JZA B1 wrote:
Square crop, rule of thirds, or something completely different?
How do you know which one to apply in any given situation? Any time-tested rules or just what looks best?
For me, this divides several ways...
Landscapes--if there isn't some intrinsic structure in what I see that suggests a composition strategy, it's probably not worth a serious photographic. I may still "take a picture" to record something interesting or to serve as a momory or reminder, but not as a "serious" photograph. This would be a situation that says why I save JPEGs.
Railroad photographs--these are all about positions and angles, which have to be preselected. The default is an engineer's side (right side) quartering view, but sometimes other angles are nesessary.
Architectural--no real artistic value here usually. Clearly depict the building or structure and include anough of the environment to provide location and context.
I don't do street photography, but USER ID has shown us several good examples. My impression is that he is more concerned with the subject and some context than with geometric composition.
Portraits--I'm not big on pictures of people, but generally find posture, expression, and framing to trump more traditional composition concerns.
Candids--who cares about composition? Who and what (and maybe where and when) are the parameters of concern.
I am not claiming here that the rules of composition are not useful or beneficial. I do consider them, but that happens in my visualization, before pushing the button. That frees me up to "check the edges" and get the framing right. I usually shoot pretty tight, cropping only minimally, if at all. The exception is when shooting moving subjects, whether animals, aircraft in flight, automobiles, or nieces and nephews. Then I leave myself room on all sides to avoid uncorrectable errors.