Digital Photography Composition 101

Darren writes "With the 'Rise of the Digital Camera' I suspect we will also see the 'Rise of the Dodgy Digital Photo'. As digital cameras get in the hands of more and more snap happy photographers there will be more and more average images cluttering the PC's of the world. Already there must be millions of self portraits taken at arms length (complete with double chins), countless pictures of Aunt Mildred (cut off at the knees) and just as many out of focus shots of everyday objects in the living rooms of new digital camera owners too lazy to move from the couch. Its time to learn how to take good digital images before its too late! Digital Photography Composition Tips aims to teach the world a few basic guidelines for improving digital photographer's skills everywhere."

Comments

Training...

[solaufein]

Ah, training for the masses that none will probabley ever use. (FP?)

Good ideas

[RedShoeRider]

Not a bad list of suggestions (coming from an old-school film shooter). One that I didn't see, though: RTFM.

Then read it again.

It's amazing how much better you can make your shots come out just by knowing what you camera can do to help you out of tough spots!

Re:Good ideas

[gfxguy]

I agree. One other thing, though, is practice - which is great with a digital camera. I'll take the same picture over and over with different settings. The exif information in the images tells me which settings worked the best when I go to review on the computer.

I've had horrible problems with low light photography with the digital camera. The flash is fine when you can use it, but often the subjects are greater than 12 feet or so away, and the flash becomes useless... the camera takes a fast picture, though, and it's not blurry, but it's dark because it thinks "hey, he's using the flash". After some practice I can use the manual settings to compensate. Most people by a mid range camera like mine, though, and just leave it on auto when there's so much more they can accomplish.

Hell, I had the camera six months before I figured out how to use the macro setting, and now that I have I've got some beautiful flower pictures.

but i'm lazy....

[Mz6]

For those keeping track at home, there was a similar article about this same type of this, but for camera phones instead.

I have to say though... Sometimes I am not out to get the perfect shot with my digital camera. Therefore, my laziness sets in and I will not take the time to get the right settings on the camera, pick the right place for myself and subjects, and throw out the rule of thirds. However, when trying to make awe-inspriing pictures these are all very important tips to take heed of. However, the disclaimer on all of these tips is there are always an exception and a picture might look better if you don't follow that particular rule.

Digital Photography Composition?

[JamesD_UK]

These aren't tips specifically for Digital Photography, the basics of photographic composition are the same regardless of whether you are using digital or traditional media and these tips are no different to tips you'd find anywhere else for beginning photographers. How are these tips news?

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[Mz6]

Why does it have to be new to be on /.?

While I already knew most of these rules, it's good to get the information out to those that might not know these simple tricks. Since most of us here probably own/have owned a digital camera at one time, we can more than likely relate to it. Although, I would rather see something like this posted to like CNN or the NYT for a bigger reader base (read, non-techies) so that more people to take better pictures.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[geoffspear]

Yes, it's very lame for someone with a website to answer a reader's question asking for tips on composition. He should have just told them that good composition has been around for a long time and he should piss off or go to art school or something. Right.

Re:Digital Photography Composition?

[jred]

Some of the rules were news to me, a non-film using, newby digital camera photographer. Sure, my pics are just for me & my family, but I'd still like them to be decent.

And this is news, because ... ?

[pmhudepo]

I'm probably overly negative here, but why exactly is this "Stuff that matters"? Surely there must be more interesting things out there, like, say, ehmmm, about iTMS pending European launch?

After all, bad snapshots have been around for ages and will be around for many more ages.

Re:And this is news, because ... ?

[Phurd Phlegm]

I'm probably overly negative here, but why exactly is this "Stuff that matters"? Surely there must be more interesting things out there, like, say, ehmmm, about iTMS pending European launch?

After all, bad snapshots have been around for ages and will be around for many more ages.

Poorly-maintained computers have been around for (comparitive) ages, too.

Nerds, like normal mortals, have interests that range more widely than how to liquid-cool their overclocked cell phones. "What matters" is more about a focus on excellence than a focus on a small segment of technology, at least to me. I'd like to be able to take an excellent picture, just like I'd like to brew an excellent cup of coffee and make a excellent triple-gainer from the nine meter board.

The picture I might have a pretty good shot at.

85,000+ photos and going

[ka9dgx]

It's a great set of tips. The best thing about digital is that you can afford to make mistakes, and the cost of practice has gone to zero. The key is to take pictures, look at them, then take more. If you commit yourself to taking 10 pictures a day, you'll start to notice things, and develop an eye for it.

I store mine in folders by date, in c:\photos\yyyy\yyyymmdd\DSCNxxxx.jpg, and it works very well for me.

--Mike--

Re:On a related topic..

[Mz6]

I'm not sure that I can recommend a book persay. However, I have found it very useful to just take a few hours to head over to B&N or Borders. Sit down with a few book selections and read. If you find one very useful for what you want, buy it. Otherwise a quick read should answer all your questions.

The big problem with digital cameras ...

[pherris]

... is the "click to clunk" time. A new film camera with an autowinder that shoots multiple frames per second can be found for under $300 while the same thing in the digital world is at least $1k. I've lost too many shots waiting for my digital Nikon to cycle.

For fast action I still use my old Olympus OM-2 but most everything else is digital.

IMO digital cameras are almost better than film for most things but not quite yet.

So...

[Keighvin]

All this does it talk about regular rules of composition and put "Digital" in front of it to some how expand the applicability. The digital portion never begins to enter into consideration in the discussion.

There are some differing rules for working digitally; not many of them take place at the camera though (and most there are with regards of which of your camera's features *not* to use).

It's a known fact

[spidergoat2]

People with spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on technology like PC's, cameras, software, etc., but won't spend $15 on a book about how to use it.

Re:It's a known fact

[Jeff DeMaagd]

A lot of people be better off if they read the manuals that are included with PCs, for free.

Anyway, digital photography in itself in terms of how you treat your lighting, framing, exposure speeds isn't inherently different from film. The only reason to have it in the title is to make it more marketable.

Flamebait

[Heem]

If I could moderate a story I'd mod this as flamebait -1... I mean, who cares if we don't take "perfect" pictures. We couldnt take perfect pictures with film cameras either - or with VHS or 8mm camcorders, but who cares? these pictures of my friends and familty are good enough for me to remember the good times.

Re:Flamebait

[Idarubicin]

...who cares if we don't take "perfect" pictures. We couldnt take perfect pictures with film cameras either - or with VHS or 8mm camcorders, but who cares?

Your friends and family care. You made us look through your photo album, and we had to suffer through scores--nay, hundreds--of badly cropped, underexposed, flash-washed-out, out-of-focus snapshots.

Twenty years from now, you'll be thrilled to have a few good pictures of your kids. You don't have to take perfect pictures, but you just spent a lot of money on a camera--wouldn't you like to get good-quality images?

It doesn't take much effort to check the focus, make sure the horizon is level, check the exposure, and remember to include the top of Aunt Millie's head--but you'd be surprised at how many people fail to think of these things. A little reminder doesn't seem out of place. Photography is a lot like cooking. You can make it as complicated and artistic as you want, but producing acceptable, aesthetically pleasing meals or photos that you needn't be embarrassed to present to company is within reach of anyone.

2 small generic tips

[proudlyindian]

Take a deep breath and press the shutter, it gives a good stability(avoiding camera shake) to the cam which is required in low light or long zoom condition. Take time to look at the corners of the view finder while taking a pic. sometimes ppl neglect it and the resultant pic shows some unwanted things in corners and stuff. And you can always take some tips from my site ;)

My tips

[pubjames]

David Bailey, a famous British photographer, once said (something like) "The quickest way to double your skill as a photograph is to throw away half your photographs".

It is absolutely true - most professional photographers take hundreds of photographs a day, only one or two of which are likely to be actually seen. This used to be one big advantage professionals had over amateurs - amateurs couldn't afford all that film and developing. With digital cameras, now you can take as many photos as you like.

Personally I just follow three simple rules:

1) Is the light nice? This is fundamental - if you've got nice evening or morning sunlight, your change of a good photo increases enormously. If it's a cloudy grey day, put the camera away.

2) Get closer. Just a step closer would improve so many amateur photos.

3) Take lots of photos. Even if you are taking the same subject again and again, one will of them be better than the others - especially if you are photographing people. Even more so if they are children.

To summarise:
1) Good light?
2) Get closer!
3) Take more!

Re:My tips

[meta-monkey]

[quote]If it's a cloudy grey day, put the camera away.[/quote]

Absolutely not! Cloud cover turns a hard, directional light (the sun during the middle of the day) into a soft, diffuse light. Clouds are a giant softbox...I love 'em. However, you just don't want to get the sky in the frame.

Re:My tips

[Hiro Antagonist]

Er, you do realize that cloudy, gray days provide this great, diffused light, which is perfect for a variety of subjects, whereas bright-and-sunnry days give very contrasty shadows which are very difficult to work with, even for professionals?

My Advice for the Average photo moron

[aflat362]

The average person who acquires a digital camera won't bother to read an article like this. Here's my dumbed down version of this advice and some of my own that maybe even the most technologically inept can appreciate and apply.

• Give extra room - you can crop later. Too many photos don't give enough head room or whatever. If you can't run an imaging program to crop someone else can.
• Buy the biggest memory card you can afford. When your taking pictures, take as many as you possibly can. Carry an extra card and extra batteries. Don't worry about reviewing the image on the 1.5 inch LCD screen and deleting it then. Wait till you import them onto your computer to give a fair assesment.
• Try to be somewhat concience of what the flash on your camera does. Learn when to use it and how to turn it off and on. You will always see people in huge football stadiums taking a picture of the field from the 200th row with the flash on.
• You don't have to Use the LCD Screen all of the time. You know, that fancy camera of yours does have a view finder on it. And it actually is possible to turn the LCD off and hold it up to your face. Many times this will give you a better shot. Especially when you are taking a picture in the dark. The LCD will be almost completely black and these people will be straining and straining trying to see images on the thing.

The People Who Need it Won't Read It

[ReadParse]

Not only are they completely unaware that they're bad photographers, they don't care. Their objectives when taking pictures are completely different than those who strive to take good pictures.

RP

history repeating itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Ages ago I trained and worked (in the days of hot type, then offset lithography) as a graphic artist and typographer.

We joked, when Desktop Publishing took off, that all it did was enable folks to make bad designs quicker.

Likewise Digital Cameras and production systems allow one to make bad photographs faster than one could make them before.

The truth of the matter is that the medium isn't to blame. The ease of production equates to more crap. But it doesn't stop good stuff being produced; indeed the sheer volume of production should (one hopes) increase the number of good photographs over time. If one can be bothered to filter through all the crap to find them!

A deeper truth, to some, might be that the quality of most design has diminished because now "untrained" people are producing stuff the good and better design & images might simply not be produced now. As in - there won't be any Ansel Adams quality in our future.

I'm inclined to think that's bullshit, though. Mass markets and accessible consumer products don't mean that the few fine art types won't produce wonders any more. Indeed the accessibility of the consumer products might even encourage a few more to take up fine art photography. Just as we've found that Desktop Publishing has raised the game overall ie there has always been crap out there, but the general level of the crap represents a HUGE improvement over what low-end jobbing printers produced before.

Megapixels invalidate many of the rules

[rkischuk]

The tips on choosing a good angle, lighting, "framing the picture" with foreground elements and such are still valid, but as cameras get higher resolution, I think many of these tips can be changed to "Favor taking wider and more versatile shots of the subject matter - choose image composition, orientation, location of subject matter etc. while editing the image."

My 3 megapixel camera takes pictures that look great printed at 8X10". Ramp up to a 5 MP camera, and you can afford to crop, rotate, and reposition the subject of the picture in an image editor. In my opinion, more megapixels mean that you can take pictures for maximum flexibility rather than focusing on taking the perfect picture.

But I always thought...

[allanj]

that one of the big improvements to come with digital was the ability to shoot countless images and just keep the good ones without the cost/delay/inconvenience of developing traditional film. Back then it mattered that each photo was good because you couldn't review the photo before several days had passed, and it was important that each shot was good. Now, I tend to just take maybe 20 or 30 shots in rapid succession and rely on one or more to be good - a quick review will tell me if it's ALL bad, and in 30 seconds the memory is erased, and I can start snapping pictures again, this time moving to avoid the backlight or whatever spoiled the first batch.
Not really arguing against learning to take better pictures - selfimprovement through learning is always GOOD (and geekish, mind you). It just doesn't seem as necessary as it once was.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[Major_Small]

Most of the time excellent photos aren't about being good, they are about getting lucky.

I have to disagree here, while I agree that you'll only submit/print/etc. on average about 2-3 out of a roll of 24 exposure, skill is the determining factor. not only in composing the picture and getting the lighting right, but in the darkroom as well... especially in B&W photography...

Let me pick the best picture out of 20 I take on my crappy 1 megapixel Kodak and I will put it up against any camera (even the really awesome expensive ones) if you only take one picture with that camera.

working in a camera store, I have to disagree strongly here... take your challenge, if I'm using a Nikon D70, I can guarantee my 1 picture will look better than yours... especially if we're printing 5x7,6x8,10x8, or 10x15... the higher-end cameras can even be printed at sizes up to 20x30...

Look at the whole scene

[akuzi]

The article is a very good summary of composition rules BUT the main reason most people's snaps are not well composed is quite simple - they don't look at the scene as a whole before they click the shutter button.

90% of people are only looking at the main subject of their photo. This is why most people put the main subject in the middle of the scene - why almost always results in bad composition.

This is where having either a SLR camera where you see the whole scene in the view-finder, or a preview screen on a digital camera is essential.
Another essential feature is exposure and focus-lock that allows you to focus and take exposure readings off non-centered objects.

As an amateur photographer

[WormholeFiend]

I find it inefficient to take lots and lots of photos and keep only the best few. Makes for too many photos to review and evaluate before deleting the crap ones...

This is what I do... I take my time, and I visualise what I want to get on the final image BEFORE even looking through the viewfinder or lcd screen.

Then I try to make everything fit in the frame.

I don't really follow the "rules" of aesthetics as defined by pros and critics, since the photos I take are for my own personal enjoyment and for decorating some walls, most of the time.

Then there's also the issue of too many people deleting perfectly good photos because they personally dont like "how they look" on the photos, due to being way too self-conscious. This will lead to a biased of what the past really looked like, in the future, when looking at those carefully selected pictures.

viewfinder woas

[rothfoto]

another big problem is that in digi-cameras where the viewfinder is optical (not a small screen inside the viewfinder like a camcorder) what is seen through the finder is often different from what is recorded by the ccd (or cmos). this can lead to compositional errors that are not fully the fault of the user. i guess most people with consumer digi-cams use the lcd anyway, so this may not be as a big a problem as it could be.

Digital Photography Composition Tips????

[eclectic_echidna]

The real trick is take lots of pictures.

Improve your odds through the power of statistics. Some are bound to be good through sheer luck, so take more.

It may not up your % of good pictures, but it can up your # of them...

ee

Re:That secret....

[Dun Malg]

That secret is actually quite sophmoric. Most pros do not do this, only ones that aren't really good enough so they cover all their bases.

This is true, but I don't think he was saying taking hundreds of pictures indiscriminately is the way to get a few good shots. I think it was implicit (though, admittedly, not necessarily obvious) that one should be choosing one's shots rather than firing off the camera at every turn. The real wisdom is to choose your shots and not just take one picture.

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[speleo]

I can't believe I'm replying to this, but, well, this is a stupid way to work at taking pictures.

Heck, if you want to work this way just buy a video camera and yank the good frames out as stills.

Yes, lots of pros work this way but for different reasons; most can take a perfectly acceptable, well composed and sharp single picture when the need arises.

The key skill in photography isn't taking a bunch of pictures and throwing away 90% of them -- it's resisting to urge to push the shutter button when you know the resulting picture will suck.

yeah but...

[ovit]

It is certainly good advice that we should all learn to be better photographers... But I have to say... One of the things I've always loved about digital camera's is that it is SO easy to take pictures and store them that I for one take a LOT more pictures than I used to... and a lot more of them are spontaneous and fun... I don't think these HD's full of photos are a bad thing...

Tony

take Photography 101 at your community college!

[caveat]

..since the basic principles are the same whether you're using digital or film (i'm suprised people don't realize this more often - there's all sorts of articles about how to become a "better DIGITAL photographer", as if one can be a master with a 35MM SLR but pick up a digi and instantly forget everything...sorry, going off on a tangent there).
lord knows my digital shots got a lot better after i took black once you've been formally schooled in composition, even just for a semester, it all just sort of subconsciously falls together in the viewfinder (or on the LCD as the case may be) and you get a lot more passable pictures.

Practice.

[Raven42rac]

Those average shots are practice for the shutterbug. Do you think everyone starts out shooting rhinos in the African jungle? The post sounds borderline elitist, along the lines of "people who use Garageband are not really musicians". Can't you be happy for people who want to learn how to do things? These are your potential contemporaries.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 with a rotatable screen, I ditch all of my average shots and keep the ones I like. I have been told I have an eye for composition and what makes a good shot, and I set pretty high standards for myself. It is figuring out flash, shutter speed, length of exposure, aperture, zoom, focus, white balance, that comprises most "average" shots.

The last set of film photos I took, I developed a total of 98, and thought that about 15 were keepers. I have a much higher rate of keepers with my digicam, because, for the most part, what you see is what you get. This is even more the case with an SLR.

If you are truly a student of the game, take a class at a community college, read all the magazines you can afford to read, hit the library for books. There are tons of resources out there for those serious about learning photography.

Photography, like any other form of art, is purely subjective. What may look good to one person, may look horrible to another. Maybe to some people the picture of their Aunt is very special to them, while some may ridicule it, there was a reason the picture was shot. To capture a moment in time. And that is all photography is, an attempt to stop time in it's tracks.

Get a fast camera.

[Medievalist]

My method of photography is "Start shooting before whatever you want to shoot happens, and keep going until after it's over".

I was so happy when they came up with fast-forward-winding film cameras. The more pictures you can shoot, the more chances of a serendipitous shot you'dve never have been able to set up in a million years.

Digital imaging greatly reduces the cost of this method - I was getting two or three awesome pics per roll of file, so I couldn't afford to do very many - but unfortunately many of the digital cameras have a slow cycle time, and you'll find yourself between clicks when the pie hits the President.

Check out camera speed before you buy!

Re:Choosing the camera is important

[wunderhorn1]

Have you ever watched a professional photographer? They just snap away, rapid fire. Guess how many of those get published...

Granted, they're not as likely to be throwing away pictures because of amateur mistakes, but the axiom is still true: the best way to take good photos is to take many photos.

1 out 10?

[bored_geek]

You get 1 out of 10! You're good! I get about 1 in 25 on film and about 1 in 40 with digital.

Knowing you don't have to pay for the tossed photos makes it really easy to push the button a few extra times.

Re:Holding the camera is MOST important

[plover]

All good suggestions.

A simple suggestion I'd have for you regarding the flash is to bounce it. Whenever I'm forced to use a flash, I like to bounce it off the ceiling whenever possible. (Ceilings are usually bright white, whereas walls that look white indoors may sometimes be off-white, giving an unnatural tint to the subject.)

Think FAST

[jimlintott]

One of the best tips I've ever received is think FAST

Focus
Aperature
Shutter
Think

It's like a checklist that is now a habit. Works well in the darkroom, too. (The darkroom was a magic place where we would develop film and make images appear on paper.)

Re:NudityDirty

[spoco2]

No Matter how you try and justify the validity of looking at these works or not (I happen to think they are lovely), it's perfectly fine to warn people that there is nudity on the page, as quite frankly many work places are going to throw a tantrum if they see you looking at a page with boobs on it.

That's the way it is, so don't pick on the guy for just warning people.

Composition My Ass

[Axel2001]

And yet again, I see the idiocy that the so-called "digital revolition" has spawned ... composition for digital. How is composition for digital different than composition for film? I could understand lighting for digital or something of that nature... The "digital revolution" has caused people who never would have had any interest in photography to get involved in it - and I'm all for that. But many of these folks are very techno-savvy, and probably lack artistic ability. Digital photography is great for convenience. It helps out people who don't care enough about their photos to wait an hour to see them. It has spurred a market of technology-hungry consumers who want the latest and the greatest, and who usually care little about "composition." Don't believe me? Then why does Joe Blow go out and buy that 1GB CF card to hold a jillion images, everyone one of which he is going to go home and edit in PhotoShop? Any other book on composition will give you as good or better information - anyone who concentrates on equipment as a defining characteristic of composition knows little about the art of photography.