Talking about composition, is this example, what you would say about it?
I know probably there is no real subject, except the shadow or the overall lines.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Camera Model Nexus S Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:03 00:10:02 Exposure Time 1/227 sec F-Number f/2.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 50 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 7 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.43 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 959
A nice composition more often than not isn't the determining factor if a photo is successful. This is obviously a close-up of an uninteresting concrete column. There is no mystery as to what I'm looking at. I know exactly what it is and I'm not interested in it because I would never be interested in it so long asni knoe what I'm looking at. Sure the comp is pleasing, but that isnt enough to make me want to look at the photo for longer than a few seconds
Knowing how to compose a photo is very similar to knowing how to write a sentence. The most well written sentence in the world is absolutely a failure, unless it has something to say. Composition without content is useless.
there are at least three diagonals you could have used to create travel across the whole frame but you just basically wasted most of the frame by not exploring what you could have done with the entire left side of the photo
Composition-wise, this is annoying to me:
1) Most lines merge in center of the image. But- is it really the center? It seems like it might not be. If you place something into the very center of the frame, make sure that it is indeed obviously in the center, or that it is sufficiently far away from it.
2) Most lines are vertical or horizontal (even the one that goes front-to-back counts since it appears horizontal), but those shadows on the left are annoyingly not-quite-horizontal. Not very pleasant!
3) Lines seem to be moving one's eye to the center of the image. But there is nothing there!
It looks as if you're going for what is more or less a form study. Just shapes, and tones, and lines. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is VERY difficult to do with photography, because you get so much other detail. We are seeing textures, and shapes, and depth, that's taking away from what you're trying to do. If this image were a painting, with no texture, other than the gradations in the top left corner, it may be (slightly) more successful, but as it is, people look it it as a photo, which usually contains a subject and information. This photo has neither, so it leaves a disappointing feeling.
You could write a song, that, on paper, looks amazing. The notes on the scale could spell words, or form a shape as you look at the whole page. It could be very neat, and very clever. But when you play the song for your friends, they're listening for melody, and rhythm. You can say to them "yeah, but it looks pretty sweet on paper!" And they'll reply with "Yeah, but it's a song... so... it should be a song..."
If you want to do form studies, you'll have to try VERY hard to make sure that the scenes you pick are simple and dynamic enough to get out of their own way, which will be very complicated for you. Not to say that it can't be done, but just seeing some shadows on concrete isn't going to do it.
This guy is right. Composition is a lot like grammar. Grammar doesn't make a story, but without it, an otherwise good story will be ruined. A great subject, composed poorly, will result in a weak photo, where a poor subject, composed perfectly, is nothing.
This photo is like you saying "hey! i baked you a cake!" and then handing me a bowl of flour. And then when I say "What the fuck? This isn't a cake, it's missing everything else.", you say "Hey, I'm not worried about the other ingredients right now, I'm just trying to get the right amount of flour. How's it taste?"
Fuck composition. Beginners treat it like some mythical secret mathematical formula that will suddenly make all of your photos interesting, regardless of the subject, intent, tone, feeling, cohesiveness within a set, and all of other ingredients that make a photo good. Fuck. Composition. Forget you even heard the word. Get out there and shoot stuff that interests you, and the composition will eventually come.
you successfully ruffled my jimmies OP, 10/10, almost replied seriously
if youre actually serious OP here's your answer: its a god damn column. who gives a flying motherfuckin fuck.
then again its no worse than the people who just post pics of trees and leaves or fences and ask for critique genuinely.
nobody gives a damn fuck about trees or leaves or fence posts or in this case a motherfucking column.
well look here now I did post semi seriously. congratulations, 11/10. why the hell do i still come here
But what if composition interests you? What if searching for forms, patterns, shapes, and lines in a photograph and then challenging yourself to arrange them within your frame/aspect ratio of choice is what you find rewarding about photography?
I'm not saying OP's photo is fantastic and beyond criticism, what I'm saying is that no ot every last photo needs to be a subject on the rule of thirds with some leading lines and shit. Get real.
>What if searching for forms, patterns, shapes, and lines in a photograph and then challenging yourself to arrange them within your frame/aspect ratio of choice is what you find rewarding about photography?
Then you may be autistic.
not every photo needs to be good, different things have to be exercised in isolation before you get a good grasp of them
exercises in composition are extremely important and something that should have a constant presence in your practice
>If you want to do form studies, you'll have to try VERY hard to make sure that the scenes you pick are simple and dynamic enough to get out of their own way, which will be very complicated for you. Not to say that it can't be done, but just seeing some shadows on concrete isn't going to do it.
What's your point? I have to learn to nail two boards together before I can build a house, but I don't go to a house building convention and try to get praise on my two boards nailed together.
Yes, practice is important, but if you're going to present your practice for judgement, you're going to get judged. People aren't being cruel, they're being honest. It's a boring photo. It's about composition, and the composition isn't even very good. If you're looking for pats on the back, and training wheels, head over to Flickr.
op set the context of his photo in the first sentence, if you're out to judge every photo you look at you really shouldn't be spending your time in a thread where people want to learn, not display their prowess
I'm not OP, that was my first and only post in this thread. And I don't disagree with ALL of what's being said, just the idea that the photo always needs a "subject" like a person or object in the frame that's the primary focus, and that the subject simply cannot be the scene as a whole, or how it was composed.
That's when abstraction will help. I will never be interested in a photo of a column like this unless you expose/compose it in a way that hides the fact it's a boring, poorly crafted piece of concrete. If you're going to focus on composition abstract to the point where the subject is unclear. Otherwise it's just additional information that detracts from your pure compositional goal.
No he didn't, dude. Reread the OP. He opened the floor to discuss composition using the image as an example on why it works or doesn't work, leaving us to talk about why.
>Why this works/doesn't?
>Talking about composition, is this example, what you would say about it?
>What you would say about it?
With the limitations on
>I know probably there is no real subject, except the shadow or the overall lines.
Which indicate that we're not here to judge on the photo itself as a completed piece but the examples we're given in the piece.
Other people have given a good explanation not of OP's photo but OP's example and being mindful that composition isn't the end all be all of a photo that needs to be focused on to capture a good piece. It's a good base to be mindful about that builds as one learns and goes through critique.
Thanks for simplify. Thanks all what i meant.
I wanna read what people with more experience than me would say about it.
The photo is merely illustrative, not a completed piece.
I have such a pleasure to read some good explanations. I'm really thankful for that.
Again, that's quite different from saying "Fuck composition, focus on taking pictures of Interesting Things (subjective) and the composition will follow"
That's primarily what I was responding to. That all lines must lead somewhere, or that there needs to be a "subject" on the rule of thirds.
I'm all for people honing their composition skills by challenging themselves to abstract design studies, but its' clear that other posters in this thread don't care much for that at all.
>That's primarily what I was responding to. That all lines must lead somewhere, or that there needs to be a "subject" on the rule of thirds.
Well, you're responding to something that I never said.