• Welcome to Focus on Photography Forum!
    Come join the fun, make new friends and get access to hidden forums, resources, galleries and more.
    We encourage you to sign up and join our community.

Featured Anatomy of a good picture

Featured articles
Tri-X.jpg
Circa 1990

I worked at newspapers for 10 years back last century. I went to college for that. I shot everything, and a lot of it. I'd shoot and develop 3 or 4 assignments a day, 6 or 7 days a week. Paying the bills.

So I learned what worked for me, if nothing else, from just pure brute force. And a lot of that meant learning the rules of composition, or at least being able to see the concepts while being a little fuzzy on their exact definitions.

I hear photographers say, "I'm an artist, a rebel. I don't need no stinkin rules holding me back."

I'm all for that. Stretch your vision, stand apart. That's the definition of art and I'll applaud with heart when you pull it off. We remember the people who can do it consistently. Strive for art, always.

But art ain't easy. If it gets too easy, they move the line and make it hard again. Art has to be risky, but my job was to come back with a good picture every time. That was the floor.

Plain old good pictures don't get enough love. And in this firehose of images we bathe in, they're vanishingly rare. My line is, strive for art, but settle for craftsmanship.

So I always try to plan out a picture. Here's the plan I mapped out while lining up the farmhouse shot in the next post. I've never tried to articulate a plan, but I've always wanted to, so here goes.

Farmhouse.jpg

This isn't a great picture. It's not one I show a lot. But I think it's a good shot, a well-composed shot.

This is in central Washington state. Washington apples, Cascade hops, that's where they grow them. I go out there for the clouds. That doesn't always work out, but a lot of times it works out just right. The problem is, there's not much to put in front of those clouds, so I work with what I find.

You have an instant, a fraction of a second, to catch a viewer's eye with a picture. My first goal is to guide their eye to what I want them to see first and hopefully that will make them stay around to see what else is involved. If I can do that, my next goal is to move their eye around the frame in an orderly fashion. Make them look where I want them to look and keep them away from anything that might distract them. That's where rules and techniques come in.

ROT_Full.JPG

Let's talk about the rule of thirds (ROT). Everybody knows what that is, and if you don't, you should. Go look it up. It's easy to learn and easy to see. It might be cliche and may not lead to art, but it gives you a sturdy platform for building a good image. When I'm lining up a shot I pretty much always look at ROT framing first, then make adjustments if necessary. I stayed with the ROT for this shot.

The ROT says your power areas in the frame are at the intersections around the inner ninth. Those are a viewer's natural entry points to a picture. So that's where I start, and I start with brights. In general, a viewer's eye will go first to the brightest part of the frame. I put the white farmhouse in the lower left ROT intersection, hoping to lure them there long enough to get them interested in taking a tour. I call that the bright hook and place it where it's easy to find.

I shoot a lot of power poles when I'm out in the farmland. Sometimes they're the only thing breaking up the landscape. They're handy for establishing a vanishing point, and while I used them that way in this shot, that wasn't a dominant element of the picture at all. In my plan, it would take some time to guide the viewer back there to the horizon, and if I kept their attention for that long, I'd consider that a win.

I used the foreground poles as frames. If I can hook you with the house, I try to keep you there with the frame of the 2 poles across the road. To make that easier, I built that inner frame along an ROT grid. I want you to go right in the front door.

ROT_Frame1.JPG

If I can set the bright hook, now I try to move their eye. I want them to back out until they find that second inner frame defined by the 2 polls on this side of the road. That second frame's most important job is to bring the sky into play. And we have the ROT going for us in that frame as well.

Unless they're super dramatic, well-managed skies don't generally attract a viewer's eye. Bright ones can be very distracting to the point of ruining a picture. Most of the time your sky just regulates the weight in its part of the frame, maybe filling up its third, and the viewer will just take it for granted. Knowing that can play its own role in defining the overall viewing path.

If the sky is important in your shot, you have to lead the viewer to it. That's the purpose of that second inner frame. The sky needs to star in this image.

ROT_Frame2.JPG

If the viewer stops there, I'm happy. They got what I came to tell them and I thank them for their time. But if I'm lucky, they'll ride that sky over the wire and into the vanishing point on the horizon. They've gone as far as the eye can see. Touchdown.

Miscellaneous, Best Practices and a Request at the End.

Light

I didn't talk about light. You should always talk about light, first thing. It was cloudy in the background, but enough sun for sharp shadows in the foreground. The light was very much behind me and my Canon Digic X processor figured out this overall exposure. I didn't change it much. If the foreground light had been any harsher at all, I would not have kept this shot. The best I could do here was to keep the light out of the way. It wasn't the star this time.

I go out looking for light. If I can find good light, I'll find something to bounce it off gracefully into my lens. Good light makes good shots and I seek it out. But a lot of times with light, you just get what you get and you are where you are. And if you do it enough, you'll find yourself there again. If bad light ruins a trip, fight it. Try to figure out one way, any way, to kinda, maybe make it work. Even if you fail, you'll learn things about that kind of light. If you do figure out a way, you'll have that tool anytime you need it. Maybe turn it into a technique.

Light is too big of a subject to cover here, but I want to say one more thing: learn the geometry of light. Light travels in a straight line and the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. Incident light is tough to shoot with. Sometimes it can be part of a great plan, sometimes it's the only option. Whatever puts you there, you should know what you're looking at and know how to deal with it. Reflected light is much easier. It's what your camera's meter and processor were built to work with. Put the sun more or less behind you and that's one less thing you need to worry about.

Golden Hour.jpg

Sunrises, sunsets, they're all just orange crap. We reached our quota long ago. Turn around and watch the reflections of a sunset. That's where the good shots are.

Less is More
That's as cliche as it comes, but it's true every time. Anything that doesn't help a shot, hurts, or is at least a hazard to your viewer's attention. Anything that doesn't help, crop it out, blur it out, put it in a shadow, move your feet, hide it behind something, remember to erase it in post, whatever. Figure out a way to either make it matter, or clean it up.

Level
Unless you make a conscious and reasoned decision not to, level up your shots. Out of level, out of plumb is distracting as hell. If that's your plan, go nuts. If not, level up. Second only to dynamic range, the viewfinder level overlay is the best thing that digital brought to photography.

Trainride.jpg

Thumbnails
Look at your shot postage-stamp size. If all the right things in your plan pop in the right places at that size, all the better. Makes for a handy check and a good tie breaker.

-----

I got a million more, but that's all I can think of right now. Ideally, the intention of this post is to make this a conversation. Add your comments, ask questions, throw in a picture you like and walk us through it. I used to work on staffs. Even a small newspaper would have 3 or 4 photographers on staff. Different papers would send shooters to the same events. We talked to each other about photography all the time, and it was hardly ever about gear. (Eh, down on the list, anyway.) We mainly talked about pictures, angles, techniques, chemistry, light, art. I'd like to try that here.

--30--

[Originally posted 22 July 2024]
 
I'm very interested in seeing how you apply your principles to other styles of photography.

For instance, as I have had an increased interest in wide angle, I've come to appreciate that in general: the wider the angle, the more important it is to have foreground, mid ground and background elements of interest. Not a fast rule, but in general because the wider you shoot the less specific the subject can be. It's almost a second form of a leading line. Your farmhouse photo has it with (in my mind) the field and the road, the house and its immediate framing, and the hills and sky. The power lines leading away to the vanishing point are a pleasant bonus that ties them together.
 
This is instantly my favorite thread on the entire forum. Thank you for breaking down the photos by articulating the thought process behind them. Your writing style and your way of expressing yourself is rather unique, entertaining, and interesting.

The photo you showcase and discuss must have been taken just a few hours' drive from my home in Okanogan, Washington. I am very familiar with that wheat country south of me. You did a thoughtful and wonderful job of composing that photo - the telephone poles present so many opportunities and challenges, inasmuch as how you align them with the background elements. Can you imaging how different that photo would be if you would have moved just 6 inches to your right?!
 
I suppose a succinct way of putting it would be “create the image in your head and then replicate it with the camera.” Easier said then done.
 
This is instantly my favorite thread on the entire forum. Thank you for breaking down the photos by articulating the thought process behind them. Your writing style and your way of expressing yourself is rather unique, entertaining, and interesting.

The photo you showcase and discuss must have been taken just a few hours' drive from my home in Okanogan, Washington. I am very familiar with that wheat country south of me. You did a thoughtful and wonderful job of composing that photo - the telephone poles present so many opportunities and challenges, inasmuch as how you align them with the background elements. Can you imaging how different that photo would be if you would have moved just 6 inches to your right?!
Thanks Tom. This was out in, I'll call it Ephrata, between George and the Grand Coulee Dam.

Six inches would have been a lot. This is an old picture and I was nit-picking it some and I thought, that second pole on this side is too close to the pole behind it. If I had just leaned to my left a little bit, I could have hidden the one in back with the one in front. But looking at it some more, that would have changed the relationship of all the poles to everything else in the frame. I'd like to think that I'd noticed that in real time settled on this compromise.

That's the main reason I pretty much never use a tripod. It locks you into position. If I get a shot all framed up, then decide I need to lean to the left ... ah cripes.
 
I'm very interested in seeing how you apply your principles to other styles of photography.

For instance, as I have had an increased interest in wide angle, I've come to appreciate that in general: the wider the angle, the more important it is to have foreground, mid ground and background elements of interest. Not a fast rule, but in general because the wider you shoot the less specific the subject can be. It's almost a second form of a leading line. Your farmhouse photo has it with (in my mind) the field and the road, the house and its immediate framing, and the hills and sky. The power lines leading away to the vanishing point are a pleasant bonus that ties them together.
I may be the wrong guy to ask for a couple of reasons.

First, I'm fairly new at landscapes. Before this last iteration of my photographic journey, I never gave them any thought. During the covid lockdowns, I literally googled, "how to photograph a landscape." I didn't even know what made a good one. The most common advice at the time was, shoot toes to heaven. Let the viewer see the soil you're standing on to the horizon and beyond. Hmm? I think it might have been a fad. I don't see that as much lately. People were just looking for ways to use those fancy new ultrawides that everybody was buying.

Second, ultrawides intimidate me. The widest lens I owned in the 20th century was a 24mm. 24mm is very wide and I probably used it more than any other lens. I always carried 2 bodies, one with a 24, and one with something else. I mainly used it for its perspective rather than its angle of view. It gives you separation between the foreground and the background. Very handy for environmental portraits. Lets you put a person in a place, a thing in a place.

I've got a 16-35mm lens that I hardly ever use. For me, 16mm is just too wide to wrangle. Distractions leak in from all sides. Plus, they make lines do funny things. All that scares me. I know how to work a 24. That's wide enough for me.

LE_08-7.jpg
 
I was thinking more along the lines of action, or people, or animals for different styles that you can apply your techniques to. But you've hinted at them in your B&W shots so I'm sure you'll get there.

I'm not trying to pull you into UWA, I promise! I only mentioned wide because I spend so much time shooting long which is compositionally very different: there's often just subject and background. UWA is a whole different thing. Use it when it's the right tool, and leave it in the bag otherwise because everything gets small and boring. There's a UWA thread that shows different ways in which they can be useful.
 
I was thinking more along the lines of action, or people, or animals for different styles that you can apply your techniques to. But you've hinted at them in your B&W shots so I'm sure you'll get there.

I'm not trying to pull you into UWA, I promise! I only mentioned wide because I spend so much time shooting long which is compositionally very different: there's often just subject and background. UWA is a whole different thing. Use it when it's the right tool, and leave it in the bag otherwise because everything gets small and boring. There's a UWA thread that shows different ways in which they can be useful.
I'm sorry. I misunderstood your question completely.

I shoot pretty much no sports these days, but I have that in my history, and I do love me a telephoto lens. The byproduct characteristics of big glass give you a whole box full of tools that you can use compositionally. Of course there's reach, which allows you to get tight. The distance they allow compresses the perspective so you can smash the action even tighter. You want high shutter speeds, so you're generally shooting wide open or thereabouts and your depth of field is inches deep, so you can get some creamy backgrounds. And the field of view is so narrow that, if you pay attention at all, you can find clean backgrounds, so go ahead and do that.

LE_08-2021.jpg

Now you get all that whether you want it or not. It comes with the lens and you can't turn any of it off. So you should set up your shots so they'll be flattered by the lens. Finding a place to stand is probably the most important decisions a sports photographer makes during an event. You want the action running right at you to take advantage of the perspective compression. Action from the side spreads out the athletes in the frame, and in between you got turf and crowd -- all smashed together, remember. Pretty hard to guide a viewer's eye through that. Unless the athletes are right in front of you, panning across with the action gives you no control over the composition in an action shot.

Birds are my new sports. The gear overlaps, but sports is way more predictable than critters. I'll shoot any wildlife I can get close enough to, but it turns out that's a very limiting factor. I'm a trail shooter, so I only shoot wildlife brave enough to get close to the trail, with me and everybody else. But I shoot whatever I see, sports style. I'm surprised at how lucky I get sometimes. A deer will show up in a foggy meadow or an eagle will fly right overhead with rimlight glowing off its wings. But if I don't get lucky, I got no answer. I got no control. I got no insight.

LE_08-7644.jpg

Dog action at the dog park. I got to pick my light at least.
 
Last edited:
Hi Ken...

Great article full of helpful information for any photographer. Your writing style leads the reader into your article just as the leading lines in your photograph. You must have spent some time writing for that newspaper in addition to providing photographs.

Also, you don't see "--30--" much anymore. ;)

Tom
 
Last edited:
That's a great article and thank you for posting it. I teach photography myself, and I tell my students there are no 'rules' in photography, just guidelines, but sticking too rigidly to them will end up constraining one's ability to engage with that chance event 'the decisive moment' that can occasionally come our way.

When we look at some of the most revered photographs of the last century, quite a few of them lack the utter concentration on sharpness that has gripped our world, particularly since the dawn of digital. Possibly the most obvious example is that of the D-Day landing at Omaha beach by Robert Capa, and included in the top 100 images of the 20th Century by Time Magazine.

1721798449124.png

From a purely technical point of view, it could be argued that is rather awful. It's smudgy almost reminiscent of a charcoal sketch - the result of an image processing fault back in the UK when they were rushing to get to print on June 6th.

Yet, those same 'flaws' capture the tension and the chaos, and draw us in to look more closely at the image, and one can argue that is the essential nature of a great image - it engages us. The composition is actually pretty good, especially considering a bunch of Germans were trying to kill Capa and anyone else in his area. One is led from the bottom right , along the path of the extended arm of the soldier to his head and then on to the contextual imagery and chaos of the background. No, it's not a sharp print, but its a sharp concept.
 
Last edited:
Great article, Ken. We can all learn a lot from it!


I firmly believe that in order to break the rules you first have to learn them.
Absolutely. One cannot intelligently interpret principles of exposure and composition without being totally aware of them. For example, in the realm of architecture, the Italian architectural great Palladio wrote the rules and even developed equations for the proportions for elegant design in the classical style. Having written the rules for others to follow, he proceeded to break them when he chose, and to great effect. The gift of mastery is the potential to depart from the normal and surpass it - when appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. One cannot intelligently interpret principles of exposure and composition without being totally aware of them. For example, in the realm of architecture, the Italian architectural great Palladio wrote the rules and even developed equations for the proportions for elegant design in the classical style. Having written the rules for others to follow, he proceeded to break them when I chose, and to great effect. The gift of mastery is the potential to depart from the normal.
Yes! Well said, Trevor.
 
Back
Top Bottom