# What does "Composition" mean when people are using it in photography lingo.



## TheUndisputed

The attached image below is an image I uploaded to an art/photography website and everyone that sent me a comment on it said "Nice composition" and "composition is great."

What exactly do they mean by that?


----------



## Mgw189

Composition is the way you displayed your subject basically.  Where you place the subject in the frame of the picture.


----------



## chrisburke

not everything needs to be asked in a forum...

*com&#8901;po&#8901;si&#8901;tion *[kom-puh-zish-uh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




n]
 &#8211;noun   
1. the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole.


----------



## TheUndisputed

chrisburke said:


> not everything needs to be asked in a forum...
> 
> *com&#8901;po&#8901;si&#8901;tion *[kom-puh-zish-uh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n]
> noun
> 1. the act of combining parts or elements to form a whole.




I understand what the standard definition of Composition is. However, the same principles do not come into play when it comes to photography. Of course, because I didn't combine anything to form a whole. I saw something, held a camera up, and took a picture of it. There was no combining anything to create that photograph. 

So, I knew the definition of photo composition goes much deeper than then combining of parts to make a whole. Thanks Mgw for the reply!


----------



## DavidElliot

TheUndisputed said:


> I understand what the standard definition of Composition is. However, the same principles do not come into play when it comes to photography. Of course, because I didn't combine anything to form a whole. I saw something, held a camera up, and took a picture of it. There was no combining anything to create that photograph.
> 
> So, I knew the definition of photo composition goes much deeper than then combining of parts to make a whole. Thanks Mgw for the reply!



point goes to undisputed. i don't understand why people feel a need to bash on people who earnestly come here for help. just answer their question and realize that they're posting it for a reason. sure we could google it, but then why even belong to a forum in the first place? sometimes, it's just better to pitch questions to people who have had first hand experience

to answer your question, i would venture to say that composition is how the photographer chooses to arrange elements of a scene into a photo. he or she can choose to use a variety of tools to achieve a certain composition. for example, the usage of pattern, lines, symmetry, texture or DOF. 

that's probably just a shallow answer. i've only been involved in photography for a little over a year.


----------



## rdzmzda

man that picture has great composition  haha anyways.... check out this book will explain its a really good book just for this subject
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232809310&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos: Michael Freeman: Books[/ame]


----------



## ksmattfish

TheUndisputed said:


> However, the same principles do not come into play when it comes to photography. Of course, because I didn't combine anything to form a whole. I saw something, held a camera up, and took a picture of it. There was no combining anything to create that photograph.



Whether you were thinking about it or not, whether it was intentional or random, you did arrange the elements of the scene somewhat.  Possibly you didn't make the hill, plant the tree, or hang the swing, but the camera provides a frame, and you adjusted the frame so that the tree trunk was to the left and the tire swing in the middle.  You could have adjusted it so the tree trunk was in the middle and the swing to the right.  You could have lowered the tree in the photo.  You could have gotten closer to the tree, or shot it from an angle where the tire swing didn't show.  There are many different possibilities how to arrange the hill, the tree, and the swing.


----------



## Kondro86

ksmattfish said:


> Whether you were thinking about it or not, whether it was intentional or random, you did arrange the elements of the scene somewhat. Possibly you didn't make the hill, plant the tree, or hang the swing, but the camera provides a frame, and you adjusted the frame so that the tree trunk was to the left and the tire swing in the middle. You could have adjusted it so the tree trunk was in the middle and the swing to the right. You could have lowered the tree in the photo. You could have gotten closer to the tree, or shot it from an angle where the tire swing didn't show. There are many different possibilities how to arrange the hill, the tree, and the swing.


 
Ding Ding Ding.... I agree withe ksmattfish


----------



## TheUndisputed

ksmattfish said:


> Whether you were thinking about it or not, whether it was intentional or random, you did arrange the elements of the scene somewhat.  Possibly you didn't make the hill, plant the tree, or hang the swing, but the camera provides a frame, and you adjusted the frame so that the tree trunk was to the left and the tire swing in the middle.  You could have adjusted it so the tree trunk was in the middle and the swing to the right.  You could have lowered the tree in the photo.  You could have gotten closer to the tree, or shot it from an angle where the tire swing didn't show.  There are many different possibilities how to arrange the hill, the tree, and the swing.




Ah, I see where you are coming from. My reply to him had the nature it did because of his nature in reply to me. If I wanted a smarta** answer from someone I wouldn't have asked the question. I am brand new to photography (well, sort of), and the lingo is new to me. 

Thank you for explaining.


----------



## Torus34

I've found it helpful to think of what a photographer does in contrast to what a painter does.

Both try to create a pleasing picture.  Pleasing, in this instance, isn't meant to signify 'pretty', but rather pleasing in terms of the 'rightness' of the image with regard to the subject and what the photographer/painter is trying to 'say'.  [And, by the way, there's nothing at all wrong with trying to say, 'Isn't this pretty?']

The difference in what they do is this: the painter starts with a blank canvas and then adds pigment to it, bit by bit, until he/she has added just enough.  The photographer starts with the visible universe and subtracts from it until what remains is -- just enough.


----------



## bevin

Nucely put Torus


----------



## chrisburke

sorry if i offended you by telling you what composition is, but photography lingo or not, that is what composition means... its not a lingo term.. composition in photography is the acting of combining objects to make a whole... whether you move things or not,  you still set up the picture (as people have described in here already)



TheUndisputed said:


> Ah, I see where you are coming from. My reply to him had the nature it did because of his nature in reply to me. If I wanted a smarta** answer from someone I wouldn't have asked the question. I am brand new to photography (well, sort of), and the lingo is new to me.
> 
> Thank you for explaining.



i wasnt aiming to give you a smart ass answer.. i was giving you an answer jackass...  i'm now adding you to my block list... if you cant accept help when its given, i want nothing to do with you.


----------



## Arch

lets not sink to name calling please.

Matt discribed it well... in photography, it is more to with the arrangement of elements within the photo itself.


----------



## TheUndisputed

Arch said:


> lets not sink to name calling please.



:???:

Who was calling anyone a name?


----------



## Arch

TheUndisputed said:


> :???:
> 
> Who was calling anyone a name?






chrisburke said:


> .. i was giving you an answer jackass... .



.


----------



## TheUndisputed

Arch said:


> .



Ah, my eyes have deceived me. I didn't even see that


----------



## chadsdphoto

I realize I'm basically restating what others have said, but.... :blushing:

To me composition is choosing what is going to be in the photo and what is not going to be in the photo, and then arranging those things where you want them. Once you realize that you are doing that each time you put the camera to your eye, you then get better and better at it.

Using the "rule of thirds," leading lines, converging lines, placement of bright areas and dark areas, depth of field, etc. can all be included in composition.

I hope that helps, but I also hope it leads to more questions, because that's how we all learn.

Good luck shooting!


----------



## Big Mike

Here are some links that might be useful...
Rule of thirds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gestalt Principles
Design Notes: Gestalt


----------



## ksmattfish

The photographer can control composition at three points in the creation of a photograph.  Before the exposure is made the scene can be arranged.  At the exposure with the choice of format, lens, and location of the camera in relation to the scene/subject matter.  And after the exposure in the processing, printing, and beyond (mixed media, collage, etc...).

http://photoinf.com/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=composition+eye+placement+portrait


----------



## Marmeduke

I think composition is often something that gets 'over-thought'. Most people take pictures fairly instinctively with some notion of what often makes for a strong image. Your picture here is quite striking and bleak in its composition, with the swing fairly central, tree looming over it, and featureless foreground and background. Sometimes people use 'composition' as a lazy catch all term for any characteristic of a photo! I've got a page explaining composition at http://www.photography-art-cafe.com/photography-composition.html.


----------

