

adash · « **Reply #20 on:** June 02, 2011, 08:01:46 AM »

Quote

While the technical aspect of composition can be taught you can just end up with a rather mechanical output with no soul. There are plenty of people doing that. Dull as dishwater in my opinion. Technically great though. Classes can be useful, and education in how to take advantage of the camera is important, no doubt.

Hey, the dishwasher is a genial invention, I will feel very good if I can make the photographic equivalent of a dishwasher. BTW, I am not implying that I have a talent or something, I just need to broaden my horizon onto what to be looking for when walking on the street.
I would like to thank all who responded, I will read these, unfortunately this will happen when I have the time.

WheeE-P1 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 02, 2011, 12:54:29 PM »

LOL - dull as dishwater, I absolutely LOVE dishwashers. Mechanical or otherwise

. They save me buying paper plates and plastic knives and forks.

And you clearly have talent - I looked at your gallery.

lisandra · « **Reply #22 on:** June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM »

Quote

But to me it looks like a pseudo HDR composite.

What looks HDR about it?

Quote

I can't imagine taking a picture and thinking about any composition rule other than "does this look as good as possible"?

My point ecxactly again. How would you answer that question? what criteria would you use? you cant tell if your photo is as good as it can be if you dont know what makes for a good photo, otherwise your answer is always gonna be "it good enough".

Quote

But you can give singing lessons to a tone deaf person until you're blue in the face and it'll make no difference to the end result. They can be as passionate about singing as Pavarotti - they're still tone deaf and will make a horrible noise.

Unless you have a medical condition, theres nothing to stop a person who has NO rhythm at all to learn how to play an instrument as beautifully as someone born with all the talent in the world. If the guy is blind photography is not gonna be his strong suit. The concept that talent is something you either have to be born with or else you dont have it and never will is a myth.

WheeE-P1 · « **Reply #23 on:** June 04, 2011, 04:14:27 AM »

Quote from: lisandra on June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM

Quote
But to me it looks like a pseudo HDR composite.
What looks HDR about it?

It just has something approaching that "look". The sharpness of the jetty/barge over the smoothness of the water give it that manipulated and composited appearance.

Quote from: lisandra on June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM

you cant tell if your photo is as good as it can be if you dont know what makes for a good photo, otherwise your answer is always gonna be "it good enough".

Unless you know everything there is to know about everything that's always going to be the case. And as Mark Twain said, it's not what you know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Or something like that. To me the fun of taking a picture isn't the technical side at all. I like the E-P1 because it feels un-technical, like it disappears in my hands. I didn't feel that at all with the GF1 or the GH1 when I had them, they felt like soul-less electronics.

For me a good photo is one that's pleasing or interesting to the eye, for whatever reason. Hopefully for anyone other than a pixel peeper/lens lover/camera coveter, it's the content. Consider all the technically poor yet iconic photos from the past as examples. But the specific criteria for "good" are naturally going to vary from person to person based on their lives. Your happy place image is a great example of this - you love it because it's your happy place, some other people love it for other reasons, but to me it's a photo on the web with no relate-able content, beauty or interest.

My point, which I seem to have put over quite poorly, is that rules all too often get in the way, stifling creativity and interest. Then we end up with people simply aping what's been done before. Over and over and over again. It's dull - like somebody showing me their latest camera, instead of the pictures they've taken with it.

I've seen rules/guidelines/whatever make a relatively creative person produce clinical, rule-following work which, to me, isn't interesting at all. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I abhor studio portraits, they mostly just look technical and cold - akin to live corpse capturing, for want of a better expression - and that's about as far away from emotion as you can get.

Quote from: lisandra on June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM

Quote
But you can give singing lessons to a tone deaf person until you're blue in the face and it'll make no difference to the end result. They can be as passionate about singing as Pavarotti - they're still tone deaf and will make a horrible noise.
Unless you have a medical condition, theres nothing to stop a person who has NO rhythm at all to learn how to play an instrument as beautifully as someone born with all the talent in the world. If the guy is blind photography is not gonna be his strong suit. The concept that talent is something you either have to be born with or else you dont have it and never will is a myth.

I think there are degrees of talent and that it's something that can evolve. I disagree that somebody with no rhythm will ever be able to match the competence of a great musician. That, to me, seems a silly and argumentative thing to say. But if you believe it that's fine with me - we're all allowed to think differently, thank goodness. There are no rules about that. Yet.

E-M5 Pete · « **Reply #24 on:** June 04, 2011, 06:27:10 AM »

Quote from: WheeE-P1 on June 04, 2011, 04:14:27 AM

Quote from: lisandra on June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM
Quote
But to me it looks like a pseudo HDR composite.
What looks HDR about it?

It just has something approaching that "look". The sharpness of the jetty/barge over the smoothness of the water give it that manipulated and composited appearance.

Quote from: lisandra on June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM
you cant tell if your photo is as good as it can be if you dont know what makes for a good photo, otherwise your answer is always gonna be "it good enough".

Unless you know everything there is to know about everything that's always going to be the case. And as Mark Twain said, it's not what you know that gets you into trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so. Or something like that. To me the fun of taking a picture isn't the technical side at all. I like the E-P1 because it feels un-technical, like it disappears in my hands. I didn't feel that at all with the GF1 or the GH1 when I had them, they felt like soul-less electronics.

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Close though...

For me a good photo is one that's pleasing or interesting to the eye, for whatever reason. Hopefully for anyone other than a pixel peeper/lens lover/camera coveter, it's the content. Consider all the technically poor yet iconic photos from the past as examples. But the specific criteria for "good" are naturally going to vary from person to person based on their lives. Your happy place image is a great example of this - you love it because it's your happy place, some other people love it for other reasons, but to me it's a photo on the web with no relate-able content, beauty or interest.

My point, which I seem to have put over quite poorly, is that rules all too often get in the way, stifling creativity and interest. Then we end up with people simply aping what's been done before. Over and over and over again. It's dull - like somebody showing me their latest camera, instead of the pictures they've taken with it.

I've seen rules/guidelines/whatever make a relatively creative person produce clinical, rule-following work which, to me, isn't interesting at all. Perhaps that's one of the reasons I abhor studio portraits, they mostly just look technical and cold - akin to live corpse capturing, for want of a better expression - and that's about as far away from emotion as you can get.

Quote from: lisandra on June 02, 2011, 08:38:30 PM
Quote
But you can give singing lessons to a tone deaf person until you're blue in the face and it'll make no difference to the end result. They can be as passionate about singing as Pavarotti - they're still tone deaf and will make a horrible noise.
Unless you have a medical condition, theres nothing to stop a person who has NO rhythm at all to learn how to play an instrument as beautifully as someone born with all the talent in the world. If the guy is blind photography is not gonna be his strong suit. The concept that talent is something you either have to be born with or else you dont have it and never will is a myth.

I think there are degrees of talent and that it's something that can evolve. I disagree that somebody with no rhythm will ever be able to match the competence of a great musician. That, to me, seems a silly and argumentative thing to say. But if you believe it that's fine with me - we're all allowed to think differently, thank goodness. There are no rules about that. Yet.

^^^ BLUE^^^^ IT is content in the end. And, (I call them guidelines), are a starting point to help image flow better. With Portraits, that is not necessary because, as you said, the [emotion] needs to shine through... like "The Blacksmith" photo. Not much more than "Rule of Thirds" for where the head is, except it is centered (so that "Rule" was broken partially and worked just fine.

If you look at your Wedding Photo's, you'll see plenty of examples how you used the guidelines in your images that "Look Good".
What makes it pleasing is that in some form, there is structure to hold it together.
We just don't place the subject wherever we want. A lot of us call that "Framing" I would not tell anyone to NOT to learn about basic guidelines, just as you would tell them to shoot what "Looks Good"... Same thing, you just say it differently.

Author Topic: I need a good read about composition. (Read 2993 times)

Related Topics

Recent Topics

Recent Gallery