Most of us spend a lot of time obsessing about the technical aspects of gear. Discussion groups, forums and communities attract a majority of people who are tech obsessed about resolution, high ISO noise, dynamic range, sensor size, bokeh, autofocus efficacy and the most important thing in life, the big sensor. These often translate into modern tech which translates into new gear that you can buy. And we believe that somehow, all these technical details will make the great shot.
Of course, it is also easy to provide evidence that a more expensive, higher performing piece of gear, immediately gives you a sharper picture in more successful shot. Buy a new lens and/or a new camera, and voila, here is the picture to prove the success.
There’s precious little discussion about how Composition, which is an artistic concept, makes an image impressive. Because Composition is springs from the human behind the camera and (currently) not so much the camera. Since Composition is subjective and personal, discussing or critiquing that aspect of an image is felt as an intrusion, an invasion of personal space. It’s easier to say that so and so a lens has discernible purple fringing. That provokes a response as well, but imagine if the critique had been of the artistic content of the photographer.
So why was I thinking about Composition?
There was this cone on a fir tree. I thought I had a good Rule of Thirds on it.
But then I consulted Camera51 and it said to do this:
I think Camera51 made a good choice. The subject is central and more in-your-face – it is a big bigger but the importance of location in the image makes it dominant.
Should I say the images are technically not that evenly lit or nor specifically detailed in depth of field so that we can discuss the composition?
Food for thought.