E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Some folks like to discuss the details, "rules" and philosophies about composition- some do not! Some feel it is of the utmost importance and othere could not give a rat's tail and there is everything in between. Some can compose effectively as per their innate talent and others may want to need to learn particular compositional skills. A few like to argue about it because they have nothing better to do. Takes all kinds.

My feeling is simple. "Rules" are not a dirty word. In art, there are no laws so you can take 'em or leave'em. For me, the is a language or nomenclature that can be used for discussion, teaching, learning reference, or analysis of any image.

So much of this forum is a giant PARADOX or OXYMORON. We oftentimes WRITE about images, ask questions, and provide answers about IMAGES, and do not post the image in question. Yet, we can communicate somewhat effectively because we use the terminology, and nomenclature about lighting, optics, cameras, and settings that most of us understand and relate to. Even if we post an image for advice, analysis, or teaching, we use our photographic language.

For all the naysayers- what is the big deal if we use a few terms and basic principles, show a diagram, or refer to a particular school of thought pertaining to composition?

Y'all count pixels, consider optical issues such as recognizing and correcting aberrations, and use lightig diagrams. What's wrong with illustrating how compositional principles come into play and affect our images?

If you have ever taught a series of classes or photographic seminars you will relate to this. You may have a dozen or more students. Some of them will easily absorb every technical or artistic concept or principle in discussion and be able to apply, modify, and interpret as per their own talent. Others will ask for a less philosophical and more mechanical methodology. They will say "'OK that's nice but where do I put this and how do I place that"-whatever! The teacher can no teeth they have no talent- perha the don't or likey the do but not everyone thinks. learns, and processes and applies information the same way.

Some eons ago, I had the privilege of attending classes given by Gerhardt Bakker. He was an iconic teacher of composition. I did not learn to shoot or compose things in any specific way but I tend to see things differently.

An analogy- You can memorize every lighting diagram, theory, and principle in the word but if you can not SEE light, you are working at a disadvantage.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

The only time that rules matter is if you are in a camera club. Otherwise just shoot what you like, and how you like it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

New rules are made when you break the old ones.

User ID

"Office politics" brought me to be judging at a camera club (aka the "Regional Photographic Society") monthly competition.

The contest pix fully rivaled those in the UHH Gallery section. There was a whole page of rules for judging. There was stale donuts and really bad coffee. Need I go on ?

Bottom line is that Im pleased or even proud to report that Ive never been invited back.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yeah, winners in those contests always tell you more about the judges than you want to know. Especially if you're one of the judges. I judged a portrait contest at our sales meeting one year. The other two guys were a technical service rep and a marketing exec from Kodak. They were NOT photographers. It was... interesting.

I was a radio DJ in my early 20's. I got invited to judge a middle school talent contest. The other judges were an old racist, bigoted redneck, and a church lady who reminded me of the Church Lady character from Saturday Night Live. It was a miserable rainy night in January... in rural "upstate" South Carolina. The bigot only liked the pretty girls who couldn't sing but had nice legs. Church lady didn't like anyone, but voted for a mime. I liked the rock band trio that played a raucous rendition of Louie, Louie, at ear-splitting volume on out-of-tune instruments. But only for its comedic effect... on the church lady. We finally settled on the mime, just to get out of there...

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I don’t “crop” in camera, I “frame” the shot. Depending on the camera that means either 3:2 or 4:3, neither of which is an aspect ratio usually end up with. The subject dictates the crop, not the camera.

Chuck B

👍🤜🤛 Agreed I do the same.

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

COMPOSITION? What's that?

My style...OOOH NICE! CLICK!

Mwilliamsphotography Loc: Royal Oak Michigan & Palm Harbor Florida

"Intuition"

We are all exposed to "composition" every day in almost everything we see. It is a natural reaction to natural order that we find "beautiful" or "pleasing".

I was a designer and fine art painter well before becoming a photographer.

Personally, I photographically compose to fit or enhance a narrative or story the image will convey. Cropping later allows refinement of those basic intuitions.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Oh darn, I have been doing it backwards for years; thinking about the composition while framing the shot. Well now I know that I have been doing it backwards.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Interesting comment. It's debatable whether beauty exists in an absolute sense (i.e. independently and outside of our assessments of it), but what is more clearly true is that our "natural reactions" to what we see determine whether we assess something as being beautiful (or not). I believe that is the real meaning of the expression "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

Trying to see beauty as an intellectual concept is limiting and potentially misleading, whereas evaluating it on the level of personal reaction puts it on a level that doesn't need any further justification. If I find something beautiful, nobody has the right to tell me that I'm wrong.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

When cultures clash, as they often do in the USA, everyone else has the right to think you are wrong, but it's quite rude (and potentially dangerous) for them to say it. Beauty standards truly are relative to one's own experience. The norms are shifting constantly.

"Trying to see beauty as an intellectual concept is…" one of those college "Art 403 — Philosophy of Art" class topics that cause students to roll their eyes, nod, wink, and debate the professor in a game of, "Yes I know this is on the final as an essay question...".

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

It’s an immediate visceral and heartfelt thing. My head, heart and soul immediately tells me how to compose the scene. It’s very seldom that I ponder it.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It's a bit like driving, to me. I don't think about it, so much as I do it.

Musicians often remark that if they start thinking about their technique during a performance, they will make ridiculous mistakes. They're operating from muscle memories and feeling their ways through the music with the others on the stage. Technique becomes an autonomic response.

It's the same with athletes like Steph Curry. He gets into his "in the zone" state of mind where he just sinks three-pointers all night.

It takes practice, practice, practice, to get to that point with photography — the point where your hands and your camera are just tools you guide with your thoughts about the entirety of the subject and the moment you're capturing. You have to get into this feedback loop of practice, evaluate, refine, practice, evaluate, refine…

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Of course the big enemy is inertia, which points to both physical and mental laziness. If we get physically lazy we won't go exploring different viewpoints and perspectives, and if we get mentally lazy we won't try to envisage different possibilities, some of which may not be obvious. But if experimenting and envisaging become part of our workflow, force of habit gives us the momentum to overcome inertia.