I spent a small amount of time last week (on a business trip) at Colorado National Monument near sunset and took several images. I posted a couple of them in other NPN forums (such as ESS) for people to critique and beat up, as I continue to try and get a handle on composition. I'm posting this here even though this isn't a PNW shot because I really trust the judgement of this forum... y'all have the sharpest eyes and aren't afraid to say what you don't like about an image.
SO, beat it up! I left it uncropped on purpose. Any C&C is appreciated. Used my 5D/17-40mm/3-stop Singh-Ray (handheld of course).
Paul, let me tell you first of all that I have met people who have spent very little time at photography and never been critiqued by anyone in their life and yet somehow understand the basics of composition very well. It's something far more innate than say, technical proficiancy. It is something that can be taught only to a point.
There are basics, there are 'rules', there are concepts that hold true in many situations, but there is no right answer. If you want me to be completely honest, I feel the more you try to listen to everyone at the same time the more you will impede your own ability to develop a personal vision and style, which is of greater importance. Something to think about. Composition can be deep, engaging and vast, but it can also be much more abstract. It can be some of both. But it must elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Without that, the image fails.
With that said, composition as it pertains to these grand landscape photographs is more about the development of strong lines that lead the eye into and through the landscape, while lending both a sense of the place and a sense of granduer and interest throughout. Including as many complimentary elements as possible, with a cohesiveness that ties them together is key. Let me be totally honest here, this is not for everyone, and there are some people that simply don't see things this way and never will. That's not a bad thing. If it's not for you, don't give up!
It's clear you want critique on your composition here. Let me start by putting myself in your shoes and trying to understand, in my own right, what you were trying to say with this image.....Grand, beautiful, scenic, powerful, expansive, amazing views. Right? Something like that. Well, we're trying to convey a 3 dimensional reality using a 2 dimensional medium. That puts the focus squarely on depth. Developing depth is as important as any aspect of the landscape photography. Look at the works of painters, those without such limitations as cameras, and reality. Look at the way background contrasts and tonal values are muted, and often brighter compared to the foregrounds, to draw the eye near to far. Wide lenses work nicely for this in grand landscapes beacuse they distance the foreground from the background, but it's more than that. Making a path from dark to light, cold to warm, contrasty to faded, so on and so forth, these are just as important as the near to far. Look for those things that add depth.
The shadowed rocks in the foreground are of equal brightness to the highlights on the background cliffs. This might benefit from some correction towards more natural levels. The wide angle adds a lot of depth though, because it stretches the eye from the detailed foreground all the way to the sky. The lens makes up most of the depth here by itself. The lines also work. Not perfectly, but they do. More because of the way the vertical foreground line contrasts the background horizontals than anything else. This adds some separation, even if it looses some cohesiveness. The best scenario with these grand vistas might be to find some sweeping, veritical lines or powerful subject that anchors the foreground, yet compliments the background. It just so happens that you've picked a really difficult area to find such features! In these canyonland vistas, I often work with trying to develop a more layered sense of depth that works mostly because of tonal values and textures rather than strong foregrounds.
Anyway, there's some thoughts. About five mintues worth so don't take it as any sort of serious essay into the art of composition. I know you've asked before a few times for my thoughts and I haven't been able to come up with anything at the moment, so here it is.
Marc put it well but here is my take, on this photo, more specifically.
The left foreground is pretty much a big ol' slab of rock, not much interest. The right foreground, although adding a bit of depth, is a big ol' area of sagebrush and dirt, again, adding depth but not much interest. The dead center of the photo is interesting but, IMHO, it's not adding much to the parts of the photo I like.
What I do like about the photo is the bright cliffs, sweeping in from the right and the far background cliffs sweeping in from the left. Additionally, the sky is pretty nice and heavier on the right, giving the feeling of it sweeping in from the right.
So, from the middle to the back you have some pretty nice lines sweeping back and forth. If you had moved way forward, up to this side of those bushes in the middle of the photo, maybe you could have used them as the near part of the photo, used the valley as the middle part and then, maybe the lit up cliffs would have had some separation from the far cliffs and you would have ended up with a real nice back and forth thing ending in a real nice sky. Do you see how one's eye would have moved up the photo, to the sky and then back again. You brain would be enjoying the back and forth thing all the while "leading" you into the photo.
I KNEW I could count on you guys to come through! Only 59 minutes after posting and a world of knowledge comes flying back.
Seriously, what both of you wrote is a huge boost, and you have me thinking, FINALLY, with a direction to head for. I know that composition isn't going to come from a book with all the answers in one neat list, but there has to be SOME starting point. You both opened up a whole new direction, I can't even explain it all here, and don't want to get TOO wordy. But Marc, your 3rd paragraph about focusing on depth being it's a 2D image... I think I just got hit with a V8 bottle. I've always looked across a scene, and only selectively at that, but never INTO it. I didn't even KNOW to do that. Looking back at the image, I see just what you mean! And you both mention the scene's elements leading your eye...pete's sake, I've always just inhaled the scene w/o regard to that. Whoa, what I've been missing... Mark H, your detailed explanation of the eye moving in a photo is as priceless. Maybe this wasn't your intention, but you applied to my shot a lot of what Marc A was explaining. Wow.
OK, I've got some exciting work to do. I'm sure there are better things you both could have been doing on a Friday night, but the time you took to respond is appreciated more than I can say. So, thank you!
Posted by Adrian Klein on May 17, 2008 at 12:42 AM
Paul, I will keep my comments a little more brief if that is ok. All of that from Marc and Mark is good though. I think for me I am struggling to find a main point of interest after looking at it a couple times. The cliff front is in the center of the image but I am not sure it's really where you want the focus. The sun lit cliffs are very nice though. The FG rocks seem a little bright for the situation you are shooting. For me the composition is what I am having trouble with. Seems like a great moment to be enjoying live though!
I'm not nearly as techical and "deep" in my thought processes when setting up a composition as Marc and Mark are but I'll throw in my 2 cents for what it's worth.
Technically, this is excellent. Exposure and focus are spot on. Compositionally speaking it needs just a little work, IMO. I look for strong immediate foregrounds that grab the viewers attention and complementary elements or lines that lead the viewer through the image to the background. In this case the bare FG rock is not all that strong and I spend very little time there. Also, the brush coming in from the left side is a little distracting....I would rather see all of it or none of it. Having never been to this location I can't say if you could have done any better than you did but placing a strong, but not overpowering, element in the immediate FG would help this tremendously.
In my high school creative writing class, the teacher, Mr. Sullivan, who won awards for his teaching, used to tell us to write clearly and concisely and then rewrite the story cutting 30% of the words. He used to say that every word had to contribute to the story. The same thing goes for your photos, if an element doesn't contribute, then you probably don't have the strongest comp and you should work the scene further.
I don't have really anything to add as everyone else has really given you some valuable insight. However, this image sure brings back a lot of memories - many good, a few not so good. I've been up there more times than I can count, and I still have a lot of family and friends who live down there in the Valley in Fruita, GJ and Palisades... That is a pretty nice area out there, especially up on Grand Mesa...
I would agree 100% with everything said here and like to add that you need to find the reason for taking the photo. What doe this scene say to you.... and then after setting up your composition, but before clicking the shutter release button, do a check-list:
a) Is there a place for everything and nothing cut off on the edges of the frame that look awkward ?
In my opinion, no, you have sagebrush on the Right of the cliff that you only see a part of, but not enough to warrant being in the shot (in my opinion that adds confsion to someone looking at this - where is the other side of that brush ? Why did it get cut off?). That little white rock on the bottom floor doesn't help say anything so I would have aimed the lens higher up - but when I look at that scene from that perspective, I say to myself that those little brush trees on the other side of the cliff face (other side of the cliff face you are currently shooting) might be on the edge looking down into the valley. I'd head in that direction and try to find a stronger combination of elements to put into the shot.
b) is the horizon level ? I carry a bubble leveler that fits on my flash shoe mount. I check it everytime before I finally click the shutter button.
Technically, things look very nice, but as many others have said, the compostion isn't saying anything clearly enough to warrant taking this shot. I'm primarily a musician turned photographer. The best songs are the most focused, simple with a clear single emotional tonality to them - from Bach to Radiohead. The EXACT same fundamental rules apply to all forms of art.
So simplify, and hone what YOU want the image to say and you're on your way.
I find it fascinating to note how many of us on these forums work in tech or science, professions that don't typically come to mind when discussing art. My take is that many aspects of photography have not just a subjectively artistic aspect, but also a strong technically objective aspect, and that the photographers who are exceptional excel at both.
There seems to be a Bell Curve of innate proficiency at both of these aspects. I may be wrong, but hope I'm right, in believing that while you can't change where you start on the curve, you do have the ability to move up the curve with learning and practice. I have no qualms about admitting that I have low innate skills when it comes to photography, especially the artistic side. I think I've safely made it through the "Wow that's pretty, I should take a picture" phase and am working on the "I'm going to follow the rules and see if I can do what those other awesome photographers did." Who knows, maybe someday I'll make it to the "Here is my unique artistic vision which will knock your socks off" phase, but that's a pretty far shift on the curve for me .
Meanwhile, I just go read the above posts over and over again.
Meanwhile, I just go read the above posts over and over again.
I think I'm at six and counting...
For brevity's sake I won't reply to each post above, but they ALL have great worth, every one of them. Man, what a thread this has been... informative and enlightening is an understatement. Seriously, I was hoping that someone would return a nugget that I could grasp, and instead El Capitan landed in my living room (and don't be coming here to Cincinnati to shoot it, the haze and humidity makes for terrible light... ).
But thanks again to all, I've never printed an entire thread to a post before. This will be the first.
And Thanks ever so much to Marc, Mark, John L., and John W. Taking the time for such a detailed explanation, with some nice analogies, is so appreciated. I learned a lot along with Paul.
Mark H.'s comment that every element should contribute to the larger story is right on. Being able to work and edit a scene before clicking the shutter is an absolutely essential skill; especially so for wide-angle photography where - due to the sheer number of elements in the scene - it's often more challenging to eliminate distracting or weak elements, and then get everything remaining to work in harmony.
Several folks gave great advice on what types of elements and arrangements lend themselves to strong comps. I'll add to the suggestions relating to what types of techniques can be helpful.
Critiques often happen after an image has been made; try doing it before you make one. As you approach a scene that you want to photograph, walk around a little to find an angle of view that eliminates the bulk of distracting elements. Once you get your camera set up, experiment a little with different focal lengths. As you zoom in and out, you'll start to see elements entering or leaving the frame, and you'll be able to experience the positive or negative impact they have. Be ruthless - eliminate absolutely everything that doesn't contribute to the story. If eliminating a "bad actor" also eliminates a stronger element, you'll have to weigh the pros/cons of keeping or eliminating them both. If you choose to keep them, see if you can mitigate the impact of the weaker element with a slightly different angle or position. Keep doing this until you run out of ideas for improving the comp. It's an iterative process.
Once you've eliminated the bulk of the distractions, continue working to get the remaining elements arranged in the most harmonious manner possible. Slight changes of camera position can put high impact elements at strategic points in the frame and keep them away from edges; or can improve relative position between two or more elements - e.g., providing separation between two objects that are "touching" or overlapping, or lining up objects to create a lead-in to the scene.
In your image, the sage or juniper clump on the left is the most conspicuous element that needs to be eliminated. I would have started - either in-camera or in my mind's eye - by focusing on the top 1/3 of the scene and working back until I hit something that weakened the comp. I would either move or zoom to work around that object, or that would likely become the widest angle of view I would try to work with. Keeping the valley floor in the scene lends depth and relief, but including the bland rock and scrub on the left weakens the image. You could try to find a vantage point that would let you keep the valley and lose the rock.
Over time, this iterative editing process can become more intuitive and you may find yourself editing the scene without the camera. I agree with Marc A. that some people are naturally gifted when it comes to composing a scene; others work and work at it and may not improve beyond a certain point. But, regardless of the level of innate skill, critiquing and editing your own comps as you're setting them up will allow you to get the absolute most out of your abilities, and the scene.
Rick, what an excellent workflow you listed out. Did you mistakenly reveal some major secrets of the best photo gurus out there??
You NEVER see this type of detailed instruction in any book, at least to the level you described. I do realize that there are some with that natural gift and others that will have to work at it and only get so far (that's my category). However, the majority of us who have this passion to capture beauty in an image don't even have a starting point most of the time. Maybe that seems strange to the more-experienced photographers. Up until two nights ago, I had no idea how to even approach a scene (obvious from my posted photo). I've read several books, they all say the same thing: "Simplify, eliminate distractions, use form and lines and shape and perspective to convey your image", blah blah blah. Every time I'd read that canned statement, I'd be screaming HOW???? What is a good line and a bad one? What are the distracting elements, and which ones add to the shot? How do you know?? What's the method to start identifying the distracting elements???? What do you LOOK FOR to even know what to add or eliminate???
Then, one-by-one, starting with Marc, you guys all opened the flood gates of understanding what all this means. I don't mean I "know" it all now... I mean, I now know what I don't know, if that makes sense. I now know what to practice and what to look for and now have a method to work the scene. The step-by-step you listed combined with the info in all the other replies above yours, again, is this ultimate photo lesson. I've had a few people I know read this thread, and they are as blown away as me. For us rookies, this thread needs to be published somewhere.
Thank you for what you wrote. I thought this thread was done, and you just sent it 3 miles farther.
Thanks for the kind words guys - I'm glad I could contribute.
The answer to the "how" question goes beyond even what has been suggested so far in this thread. Ultimately, you're the only person who can identify what adds to, or detracts from, an image before you make it, so making yourself proficient in that practice is imperative. And that's really the hard part, imo.
I taught critical writing in an honors program at the U. of Pitt. Even when very accomplished writers were asked to critique their own work, it was very difficult and their critiques weren't all that compelling. They could effectively critique others' work, providing insightful comments, creative suggestions, etc. But, they struggled with critiquing and improving their own work. I think the same is true for many photographers.
One way - arguably one of the best ways - that any of us can improve our own work is to spend a lot of time critiquing others' work so that we get familiar with the process, and develop our own personalized sense of what contributes to - or detracts from - a successful image, unfettered by the emotional attachment we have to our own images. Do that long enough, and you'll find that when it comes to critiquing your own compositions in the field, you will 1) have a rich library of images that you've studied/critiqued to better guide your choices about what to keep, what to eliminate, and how best to arrange the elements in your own image; and 2) be more efficient/proficient at it, which is important when conditions are changing quickly.
Rick, your last post highlights why I find these forums so helpful. I learn an awful lot from what works for others and what doesn't. I especially like the honest, friendly banter here in the PNW forum where folks are willing to say what they don't like just as well as what they do like.
I especially like the honest, friendly banter here in the PNW forum where folks are willing to say what they don't like just as well as what they do like.
Exactly why I posted a Colorado shot in this forum. And look at what this thread developed into! The 35,000 people who've read all this just became better photographers in the last week.
Discussion
18 repliesI spent a small amount of time last week (on a business trip) at Colorado National Monument near sunset and took several images. I posted a couple of them in other NPN forums (such as ESS) for people to critique and beat up, as I continue to try and get a handle on composition. I'm posting this here even though this isn't a PNW shot because I really trust the judgement of this forum... y'all have the sharpest eyes and aren't afraid to say what you don't like about an image.
SO, beat it up! I left it uncropped on purpose. Any C&C is appreciated. Used my 5D/17-40mm/3-stop Singh-Ray (handheld of course).
Thanks!
-PD
There are basics, there are 'rules', there are concepts that hold true in many situations, but there is no right answer. If you want me to be completely honest, I feel the more you try to listen to everyone at the same time the more you will impede your own ability to develop a personal vision and style, which is of greater importance. Something to think about. Composition can be deep, engaging and vast, but it can also be much more abstract. It can be some of both. But it must elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Without that, the image fails.
With that said, composition as it pertains to these grand landscape photographs is more about the development of strong lines that lead the eye into and through the landscape, while lending both a sense of the place and a sense of granduer and interest throughout. Including as many complimentary elements as possible, with a cohesiveness that ties them together is key. Let me be totally honest here, this is not for everyone, and there are some people that simply don't see things this way and never will. That's not a bad thing. If it's not for you, don't give up!
It's clear you want critique on your composition here. Let me start by putting myself in your shoes and trying to understand, in my own right, what you were trying to say with this image.....Grand, beautiful, scenic, powerful, expansive, amazing views. Right? Something like that. Well, we're trying to convey a 3 dimensional reality using a 2 dimensional medium. That puts the focus squarely on depth. Developing depth is as important as any aspect of the landscape photography. Look at the works of painters, those without such limitations as cameras, and reality. Look at the way background contrasts and tonal values are muted, and often brighter compared to the foregrounds, to draw the eye near to far. Wide lenses work nicely for this in grand landscapes beacuse they distance the foreground from the background, but it's more than that. Making a path from dark to light, cold to warm, contrasty to faded, so on and so forth, these are just as important as the near to far. Look for those things that add depth.
The shadowed rocks in the foreground are of equal brightness to the highlights on the background cliffs. This might benefit from some correction towards more natural levels. The wide angle adds a lot of depth though, because it stretches the eye from the detailed foreground all the way to the sky. The lens makes up most of the depth here by itself. The lines also work. Not perfectly, but they do. More because of the way the vertical foreground line contrasts the background horizontals than anything else. This adds some separation, even if it looses some cohesiveness. The best scenario with these grand vistas might be to find some sweeping, veritical lines or powerful subject that anchors the foreground, yet compliments the background. It just so happens that you've picked a really difficult area to find such features! In these canyonland vistas, I often work with trying to develop a more layered sense of depth that works mostly because of tonal values and textures rather than strong foregrounds.
Anyway, there's some thoughts. About five mintues worth so don't take it as any sort of serious essay into the art of composition. I know you've asked before a few times for my thoughts and I haven't been able to come up with anything at the moment, so here it is.
The left foreground is pretty much a big ol' slab of rock, not much interest. The right foreground, although adding a bit of depth, is a big ol' area of sagebrush and dirt, again, adding depth but not much interest. The dead center of the photo is interesting but, IMHO, it's not adding much to the parts of the photo I like.
What I do like about the photo is the bright cliffs, sweeping in from the right and the far background cliffs sweeping in from the left. Additionally, the sky is pretty nice and heavier on the right, giving the feeling of it sweeping in from the right.
So, from the middle to the back you have some pretty nice lines sweeping back and forth. If you had moved way forward, up to this side of those bushes in the middle of the photo, maybe you could have used them as the near part of the photo, used the valley as the middle part and then, maybe the lit up cliffs would have had some separation from the far cliffs and you would have ended up with a real nice back and forth thing ending in a real nice sky. Do you see how one's eye would have moved up the photo, to the sky and then back again. You brain would be enjoying the back and forth thing all the while "leading" you into the photo.
That's my take on it anyway.
Seriously, what both of you wrote is a huge boost, and you have me thinking, FINALLY, with a direction to head for. I know that composition isn't going to come from a book with all the answers in one neat list, but there has to be SOME starting point. You both opened up a whole new direction, I can't even explain it all here, and don't want to get TOO wordy. But Marc, your 3rd paragraph about focusing on depth being it's a 2D image... I think I just got hit with a V8 bottle. I've always looked across a scene, and only selectively at that, but never INTO it. I didn't even KNOW to do that. Looking back at the image, I see just what you mean! And you both mention the scene's elements leading your eye...pete's sake, I've always just inhaled the scene w/o regard to that. Whoa, what I've been missing... Mark H, your detailed explanation of the eye moving in a photo is as priceless. Maybe this wasn't your intention, but you applied to my shot a lot of what Marc A was explaining. Wow.
OK, I've got some exciting work to do. I'm sure there are better things you both could have been doing on a Friday night, but the time you took to respond is appreciated more than I can say. So, thank you!
Technically, this is excellent. Exposure and focus are spot on. Compositionally speaking it needs just a little work, IMO. I look for strong immediate foregrounds that grab the viewers attention and complementary elements or lines that lead the viewer through the image to the background. In this case the bare FG rock is not all that strong and I spend very little time there. Also, the brush coming in from the left side is a little distracting....I would rather see all of it or none of it. Having never been to this location I can't say if you could have done any better than you did but placing a strong, but not overpowering, element in the immediate FG would help this tremendously.
a) Is there a place for everything and nothing cut off on the edges of the frame that look awkward ?
In my opinion, no, you have sagebrush on the Right of the cliff that you only see a part of, but not enough to warrant being in the shot (in my opinion that adds confsion to someone looking at this - where is the other side of that brush ? Why did it get cut off?). That little white rock on the bottom floor doesn't help say anything so I would have aimed the lens higher up - but when I look at that scene from that perspective, I say to myself that those little brush trees on the other side of the cliff face (other side of the cliff face you are currently shooting) might be on the edge looking down into the valley. I'd head in that direction and try to find a stronger combination of elements to put into the shot.
b) is the horizon level ? I carry a bubble leveler that fits on my flash shoe mount. I check it everytime before I finally click the shutter button.
Technically, things look very nice, but as many others have said, the compostion isn't saying anything clearly enough to warrant taking this shot. I'm primarily a musician turned photographer. The best songs are the most focused, simple with a clear single emotional tonality to them - from Bach to Radiohead. The EXACT same fundamental rules apply to all forms of art.
So simplify, and hone what YOU want the image to say and you're on your way.
I find it fascinating to note how many of us on these forums work in tech or science, professions that don't typically come to mind when discussing art. My take is that many aspects of photography have not just a subjectively artistic aspect, but also a strong technically objective aspect, and that the photographers who are exceptional excel at both.
There seems to be a Bell Curve of innate proficiency at both of these aspects. I may be wrong, but hope I'm right, in believing that while you can't change where you start on the curve, you do have the ability to move up the curve with learning and practice. I have no qualms about admitting that I have low innate skills when it comes to photography, especially the artistic side. I think I've safely made it through the "Wow that's pretty, I should take a picture" phase and am working on the "I'm going to follow the rules and see if I can do what those other awesome photographers did." Who knows, maybe someday I'll make it to the "Here is my unique artistic vision which will knock your socks off" phase, but that's a pretty far shift on the curve for me
Meanwhile, I just go read the above posts over and over again.
I think I'm at six and counting...
For brevity's sake I won't reply to each post above, but they ALL have great worth, every one of them. Man, what a thread this has been... informative and enlightening is an understatement. Seriously, I was hoping that someone would return a nugget that I could grasp, and instead El Capitan landed in my living room (and don't be coming here to Cincinnati to shoot it, the haze and humidity makes for terrible light...
But thanks again to all, I've never printed an entire thread to a post before. This will be the first.
And Thanks ever so much to Marc, Mark, John L., and John W. Taking the time for such a detailed explanation, with some nice analogies, is so appreciated. I learned a lot along with Paul.
Several folks gave great advice on what types of elements and arrangements lend themselves to strong comps. I'll add to the suggestions relating to what types of techniques can be helpful.
Critiques often happen after an image has been made; try doing it before you make one. As you approach a scene that you want to photograph, walk around a little to find an angle of view that eliminates the bulk of distracting elements. Once you get your camera set up, experiment a little with different focal lengths. As you zoom in and out, you'll start to see elements entering or leaving the frame, and you'll be able to experience the positive or negative impact they have. Be ruthless - eliminate absolutely everything that doesn't contribute to the story. If eliminating a "bad actor" also eliminates a stronger element, you'll have to weigh the pros/cons of keeping or eliminating them both. If you choose to keep them, see if you can mitigate the impact of the weaker element with a slightly different angle or position. Keep doing this until you run out of ideas for improving the comp. It's an iterative process.
Once you've eliminated the bulk of the distractions, continue working to get the remaining elements arranged in the most harmonious manner possible. Slight changes of camera position can put high impact elements at strategic points in the frame and keep them away from edges; or can improve relative position between two or more elements - e.g., providing separation between two objects that are "touching" or overlapping, or lining up objects to create a lead-in to the scene.
In your image, the sage or juniper clump on the left is the most conspicuous element that needs to be eliminated. I would have started - either in-camera or in my mind's eye - by focusing on the top 1/3 of the scene and working back until I hit something that weakened the comp. I would either move or zoom to work around that object, or that would likely become the widest angle of view I would try to work with. Keeping the valley floor in the scene lends depth and relief, but including the bland rock and scrub on the left weakens the image. You could try to find a vantage point that would let you keep the valley and lose the rock.
Over time, this iterative editing process can become more intuitive and you may find yourself editing the scene without the camera. I agree with Marc A. that some people are naturally gifted when it comes to composing a scene; others work and work at it and may not improve beyond a certain point. But, regardless of the level of innate skill, critiquing and editing your own comps as you're setting them up will allow you to get the absolute most out of your abilities, and the scene.
You NEVER see this type of detailed instruction in any book, at least to the level you described. I do realize that there are some with that natural gift and others that will have to work at it and only get so far (that's my category). However, the majority of us who have this passion to capture beauty in an image don't even have a starting point most of the time. Maybe that seems strange to the more-experienced photographers. Up until two nights ago, I had no idea how to even approach a scene (obvious from my posted photo). I've read several books, they all say the same thing: "Simplify, eliminate distractions, use form and lines and shape and perspective to convey your image", blah blah blah. Every time I'd read that canned statement, I'd be screaming HOW???? What is a good line and a bad one? What are the distracting elements, and which ones add to the shot? How do you know?? What's the method to start identifying the distracting elements???? What do you LOOK FOR to even know what to add or eliminate???
Then, one-by-one, starting with Marc, you guys all opened the flood gates of understanding what all this means. I don't mean I "know" it all now... I mean, I now know what I don't know, if that makes sense. I now know what to practice and what to look for and now have a method to work the scene. The step-by-step you listed combined with the info in all the other replies above yours, again, is this ultimate photo lesson. I've had a few people I know read this thread, and they are as blown away as me. For us rookies, this thread needs to be published somewhere.
Thank you for what you wrote. I thought this thread was done, and you just sent it 3 miles farther.
The answer to the "how" question goes beyond even what has been suggested so far in this thread. Ultimately, you're the only person who can identify what adds to, or detracts from, an image before you make it, so making yourself proficient in that practice is imperative. And that's really the hard part, imo.
I taught critical writing in an honors program at the U. of Pitt. Even when very accomplished writers were asked to critique their own work, it was very difficult and their critiques weren't all that compelling. They could effectively critique others' work, providing insightful comments, creative suggestions, etc. But, they struggled with critiquing and improving their own work. I think the same is true for many photographers.
One way - arguably one of the best ways - that any of us can improve our own work is to spend a lot of time critiquing others' work so that we get familiar with the process, and develop our own personalized sense of what contributes to - or detracts from - a successful image, unfettered by the emotional attachment we have to our own images. Do that long enough, and you'll find that when it comes to critiquing your own compositions in the field, you will 1) have a rich library of images that you've studied/critiqued to better guide your choices about what to keep, what to eliminate, and how best to arrange the elements in your own image; and 2) be more efficient/proficient at it, which is important when conditions are changing quickly.
Exactly why I posted a Colorado shot in this forum. And look at what this thread developed into! The 35,000 people who've read all this just became better photographers in the last week.