I noticed that composition is a term thrown around a lot when it comes to images and I have used it myself quite a few times in the past, but the more I use the word, the more I start wondering about it or rather if it is really all that much of a well-defined term. What does it mean? Is it something that can be clearly and cleany defined by rules (like the "law of thirds" for example), or is it something more subjective to you, something more personal than rules and guidelines can define? Now, my personal take on it is as follows: What I consider good composition needs a focal point, something that draws the viewer into the image. The image has to capture my attention somewhere and somehow. But I also want to be drawn into the image as a whole. I do not want that "focal point" to overshadow everything else. Good composition to me exists in an image that provides me with a starting point from where to discover the rest of the image. To me good composition exists - mainly, but not exclusively - in an image that allows me room to explore it. I say "mainly, but not exclusively", because there are obviously photos that are about a single important subject that needs all the attention it can get, but macros or some plant images aside I'd say the above sums up my personal take on "good composition" pretty well. What's your take?

What if the 'composition' itself is the focal point..?
I'm asking this because that is the case in many of my images.
I don't see a subject as a subject; subjects as a focal point don't interest me that much. Instead I see lines, shapes, color planes and accents in every scene that catches my eye, be it a landscape, a streak of light on a wall, a group of people, a tiny insect between branches or an object on my desk... my starting point will always be 'composition', never subject.
Composition as the main focal point, and the so-called subjects as mere 'transmitters'... does that make sense...?

It really depends on the photo.  The classic pano shot of one person on a massive wet beach with the reflection in the wet sand is not going to look good with them looking at the camera standing in the middle of a 3:2 shot... or it might... (edit to add: picture the Yamamura Sadako child from the film The Ring, stood in the middle of such a frame staring at the camera and the impact would be more intense than if she were stood looking at you from the side) Composition can affect the "feel" of the shot. I'm not sure if orientation of the subject would count towards composition but what if that person was still in the middle of the frame but walking to one side... is it not pleasing to see them walking "into" the frame or "out" of the frame, rather than just in the middle.  Staring at the camera in the middle of a shot conveys a completely different image to walking out of the shot, and maybe even stood on one of the vertical thirds.  The subject and "photo" are the same, but a change in composition has an effect on the viewer.

I'm digging myself into a quagmire here, but i'm trying to say that it really does depend on what you are looking at whether the "composition" is good.  There is no composition which applies universally, and when i use the phrase "nice composition" or the like in a gallery comment i am taking the photo as a whole into account.  Because a composition may well be good but it might not fit the shot.

Geert - makes sense to me, especially taking your work into account.

Like Rich says it really depends on the photo, there are no hard and fast rules as to what makes a good composition - but there are some useful tricks you can use to make it better.

For me a good image should have depth. Something to draw your eye in and lead it to the focal point. It might be a road or track or a fence even leading into the frame, or a rock or plant in the foreground. It usually, but not always again it will depend on the actual shot, works best with 'lines'  running from lower left to upper right of the frame. Adding interest to the foreground can often turn a good shot into a great one.

It really is very subjective. There are some good tips on composition here...

www.dcmag.co.uk/Vital_Skills.aN_XJz4.html

• Andy

To me it´s about how u choose to display the choosen subject, There are many diffrent guides as to how u can do this and when I studied digital imagemaking at university we got a bunch of papers with rules as to how u can work with composition. There are of course some general rules you can use, like the rule of thirds, the 3 rooms: fore, middle  and background. But these are not rules as such that you allways have to use them. I got a comment awhile ago about the lack of focal point in one of my images, it made me think since there was not a shap focus anywhere in the image, but for me there was a focal point that invited the eye in to the image so I guess that we all see according to our image-base. For example, I draw alot and looked at images of da-vinci and that type of images, when coming across picasso I couldn´t in anyway understand how people could raise him to the skies as one of the greatest painters. But getting to know the history and by seeing other artist that bridged the gap between Da-vinci and Picasso I can understand and appreciete both.

In some way I guess that is true for photos and compositions too, the more images I see, the more I can appreciate images that break away from my normal preference.

To sum it all up, there is no sure compositionsalway to get a good picture, but a good picture has allways some composition

To me, the word composition simply means that every aspect of the image works together. The impact of the individual pieces of the image(be they objects, light or shadow, or even an apparent abscence) , presented and positioned to create more than the sum of themselves.

To me an image has good composition if everything "Fits", or "Compliments each other".

That said, I still have alot to learn about it. 

But I think I'm on the path to learning....

Female's view: Composition is what makes an image 'pretty'. And by that I don't mean puppys to sigh at of flowers to hang on the wall.

Composition is (even a squashed toad) what holds the viewers attention, it's what makes the view walking past a gallery window stop and look thru and is you've really got the composition right they'll walk into the gallery to see if there are any more of the artists works to view.

Composition is what makes the viewer look harder, it's what makes the viewer look for more in your image/picture/painting, it's what maks the viewer think 'what's going on here'.

Composition for me (when I'm tking a photo) is 'boy this is interesting/beauitful/well light/unique/tells a story' and then I start thinking how can I capture this on film to look back and get this exact same feeling or how can I  capture this to show someone and make them feel exactly how I feel at the moment of first seeing the subject.

Yes 3rd, diagonals, levels, framing and all the rules apply as without those you would just be making a memory shot. One that the viewer walking past the gallery notices but doesn't stop to view.

Very excellent question ABodensohn !

I don't think the same as my friends here. Because composition is nothing subjective, it's a set of rule you are following or not. These rules are well defined from early Greek and Egyptian antiquity period of History. Before 3rd were the Gold Point, base of many thing. But this is not the most important.
Today, the problem is many person are confused between self-feeling & good picture.
When you like a picture, may be the picture is not good technically. And sometimes, you don't like a picture, but it's very good technically and may be artistically.
Bonker was talking about Picasso. A great master, yes but.. Who really like Guernica at the very first look ? Who like 'les demoiselles d'avignon' ? Do you like Cezanne ? Are you sure ? I can show you many works from him you will not like. You eye will not like it the first time. But after studying the picture, looking and looking again. Trying to understand what he was trying to say.. may be you will like it... or not ! of course !
So, make the difference between 'i like it' and 'It's a good work'.
When you respect the rules, the eye will appreciate the result. Diagonal, triangle, cross, tiers, gp, spiral, and many others give structure to the picture, so your eye can feel it and follow a way.
Crtitics said that Real Master can break the rules.. so why follow the rules of a good composition then ? :oP
Try to be objective, while understanding a good/bad compo. After that, our heart can appreciate or not what we are viewing.
In Art School, under the course 'esthetic', we learn how to 'decompose' a picture with class of word like line, curve, dynamic, colors, balance, base (and some others). This interesting because you must observe and dissect the picture BEFORE trying to understand it. Like this you really forget the 'i like it, i don't like it' system.

So this is composition : the structure of the picture, the dark and Cartesian part of the picture.

In my humble opinion of course ;o) I hope it was not too long !!!!!

Good night, i'm going to bed now lolllllllllllll
Olivier**
**

Do I think one should study the rules at one point or another in life, well yes if your desire is to work with images in any kind, it is important. 
Are the rules a must for everyone to know.. well for me, the answer is no. 
What I know of there aren´t any specific rule for any given object or subject, and if rules are only general, then are they not guidlines instead of rules?

Oliver 158 said that the rules are ancient and that the greeks and romes defined them, and I don´t argue with that. But the use of perspective that came around much later redefined the way we create today. Maby, just maby there is more to be discovered and defined in the way we create images and composition, but too find this we have let go and not always stick to the old.

Oliver158 you also said that we should make a diffrence between I like it and it´s a good work, but isn´t it a good work they´ve done if I like it ? We all look at picture from our base of knowledge, and I can´t say that one is better then the other.

mmm... i agree for a part with you Bonker but...
What do we learn from our early age ? To walk before running, ton drive carefully before have a race, draw the most photographically before unleash your creativity (in art academy).
Why ? because even in your worst work, there will be 'something for your past', a structure...

This is my point of view : past create the future...

About the 'i like it'  feeling ;o) I understand your point of view Bonker. But, an example ok ?

I was an archer (10 years ago lol), so if you post pic of archery i will really like it ! :oD But, this is not because i like it that the picture is good (compo, colors, balance, dynamic, etc).
I really don't like cats (sorry lol we are not friends cats and me) - So i think i will never like pictures of cats ! But, sometimes i see very nice picture of cats, technically excellent ! But i don't like it !

So, our own history create our own feeling, and this is with this feeling we can say if we like or not a picture. But it's not our subjectivity who analyse a picture -> you can easily see if a pic is over or under exposed, so it's the same about compo, focusing, balance...

of course, imho ;o)

I understand what you mean with the I like it, it´s a good picture, and putting it that way u got a good point. =)

I got one question about the technical part, cause I´m at the moment experimenting with focals and out of focus as a way to create photos, cant they ever be great cause per definition a great shot must allways be sharp or?

cool ;o)

hehe, there is no rules to get a fantastic shot ;o) If it's not focused, but you are experimenting your creativity, why not ?
I think if you know what you are doing, and you have a way to go... why not ? If you think you are knowing enough technique to unleash your creativity... go ahead and try !! :oD

With digital, we have the possibility to try and try again ! ;o)

So, no, focusing is not important -> if you know what you are doing of course !

Well I may not know everything I´m doing with the out of focused thing, but think I´ve passed the other stadiums.

I try and think in a impressionistic term.
I want the viewer to see the bigger part, and not the details, to capture the essence more then I care about every tiny detail..

Guess we drifted away from the compo-rules/guidlines.

why not ? it could be great ;o)
May be create another entry in the forum and post your tries ! Everybody can discuss about it ;o)

yep, a little bit ;o)