
Photography Composition - angor
https://antongorlin.com/blog/photography-composition-definitive-guide/
======
snowwrestler
This is very interesting as a piece of analysis, but I would caution folks
against believing that this kind of complicated process is necessary to make
striking photos.

Photography is an artistic endeavor, and art is strongest when it includes an
intuitive aspect. That's how a photo becomes _your_ photo, not just a nice-
looking photo. And while reading art criticism can help develop intuition,
it's even more important to just perceive a lot of art. Photo exhibitions,
books, online galleries, etc that you view will all go into your brain and get
mixed around. Then you start taking pictures and reviewing your own work, to
see what worked and what didn't--for you, the artist.

To be a strong photographer, there's no substitute for just looking at a lot
of photography and taking a lot of pictures. Articles like this can give you
mental tools to reason about what you're feeling, but the essence of art is
the feeling.

The one simple piece of advice for landscape photographers is that you're
taking a picture of light. Most of the example photos in this article were
taken in interesting light. A lot of them would be boring photos (despite
strong composition theory) if taken at noon on a clear day.

Edit to add: I incline toward landscape photography myself, and two books that
have really stuck with me are Examples by Ansel Adams and Mountain Light by
Galen Rowell. Hearing (well, reading) from the artist about their decisions in
making a striking image provides a more subjective perspective on photography
--a good counterpoint to what I'd call a more observational or analytical
approach like in the linked article.

~~~
florabuzzword
Well put. Everything you said and a little bit of elaboration on art...

One of the best parts of photography is the speed at which you can have a
conversation with your own visual system, refining it in the process.

Understanding art can be thought of as getting bored and finding something
new, which is no longer boring, and repeat. Eventually you find yourself bored
by _almost_ everything, but with an intense passion for succinct relatable
expression. This is often mistaken for pretension, and many do skip the
process altogether; most unfortunately, even people calling themselves artists
do so.

My point is all these composition rules _are_ great; it’s invaluable stuff.
But, you will get bored of them, and that is the beautiful part.

~~~
beat
I wouldn't say "get bored of them", so much as sublimate them so you no longer
think consciously about them. And you learn that it's not "following the rules
of composition will make great photos", so much as "most great photos follow
the rules of composition".

Composition is also about tension/resolution, much like music. You can
increase tension, but that doesn't mean you're actually breaking rules.

~~~
florabuzzword
Fair. I want to add that when I talk about “getting bored” of them, I
personally do this in a childish and _un_ refined way on a regular basis. So I
don’t want to sound like I necessarily mean progressing beyond them. A
childish rebel instinct can result in boredom all the same. Paired with
curiosity, it’s granted me with an accumulation of experiences in exploraing
the visual world. The rules are wonderful but breaking them is what gives me
resilience as an artist. It’s why I can fall from great heights, lose access
to a medium, and overcome jealousy. I can always recall my own fluidly
evolving set of rules. Don’t get me wrong; praise is really important, but the
confidence in child’s play has over time fostered a relationship with my eyes
that I only know to call love; certainly the closest thing to freedom I’ve
ever known. I wish I were exaggerating because I sound like an absolute dork.

At the end of the day, I am actually a rigid rule follower in my output. Most
of the rule-breaking takes place in my imagination. I find myself giggling to
myself on film sets regularly, for example. Or at bus stops for that matter.
This is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

------
KineticLensman
There is some really great guidance here and some lovely images.

However, some caveats:

Almost all of the pictures used as examples are landscapes where people are
not present or are mere compositional comments. In street or portrait
photography, technical composition rules may be subordinate to the
photographer's narrative. A better title for the article might be 'definitive
guide for landscape photographers'.

All of the pictures use ambient light (admittedly some of the light is
stunning, but it is all supplied by nature). Adding controlled light (e.g.
flash but also studio lighting) can give a lot of additional compositional
control. See [0] for examples.

There is no mention of considering how the picture will be used when
considering composition. In commercial photography, the composition may have
to fit a specific page aspect ratio, and include empty spaces where text or
other elements can be added. Not taking this into account can limit the
commercial use of the picture.

[Edit] Another way to get _interesting_ compositions is to use _different_
compositions than the other photographers. Simply crouching down to ground
level is a good way to do this. Putting on a much wider angle lens can also
help.

[0] [http://strobist.blogspot.com/](http://strobist.blogspot.com/)

~~~
zrav
Yes, the light in the shown pictures is natural, however the article fails to
mention that all of them have a fair amount of post-processing (apart from
cropping). A reader inexperienced in the matter is led to believe that if only
the composition is right the images will come out of the camera as striking as
shown, which isn't true. Good processing is one of the keys to creating
pictures with impact. Especially when shooting digital the images out of the
box tend to be flat and naturalistic as opposed to stylized or artistic.

------
salimmadjd
Learn to previsualize.

If I would teach people one thing about photography. Is learning
previsualization.

This is a very interesting and exhaustive guide. It's great for analyzing
photos that work and explaining why they do work.

I think photography (for beginners) should be about personal fulfillment,
capturing memories and telling stories.

Along with that (as others have pointed out) just learn about the rule of
thirds.

You can practice previsualization all the time and like anything else, it's
something you get better the more you do it. For example, my default street
photography lens is 28mm. I think shooting with long lenses is not intimate.
After many years, my eyes see in 28 and I know more or less what the frame
will be once I look through the camera. I've usually taken the photo in my
head before I even lift the camera. Sometimes the result is better than what I
imagine, sometimes is worse.

~~~
notyourday
There's one other thing that very few people learn or intuitively understand:
there's an enormous amount of light and visuals that we process due to our
peripheral vision. While we may _think_ the scene is 3:2 that we frame with a
camera, in reality our brain captures 120-180 degrees of information outside
the 3:2 frame which adjusts our perception of what would be in a photo vs.
what would actually end up in a photo.

Same goes with the light: if you want to know how the camera sees the scene,
squint -- it would compensate for extra peripheral light.

------
pasta
This is very nice. A lot of good information!

But for beginners I believe there are just two simple rules that help a lot to
create nice pictures:

* Rule Of Thirds (most camera's have an option to turn this on visually)

* Give people room to look. So when someone is looking to the right, place them in the left of the picture so they have "room" to look to the right.

~~~
colanderman
I would actually place one rule before those, and it's a purely technical one:

Understand and embrace exposure compensation. If your camera doesn't give you
rapid access to that control, get a new one. (Thankfully most cell phone
cameras do these days.)

90% of crappy Facebook pictures could be made passable if the subjects were
correctly exposed. Too often, bright or dark backgrounds are exposed as a dull
grey, leaving subjects washed out or in shadow.

If the scene is bright ("high key"), nudge that knob up so it _looks_ bright.
If the scene is dark ("low key"), nudge it down so it _looks_ dark. This can
completely change the dynamics of a photograph for the better, and will allow
you to more readily focus on the aesthetic aspects of photography such as
composition.

~~~
giobox
I used to embrace exposure compensation a lot more on older DSLRs, but the
exposure latitude of modern camera RAW output is now so great you can easily
fix an image exposure +/\- one stop with little or no real perceivable loss of
quality. Shoot RAW, worry about exposure nudges later. I'd say this is true
pretty much of anything with a micro 4/3s or larger sensor since about 2013.

Even supposedly unrecoverable washed out highlights are surprisingly
recoverable on newer cameras. For sure there are exceptions (bright snow
scenes for example), but it's rare I will touch the exposure comp dial today.

~~~
colanderman
Yes, if you're shooting RAW, you're past the point where the above advice is
applicable. But there's a lot of people who don't (beginners, casual
photographers who want something that looks better than Facebook selfies).

~~~
giobox
Perhaps, but to use the exposure comp dial effectively you need to know what
an exposure "stop" is, which is a pretty complex concept if you are just a
casual snapper, especially as it is inter-related to ISO/aperture/shutterspeed
with changes in any one affecting the other two. This is probably why very few
compact cameras even have a dedicated exposure comp dial, and virtually no
OEM/standard cellphone camera apps expose this setting. If we are talking
casual snappers nowadays we more often than not are referring to cellphone
photographers, as the continuing collapse of the compact camera market
illustrates.

Exposure metering is pretty great nowadays anyway (even on modern cellphones
like the Pixel/iPhone), I love how you can effectively spot meter on the
iPhone just by touching anywhere on the viewfinder.

~~~
colanderman
Why would you need to know anything about stops? Just turn the dial up or down
until the preview matches your experience. My phone's exposure dial doesn't
even have markings.

I agree that tap-for-spot-expose is nice, but insufficient if your subject
_should_ be bright or dark. E.g. taking a picture of a high- or low-key mural.

------
beat
"Wow, that's a really good photo! You must have a great camera!"

This article hits on a key thing - the main things controlling the
quality/interest of a photo are composition, subject, and exposure. The main
dimension "really good camera!" helps in these days is resolution, which has
approximately zero to do with photo quality.

edit: I have a print of a favorite photo of mine above my fireplace mantle. It
was shot with an old Motorola RAZR, at 320x240px. It's pixellated like crazy
in print. It's also full of high-contrast problems - a large blown-out splotch
off center from directly facing a light, and the mere shadow outlines of
numerous hands in he air in the foreground (it was shot at a Flaming Lips
concert). It's epic and beautiful. Why? Good composition, and interesting
subject matter (hands in the air, facing a shadowy barely-recognizable human
outline).

Great camera, indeed.

~~~
ygra
> The main dimension "really good camera!" helps in these days is resolution,
> which has approximately zero to do with photo quality

I've mainly found exposure to be much easier to manage with a good camera.

~~~
beat
Thinking about it, this also shows up in the divide between my two main
cameras - a Nikon DSLR, which offers me total control and an experience very
similar to the film environment I learned in, and an iPhone, which offers me
almost no control at all. I use and love both.

~~~
lloeki
I wish I could have a nice DSLR (but those things costs a pile of money!),
unfortunately I wonder if I could be arsed to lug it around that often...
Therefore I have an iPhone that is always on me and use the default app for
quick snaps[0], but lately if I want to take a nice shot I'll use a more
advanced app offering more manual control (as well as increased feedback
(namely ProCamera). Just being able to have some fine, locked control on focus
and tweak exposure compensation with a live mini histogram makes a world of
difference†, even before you prioritise shutter vs ISO.

† Tip: (thank you non-discoverable UI) The default iPhone app can lock AE/AF
by loooooong-touching until it locks, and you can adjust exposure compensation
by sliding up and down, but the former is a AF _lock_ (not a manual set) and
the second one is both highly imprecise and takes ages to go through large
ranges when AE screws up. ProCamera's UI is both much more intuitive,
responsive, and full-featured.

[0]:
[https://twitter.com/lloeki/status/897158101706702853](https://twitter.com/lloeki/status/897158101706702853)

------
mxstbr
If you enjoyed this then I highly recommend reading "Learning to see
creatively" by Bryan Peterson.

The book basically consists of him walking you through how he made some of his
great photographs. What the location looked like, which angles he considered
and why some worked better (compositionally) than others. It was really eye
opening and completely changed the way I walk around and take photos! (from
random snapshots to well considered compositions)

Highly, highly recommended.

~~~
spython
Another classic on the topic is "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim.

------
mpax
I feel like it doesn’t touch upon one of the most important aspects of
composition: tangents.

[https://curiousoldlibrary.blogspot.com/2011/10/schweizer-
gui...](https://curiousoldlibrary.blogspot.com/2011/10/schweizer-guide-to-
spotting-tangents.html?m=1)

------
LandR
I love photography, but I just don't think I'll ever be good at it.

I think I just don't have an 'eye' for what makes a good photograph.

I have taken some photographs I love, but they aren't technically good and are
only good to me (because of the memories with the photo or who is in the
photo).

It's annoying as I love it, and I love going out and practicing more. I've
read lots on composition etc and how to use my camera but I find it so hard to
actually picture the scene in my head and what will make a good photo.

Also, what are peoples throw away rates like? If I go out for a day with the
camera and take say 20 photos. I might save 1.

~~~
notyourday
> I have taken some photographs I love, but they aren't technically good and
> are only good to me (because of the memories with the photo or who is in the
> photo).

This is a dilemma of lots of people who shoot professionally - they have
photos that they want to keep because of the subjects/moments/memories which
are objectively not as good as the photos that _could_ take with the same
subjects/moments/memories if they had approached them more as the professional
shoots -- they did not.

The solution to that is simple - two different collections. One for the
'Personal photos' and one for 'Excellent Photos'.

> It's annoying as I love it, and I love going out and practicing more. I've
> read lots on composition etc and how to use my camera but I find it so hard
> to actually picture the scene in my head and what will make a good photo

Never take one photo. In fact, never take two or three photos. Take dozens
photos even if you are just tapping a button on your phone camera app. Move
phone left. Move it right. Change angle. Move closer. Move out. But keep
pushing the button. After that pull the photos for the same scene into a strip
and do an edit. First cull obviously bad photos - out of focus, washed out
background if you did not want it, weird dude sucking on his thumb in a corner
etc -- you took a dozen photos of nearly the same scene so it is not like you
don't have a room to cut. After that do a tennis tournament. Compare two
photos side by side. Pick a dinner. Delete the loser. Walk this down to 1
photo for that scene and be amazed at how much better that photos is than the
one you thought you were going to get.

> Also, what are peoples throw away rates like? If I go out for a day with the
> camera and take say 20 photos. I might save 1.

If you have people in the photos, then keeping one in twenty for a day of
shooting is a very high and unnecessary precious keep rate ( please don't take
it the wrong way ).

~~~
buth_lika
> After that do a tennis tournament. Compare two photos side by side. Pick a
> dinner. Delete the loser. Walk this down to 1 photo for that scene and be
> amazed at how much better that photos is than the one you thought you were
> going to get.

It's also great for static things with too little light and no tripod. With
enough attempts, at least one of them will be a _lot_ less blurry than the
average.

In good light with static objects, I'll take a handful of shots even of the
same framing. Even though one "would be enough", and nobody would notice
anything wrong with it, if you take a bunch and compare them you can get
rewarded greatly. The focus will never sit in the exact spot.

------
BeetleB
Regarding filling the frame: Yes and no.

If you take it literally, then "No!"

Most photographers zoom out a little so they have room to crop. This is
especially handy in landscape photography, because of the need for full front
to back sharpness. Unless you have a fantastic lens/camera system, you cannot
go down to f/22 and expect a sharp photo. But if you widen the aperture your
depth of field is limited. So landscape photographers often zoom out and shoot
at f/14 or wider, and then crop to what they initially wanted to catch.

So yes, fill the frame, but only _after_ cropping.

Finally, I tend to agree with one book I read. When it comes to landscape
photography, just remember two rules:

1\. Convey depth (landscape photos are best when you have interesting elements
both near and far).

2\. Utilize balance

All the other rules you tend to see tend to either support one of these two.
If they don't, ignore them. There are several composition tricks to convey
depth. But if you just learn the rules individually, you'll end up with
compositions where you have multiple elements conveying depth (one is enough!)

~~~
CarVac
If you zoom out and crop, you still lose the same angular resolution to
diffraction as if you had just stopped down at the longer focal length. Object
space lens resolution is diffraction limited by the size of the entrance
pupil, in exact inverse proportion to the depth of field.

Plus when you zoom out and crop you waste sensor resolution and photon
gathering power...

Plus, even an expensive camera suffers at f/22\. The only thing you can do is
use tilt shift and an actual larger aperture.

~~~
BeetleB
>If you zoom out and crop, you still lose the same angular resolution to
diffraction as if you had just stopped down at the longer focal length. Object
space lens resolution is diffraction limited by the size of the entrance
pupil, in exact inverse proportion to the depth of field.

Interesting - any real world tests to demonstrate this? When it comes to DOF,
I'm not interested in logic or theory. I've seen too many flamewars that
involve only theory and no actual field tests.

>Plus when you zoom out and crop you waste sensor resolution and photon
gathering power...

I started digital photography on 2 MP. Then moved up to 8 MP. Then to 16 MP.
From my experience, the difference between 8 and 16 MP is fairly small. The
only benefit for me to go to higher resolution at this stage is the ability to
crop and still get high resolution. Without cropping, I don't benefit from
extra megapixels.

I'll concede the light per pixel point, though.

~~~
CarVac
I just tested 100mm at f/32 against 50mm at f/16, which have the same entrance
pupil size, and when cropped to the same part of the subject, the longer focal
length simply wipes the floor with the shorter focal length.

[https://i.imgur.com/GtljNmg.png](https://i.imgur.com/GtljNmg.png) top is
50mm, bottom is 100mm

Why? The antialiasing filter and demosaicing destroy detail at a fixed scale
relative to the captured image.

~~~
BeetleB
Wow - Thanks for actually making the effort.

A few quibbles:

1\. The goal is to maintain the DOF distance. For 100mm at f/32, if you go to
50mm, you need f/8.

2\. The assumption is that the lens is as sharp at 100mm as it is at 50mm (on
some lenses this is a terrible assumption).

I tried a similar experiment comparing 25mm with 50mm (f/5.6 vs f/22). You can
see the results at [https://imgur.com/a/ik6qe5K](https://imgur.com/a/ik6qe5K)

To me, they are almost identical - with 25mm seeming a tad bit sharper. In a
way, though, you're right - the difference is so small that I might as well
shoot at f/22.

~~~
CarVac
The goal is to maintain DOF and field of view; if you crop to the same field
of view, and the entrance pupils are the same size, then you have the same
DOF.

100mm at f/32 is the same as 50mm at f/8 only if you don't crop 50mm by 2x.

These are both excellent lenses, and at f/32 and f/16, optical quality
basically ceases to matter.

------
hueareyou
For a slightly different approach to this topic, I recommend reading two books
by Michael Freeman: The Photographer's Eye [1] and The Photographer's Mind [2]

Instead of prescribing a particular process of composition, the books focus on
clearly outlining the variables you control while taking a photograph. Once
you've internalised the boundaries of the space you're working in, it's up to
you to decide how to navigate through it.

Put another way, there may be definite rules for what makes something look
pleasing, but a good photograph is not necessarily the most visually pleasing
image. A great photographer has developed the intuition to know how to mix
pleasing and disturbing elements to create a profound effect.

[1] [https://bit.ly/2My3WW1](https://bit.ly/2My3WW1)

[2] [https://bit.ly/2vOxveK](https://bit.ly/2vOxveK)

------
mpax
I often see the rule of thirds suggested as a compositional tool. Yet I have
never encountered any convincing justification for it. Ditto for the golden
section. Anyone have strong opinions on this?

~~~
c3534l
The golden section is complete woo and in scientific studies, people tend not
to prefer compositions made with the golden section. As for the rule of
thirds, think of it as a way of thinking about your photo rather than an
actual rule. There's no reason why you can't think of the composition in your
photo in quarters, or any other arbitrary subdivision. 3x3 is just a small
enough number that you can approximately think about a picture that way.

------
CarVac
This mixes up front and back light.

Otherwise it's very comprehensive.

Generally I just go by feel when composing, but these guidelines do match my
photographic instincts.

------
beaconfield
This is an amazingly well thought out and written article. As a budding
(astro)photographer, I'm keen to read this over and over.

------
wty
never know photography can be this boring

