How do I get better at composition? Some guy in another thread said my composition sucked so I gotta get better, but how?

>>4442111 (OP)
If your photos aren't good enough, you aren't close enough

>>4442113
What does that mean

>>4442111 (OP)
take more photos
experiment with a bunch of comps for each scene youre shooting
look at art
look at others photos
look at your own photos

i dont know what 113 is talking about

and while everyone is here which do you prefer left right or neither? in hind sight i shouldve taken more. lesson learned for next time

>>4442116
I prefer the left one

>>4442115
It means what it means, but if you really want me to extrapolate, I will. One of the big things that people get wrong about composition is that they focus too much on *where* the subject is in the frame, rather than *how much* the subject is in the frame. For example, one of the most basic compositional techniques is the rule of thirds, but there's no point spending heaps of time getting your subjects eyes exactly on the intersection of two lines, you can just crop that later so long as you get it roughly correct. A bigger issue is how close you are, which applies to pretty much any compositional technique. Look at the photo you posted, the subject is the tree, and it fills the frame from top top bottom, with a bit of its shadow. Personally I would have gone a little wider focal length and gotten closer, but I guess it was shot that way to keep that leading lines from the pathway in shot. Personally I fucked up the other day because some fella wanted me to take his photo and I shot it as if I had a 50mm on my camera, but I was actually using a 24 and so I was no way near close enough. The dude had these sick face tats and would have been awesome to see them more, but I fucked it up cus I was in a rush and I didn't consider it enough. But it was a teaching moment, next time I'll know. If I think I'm close enough, I need to get twice as close.

>>4442116
They are both good in their own ways, but left is better. The one on the right has too much going on comparatively.

113 was right. If you're not isolating your subject, your subject gets lost in the rest of the scene. You CAN use that as an artistic choice, but to do so will require you to master isolating the subject first so that you can effectively break the rule.

reposting some from last related thread

>>4442123

>>4442124

>>4442126

>>4442127
and some different inspo

Thought we didn't allow shitposting

>>4442129
why'd you comment then?

>>4442130
You posting actual fucking garbage like >>4442128 is grounds for a ban/public execution

>>4442111 (OP)
Just think of composition as the arranging of elements within the frame. Try all different angles, from up high and down low, different crops or framing and perspectives.
If something doesn't add to the image, try to omit. Try to pay attention to what you do include, and how they interact together in the environment.

>>4442131
Some of these are good examples of clever composition.
Your comment and reply much more irrelevant garbage.
Do you have better examples of composition you would like to share with everyone?

>>4442133
LOL
Anon are you actually 15

>>4442134
>shitposting
>actual fucking garbage
>grounds for a ban/public execution
>LOL
>Anon are you actually 15
No, but you might be.

Did you forget to attach the better examples of composition?

>>4442135
>posts this
>>4442128
>expects me to take it seriously

>>4442136
Then maybe you can enlighten us all about why the composition of the images are so bad?
So far it seems like you're the one not taking it seriously
If I'm such a retard, this is a great opportunity to roast the fuck out of me for posting stupid shit with an awesome analysis

>>4442139
Wait until you graduate kiddo

>>4442140
What are you so afraid of?

>>4442141
It's the tryhard nontography of a fuji/leicafaggot that cares more about the aesthetics of being seen as a photographer than the art

I thought it just means the photo is not interesting for the viewer if they say the composition is bad.

The composition insists upon itself

take a art class / or read a book on composition reggin

>>4442140
>not shit posting

>>4442116
Left

>>4442123
>>4442124
>>4442126
>>4442127

>tfw someone saved my photos.
Thanks.

You don't really need to know anything past the basic rules of composition. After that it's just looking through a viewfinder and being able to tell if A looks better or B looks better, like an eye exam
>but I can't tell which one is better just by looking
than you will always be a hack

>>4442149
Sometimes bad compositions can be frustrating or dissapointing

>>4442163
>than you will always be a hack
>than

>>4442159
It was a good thread, thank you for being brave enough to make it

>>4442116
Both are complete and utter garbage.
Wtf, anon

just read art books about composition, watch countless youtube videos on the topic and then practice.

>>4442259
>watch youtube videos for composition
>youtube videos are all either shitty zoomer back of head streetshitters or boomer portrait photogs
i'm not sure that will help him very much anon

>>4442263
>>youtube videos are all either shitty zoomer back of head streetshitters or boomer portrait photogs
well, you gotta know what to look for i guess?

>>4442116
I like right more. For me, the forwardness of the trees in front of and behind the dude forces you to focus on the man and effectively serves to emphasize the smallness of the man.

>>4442263
maybe you should just learn and stop being a whiny bitch about whos presenting

>>4442117
>>4442120
>>4442157
>>4442221
>>4442562
all feedback appreciated thank you very much and thanks to 120 for helping me understand it better.

the main focus of LEFT (atleast for me) is between the sleeping man and the massive dark tree and the way the tree towers over him. the rest of the scene doesnt distract the focus.
but with RIGHT, it less a comparison of the man and the dark tree than it is a comparison of the man and all the trees. since the comparison is with all trees, there's "too much going on." but imo still a decent shot

honeslty when I took the shot i was only thinking "wow guy sleeping in park with big trees cool" I was only really considering how to capture the size difference. i didnt shoot LEFT with the dark tree comparison in mind but i did shoot right with the all-tree comparison in mind. which is why i think RIGHT is better
the concept of LEFT's dark tree comparison is a post-shoot afterthought which is why i find LEFT's execution slightly underwhelming.

or maybe im just over analysing it and 221 is correct

more advice to OP: really take your time to think when shooting

>>4442914
nigga just shoot what you like holy shit

>>4442111 (OP)
someone calling your composition shit on /p/ is a normal occurence and you shouldnt let it bother you
half the people on this board cant take a good photo to save their lives and only knows about gear. The other half are great photographers that learned by doing and just looking at photos.

>>4442928
>great photographers that learned by doing and just looking at photos
this is cope
you are not a once in a generation genius who will actually make anything of artistic merit by learning like this
you have to at least learn the basic science of aesthetics

>>4442131
>posting photos on the photography dumping board is grounds for a ban
anon i have horrible news
you're autistic

>>4442929
cry about it
everyone learns differently
just because someone had to hold your hand the whole way doesnt mean it has to be that way for everyone

>>4442931
i'm not telling you to have someone hold your hand i'm telling you to read a fucking book retard
>noo huurrr durr I can also learn to paint and draw without actual education, despite 99%+ of people who are legitimately good at doing theset hings learn at some point

>>4442934
>getting this angry
Examining other peoples works is a good way to aid you in learning photography.
you're so angry you cant even argue properly and are jumping to conclusions that because i dont agree with you on anything that i must not do basic things like reading or educating myself on photography.
You arent worth engaging

>>4442929
>muh science of aesthetics
yeah, this might work if you're under adolf hitler, but the art world is owned and operate by ashkenazi jews. i am not being antisemitic. i'm a jew myself. i am being realistic. the entire art world was purchased, in cash, and now every gallery owner, tastemaker, educator, and the majority of the artists, are ashkenazi jews. and ashkenazi jews absolutely despise object aesthetic beauty in high art. i asked my rabbi why and he said it was too easy to make something look nice and too hard to make something interesting.

there will never, ever be an ansel adams again. that is distinctly white photography. it hangs next to portraits of king george.

the only value in the science of objective beauty in the western art world today is learning it just to cleverly subvert it, and they already got bored with that in the 70s so if you think you can do something new there go ahead and try but you probably won't. instead you should learn to be topical, subversive, and clever.

>>4442968
And this is a cancer of society
https://www.shareable.net/architectural-myopia-designing-for-industry-not-people/
https://thecritic.co.uk/modernist-architecture-melts-our-brains/
About architecture, but it applies to society as a whole. All of us have become obsessed with being modern and clever to signal our intelligence. This is not a higher ideal, but rather, a primate mating strategy. Producing and appreciating novel ideas are both strong signals for being a desirable mate. "It is too easy to make something look nice" and people who do things that are easy, and played out, are often assumed to be too stupid and uncultured to move on. Regardless of the consequences for psychology, which is objective enough for this trick to keep working in a peacock-like fashion.

>>4442111 (OP)
try scaling your images to about 2 inches tall. draw the image with every object simplified in grayscale, you can just trace. pick the pics you like the most and see how the objects work together in frame to make pleasing comp


wait shit i forgot where i was. kill yourself you retarded faggot, shove a leica up your ass and absorb its powers

>>4442111 (OP)
>How do I get better at composition?
Recreate photos you like.

>>4442972
>>4442968
Only losers concede art to a people they hate. Loser by definition and you lost to a bunch of guys wearing weird hats. LMFAO. Truly pathetic.

>>4442116
I just realized something. If I wanted to draw one of them, I'd pick the left. There's the big tree and there's the small person. On the right one nothing stands out. There's a building there at the top, but I can barely notice it. So the left one is better

>>4444065
even the person doesn't stand out because they're just sort of in a random spot

>>4442115
>>4442113
or maybe way too close, or the wrong vantage point.

but idk why I'm really good at it.

>>4444056
/thread

>>4442111 (OP)
Composition is for beginners.
Learn how to frame whatever you have in mind with different positions and focal ranges.
Over time you just know what works for any situation.

>>4442111 (OP)
Study and practice
Study: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGEE7pGLuppT2MB0a7TYgBx_ZHDDHaEr6
Practice: take photos, ask for critique in /rpt/

>>4442111 (OP)
Easy, just do it better Opie.

>>4444639
>Composition is for beginners.
/p/ in a nutshell everyone

Well jeez anon if some guy said it sucks then he must be completely objectively correct

>>4446875
They will never post a photo to show they are bad at photography, but they will gladly spout nonsense to prove it beyond a doubt.

>>4446887
If you post a thread with shitty images in it, and demonstrate you don’t understand comp, it does not then fall on me as my responsibility to both educate you and post my own fucking work on here for free to impress you. Nothing is required of me, only you. So come down off your golden horsecock, no one owes you anything.

>>4446939
Thanks for proving my point, nophoto.

>>4446939
Someone trying by posting a shitty photo is 100x more valuable to this board than the nophoto whiners

>>4442118
Stopped reading at crop in post.

>>4447004
Literally nothing wrong with cropping in post if it's going to be posted online. A normal quality camera shoots at 60MP and you can only post like 4MP max on most platforms.

>>4447004
>yes, it's my first month doing photography
Welcome to the hobby

>>4447004
That guy is giving good advice, you should listen anon.

>>4447004
>>4447009
>>4447008
>>4447006
There's a difference between cropper's cope, and cleaning up things like shit off the side of the frame or not being level

>>4447014
Sounds like something a beginner would feel the need to point out where experienced shooters already understand the distinction

>>4447014
>you can just crop that later so long as you get it roughly correct
That's what he said, retarded nigger.

>>4447018
Can you blame them? If they are someone that just stops reading at a scary word, they probably don't have the best reading comprehension

>>4447019
You're right, it's my fault for expecting different.

>>4447016
>>4447018
>"Fell for the Ragebait Again" award

>>4446884
lel

your framing would probably be better if your photos weren't tilted just slightly enough to mess with perception. also you shouldn't be retarded enough to overlap your subjects and wonder why your framing is fucked

1) Look at a lot of pictures.
2) Keep a folder of all the ones you like. This is your "innate preference." Look at them frequently.
3) Analyze them consciously. You don't have to use fancy art school terms. Just describe them to yourself. Write it down.
4) Find similar arrangements of things in the world using just your naked eyeballs. Just go out and walk around and look at the world and look for scenes that are similar to the pictures you like.
5) Take pictures of them and (THIS IS KEY) try to imitate the pictures you like as closely as possible. Do your damnedest to plagiarize those pictures.

Repeat the above for the rest of your life. You'll start to notice patterns that feel right for you. It will also get you out of the noob habit of picking up your camera and saying "I'm going to take an interesting picture" even though there's nothing of visual interest around you. If you look around and there's nothing there, guess what - there's nothing there. You can't force a good picture out of your boring living room.

>>4448578
>You can't force a good picture out of your boring living room.
What if I fill it with hot babes

>>4442914
The right one is better...

>>4448588

I considered mentioning human subjects but didn't for simplicity's sake.

But one way to make your pictures more interesting is to put 1) people and/or 2) beautiful things in them.

Pictures of people but with boring composition and lighting can become riveting if there's clearly some kind of drama going on among the people in them.

For that kind of thing, your only compositional rule is "make sure there's nothing distracting in the frame." That's it. If you want to capture the quiet poignancy of a woman mourning her dead husband at his grave and there's a massive Mickey Mouse billboard across the street from the cemetery, keep the billboard out.

And if you have a beautiful woman willing to strip, then you're going to be able to take pictures people will want to look at. Whether the pictures will be good or not is a totally different question but hey maybe she'll let you bang her (the reason 99% of "erotic" "artistic" photographers do it).

If you're talented you can take a picture of a beautiful woman and make the picture itself beautiful too.

>>4442116

oppose the guy and the tree so the two compositional elements "in conversation"

>>4448614
>the reason 99% of "erotic" "artistic" photographers do it
not true
at least 2% do it just to get a cut of the OF cash and/or are women

>>4442111 (OP)
I will say the actual truth

If you don't spontaneously understand good composition and it doesn't come natural to you to frame stuff in a good way, it's over for you. Find a different hobby or do some shitty corporate photography where everything is just standardized poses and lighting

>>4448634

"You're either Ansel Adams or you're shit"

People can learn, you know.

>>4449016
>People can learn, you know.
explain how, otherwise you're perpetrating a lie

>>4449018
I read a story about a guy taking up bird photography, he shared some of his first photos and they were utter shit, just birds on a stick, awful composition.

About two years later he had a photo published by nat geo.
You can learn. Just like any hobby pt anything in life, if you're interested enough to keep at something and it brings you joy, pr fulfillment you'll find ways to improve.