cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

A nice summary of rules that help us create "good" compositions. I imagine it will prove didactically effective.

But I still have a nagging question. Many images that obviously follow the rules don't seem to work (IMHO anyway), and many that don't follow the rules seem to work (IMHO at least). And I don't think I'm the only one. So, after we've digested the rules, what distinguishes the ones that work from the ones that don't? That's what I wanna know.

Of course, sometimes it's the centered portrait of an attractive (or shocking) face vs a boring (IMHO) face. Or sometimes it's a fascinating landscape vs a run of the mill one. Or sometimes it's the wonderful color of the golden hour vs noonday light. Or sometimes it's fancy post processing. But sometimes I suspect it's something else, and that's what I wanna know.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

Thanks for sharing.

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

This has been very interesting. I posted the PDF because I realized there is a lot of opinions about composition. I'll try to fill in some of my observations (again I'm not an expert, just a practitioner)
Composition is simply how you place the elements of an image (all things in an image can be refered to as an elemnent) within the picture frame, the four sides that make up the image. The goal of the artist (photographer) is to keep the viewer interested in the work. If a viewer looks at your photo and moves on the the next, you didn't do a good job. If a viewer spends time looking at your photo because they find a lot of interesting things to look at than you did a good job, that's a simple analogy but I use it in my classes. (I know people will look at things they like longer, I once heard a critic say I like this one better because it's a picture of a dog. That wasn't a critique it was a personal preference.) The intent of composition is to make the arrangment of the elements interesting. To this end there is a concept called "eye movement" where the elements are placed in such a way that they subconciously manipulate the viewers eye around the page, keeping them interested longer. I know this may sound a bit odd, but the work of all the great painters has been analyzed at one time or another for their compositions and each one is a master work in this realm.
To bring this back to photography, the camera angle and placement will have an impact on the composition, you can't move that tree but you can certainly move the camera to compose a better shot. One other thing I tell my classes; You don't go looking for a type of composition, say thirds, you find a subject you want to photograph and use a composition that will enhance the subject. Composition should be based on the situation and the subject not the orther way around.
One last thing, Being a photographer (one who takes photographs), much like making art, is a personal thing, everyone has their own reasons. Some people don't think much about the composition, they take photos (make art) of what they like and get praise and positive feedback from friends and family. To me this is great. And some people have a different reason to take photographs, to make money, to make a statment; these are also personal reasons. They are all good
HAPPY SHOOTING!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Are you referring to the "still life" category?

I think the term still photography without a qualifier, is a bit confusing because the general use of the term means "photographs with traditional cameras captured into light"

or

"that in which a single frame (or sometimes a composite of frames) comprises the finished work, rather than a video which is a sequence of frames played back to show motion."

However google also brings up:
"still photography is a genre of photography used for the depiction of inanimate subject matter, typically a small group of objects. It is the application of photography to the still life artistic style. An example is food photography product photography portrait."