Can anyone objectively define composition, and more importantly,

>>2756877
The arrangement of items and form in the scene.

Good composition balances the scene's visual weight, as well as uses light, color, texture, form, and lines to guide the viewer around the image.

>>2756882
>visual weight
but what does this mean

>>2756885
In your OP image, for instance, the hair, jacket collar, and mouth-area are all "visually heavy". They anchor the image, and draw your eye. The hair is heavy top and right, so having the mouth left, and the collar bottom right help to balance it. This image is doing well in terms of balancing the visual weight.

>>2756892
sounds like "sharpness" is the biggest criteria of visual weight

File: 1446382902624.jpg (149KB, 612x612px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 612x612px

>>2756892
Can i get a deconstruction of this reaction image as well? That was awesome.

>>2756877
>Subjective evaluations and opinions hold no meaning or merit.
the fuck you, youre only going to get opinions here.

my take: ive always thought of composition in terms of physical forces, like gravity. there needs to be a certain "pull" between the elements, they need to be arranged in a way that has at least 3 elements in "motion", so they play. if you have lots of elements you lose potency. if you have 2 there is no tension and no play. one should be able to identify these elements quickly. the human mind is pretty fucking fast and resolves in less than a second if something has desirable qualities or not. then, good composition should be evident. you should be able to make it as abstract as you could and for it to remain the same.

painters got this shit eons ago. oh and nice pinecone.

>>2756902
>vague concept of "elements" without any definition or concreteness
>yet tries to anchor it to objective physical forces like gravity

you kinda sound like a man from thousands of years ago talking about humors in the body

>>2756877
>composition
the makeup and layout of a photograph and the elements within it
good composition will have attention grabbing focal point(s) and subordinate areas, should be striking/interesting, whatever

>>2756905
>>vague concept of "elements" without any definition or concreteness
are you literally retarded or is this a shit troll thread

>>2756905
>you kinda sound like a man from thousands of years ago talking about humors in the body
>implying that man didnt nail your entire personality by defining you a fuckload years ago as a "melancholic".

>>2756893
Not at all. It's actually tonality and contrast. The hair is heavy because it's so dark. The mouth and collar because of the contrast in the area.

Sharpness doesn't come into it.

>>2756910
please don't project

Gravity's Rainbow isn't even that great of a book.

File: image.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>2756877
I use the grid lines on my iPhone.

>>2756965
and yet the photo is shit

>>2756970
I think it's pretty good. Worth at least a million.

>>2756926
It really is. Its my all time favorite and I'm not just saying that for the memes.

File: muh books.png (4MB, 1840x2412px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1840x2412px

>>2756981
You should read more books then.

>>2756985
I read a lot. Give me a quick rec. Your desert island pick?

File: dolan collection.png (305KB, 447x345px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 447x345px

>>2756987
dolan of course

>>2756985

It's like someone stuffed a fedora piñata with books.

>>2756988
Cool. I'll pick them up. Its not exactly my field, but related enough to be fun.

>>2756989
>piñata with books.

thats fucking brilliant. im doing a book filled piñata someday.

>a piñata filled with film rolls

holy fuck. im diamonds right now.

>>2756985
holy STEM-lord, Batman

all pinatas should be filled with dicks

>>2757079
you say that like it's a bad thing famo

>>2757171
But it is

File: 3465.png (17KB, 531x249px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 531x249px

>>2757367
>implying

>>2756985
>thinks GR isnt that great
>unironically has HP lovecraft & clive barker and bothered to post textbooks

Jesus christ familia. If this was posted in a chain not referring to the quality of GR i wouldn't give a fuck, but if this is to imply that HP and clive barker are more of worth on your hard drive than GR, then you need to reevaluate your literary assessment.

Good choice on the Saunders as a logic book tho.