My advice on composition and many other aspects of photography is "Don't join camps and cults"! Some folks will say that "rules are in the toilet" and others are sticklers for the rules as if they were laws. The problem with these attitudes is that everyone does not SEE the same way, have the same standards or requirements, want the same results as others, or all shoot the same things.

The same disciplines can be applied to every kind of work. If you are shooting still-life setups in a studio you can spend endless hours moving things around, varying camera position, lighting perspective, whatever—a rapidly moving event- not so much. Cover the combat in a war zone- you may need to spray and pray and then run for your life. Sorry for the hyperbole but you all know what I mean.

Some photographers can pre-visualize the scene way before the image hits the sensor. Some others work backward from whatever they are shooting. Some can do both depending on what they are doing.

I find it helpful and stimulating to try differet approaches and not discard concepts or methods that I don't usually do. Sometimes I learn something new and sometimes I find that it woud have been better to pass on some ideas and any negative suspicions I had were confirmed.

If you always strive for effective composition, after a while, you will perfect your style and you will be better equipped to apply your skill in various and even difficult scenarios.

If you never deliberately address composition- that's fine too- I do not pontificate!

My experienced advice with electronic cords, especially those with molded terminals, is to discard the damaged cord or fix it with shrink tubing and use it only as a last-ditch spare. An external insulation breakdown can indicate strain or deformation of the insulating material that will eventually lead to intermittent failure or short circuits. There is no danger because the is no high voltage in that kind of cord but they usually fail at the most inopportune times- just wh you need them to work reliably.

Over the years I have accumulated a barre full of dead cords. They take a lot of beating and they don't make the like they used to. One day, I'll need to bring my collection to the hazardous waste dump. If I just toos them all in the trash, I'll likely upset the ecology in my entire neighborhood.

Some photograhers have a natural inborn talent for composition- that is the placement of subjects within the frame. Some folks have a natural inborn talent while others have to learn some basic element to develop a knack or talent. There are othere elements that have to do with composition such as the use of color, lighting, and tone, and the strategic use of leading lines.

There are "rules" and guidelines that are useful in teaching and learning the basic elements. There are the rule of thirds and the golden section but those are the tip of the iceberg. There are complex theses written with, intricate diagrams, grids, and diagrams on cameras' viewing screens. All of these resources are helpful but perhaps not practical in workg in the field. I have a book that not only has all those diagrams but breaks them into mathematical and geometric formulas. It is some interesting reading but not very useful when shooting wildlife. a sports event, a landscape in sub-freezing weather, or a riot. You can the the book with you but you can subconsciously apply some of the theory.

What you boil things down to the basic reason for the concept is to lead the viewers' eyes to the motif of your images.

Personally speaking, I do not confine my work to one format, aspect ratio, size, or shape unless it is for a commercial job with a particular layout. I find that some subjects work well in a square rectangular, panoramic, ir even round or oval final disposition and shoot accordingly. Some subjects do well in a tight composion and some benefit from negative space. I consider leading lines, foreground framing in traditional approaches, and oftentimes breaking a "rule" will make for a stronger image.

If you are satisfied with your result, composition-wise, a good experiment is to see if they conform to any of the classic rules. You might find out that you have a natural talent. If you are dissatisfied, study some of the classic concepts and see what improvement you can apply.

The great advantage of digital photoghay is that you do not have to go through tons of film and hours of darkroom work to experiment. You can not only bracket exposures but "bracket" compositions aswell- try various points of view, varying focal lengths, leaving more or less space around your subject, and consider various aspect ratios, and crops. Develop your individual style and approach.

I kid you not about that book. Here is one of the diagrams that illustrate the strongest point in a composiition- enough to drive one crazy.

There is no magical formula. Study some of the foundational material, apply it when you can, see if you like the results, break a few rules, and at the end of the day it waht looks good to YOU!

You took the words right out of my mouth/heart/brain. The user calls the Internet the "Information Highway"1 Goo
d name-it just like a real highway, expressway, turnpike, etc. The infrastructure folks designed and built the expressway to accommodate traffic and speed up transportation. Many drivers, however, abuse these roads, drive recklessly, carelessly, stunt drive, and accelerate at excessive speeds. DWI, tailgate, and worse. Some of the roads have become "killing fields"! Meanwhile, authorities have increased the legal speed limit on many of these highways.

The Internet is now more accessible, FASTER, and can be extremely useful. But like the automotive expressways, it is plagued with all kinds of irresponsible users, criminals fraudsters, folks who spread damaging and fals information, commit slander and libel, utterig threats, and the politics- that's in the toilet! There seems to be little or no government control or enforcement of basic rules and common sense usage.

It is a great resource for good information but folks have to beware, cherry-pick, and remain alert and discriminating.

All these redundant and boring arguments are becoming boring and stagnating. In many cases, they insult the intelligenseof of the readers. Really! Filters, Jpeg vs Raw, Mirrorless, SOOTC vs Editing, and some other OLD and tired stuff.

Modern digital cameras have many sophisticated features, the least of which is the ability to simultaneously shoot Jpegs and Raw Folks can easily do that and determine their preferences based on THEIR workflow, post-processing (or not) procedures, and the degree of correction that may be required on any given file.

Filters are not a lifetime investment. Folks will not be sent to the gattes of HELL if they don't go mirrorless. Frankly, I have seen poorly crafted images made with the best available gear and little masterpieces made with a D-300 or an old film camera.

There is nothing wrong with great reviews, sane conversations, opinions, and concepts but those seem to be dominant at the expense of how-tos, artistry, technique, and methodology.

The name-calling, squabbling, and personal attacks- Just plain Stupid! Unmittigated childishness!

Exactly, and besides- it can depend on the circumstances of the original shot. If you are shooting a landscape, an architectural subject, a still-life, or even a portrait made in a controlled studio-like situation, you can more easily perfect the final composition with the camera. There are many scenarios where you have little or no exact compositional control. Sometimes is necessary to hold the camer over your head with no access to the viewfinder- covering a riot, a crowded raucous or crowded event, or certain sports. Sometimes there is no time to change lenses or cameras and you need to grab whatever you can. Even in a control situation, a slight tilt or tweak can make all the difference.

In professional circles, art directors, clients, editors, and ad agents don't care if you dip the file in snake oil and have it blessed by a witch, as long as the tells the story, fits the layout, and is of good reproduction quality.

Photograhy was not born yesterday! Lots of folks pine for the olden days. If you ever were into shooting transparency films like Kodachrome or many of the Ektachrom vers or other E-6 films you are quite familiar with SOOTC. If you faltered in exposure or composition there was little you could do. Exposure bracketing was commonplace.

If you were a user of negative films, the idea was to produce the best possible negative to enable easily achievable high-quality prints. Contact prints or "proofs" were produced without major correction but FINE PRINTTIH usually involved some minor manipulation or tweaking in the enlarging and printing part of the process. Even the work of the most precise photograhers was usually no string out of the camera.

I apply the same philosophy to digital imaging. That is, make the cleanest and technically and artistically best possible file and perft or twek image as required in post-processing. I never want to "re-shoot" every image in the darkroom and I certainly do not want to do that on the computer. Sloppy shooingt and and radical editig are tedious, time-consuming, uneconomical, and usually will not yied the best quality. A bit of local "dodging and burning, adjustment in contrast, and saturation are not signs of poor camer work- these manipulations were always somehow part of the process.

Nowadays, the are so many folks who become preoccupied with certain technicalities- they are splitting hairs. Some worry about the fact that images are indeed processed in the camera. The count pixels. are paranoid about noise and all kinds of artifacts, optical aberrations, diffraction, and more. It is a wonder they have time and mental space to make creative images.

At the end of the day, my advice is don't join a photo-cult. The final product is what counts. A poorly crafted image is a poorly crafted image whether the fault is in the original file or bad post-processing. I might say that insisting on SOOTC is a macho thing but the ladies are also into it as well! My happy approach is to make the best possible file so that major alterations are not required. We used to say "Put it on the negative". Now we can say "Put it on the file"! And...if you mess up and fluff an important shot, it's good to know that post-processing may come to the rescue.

I never get into politics on this forum, however, I would put up with all the crank calls in the world to help a democratic country survive the rage of a despot invader. Besides, the big communication carriers are not the government. They are private mega-corporations and need to be taken to task for enabling scammers to use their systems for nefarious purposes. Probably, 1% of the revenues they take in from their customers would cover the expense.

Thanks for reporting this. The more folks know about theses scans the less successful the scammer will become.

There are horror stories about folks losing all kinds of money to scammers- all over TV and other media, yet many people still are victimized.

I get dozens of scam-attempt calls each week- on my home phone, the 2-cell phones we use, and the business lines at the studio. Let alone all the garbage that comes online. My policy- is I just hang up as soon as detect a scammer. Thereis not enough space on my callback service to record and block these phone numbers. Even the identical screens are useless because somehow the calls originate on another continent but the number shows local domestic area codes. I am sure theme carriers have the technology to defeat that system and help law enforcement track the %^&*%@#$%$%* down, but they don't bother to help protect customers or at least, save them the bother and distraction of answering phony nuisance calls on an ongoing basis.

I understand that there are villages and towns in various countries where these illegitimate phone rooms are an industry that supports the entire local economy. I thou I had the all but the "photo contest" is a new one for me.

The most common one is, "This is your credit card Security Department..."! I can hear the other 200 callers chattering in the background. I am no linguistic or dialect expert but at this point, I can tell what part of East Asia the call is emanating from.

There is little use arguing as to print vs. screen! Y'all can't turn back the clock and bring back all the defunct photo magazines. There is still some traditional (photo) reading material out there that can still be accessed. Thereis a plethora of information online- you just need to be selective and decerning.

There are advantages to online resources. You can look up any subject at any time of year, month, or day and find the information you are seeking out. You don't have to wait for the issue of your favorite magazine which may not even address your search.

Some folks will consult "Dr.Google" if they do not feel well or expereince some alarming symptoms- BAD IDEA! It is best to consult your doctor! Luckily, nobody will get sicker or DIE from bad photographic information. They may foul up a shoot or draw some money in the wrong place but they will survive. Most folks on this site know enough to disregard bogus information, scams, and advertising posing as "tutorials.

Sometimes you can Google a topic that you are reading or other forums to verify or define an issue and Google will direct you back to your post.

It is indeed 2024 and it is good to know that folks are still learning about our craft and always seeking information, conversations, and learning. The resources are different to access than they were years ago but they are still at your disposal.

On personnel- I did want to bring this up but...the isthe subjectof "bathroom reading". Years ago, our kids were still at Home and I was workg crazy hours at the studio, I had little peace for some real reading time. The house was in continual chaos- kids- grandkids, the TV in one room and the LOUD stereo in the other. Chores to do, things to fix, kitchen disasters...etc! The online was quiet and privacy was in the BATHROOM! The magazine rack was always there, tucked in between W/C and the sink in my "off-limites" oasis and reading room. I would wear "Grandpa just bought the New York Sunday Tmes- anyone needs the washroon- do it NOW"!!!!

Call me old fashioned but a computer or tablet in the "latrine"?- forget about it! Maybe a wall mount over the...? nevermid!...gross! I might accidentally drop my cell phone in the toilet- MEGA-GROSS!

There are a few periodicals and magazines that are still in production but they are more thematic and seem to emphasize the artistry, philosophies, and stalemate of photography. You are not likely to find these on the magazine rack at the supermarket. Direct subscriptions or bookstores may be a better source of these publications.

I am certainly not against online magazines, forums, and photographic pages on various social media platforms. In the olden days, however, mainstream photo magazines were A LITTLE more carefully edited. They did not publish serious misinformation and completely inaccurate concepts and methods on an ongoing basis whereas that kind of bogus material can regularly show up on social media. I am not referring to differences of opinion, the nuances of the method, or "different strokes for differet folks" but pure nonsense! The reader has to be more decerning and tech-savvy to sort this out and separate the wheat from the chaff. Old-timers can pick up on some of the retorick, spam, clickbait, and outright ineptitude and untruth. The rookies may be taken in or unnecessarily confused.

Some of the YouTube "tutorials" are good and many can be ridiculous. You click on a video that is supposed to teach a technique and all you get is a bad infomercial for a product. In some, they don't even illustrate the product and the result (pictures) and all you get is a talking face flogging the item.

Ain't nobody gonna turn back the clock so we make do with waht we have and still try to gain more knowledge and improve our work. A little complaining helps ease the pain.

If any of y'all are yearning or pining for the photographic publications of the past- bad news (in my opinion)! Even if the publishers found resurrecting some of those now-defunct magazines to be financially viable, they would have to seriously revamp the content that was apparent in the last years of their circulation.

If you want to go retro back to the 1960s and 60s - here's my argument. I too started as a kid interested in photography by reading Popular Photograhy, Modern Photograhy, U.S. Camer and others of that era. As I aged and progressed I went on to Petersons and professional photographers' trade publications. I read into Shuttebug and The Photo District News.

All of these older mags had better and more diverse content. The were lots of DIY projects featuring homemade and improvised equipment (great for kids), and lots of behind-the-scenes insight into the work of famous and successful photographers. Many of the writers, editors, and columnists were working photographers, prolific teachers, and technical writers. Of course, there were many reviews and arca on gear but the was a good balance of other subjects. The was plenty of advertising but again, the was more of a balance. There were many regular advertisers- camera stores, dealers, suppliers, lab services and major distributors and manufacturers. This was good- the competition was good!

As time went on the Magazines became thinner and thinner and in many cases, the gear and advertig became dominant and how-tos and in-depth articles diminished. Many of the editors and columnists retired or passed away. The professional journals were originally designed to inform and help photograhers improve their businesses- they too have suffered the same fate as their consumer counterparts.

Nostalgia-wise, I do miss READING the magazines. Relaxing in a chair with a good article was fun. After a whole day of editing on screens, bookkeeping on screens, and being tethered to screens, I don't look for more screen time at home. Every time I switch on the TV screen there is violence, chaos, and murder, and that's the news- the dramatic programs are much the same. And...right now, as we communicate, I am looking at a SCREEN! I just paid for new reading glasses- do I need them anymore?

Good question and I am not offended! Yes, I have submitted images to stock agencies but not "commercial" material- mostly landscapes and hobby stuff that may be used for calendars or such. Never had an issue or rejection.

I do not submit food and beverage shots, products, etc, and industrial images, etc because the clients have paid for exclusivity. Some corporate folks use stock photos instead of hiring commercial photographers and that's fair
game. Competition is good but the stock agences are the (my) competition so there is no use feeding them. That's just my policy- not every professional or studio owner has to adhere to that principle.

If you have been dealing with a particular agency, you know their policies and standards.

Truth be told, I have made images that were, in my opinion, technically inferior- outtakes- grainy, muddy, messy, lousy composition and the client thought they were the greatest innovation since sliced bread. Why? That image told the story or made the point that the client wanted to convey. I had to tell them that they could have the image but not to tell anyone I shot it! At least, the check they sent was technically correct!

True enough, we can't account for or predict the display environment of every portrat we make or what is going to eventually happen to every file we submit for advertising reproduction. All we can do is try to accommodate each client by advising the best lighting or method of display. There is also the matter of preventing damage or fading of images due to light sources with high UV content or ones that generate excessive heat.

The corporate or institutional portraits we produce, especially the oes printed on Canva, are considered "poor man's" oil paintings (budget-wise) and of course, the are no oil paintings that do not necessarily have the same longevity as paintings. In these portraits, we are mostly concerned with accurate and pleasing skin tones and accurate color rendition of uniforms, decorations, other such regalia, and flags. Disply lighing has a great influence on those aspects.

Back in the "C" Print days maintaining color rcorrectness and density was quite the job. We had two "standards" to be concerned about. At the time, I was submitting lots of prints to varis competitions (PP of A., etc) where the trend was to "print down for more saturation and highlight detail- very dramatic. The entry firms specified a light eleven ad colrtemperture. If I gave a part like this to a client it would usually be considered too dark.

I did and still do many large portraot for corporate and institutional display. Sometimes the board room or lobby is expertly lighted to accommodate the permanent display. Other times they are very problematic. The could be recessed lights that wash down the walls but do not illuminate the prints and what's worse, they cast shadows from the frames. In some cases, I advise them to install track lights or "eyeball fixtures" at a good angle or incidence and distance to ligh the prints with reflections. Someof the government offices have an old dusty kind of board room- impressive wood panelig but tha haven't changed the ligh bulbs since 1944 (when I was born). I would joke that they still have Edison's original lamps in the sockets. It only takes one maintenance person to screw in a new light bulb but it is the GOVERNMENT- the paperwork is insurmountable! It has to be done by a certified electrician- after all, I do not want to be responsible for burning down a 250-year-old building! In one case we attaced old-fashioned picture lights to the frames but here were no outlets in the stone walls.

Modern buildings have better-designed lighting but some of the LEDs are extremely bright and visibally harsh and cold- like those newfangled headlights (not good).

We calibrate our monitors, printers and everything else but there are still vaitables. For commercial work for lithograph printing- so far so good- no complaints. Sometimes, with a new client, we run a few tests to see if our systems are somewhat compatible and, if required, we can make a few adjustments on big jobs.

I don't think clients, stock agencies, and even fussy art directors examine every photograph with a microscope. It anOKpictuof about! If you try to retouch and edit out every optical illusion or artifacts and other such phenomena from every image- you are going to drive yourself insane! People spend too much time hunting for grain (noise) diffraction and often pay little attention to the composition, aesthetics, and storytelling aspects of photography.

If the OP shot this for the boat manufacturer or the maker of that railing, I can see an issue that may involve a re-shoot to avoid the effect if possible.

If you are fussy about all these finite technical issues, y'all know how to avoid them- so shoot accordingly.