composition

It's ironic that beginners are most worried, by a wide margin, about composition when it's ultimately one of the least important things in a photograph. I speculate because it's the most abstract, and therefore most mysterious and esoteric, aspect of photography and a lot of newbies think that it's the secret to great photos because of it.

Here's everything you need to know about composition:

1) learn about perspective. you should be composing with your feet, not your camera.
2) don't put things in the center, unless you want to, and then make it a conscious decision.
3) composition is ultimately about the interplay of light and dark, near and far, and the creation of space.

that's it. now, shoot with only one focal length for the next four months until you learn to "see" with it without even touching a camera.

>>3010569
>le composition isn't important meme
nu-photography nonsens pushed by lazy street photographers who want you to believe images are all about the feelings you capture
form is everything
composition is king

>>3010594

You're thinking of graphic design, homie.

Quick, someone needs a takeout menu designed! Away with you!

>>3010559
Photography is subjective. It's all about how you feel about a given shot. Guidelines help, and can more or less be tailored to your style.

For instance I tend to focus more on the subject of a shot as a priority, then composition. All the technical stuff like white balance and aperture and so forth are things you can learn with a lot of practice. Try every combination of settings and see what you like, what works for you.

Some people will never like your stuff. Some people will love your stuff. All that matters is how you feel about it.

>>3010601
>my snapshots are art because they lack commercial appeal! Studying technique or using a tripod would destroy their authenticity because it would become clear that I don't have a fucking clue what I want to communicate!
I bet you like aleatoric music too, kiddo

>>3010607
>implying non-commercial photography doesn't have technique involved

how are you so basic?

>>3010612
>implying all non-commercial work lacks commercial appeal
I guess reading isn't your style. let me guess, you're a "visual learner"?

>>3010613
I guess you just aren't a learner at all. Never implied that non-commercial lacks commercial appeal. You (or whoever) implied it doesn't have technique involved because it isn't commercially appealing. Learn to understand your own thoughts.

>>3010569
>composition isn't important
>perspective the very first thing you mention
I hope spring starts soon and you can go back outside.

>>3010621
Is that because you'll be waiting in your van to offer him candy? Or because his point of view differs from yours and you can't handle having to coexist with other people and their thoughts?

>>3010621

Perspective was the very first thing I mentioned in the little crash course in composition I gave him, yes. I'm not sure what's confusing you.

>>3010607

Those are quite some conclusions you seem to be reaching about my predilections, preferences, and talent, my man.

>>3010615
>You (or whoever) implied it doesn't have technique involved because it isn't commercially appealing.
read my post. nowhere did I say that. go back to school and ask your remedial english teacher to help you with "reading comprehension".

>>3010629
I'm not sure what's confusing you about the very simple statement that I hope you go back the fuck outside.

>>3010625
Nah. I just get fed up of the constant autistic arguing. Winter /p/ feels like dpreview or some comment section at the lullest of times.

>>3010630
>my snapshots are art because they lack commercial appeal! Studying technique or using a tripod would destroy their authenticity because it would become clear that I don't have a fucking clue what I want to communicate!

Do you not have the ability to read your own post? It specifically says "Studying technique.....would destroy their authenticity"

That's pretty implying there, Captain Needsglasses.

>>3010633

I mean, I'm outside every day, making my little snappy snaps. I can still come inside and post helpful shit on /p/. Reminder that YOU'RE the one who reacted so autistically to what is really a pretty benign and ultimately positive comment. You're the source of the constant autistic arguing of which you sanctimoniously claim to be so fed up.

>>3010634
Okay, I'll explain. YOU think your own lack of technique is a virtue. YOU think the fact that your photographs have no commercial appeal means that they have any other kind of appeal (YOU are wrong). YOU are a shitty photographer.

Now somewhere in reading this, YOU assumed that I was lumping YOU together with all noncommercial photographers (delusions of grandeur?) So I will clarify: my statement has no bearing on anyone else, there are plenty of noncommercial photographers with great technique. (And almost none of them are stupid enough to tell people that composition isn't important)

>>3010639

Oh, hey. You're responding to the wrong guy. He was just arguing with you, I'm the one who said that composition isn't the most important thing in a photograph.

Which, by the way, is a pretty crucial distinction. I never said it wasn't important, I said that beginners imbue it with too much importance, and that it's one of the less important things in a photograph. That humble truth, for whatever reason, triggered the hell out of you. I don't know why. Maybe you think you have a great eye for composition.

>>3010639
And YOU are assuming that I'M the OP. Because YOU are a DUMBASS. YOU have never even seen a picture I've taken.

Now, somewhere in the span of time since you were born (this summer) YOU thought you knew something about photography. YOU are wrong.

Go back to /r/eddit

Hey can you guys stop arguing for a second and post examples of what you think is good composition?

Also does anyone know the image I'm referring to? There's also another photo with a black dog in snow but the dog is kinda blurry

Thanks,
OP

File: 123456.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Decent comp. Subjectively of course. Others may disagree.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL SL1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	SDB ARTOGRAPHY
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:17 15:29:58
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	55.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Harry_Callahan_007.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010559
>>3010643
read books on art, not specifically photography. graphic design and painting/drawing books are where you will find lots of helpful information. you can even start sketching just to practice (you dont have to be good at drawing, just arranging black and white spaces will work)

I would go make a thread on /ic/ for art books because they usually have some pdf downloads and mega folders.

>>3010569
don't listen to this retard

good composition is almost impossible to define -- but don't let that fool you: composition is one of the least subjective aspects of photography. it has measurably psychological effects. whether or not you choose to ignore these in your photographic process is up to you.

File: 05.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

I think this is composed pretty well

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Width	1513
Image Height	1250

>>3010642
>HAHA DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS
oh, it shows
>>3010641
>it's one of the less important things in a photograph
patently untrue
>that humble truth
why don't you tell the humble truth about which things in a photograph you believe are more important?

>>3010661
too much headroom IMO

File: 023-william-eggleston-theredlist.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010670
>why don't you tell the humble truth about which things in a photograph you believe are more important?

Aesthetically?

Light and tonality and contrast
Texture
Color (if you have it)
Detail
Depth of field

Overall?
Ethics, originality, subject matter, what you have to say about your subject matter, how you say it.

The same people who obsess over composition are the same dweebs who overlay golden spirals over their perfectly composed picture of literally fucking nothing and pretend that it's good because of that. They slavishly adhere to the rule of thirds and can't really explain why (hurr durr the eye is naturally drawn to it). It's the superior nerd who practices his major and minor scales for an hour a day but couldn't play a piece of music with any soul if his life depended on it.

You think composition is important because you haven't figured out how to make your photos actually say or mean something, so you try to give them value by slavish adherence to ad hoc rules invented by someone you don't even know.

Again, I do think composition is important in a photo (which is why i fucking gave a short guide to it), but you guys are way overblown in your estimation of it, and I feel bad for you. i also genuinely don't understand why you newfags are so reactive.

Here, have an amazing, world-changing photograph with only so-so composition.

>>3010684
>only so-so composition.

that photo has the most advanced composition ever, you foolio.

>>3010684
>it's one of the less important things in a photograph
>composition is important in a photo
you understand why someone might see these statements as contradictory? also you're strawmanning like a champion, most people are not talking about golden spiral autism and exact alignment of points of interest when they are talking about composition, they are talking about gestalt. form. the structure of light and dark and color in a photo. and that is maybe the single most important thing because it is what the mind's eye sees. A photo with great light, texture, detail, color, and depth of field but lousy composition is a lousy photo.
>>3010684
so-so composition
I'd say it's pretty good. It's not great, which is probably why it's not his most well-known photo
>world changing
lmao no
>newfag
no u

File: Eggleston_2.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010695
>. It's not great, which is probably why it's not his most well-known photo

when composition is "too great" it becomes a gimick and eats the photo at its own expense. it focuses too much attention in the wow factor and the photographers skill, rather than the photo itself (like what happens with alex webb, which i find pretty good, but cant enjoy because his compositions are "too good to be true").

there are more famous eggleston photos, like le meme drink in a plane, but that one in the funeral is top notch, one of my faves, in general id say.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1066
Image Height	1600

File: 001_Athens-House-of-Photography_Constantine-Manos_Art-Athina_2013.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

this is one of the best compositions my eyes have seen

>>3010646
noob here. I often see photos with only one thing in them, and that thing is off center. What's up with that?

I know what the rule of thirds is, and I can see how it's a useful way of organizing multiple things in a photo, but in this case the depth of field is so small and the background so homogeneous that there's really only one thing in the photo so why not just put it in the center?

It just looks... cheezy, to me, off to the side.

>>3010713
You have shit eyes.

File: Stieglitz-The Steerage.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010704
"too great" is a little simple for what I think you mean, that a composition is very focused or clean. great composition doesn't need to be focused or excessively pattern-oriented or super-contrasty. but it needs to work. there's a difference between, say, Kandinsky and a mess. or, say, the steerage and a mess. that difference is good composition.
hell, let's take the first eggleston photo you posted. What's more important visually about that photo than its composition? light? texture? color? detail? depth of field? the biggest reason that it's a good photo is because of its geometric scheme, i.e. composition. the people are objects on a canvas, abstracted, another pair of trees. a huge part of the semantic content of the photo stems from eggleston's use of composition!
again, you've constructed a bit of a strawman. When I say composition is king, I'm not saying Peter Lik is the king of photography. Any more than someone who says structure defines good musical composition is promoting three-chord rock.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010559
>On a somewhat unrelated note, I saw a photo here once of a wristwatch in front of a clock tower. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? thx.

you're thinking of koudelka, he's got some great comps

File: 2e394d28bef59eea13a41306ce70d8f3.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010734
dumping a few, they're seriously impressive

File: original_josef-koudelka1-jpg.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010736

File: 086aee7c2ca44811f4dbba194d2e5703.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010738

File: 03-Exiles.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Epson
Camera Model	Exp10000XL10000
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	5646
Image Height	3751
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:11:04 17:07:32
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1024
Image Height	679

File: h2_1995.362.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010742
last one, possibly my favorite. hope you enjoyed

>>3010744
I did, thanks

>>3010559
Please OP just don't fall for this bait >3010569

File: E2EA8A30-FAE6-49A1-B56A-164D105E461E-244-00000059C7F9CD66_tmp.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010643
Here's that doge

File: 722C238A-2E0D-42A7-8F89-D0723A534DE8-244-00000051E806E7D9_tmp.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3010762
And here's another. Doges are good subjects.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Picasa 3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Unknown
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2008:10:14 15:41:52
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1213
Unique Image ID	6d6c88022c3cdce42192b56f75e19e6a

>>3010762
I appreciate you, anon.
Thanks!

>>3010734
YES, THANK YOU
I initially overlooked this post. Boy, was I going mad looking for it.
Thx anon

>>3010684
if you'll stop being an argumentative cunt for 30 seconds, I'm going to take pity on you and fill you in on what you missed out when you dropped out of your first year of at school

literally all of the qualities which you mentioned are driven by composition. light and tonality and contrast and colour literally ARE elements of visual composition ffs.
subject matter and what you say/how you say what you want to about it is the whole reason behind composition. if nobody studies composition and the effects of space on emotions and language, no photo would go beyond saying "this what this chair looks like" or "this what this person looks like". you can take 10 photos of the same thing with different compositions, and each one is going to reveal something different about the way you feel towards the subject. photography is a visual art, all of the information of a photograph is contained in a square or rectangular 2-dimensional space. how you arrange the elements within is going to influence greatly how the viewer responds to the photograph, and its NECESSARY to make sure you're expressing or communicating what you want to express. it's like saying "you guys place too much emphasis on how you music sounds". music literally IS sounds. the visual arts literally IS composition.

now please stop spewing some retarded shit about the rule of thirds or golden mean because no artist who is worth a damn even cares about those things, the rule of thirds is mom-tier photography advice, and the golden mean is just "neat" but not really something anybody has focused on since the renaissance.

being a good artist comes first, being a good photographer comes second.

>>3011002
>stop being an argumentative cunt
>posts argumentative cunt post immediately following this

I do however agree that the art comes before the technical aspects.

File: anothervietnam2-3.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:01 18:10:46

File: 1312014979243.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Would most of these picture be as good if they were in color?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:06:22 23:57:23
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	180.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	852
Image Height	868
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3010729
girl at the coffee shop last week said my eyes were gorgeous. kys cuck

>>3010601
form is essential to emphasis and therefore, any message you want to convey.

>>3010646
Clicked on the thumbnail and the blue speck in the middle caught my eye and took the focus away from the flower for a minute.

>>3011002
>if you'll stop being an argumentative cunt for 30 seconds
>only I'm allowed to argue
>everything I say is right and you're not allowed an opinion
GTFO underage

>>3011082

Maybe for dummies who need it spelled out for them.

>>3011011
>>3011199
>wahhh i'm gonna ignore your whole post bc u hurt my feelings waahhh
who's underage again?

>>3011418

>>3010762
probably my favorite photo of all time

I don't even know why; usually i can explain what i like about art but this just hits me on such a deep level i can't even understand the reaction i have.

>>3010569
>one of the least important things in a photograph
I hate when what could've been a good shot is ruined because it's not balanced enough or there's a bunch of distracting shit everywhere. Just seeing a nice subject does nothing for me if the light sucks and the composition is wack.

>>3010661
Seeing Burtnsky's shots is something that makes me want to go out shooting ASAP.

>>3011441

You'll get over that eventually.

>>3011486
kill yourself pomo moron

>>3011491

What's a Pomo? :)

>>3011495
post-modernist photography, AKA "let's reject everything before just to be edgy, regardless of how sound its reasoning, and pretend our thoughtless snapshits have some sort of artistic merit"

>>3010713
You have not been around a whole lot then.

>>3010742
AH! The wetting wall where all drunks go to pray.

>>3011486
No I won't.

I will look at the shot and like the subject but still be annoyed at how bad the execution was.

>>3011684

give it some time.

>>3011693
stop shitposting and/or baiting poor folk, thanks

>>3011504

Baited

>>3010646
Interesting. I also think the shot would work more centered, and isn't that some spider web to the right of the flowers?

OP here - while you guys are arguing, can you at least post pics of what you believe to be good composition? I'm trying to learn and you guys telling each other to kill yourselves isn't helping.
thx

>>3011867
Just look at any photobook, or look at any art, composition is king, all other aspects of a photo could be meaningless and the comp alone can still make it great.

>>3011882

That's a real nice strawman. Post one photo where the composition is good and everything else sucks, yet the photo is still praised.

File: 1443809289730.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3011882
>>3011974
Arguing what's more important between composition, light and subject is like saying "what's the most important part of a car, the engine, the tires or the brakes?" They all contribute to the final image and and image is only as strong as its weakest component. Meaning if you have good comp and good subject but crappy lighting the lighting will bring it down.

Composition doesn't need to be intensely complex or nuanced. There just needs to be balance and without too many distractions. Leading lines and such can help but aren't always necessary.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Epson
Camera Model	PerfectionV700
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:10:02 18:55:58
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3011980
I really like this photo, anon. Where is this?

File: 1425763244364.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3011980
It was taken in some forest in Japan, by an anon that wasn't me.

>>3012007
>>3011980

>shallow, easily forgettable images that say nothing and mean even less

I thought composition made for good photos.

>>3011974
Go look at a mondrian painting. Newbie.

>>3012015

Painting =/= photography.

>>3012013
Keklord.

Best response ever.

>>3012007

Who took this photo by chance?

>>3012027
you're fucking retarded

composition works for any 2d image which is a square

I don't know if you're that same retarded fag who's been baiting in this thread from the post, but you need to leave this board

>>3012433

Don't you mean rectangle?

>>3012433
>you need to leave this board

My fucking sides just slipped through the spaces between quarks and leptons, burst through multiple layers of reality and exploded onto God's face like tears from a transdimensional hyper-being caught in the deep sleep of laughter-coma.

>>3010661
I like it.

>>3010713
this is incredible what the fuck are you guys on about

>>3010724
Research "Rule of Thirds"

>>3015763

lmao, what is there to research?

It's literally "divide your image into thirds vertically and horizontally. put stuff on the intersection of thirds", and even then it's really just "don't put stuff in the center of your photo".

File: 31032016-_DSC8845.jpg (169KB, 739x489px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 739x489px

what about this one ?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D5100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	750
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	400 dpi
Vertical Resolution	400 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:07 20:43:48
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	500
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3010646
This is my favourite green.

Also, I agree about the blue speck diverting my eye.

File: 25551572073_cca50f5cb0_b.jpg (263KB, 1024x708px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1024x708px

only use the rule of thirds as a rule of thumb, putting stuff in the centre can be interesting

>>3010734
dat symmetry

>>3017658
While I agree, this photo isn't really all that interesting. It looks somewhat pleasant but I don't think it's a good photo to make the point you're trying to make.

>>3011023
this one is so good

>>3011057
lol i think she was talking about your dad, kiddo

>>3012422
He used a trip 0x0 and posted here years ago, I don't think he's been on in many months or at least hasn't posted anything. He does have a flickr though, it's still up but nothing new posted in a while.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_desu/

>>3012013
>I thought composition made for good photos
It's part of what makes a good photo. Or are you really going to tell me that one of the most important things in a visual medium is not composition?

>>3018632
>Or are you really going to tell me that one of the most important things in a visual medium is not composition?

Composition is not one of the most important things in photography.

>>3018637
What in your opinion *is* the most important thing then?

>>3018656
Bokeh

>>3018656

The ethical statement. What your photo means, what it says, what its existence says.

>>3018671
Maybe you're right that it's not the most important thing, if you're going for something different. Maybe that's the point you're trying to make.

It's sort of like in the modern male dating advice scene, most people will tell you that confidence is the most important thing. Others would argue that you need to be ripped, have a stable job and a nice car, or be tall and white etc. Nobody can really agree on what's the most important thing, and that's fine.

But I don't think it's an issue of "beginners focus on composition because it's all they have/they don't know how to take photos that 'say something'", at least not most of the time. In my experience I've met people who don't care about composition at all and only care about the subject. And I learned to accept that, even sort of embrace it. I love meeting photographers who shoot differently from me because it lets me get a look at how two people with a camera can create totally different things.

I overwhelmingly disagree that every photo needs to focus more on ethics and message. But that's because I'm personally a sucker for things like great light and composition and it's mostly what I strive for. As you said above, I'm one of those people who strives for better technique, better light, better compositions etc. over the "message". Because that's how I personally enjoy it and how it satisfies me - photography has always been a recreational passion for me and a personal thing before it was ever about ethics or having a voice. But if that's not your thing, it's perfectly acceptable...I just wouldn't agree that *everyone* needs to look at photography the way you do, either.

>>3018704
>>3018671
>>3018656
>>3018637

NICE PHOTOS, FAGGOTS.

>>3018706

I already posted the photos that backed up my point like two fucking weeks ago. I also have several of my own photos posted all over this board.

Frankly, I'm surprised this thread is still alive, but if it means I get to school more scrubs, so be it.

>>3018704

I'm going to be 100% honest. I stopped reading as soon as I got to "modern male dating advice scene." You may have made some really good points, but if that simile is your point of reference, I kind of doubt it.

I'm going to give it the ol' college try again in a couple hours and we'll see if I can drum up a decent response.

>>3018706
Thanks you too

>>3018712
Forget it, we'll agree to disagree. I wouldn't have responded if I knew you were this full of yourself.

>>3010569
>>3010601
>>3010684
>>3010704

It's funny how the guys who run their mouthes off and think they are "schooling" people have absolutely nothing of their own to back up their arguments with.

Focus less on composition and more on meaning!...he said, as he proceeded to post a photograph someone else took.

I'm willing to bet my life you are just projecting your own insecurities onto the thread. Until you post an image you yourself took which backs up all your tall assertions, I cannot take you seriously. Its not uncommon for people to be all talk and zero substance. But by all means keep posturing man, it's funny as all get out.

>>3019372

Low quality bait my man.

Also, anyone who says, in earnest, "as all get out" is probably a cousin fucker.

>>3019399
>bait

Nah man your arguments are shit. If everyone fell for your meme about "message" in their photography it would be literally no better than everyone rule of thirdsing everything. Not every photo benefits from the same "formula", period. That's like arguing everyone who does music should only play certain styles or genres.

Someone shooting architecture for a client is there to represent the building with the best angle and lighting possible and anything less than that is inexcusable, given its a static subject and you have all the tools necessary as well as the time to get it right.

Many noobs don't think about composition that much because a lot of them who get into photography don't come from artistic/designer backgrounds where it's second nature. They often make critical errors that are easy to fix, so they are told to do better and sometimes it leads to them starting threads like this.

>inb4 you ignore everything I say and try to deflect with some ad hom about a couple words I typed.

File: IMG_1047-2.jpg (715KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 1000x667px

Is this any good composition-wise? I took this last year and for some reason it still comes to mind as one of my favorite candids.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	70 dpi
Vertical Resolution	70 dpi
Image Created	2017:02:10 20:21:13
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3019774
>>3019774
As a candid shot it's good, I like the expression and that you got his face at all. I would've liked more light on his face and less distracting shit/more separation between him and the background. Unfortunately I don't think the composition is good here, but it's nothing to beat yourself up over.

>>3012007
this is so reddit I can't even handle it

>>3012476
>>3012433
btfo

File: fuckup.jpg (381KB, 1280x1261px) Image search: [Google]

381KB, 1280x1261px

>>3010569
I'm starting to understand that my greatest failure in composition is superimposing geometric shapes or lines of structure in my head. picture related

>>3019768

>inb4 you ignore everything I say

well, you got me there.

>>3020812
good picture

File: 0.jpg (333KB, 800x531px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 800x531px

Is this good composition?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3024054
I would say yes. Pleasant to look at, but boring picture. My eyes never wander off the edges, there are things there to push me back in.

File: 1340298171568.jpg (256KB, 1280x840px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1280x840px

Josef Koudelka again on composition. He's good.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2012:02:19 17:24:32
Comment	originally uploaded @ http://melisaki.tumblr.com

File: praguekoudelka.jpg (230KB, 1108x716px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1108x716px

>>3010875
If case you aren't aware there is also a historical significance to this photo. It was taken shortly before the beginning of the Warsaw Pact Invasion (or Operation Danube) in 1968. In the following days Koudelka ran around Prague taking some outstanding documentary photographs on bulk roll black and white movie film. When he would run out of shots he would have to run back to his apartment, unload the film, and cut and load more movie film into his camera before heading back out on to the streets.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2324
Image Height	1502
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2013:10:22 12:49:53
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1108
Image Height	716