Composition in photography

[One4UAll]

Originally Posted by Janet Petty

What I'd like to begin a discussion about is composition. What makes us all want to take that little focus point in the center of the screen and leave our subject smack dab in the middle? What about photo real estate, negative space, leading lines, telling a story, etc., etc.? What about interest, the decisive moment, telling a story, color, contrast, and on and on?

Janet, I think you may be overloading your students and yourself with these questions, unless these are issues you introduce gradually over a period of time. There's a phrase, "the photographer's eye." Coined probably 70 yrs ago. It's not how you see things as they are, but how they will look in a print. I imagine the phrase came from the art world. Lonnie's link is very good.

Nothing is more essential than assimilating the Rule of Thirds. Like any rule, it can be broken, but it's a starting point. Have your students cut out a 4x5" opening in a piece of black matte board. Then, two students working together frame a portrait of each other. Insist they avoid the center in framing. Have the eyes as the focal point. Have them do an eye-level close-up; another back about 5-6 feet. Mess around, positioning the eyes at upper left, upper right, etc., in the frame. Use both vertical and horizontal orientations. Maybe a low angle; maybe a high angle. Options, always options.

Go out into the hallway. Frame that for diagonals. Go outdoors, etc. They must determine the focal point of their vision, for that's what they must compose to the Rule of Thirds, like the eyes of a portrait subject. Unless they're going to be photojournalists, where an event or subject must be centered. For example, the famous photo of the flag raising over Iwo Jima in WWII. In most situations, I think, they will have more control.

It's really something one has to think about when photographing. I've many times aimed at a centered subject & then thought, "Oh, no. I've got to put this off center, somehow." So, time permitting, I played around with the viewfinder. It's a matter of training, of developing a photographer's eye; it's like learning any other skill. Eventually, it becomes instinctive & one of the curses I have when I don't have a camera is avoiding seeing scenes as a photographer instead of just enjoying the scene for what it is.

I'm not a professional. I've never taught a photo course. I am one who thinks he has some pretty good stuff. Hope this helps.

David

[Janet Petty]

I'm thrilled with the discussion this thread is generating. I'm pleased people are feeling free to take the subject and figuratively run with it.

I agree the rules are there to be broken and that art, interest, or whatever one may call their photography is in the control of the person taking the picture. I also agree that if you don't please yourself, you don't really end up happy with the finished result.

The subjects I threw out for the initial question in the first post weren't necessarily just for students but for those of us entering this discussion who might want fuel for the fire. It is great that we are taking the subject of composition and discovering it in all of its facets.

This is great stuff folks.

Janet

[Janet Petty]

Hawkeye, I like the picture. I like the crop. I like the colors, the leading lines, the place you took the photo. But what I like most about it is that you took a once-in-a-lifetime shot, one that will give you memories for years, and took joy in the doing.

Thank you for sharing it.

Janet

[One4UAll]

Originally Posted by Frank Lopes

Here is an exercise for you all: a panoramic that I shot a couple of weeks ago. I'm curious to see how each of you would crop this image. And please explain why you elected to do it the way you did it. Later I'll post my version.

Frank, Nice pano. You have captured both the view of a golf course on a sunny Sunday morning and the activity that goes with it. Wait for it: I don't know the purpose for which you composed this pano. I assume you aimed left, then right & stitched in your image editor.

I think the left portion is superior to the right portion, as I've cropped, below. I think the little bay with the rust-colored trees above it is the focal point & the crop follows the Rule of Thirds, with further info re: the golf course to the left, with the "S" curve of the shore leading the eye into the trees. It's a very nice image of the golf course.

The right side is less successful for reasons others have already stated. The only compositional element I notice is triangulation between the golf carts and the fountain, with that triangulation repeated in the fountain, itself.

The fountain could only be a compositional element if it's included with the trees by cropping out the left & right sides, altho this loses a lot of info re: the golf course on the left side. I suppose the center crop could be a compromise between the left & right sides & it all depends on what you want.

I've tried to present my crops of left, right, & center views below. I know others have already covered much of what I say, but I can't detail all that & credit everyone, with all due respect to them.

I'm surprised this subject has so many responses as there are so many courses like Janet's, magazines, books, and Internet coverage. But, it's good. It all starts with clicking the shutter. You can save a lot of time post-editing by getting it right in the first place.

Not that I'm an expert, but I don't click the shutter until I've got the image exactly or nearly as I want, for the purpose I want, and if Janet can get a view camera & have her class look at an upside down, reversed image on the ground glass, that would help them concentrate on the compositional elements instead of the scene as it is. Working with ground glass does wonders for developing the photographer's eye. And, Janet must realize that some people will never get it. Oh, they could, but they don't want the time & trouble. Working with ground glass completely changed my way of looking at a scene & this was done very young.

It gets to what you want: a landscape? a family or news event (composition doesn't matter)? a portrait? publication? art? personal collection? The more you decide the purpose in advance, the more or less composition applies.

David

[One4UAll]

hawkeye, would like to see the image before you cropped it.

[Janet Petty]

I do have to set the record straight in one area. And I quote, "I've been helping teach beginners..." I don't get paid for what I do. I just volunteer and I HELP the real teacher on occasion when he can't be there. I love to teach, used to teach Photoshop to beginners; but quit in favor of retirement. Now I'm just me. Again . Hurrah for ME

Grinning,

Janet

[LonK]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

Great topic. This is a picture I took in Morocco last year, without any real thought towards composition, this is the way I cropped it. Just what I felt was pleasing to my eye.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of others, as to how they would have treated it. And why.

That is a nice shot, hawkeye. My question would be to you. What specifically compelled you to crop the photo as you did? What is it about that crop that you find makes it so much better than the original?

The so-called "rules of composition" is, IMO, a misnomer. Better would be "guidelines of effective composition". Most beneficial of these guidelines is that they provide a common vocabulary to communicate why a particular image is effective. Else trying to explain "because it is pleasing to my eye" or "I like it", is simply going to be an exercise in futility.

[hawkeye60]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

hawkeye, would like to see the image before you cropped it.

The image on the left is before I cropped, he right one is after.

[Mike Abbott]

Interesting discussion...

One of the things that I think leads beginners down the 'bulls eye' approach is todays auto focus systems. Inevitably the best AF sensor is bang in the middle of the frame - basically it says 'go on - aim for the bulls eye!'. While I realise you could encourage them to focus lock and recompose, that's just another thing to handle amongst many, so I can understand if it gets abandoned in favour of the AF bulls eye approach. If your students have cameras that are capable of being manually focused you might request that do an assignment with AF switched off. That would force the issue. It might help them consider the composition, rather than being sub-consiously hindered by thinking about getting the AF on the bulls eye.

Mike A.

[hawkeye60]

Lonk, thank you for comments. I posted this mainly to see how others would handle the crop, perhaps on some sort of techincal composition basis, rather than my "seat of the pants approach".

But to answer your question of why I chose to crop as I did:

I felt there was too much sky which made the horizon almost split the image in two. The white wall on the right and the staircase leading down, was distracting to me and I felt it would lead the viewers eye in that direction. The bottom edge of the sea wall and the top edge of the blue building (in red) created a converging line that would tend to draw attention more to the central area of the photograph.

[grannysdc]

After I straightened the horizon, the landscape version is what I would have done..
Unless you specified that the blue building was an important part of the picture.. then the one with the building is the way I would have gone.

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

Janet,

I figured as much.

David

That did not come across very well.

[LonK]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I posted this mainly to see how others would handle the crop, perhaps on some sort of techincal composition basis, rather than my "seat of the pants approach".

I understood that, but felt it would be helpful if you provided your thought process as well.

But to answer your question of why I chose to crop as I did:
I felt there was too much sky which made the horizon almost split the image in two.

Agree. And since the sky was so dark and plain, it made the image look top heavy.

The white wall on the right and the staircase leading down, was distracting to me and I felt it would lead the viewers eye in that direction.

I saw a curved leading line as the primary compositional element leading the viewer into and through the scene (see attached). I feel that by cropping off that wall, the line is severed leaving two detached areas. I agree that the brightness of the wall was a bit distracting, but that resulted from the very dark shoreline on the other side, a luminousity imbalance. By reducing the contrast between the two, it balances better.

The bottom edge of the sea wall and the top edge of the blue building (in red) created a converging line that would tend to draw attention more to the central area of the photograph.

I get an uneasy feeling whenever I see a horizon that is not horizontal. I instinctly straighten them. When I did this though with this photo, the lines of the foreground building became uncomfortably tilted. To balance this I applied a perspective distortion to make the building parallel with the horizon. This, IMO, creates a more harmonious symmetry.

To put on a finishing touch, I added some clouds to give the stark sky some character.

[One4UAll]

Originally Posted by TreesOfMyTime

That did not come across very well.

I agree & deleted it. My apologies to Janet.

David

[hawkeye60]

Thank you, nicely done Lonnie. Very good point about the curve and the perspective, you have a good eye. Nice touch too on the cloud addition although I hadn not make any kind of corrections to the photo itself yet, (this is straight out of the camera) I was looking strictly at composition.

[One4UAll]

Hawkeye,

This is my attempt at a crop. You may have considered a horizontal orientation before taking the picture & ruled it out, but I think a horizontal orientation would have been better than the vertical you did.

As someone has already pointed out, you have two pictures, here & it would have been better to have taken two separate photos. Many times I've been faced with how much I can get into a photo, yet have a pleasing composition. I've had to make painful choices.

I cropped the blue building at the bottom so that it gives some flavor of the local architecture, while adding a kind of frame at the bottom. That's as much of the blue building that should figure in this composition, in my opinion.

The sky was severely cropped, as it does not add to the info in the main part of the photo. Cropping the sky also raises the horizon level somewhat above center. If the tower is a focal point, it is not according to the Rule of Thirds, but sometimes the Rule can't always strictly apply, especially in this nice scene of a Moroccan seacoast.

As already pointed out, you have a nice curve from lower right toward the tower. As to comments re: the horizon line, I don't see a problem there. The top of the seawall in the background looks fairly level, as does the top of the wall leading to the tower. The only thing that bothers me is the slant of the blue building, due to the perspective from which you took the photo. I do like this photo, as I've cropped it.

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

Hawkeye,

This is my attempt at a crop. You may have considered a horizontal orientation before taking the picture & ruled it out, but I think a horizontal orientation would have been better than the vertical you did.

That was my first thought when I looked at this image as well!

[0lBaldy]

Originally Posted by One4UAll

It all starts with clicking the shutter. You can save a lot of time post-editing by getting it right in the first place. <Clip>
It gets to what you want: a landscape? a family or news event (composition doesn't matter)? a portrait? publication? art? personal collection? The more you decide the purpose in advance, the more or less composition applies.
David

I tend to agree with David,
When I took photo classes we learned how to crop a single picture for advertisement, art, jewelry and a bunch of other purposes that I forget.. anyway the single 8x10 head shot could be cropped into about 15 different compositions.. each of which was supposedly the correct way for its particular use.
A lot is said of practice, practice, practice but the vast majority of us practice on automatic settings which tends to force us to center things first.. then lock in the settings.. and then compose.. which is a far cry from, as my wife says, "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense!" We are an impatient society and those extra steps are not a part of the "I want it NOW!" generation.

A bit of my history:
Way back in the early 50's when I first got interested in photography my dad was quick to let me know how expensive film and processing was and if I was going to take pictures I had better get it right the first time and not waste film on bad pictures

After I took my first pictures of my dog, (all bad) I learned that what you saw in those little prisms (one for vertical and one for horizontal) on the little "Brownie 620" was not what was captured on film.. This resulted in lessons from dad on how to adjust and visualize what was actually going to be captured on the negative.. I had to adjust for parallax depending on distance from the subject plus take note of what would be missing or added to the shots. I think this learning process helped partially develop my feeble eye for composition and a very minimal "Photographers eye" because to get a good picture you had to compose it in your mind as well as on the negative in the camera by having to look at the foreground, background, top, bottom, and sides of where the image on the film should be and finalizing the photo before snapping the shutter.. then try to remember what you did on each pic while waiting what seemed like forever to see your results from the lab..

A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.

Then came a 35mm with in camera spot meter, what a blessing.. if your subject was right in the middle of the frame the meter, or you, could adjust the exposure... Then through the lens metering, focusing, and actually being able to see what the lens saw and was putting on the film.. another blessing! But again almost all the attributes were centered in the frame.. Does there seem to be a pattern of learning to center things evolving here?

After the picture was taken if you had your own darkroom you could make magic happen.... enlarge, crop (Compose), dodge, burn, combine photos/negatives, use different grades of paper or different textures.. the things you could manipulate seemed endless.. So, after learning to center everything and getting a good exposure of your subject you could once again get back into good composition and aesthetics in the darkroom!
Hmmm, sounds like present day except instead of darkroom it is "Photoshop" (and much easier, I might add!)

When we look at a beautiful sunset we look at the whole thing in awe.. a seasoned photographer with that "photographer's eye" is able to spot a portion of that sunset that will create a good composition that evokes those same deep feelings we had witnessed in person.

I feel that you can know all or most of the mechanics of photography/retouching/painting but if you do not have the ability to visualize the finished outcome in your mind you may have a much rougher row to hoe. I think a seasoned photographer/retoucher/painter etc., has insight and can see things that others struggle to see.. The skill comes in the ability to see what looks good and being able to capture it and or crop it for the most dramatic, pleasing, aesthetic, artistic look.. so that other people can see it the same way. I think it takes years to learn, and a lifetime to master.
I am still trying to learn because there are three things I see all the time but have yet to capture recognizably in an image.. the man, lion, and old lady in the moon.. At night I have seen em all on the moon... but they have eluded me on any photos that I have taken trying to capture them..

For the past few years my better half has taken most of her pictures using digital... The camera has trained her to keep things in the middle for best point and click results.. "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense" is what I hear a lot of.. although she has gotten a lot better at hitting the telephoto button a few times before she snaps that picture of whatever is right smack in the middle. My job has been to processed them into prints. Thus far she has been happy with the crops, enlargements and placement of her subject matter even though it is seldom as she shot it.

I talked to my Grandson about this discussion on Composition in camera and his reply was short and to the point, “It’s going into Photoshop anyway, so why bother, as long as you have a good image to start with, you can Photoshop it any way you want later!” He brought up Dave Hill doing his composites... “Get the shot.. Manipulate it later!” I asked, “what if you don’t have Photoshop and just let Wally World process the pictures?” His answer, “Then you get what you got.. Find a friend with Photoshop if you want to change things.”

Old School.............VS ............. New School

Adjust settings ......................... Shoot a lot,
compose in frame .................... Memory is cheap
check settings .......................... hope for at least
shoot picture ............................ one keeper

WOW, this is a lot longer than I thought it would be! I offer my apologies for the long rambling read..

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by 0lBaldy

I tend to agree with David,
When I took photo classes we learned how to crop a single picture for advertisement, art, jewelry and a bunch of other purposes that I forget.. anyway the single 8x10 head shot could be cropped into about 15 different compositions.. each of which was supposedly the correct way for its particular use.
A lot is said of practice, practice, practice but the vast majority of us practice on automatic settings which tends to force us to center things first.. then lock in the settings.. and then compose.. which is a far cry from, as my wife says, "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense!" We are an impatient society and those extra steps are not a part of the "I want it NOW!" generation.

A bit of my history:
Way back in the early 50's when I first got interested in photography my dad was quick to let me know how expensive film and processing was and if I was going to take pictures I had better get it right the first time and not waste film on bad pictures

After I took my first pictures of my dog, (all bad) I learned that what you saw in those little prisms (one for vertical and one for horizontal) on the little "Brownie 620" was not what was captured on film.. This resulted in lessons from dad on how to adjust and visualize what was actually going to be captured on the negative.. I had to adjust for parallax depending on distance from the subject plus take note of what would be missing or added to the shots. I think this learning process helped partially develop my feeble eye for composition and a very minimal "Photographers eye" because to get a good picture you had to compose it in your mind as well as on the negative in the camera by having to look at the foreground, background, top, bottom, and sides of where the image on the film should be and finalizing the photo before snapping the shutter.. then try to remember what you did on each pic while waiting what seemed like forever to see your results from the lab..

A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.

Then came a 35mm with in camera spot meter, what a blessing.. if your subject was right in the middle of the frame the meter, or you, could adjust the exposure... Then through the lens metering, focusing, and actually being able to see what the lens saw and was putting on the film.. another blessing! But again almost all the attributes were centered in the frame.. Does there seem to be a pattern of learning to center things evolving here?

After the picture was taken if you had your own darkroom you could make magic happen.... enlarge, crop (Compose), dodge, burn, combine photos/negatives, use different grades of paper or different textures.. the things you could manipulate seemed endless.. So, after learning to center everything and getting a good exposure of your subject you could once again get back into good composition and aesthetics in the darkroom!
Hmmm, sounds like present day except instead of darkroom it is "Photoshop" (and much easier, I might add!)

When we look at a beautiful sunset we look at the whole thing in awe.. a seasoned photographer with that "photographer's eye" is able to spot a portion of that sunset that will create a good composition that evokes those same deep feelings we had witnessed in person.

I feel that you can know all or most of the mechanics of photography/retouching/painting but if you do not have the ability to visualize the finished outcome in your mind you may have a much rougher row to hoe. I think a seasoned photographer/retoucher/painter etc., has insight and can see things that others struggle to see.. The skill comes in the ability to see what looks good and being able to capture it and or crop it for the most dramatic, pleasing, aesthetic, artistic look.. so that other people can see it the same way. I think it takes years to learn, and a lifetime to master.
I am still trying to learn because there are three things I see all the time but have yet to capture recognizably in an image.. the man, lion, and old lady in the moon.. At night I have seen em all on the moon... but they have eluded me on any photos that I have taken trying to capture them..

For the past few years my better half has taken most of her pictures using digital... The camera has trained her to keep things in the middle for best point and click results.. "I want to turn it on and take a picture without a bunch of nonsense" is what I hear a lot of.. although she has gotten a lot better at hitting the telephoto button a few times before she snaps that picture of whatever is right smack in the middle. My job has been to processed them into prints. Thus far she has been happy with the crops, enlargements and placement of her subject matter even though it is seldom as she shot it.

I talked to my Grandson about this discussion on Composition in camera and his reply was short and to the point, “It’s going into Photoshop anyway, so why bother, as long as you have a good image to start with, you can Photoshop it any way you want later!” He brought up Dave Hill doing his composites... “Get the shot.. Manipulate it later!” I asked, “what if you don’t have Photoshop and just let Wally World process the pictures?” His answer, “Then you get what you got.. Find a friend with Photoshop if you want to change things.”

Old School.............VS ............. New School

Adjust settings ......................... Shoot a lot,
compose in frame .................... Memory is cheap
check settings .......................... hope for at least
shoot picture ............................ one keeper

WOW, this is a lot longer than I thought it would be! I offer my apologies for the long rambling read..

I am glad that you are such a good typist, because much of your history, equipment, thoughts and apparent age closely parallel my own and I never learned the typists craft.

I have, however, experienced much of what you have, including the advice to Grandchildren (now great Grandchildren). In spite of frustrations, the future is in good hands!

[hawkeye60]

OlBaldy said: A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.



Sounds like my old Mamiya C33 twin lens. Prior to that I had a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder. I had a darkroom for more years than I care to remember. It always amazes me how hours in the darkroom have been replaced by a click of the mouse. Not always better but certainly faster.

Wow what memories, I can almost smell the stop bath...

[TreesOfMyTime]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

OlBaldy said: A Twin Lens Reflex was my next camera and was great for seeing almost exactly what you were shooting. This camera had a flip up/down magnifier built in for better focus. When in use it was right in the middle, a handy convenience.



Sounds like my old Mamiya C33 twin lens. Prior to that I had a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder. I had a darkroom for more years than I care to remember. It always amazes me how hours in the darkroom have been replaced by a click of the mouse. Not always better but certainly faster.

Wow what memories, I can almost smell the stop bath...

I actually miss that smell!

[hawkeye60]

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area, since the first got such good feedback. Except for correcting the perspective to straighten the building, this is right out of the camera too.

Any cropping suggestions on this one?

[cardmnal]

Janet, this has been a most interesting thread, thank you for starting it.

It is my belief that the reason so many people simply bullseye their shots is because it feels comfortable and balanced and that is the way we like to see things in our everyday lives. We tend to look at things directly, look people directly in the eye, stare straight at the television and we certainly don't watch our kids play in the park according to the rule of thirds.

______________________________________________________________

It is apparent from the responses to this thread, opinion of this subject vary as much as the people posting them.

I have seen mention of the rule of thirds, leading lines and even a mention of structure. All very important elements in composition and most successful works contain many of these elements as well as some others. I am a bit surprised, however, there has been no mention of balance.

Using Hawkeye's image as reference I will attempt an explanation. The original (1st image) Is striking at first glance. Upon closer inspection it becomes clear the tower is the intended focal point. The problem IMHO is the blue building and it's courtyard make the photo very bottom heavy detracting from it.

My first thought is to eliminate all the distractions so, using the approximate rule of thirds I move so the tower clearly became the most important part of the image (#2). Leaving a lot of sky makes it feel more balanced but the image is unspectactular at best.

Next (images 3 and 4) I changed to a horizontal format and eliminated the bottom weight and most of the sky. The white buildings near the middle are now the most weighted part of the photo creating tension and drawing the eye away from the tower. By placing the tower far to the left side of the image it acts as a counter weight and the image feels balanced (green). There is enough horizontal and vertical structure (yellow) for the image to seem solid and enough repetitive shapes (blue) to make it feel full and interesting. Finally the viewers eye is drawn to the tower by it's relative isolation and leading lines (red).


.......then again, I could be full of it


Alan

[palms]

Just to let you all know i am still following along (Just)
Mike i agree with you ( thats me) it is easy to use the bullseye, and i am just starting to take the camera off auto occasionally

The other night there was a documentary on, and there i was looking at the composition and why it had been shot in a certain way Thanks (i think)

now how about with regards to people/groups any one have a photo ?

Palms

[Ziaphra]

Sorry if this has been posted before as I have not read through the whole thread but here are a couple of great links on composition:

http://www.morguefile.com/archive/cl...m.php?lesson=1
http://www.sxc.hu/blog/post/689

[Janet Petty]

OlBaldy, I hear what your grandson is telling you. Tell him he is full of it (figuratively speaking of course). He needs to know that Photoshop can only fix so much, that there are only so many pixels in a photo, and that taking too many pixels for a crop will often destroy a picture when it comes time to print, especially if he wants something larger than the 4x6 that Wally World will print.

Cardmnal, great addition to the discussion. And your examples really make the point.

Ziaphra, those additions are very well done. Thank you for sharing. I've bookmarked them both.

Now, someone asked about posting a bad example/good example of people. Believe me, I have lots of both. Feel free to pick these apart. One is a good example of slicing too many pixels. That would be the Union soldier. One is a straight out of the camera snapshot. The other is the black and white conversion and crop.

Janet

[One4UAll]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area, since the first got such good feedback. Except for correcting the perspective to straighten the building, this is right out of the camera too.

Any cropping suggestions on this one?

Unlike my comments on your earlier photo in which I thought a horizontal orientation was better, on this one, I think a vertical orientation would have been better. Why? Because I'm curious what that mural with the hands at the bottom looks like. Plus, it adds significant color, and could well be the focal point. You might have aimed your camera lower, reducing the sky & showing more of the mural.

Again, you should have taken two photos, or three: One horizontal for the buildings (your original), one vertical to get the mural in, & maybe one on the mural, itself. My crop eliminates the distraction of the mural & focuses on the shapes of the Moroccan dwellings as you probably intended.

In this crop, elements start standing out to give some organization to the composition. The architecture at upper left may be a primary focal point, now approximately positioned according to the Rule of Thirds, with the "chimney" on the right as a secondary focal point. Now you've got triangulation between those two focal points and the black square at the bottom. The lamp on the right adds a nice touch of opposition to the geometrics. Other details stand out, also.

I must add that this analysis is only after the fact; it's like revising in writing. You know, a first draft, etc.

In a link someone previously provided, here, on photo composition, the first principle is to "fill the frame." That's the first thing every photographer should think. Then, "how are you going to fill that frame?" That's when the Rule of Thirds, etc. kick in.

One example that drives me up the wall is when I see photos of, say, three people, standing for an informal portrait (you know, Mom, Dad, Sister, etc.). The photo is taken horizontally with distracting, uninformative details to left and right, while Mom, Dad, etc., are cut off at the waist. Get all they are in the photo with a vertical orientation and move in, because it is they & nothing else that are important.

The better you photograph, the less you have to photoshop. One cannot think of all the compositional details when taking a picture, unless one is a studio advertising photographer, with complete control. What I'm saying is think of two or three basics when you press the shutter, if you have time. The rest can, indeed, be worked out in Photoshop.

David

[LonK]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area.

Another very interesting shot hawkeye60.

Simplified.
Geometrics.

[CJ Swartz]

Originally Posted by hawkeye60

I thought I'd post another one of Morocco that I took in the same area, since the first got such good feedback. Except for correcting the perspective to straighten the building, this is right out of the camera too.

Any cropping suggestions on this one?

Hawkeye60, your images have certainly helped expand the discussion! One aspect that interests me is that different people have posted different ideas about how the images could have been shot and what the photo subject appears to be. Different people standing in that same location would have been attracted to different aspects of that same scene and would have emphasized their chosen aspects. Composition begins with the choice of subject. Which aspects of this last image did you consider to be YOUR subject?

[hawkeye60]

Thanks to everyone for their informative input...I am leaving for a trip to Israel and then on to Egypt (my 2nd time there) next week. I'll definately be taking more photos, hopefully I'll be taking along a "better eye" as well.