I think Mike's words were a great summation and render much more talk on the singular subject of composition somewhat moot.

This image is composed according to the "golden ratio" overlay in Elements 11. The vertical line which forms the "golden ratio," as explained above, bisects the blue and white Chinese porcelain pitcher in focus. I cannot do this in my mind's eyes as I shoot a photo so I shoot a bit wide and use the "golden ratio" overlay to crop to a "golden ratio."

D600, 135 f2 DC shot at f2.8, -0.3 exposure compensation, bounce flash.

I posted a similar image on PAD which does not follow the "golden ratio" or the "rule of thirds." I just composed it and cropped it according to what looked best to my eye. [I guess that would be the "rule of eye?"] You may want to compare the two images and consider yourself just how "golden" this supposedly common in nature ratio is. Maybe it exists a lot but that doesn't necessarily prove it is beautiful to look at.

Look at this image: It does not follow the rule of thirds or the golden ratio. In fact, there probably isn't any rule of composition in it. Just the random pattern made by stalks of grass. Does that make it a "mess" or it is of interest in a modern art sort of way?

Now here is the same image with the Lightroom ripple filter placed over it. Does that make it more "modern art" or does it just make it worse?

I realize modern art is a matter of taste and most photographers aren't keen on it because we like more accurate and realistic images.

Yes, great point. Also HDTV aspect ratio and wide screen monitor aspect ratio.

What a great point, Mike. I suspect most of us on NRF do not have format restrictions. We can just make the frame any ratio we want. But, many of the shots I do today are intended to be made into small prints and given to the subjects. Thus 4"x6" or full 35mm frame dimensions. However, i will often crop instantly to 4 X 5 as this was what I shot a lot of and printed for clients in the old days. And, when one has a 4" x 5" view camera, this is what we shot when we wee after product shots. For others we did 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 with a crop of 4:5 in the viewfinder. Magazines also demanded tall photos, one column by ?inches.

Thus an important aspect of how we crop needs to be "What is it for and what does the client want."

Thanks for bringing this point up.

Hi all,

There are quite a few good points.

What I would like to add, perhaps from a historical perspective, is that some photographs had a specific dimension in width and height, color or b&w, and specific density in saturation, regardless of topic or subject matter. Newspapers used to be columns (measured in picas) by inches (in the US), magazines varied in their size by how their columns and how they displayed the art.

There were a lot of formats in cameras that sort of influenced the delivery, from 11x14 inch negatives to half-frame 35mm. I've worked with 5x7 inch film, something I don't miss, but my day-to-day work was with 220 (in both 6x7 and 6x6 formats) and 35mm film.

I lived in that world, and that world is full of function, that is how photography works instead of how pretty the picture looks, and I would urge everyone to make sure they understand the function more than the form; it's far more complex and will aid them in their technical mastery.

Elements of that technical world still exist. A simple example is a Facebook Cover art has a specific protocol such as:

which was shot to dimension for a cover differing from

which is a crop, both have been resized to meet NR requirements.

Color (or b&w) depth is significantly important for delivery, too, just as it was in printing. Type bleeding was something done then as now, but easier with current tools, but composition is important journeyman work in that area. Knowing what Pantone (and others) color libraries are and how to use them for that color delivery, especially for a small producer, could make a difference in getting a nice job.

Even today, cameras have fixed sensors, although some makers allow the user to select a ratio for his product - I suspect that will only become more profound.

However, printing services have only provided the same dimensions as they have for years.

Of course, we do have scissors.

My best,

Mike

Thanks benji, I have added that book to my reading list.

Thanks Rx4Photo, I have added that book for review of varies compositions.

msmoto, I like you idea of going to the museum and trying various recompositions using your card technique. Will need to give that a try.

Donald, are you trying to tell me to get a higher megapixel camera. :-) Don't temp me.

David: You are starting in the right place: asking questions as you view your own photos. Too many people buy an expensive camera, place the subject in the center of the frame and pat themselves on the back for making an image which is properly exposed and in focus. Yes, it is an image but that image isn't art. To move from producing images to producing art you have to ask the questions you are asking.

Now a brief word for all of us; and a commercial for the modern high megapixel (anything over 12mp) cameras. While it is easy to look at an image of moving objects and criticize it for weaknesses (like my basketball players) you don't know when something will happen or have time to "set up" for it when it does. I cannot shoot the whole basketball game at 10fps hoping to find the right image in that huge stack of images (or maybe you can if it is a short event and you can "rip off bursts" but then you have so many shots to process before the paper's deadline shortly after the game). With moving animals and people you do have to anticipate and shoot in bursts. I was shooting single shots at the time the one player happened to yell at the other. I was tying to anticipate the action which would occur, trying to get a shot of the player taking a shot and then this event happened before the player was in position to shoot. The point is that with moving animals and people you have to shoot what happens when it happens as best you can. Some composition can take place after you have the shot, especially if you have a high megapixel body which lets you crop out about half of the original image. Hence my praise for modern high megapixel cameras and my suggestion to someone like David to "shoot a bit wide" at first (leave some space around your image when you first shoot it) so you can try various compositions as you crop it during post processing. That is one way to learn. The more you know what you like the closer you can crop right to it as you shoot the original image. Just an idea.

Msmoto's art museum idea if very good. Attend docent lead tours, when possible. Remember these people typically painted a painting over a period of months: they planned out exactly what they were going to do before they did it: they planned the position of each object in the frame: they chose each color used. Ask yourself: Why did the artist make the choices he or she did? The painting wasn't done quickly as we do most of our photographs (unless you are composing in a studio or in a landscape).

David said:
.... but feel like I might have taken that shot to tight but don't know. If I had taken a wider shot where would I put the space??? At the bottom left corner giving the penguin somewhere to swim too???

I think you've got the right idea here David. For a photo like this I would probably make 3 "looks". The first one as you did, a close-up, to show the face although I would have shot it a bit wider so as not to cut off the penguin's flippers, number 2 would be a wide shot showing environment perhaps placing the penguin dead center, and finally the 3rd shot as you stated - placing the penguin in one of the intersecting rule-of-thirds corners and giving it visually somewhere to swim. That's what your eyes and brain want to confirm - where is it going?

Some time ago I read a short interview with a wildlife photographer who stated that many inexperienced photographers spend so much money to go on safari and come home with nothing but close-up images of animals or their faces. Well, you could go to the local zoo to get those shots. Instead they need to capture more habitat and environment surrounding those animals. Those tend to be the most dramatic images. That's why I tend to find zoo shots uninteresting if I see even the slightest hint of fencing or crowds in the background.

The book that Benji2005 mentions above is a good one. I have it although I haven't read it cover to cover the information is excellent. I tend to compose my photos the way my mind wants to see them - many of which reflect "rules" that I've never even studied. People learn things differently. Some have to read before doing whereas others may look at other works of art and formulate his or her own styles from those works. That said, I'd like to recommend taking a look at the book "Though the Lens - National Geographic Greatest Photographs". It's not a how-to or instructional book. It's a "treasure trove that showcases hundreds of unforgettable photographs from the world's finest photographers." ( I credit that phrase from the back cover) You could learn a lot about composition from this type of book by just seeing how the photographer framed these great works.

@ David: just to get a head start on the subject, I would start with "The photographer's eye" by Michael Freeman.

http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=sr_1_2?s=textbooks-trade-in&ie=UTF8&qid=1353849133&sr=1-2&keywords=the+photographer%27s+eye

@ David

My suggestion on composition.... go to an art museum....such as the Dallas Museum of Art, and simply walk around looking at the various paintings and photography on exhibit, studying the composition. See what you find pleasing. Then, in their bookstore, see if by chance they have a book on composition. Or, ask if possibly there are classes in the area which teach this.

While this thread has a lot of suggestions, it is only a very basic beginning for the photographer. Most artists study other artists' work and this is how they learn.

One interesting exercise is to take into a museum two pieces of card stock which are cut like a framing square. By overlapping the two pieces, one can create a movable frame and view works through this, altering the cropping of some of the world's great masterpieces. This will allow one to see what they prefer and also what does not work.

In the photo on PAD, by you David, of the seal or whatever, I would take about 20% off the top and right side. My idea is the out of focus tail end of the subject adds nothing. And, dropping the 20% as above brings the head more into the "rule of thirds" area which I find more pleasing. However, this is not my photo and thus what I want to show may not be what you wish to show. Only my preference, not necessarily right, wrong, good, bad, or whatever... In Donald's photo of the basketball players, I would have shot that at about 8-10 FPS and chosen a shot which showed the face of the player in white. But, this may not have been available to Donald.

Look at some of the portraits on PAD. Some have a very distinct tension and convey the artist's ideas about something we may be unaware of. Others are more peaceful and simply nice photos of people. Composition plays a large part of the message.

So, much of this composition stuff is about the message we want to convey. But, by observing at the museum, we find many examples of what folks have found pleasing enough to display and state these are good works.

While Donald and other have been very gracious posting different composition techniques would you'll have any recommendations on what to read to get the does and don't on composing a shot. I know little when it comes to composition and would like to get better at this. I have some books by Scott Kelby but the first 2 I have read haven't covered anything about rules of thirds or diagonal composition. While I have learned a lot from those books I find myself struggling on how to compose the shot either from the viewfinder or from the crop tool inside lightroom. Mihai CH posted a great pic in PAD of a tree with lots of space to the left. I really like the pic and think the space works but don't know why. I wouldn't of thought of adding that much space thinking I would be wasting space in the frame. I am obviously missing something here but don't know what. I also posted a pic in PAD of a penguin. I think it follows the diagonal rule that Donald talked about but feel like I might have taken that shot to tight but don't know. If I had taken a wider shot where would I put the space??? At the bottom left corner giving the penguin somewhere to swim too???

Here is link to penguin pic in PAD if you haven't seen it.

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=12644&page=24

Here is a photojournalism type photo I took last year when covering High School Basketball for a local newspaper. What is the story? One player in white swarmed by three opposing players in blue trying to prevent him from shooting a basket? Or number 32 yelling at the player in white? Or the determination of the player in white to get the ball to the basket in spite of the overwhelming opposition? How could it be improved? By seeing the face of the player in white? Wish I had a D4 and was shooting at 10 fps during these few seconds. I might have been able to capture both the yelling and the face of the player in white.

What is the primary composition? The player in white is centered which is not generally a very good composition: too bland. But when you are portraying one player swarmed by others the center is a good place to put your main subject. Is the main composition a diagonal composition following number 31's outstretched arm to the face of number 32? What do people see and think about this photo? What could be done to improve it?

D7000, 80-200 2.8 shot at 120mm and 2.8, 1/320sec, ISO-1600.

Backstory: the player in white is the consistent high scorer for his team so the opposing players were trying to shut him down by double and triple teaming him all night. He is a guard who scores often by charging the basket and getting off a near shot or layup-type shot.

Right, I said the "Golden Radio" was something I don't know how to use when composing through the viewfinder. It seems too complex to me with all those boxes and rectangles. I can, and do, use many of the others on a regular basis. The best answer has been to think of the rule of thirds as a simplification of the golden ratio.

We could use some discussion and examples of "negative space." Can anyone provide them. We need images to study so we can visually see what people are saying.

I don't so much think of a photo telling a story, unless it is a photojournalism style photo. I think more of a photo being a work of art pleasing to look at. I don't ask "what story does it tell?" Rather I ask: "why is it pleasing, or not, to my eye and what feeling does it evoke in me?" That is one reason why I like the warm color tones. They evoke warm feelings in me.

This is a very good discussion. I am not sure that Donald actually stated that the golden mean is the only compositional rule. Like Benji, I feel there are many components to composition and how the elements of the image are arranged within it. There is also the notion of negative space, separation of elements, leading lines, lines, textures,forms, color and shape that are involved. Knowing these, plus light (type, direction, quality) and other technical aspects are important in producing images with impact. Of course, not all elements of composition will be present in every image. I always go back to the notion of what story is it that you as a photographer want to tell, and with what impact. That then, in my mind, suggests how one uses light, composition, background, processing etc. to tell that story.

Contrasts and hard direct light in BW is a different animal/story. BW images need the light contrasts.

I personally think that hard direct light decreases the color quality in depth and tonality (prior to PP at least)

In terms of focus I would think that it is generally acknowledged that the subject should be in focus unless one is trying to achieve a certain artistic effect. Question here is what the subject is, just 2-3 leaves or the whole bunch.

safyre: I think that works quite well.

It is good to see different takes on the same image.

My thoughts.

1. There's nothing wrong with the hard light. With hard light, you get a much wider range of tonality, which can be a very good thing depending on how you post process.
The problem is that the background is also very contrasty in both color and tonality. When you put the two together, it ends up becoming too much; your eyes look at the leaves and then dart all over the place. The image would be much stronger with a plainer, more neutral background to balance out the contrast of the leaves. (Once again, I'm applying this specifically to hard light).

2. This is more of a personal opinion, but I've never been a big fan of the red/green combination despite them being complementary colors. It's already challenging to color grade green, and throwing in the contrast of red makes it even more so. I'd rather prefer a green/white or red/brown combination.

3. Could it be sharper/focused differently? Yes, but it isn't that big of a deal in my opinion. You already have separation of subject and background through depth of field so people can clearly tell the subject is the leaves. Having a cleaner background would do much more for the picture than having it sharper.

Anyways, here's my take on the edit. I chose to turn it to black and white since it really brings out the highlight/shadow contrast from the hard light, thereby drawing your eyes more to the leaves. And of course you don't have to worry about the variation of color either.

Donald, yup, one can only learn. Many photo-sites have critique sections, if Peter wants to expand the forum that might be a nice addition.

Msmoto started the discussion about composition, then everybody talked about the golden section. I just wanted to argue that

1. there are more elements to a good picture (4 in my opinion) and comp is only one of them. I always use these 4 elements when I look at pics.
2. I also wanted argue that composition is not limited to the golden section there are many many more aspects.

benji2505: good thoughts.

1. I agree the harsh lighting (black shadow and shadows have "ruined" the subject; as has the fact that some parts of the subject are out of focus. It would have been better to shoot on a bright overcast day or used an umbrella to diffuse the sun in order to reduce highlights or used a reflector or fill flash to fill shadows or used all of them.

2. I limited myself this morning to "wide open" shooting in natural light as I found it. That was the challenge. Thus, I could not make adjustments to satisfy the weaknesses listed in No. 1 above. [But I really couldn't see these issues on my LCD screen at the time anyway.]

3. I keep looking back and forth between the two backgrounds: one with some black areas and one without. On second thought I just might prefer the increased drama created by the black areas also. Still, the leaves should be all in sharp focus no matter which background is used.

The point of this thread is to evoke critique and discussion of an image so we see how different people have different thoughts about it and learn from each other that way; not the "you are so great" back slapping so often found on PAD. If I posted perfect shots, there would be no discussion would there?

I don' t know whether I am going too far here, but let me give my thoughts about the most recent pic:

A good picture has 4 important aspects: subject, background, light, and composition (with varying importance depending on genre):

1. Subject: is the foliage on a branch. Color is homogenous red, contrast is flat, a portion is out of focus (maybe intentionally, what did you try to show?) IMHO topic 3. has ruined the subject.
2. Background: usually gives information about the setting, maybe the subject. In this shot it is more of artistic importance. I liked the background that carried some contrasts, but that is personal taste.
3. Light: hard light, hard shadows, reflections on the foliage, therefore colors do not come out. Structures of the leaf are washed out in the reflections. Dark shadows cover a good portion of the subject. A good pic in direct intense light is very difficult and works only in special situations IMHO. I think that foliage comes out better back-lit.
4. Composition: subject is close enough to the golden section-vertical line on the left. An interesting shape of the branch itself would have resulted in an interesting line that guides to the leaf. But there is nothing wrong with the composition.

'Hope you don't take this as too harsh.

How about this take on the image we have been working on? I cloned bokeh to cover those black areas.

What else should be done to improve the image in your opinion? I would like to see the subject leaves all crisp and sharp but I was working with f1.4 and didn't have sufficient DOF for that. Perhaps re-shoot at f2.8 and f4? But that might reduce the smooth creamy bokeh I was seeking for the background.

The overall intent of composition is too lead the eye of the viewer into or through the picture in order to make it more interesting. Composition has many more aspects than just the golden ratio/cut. A placement of a subject in the golden section gives a picture an optical balance and harmony. The diagonals that Donald addressed is another compositional elements (out of many).

I would not agree with Donald that there are no pics on PAD that follow the golden section rule, I see many.

Michael Freeman published a good collection of books in which he explains some of the compositional ideas. The read is a little intense, but good.

Yes, there is a great deal of personal taste in composition. Personally, I don't like the "point source highlight circle" type of bokeh. I like a "smooth creamy blending of warm attractive colors" type of bokeh. I think this background bokeh is a great improvement over the image I posted today in PAD.

How about this crop? What do people think of this? What would you do different to improve it to your eyes?

Yes, the background was to me a bit distracting... My example could use a more vivid color in the leaves of course. IMO bokeh comes form point sources of light and set up a pattern of small circles or other shape. The background in yours did not seem to lend itself to this as well as point sources do. But, this is just personal preference as you say. Neither is right or wrong, better or worse.