If you like this article, you can now get the book! Joe has expanded the “Tuesday Composition” series into an inspiring new ebook on composition, especially for nature photography. Check it out: The Tuesday Composition.

As I’ve said before (and will keep saying), these photographic “rules” we talk about are more like dozens of tools in a large toolbox, and the vast majority of your images will only use a small subset of those tools. In fact, often there are very good reasons to do precisely the opposite of whatever one of these guidelines might seem to suggest, sometimes the rules themselves are contradictory. Today’s column is a case in point. Last week I explored a number of reasons you’d usually be better off not centering things vertically or horizontally in your images. This week, I’m going to mention some exceptions, but those exceptions are no more hard-and-fast as the original “rule” was. As such, I hope that you’ll not only get some ideas about why images might work well centered, but also that you’ll get a little better idea of what I mean by the “toolbox” metaphor.

One of the more common situations which often works better centered are reflections and other symmetrical subjects. Images like these key off the relationship between the two “halves” as a subject of the image, inviting comparison (as in a water reflection) or contrast (as in a yin-yang symbol). Badwater Reflections is a really simple example of the former. Here, the perfectly smooth reflection the flooding of Death Valley is the subject, and both halves of the image make the photo.

Scenes with a dominant single subject can, at times, benefit from being centered horizontally, although this is far from always the case. While it’s impossible to generalize, there are a few ways that images like these sometimes seem to win with a centered subject placement.

Occasionally, centering will lend a landscape image the sense that its elements are part of some mystical ritual or event. Early Sunset, Old Marina is a great example of this. The almost symmetric left-right nature of the image is at least as (if not more) important to creating a sense that something unnatural is happening here as the vertical symmetry. Sand Tufa is another example: this small formation was turned into a mystical giant by a combination of carefully plotted viewpoint and centered subject placement.

Similarly, centered placement will sometimes lend a landscape image an element of formality. That I don’t have any personal examples of this in my portfolio probably says more about my personal style of photography than anything else.

Finally, sometimes it’s as simple as wanting to really come in close with a subject and a centered placement is occasionally the only way to achieve that effect. Try as I might to crop the left or the right of Aphid and Desert Sunflower, I never did find a crop that I liked better than one that put the flower petals centered. But the diagonal line of the stem–and even the aphid itself–help to keep this image from feeling as static as it might otherwise.

So all this advice on how to compose themes is a toolbox of ideas. The toolbox can be useful when you’re trying to find a better composition for a scene in terms of generating new ideas. Moreover, your toolbox can sometimes help you figure out why a particular image just doesn’t quite jump off the page. Sometimes.

PS: Booray Perry had a great piece last week on this whole “photography rules” thing, which I think complements my own thoughts on the matter. If you haven’t seen it already, check it out!

If you like this article, you can now get the book! Joe has expanded the “Tuesday Composition” series into an inspiring new ebook on composition, especially for nature photography. Check it out: The Tuesday Composition.

Last week we talked about working the edges of your photographs. This week, I thought we’d start taking about where we place objects in an image; I like Geir Jordahl’s metaphor of choreography. By moving around, by pointing the camera in different directions, by choosing a framing and focal length and orientation of our shot, we’re including and excluding objects from our image, changing their size and shape and moving them around within our image. While we do not have (outside of Photoshop) unlimited flexibility to rearrange our images this way, we do have quite a number of controls over where we place in our images. So, where should we put them? Where will they look best?

This is the central question of composition, and of course there aren’t any perfect single answers. And yet, one of the more consistent guidelines that seems to help beginning photographers is to stop putting things smack-dab in the middle of your pictures. (Next week we’ll talk about some exceptions.)

The most common example of this mistake is the clich travel photograph of the ocean: big blue sky, but blue ocean, horizon set precisely half-way down the image. Sometimes these photographs fail because neither the sky nor the ocean is that interesting. But more often the photographer did see something interesting, say, the deep azure of a tropical lagoon, and the photographer failed to work with it effectively. Drawing attention to the interesting part of the composition can be as easy as pointing your camera downward, including more of the more-interesting water, and less of the less-interesting sky. Often, it’s just that simple: include more of the good stuff.

We can push this last idea further, if the sky is completely uninteresting, how about getting rid of it entirely? Sometimes that works well. But even a small section of a boring sky can serve to add context to an image and help make sense of it. A lot of photographs are like that, with a primary subject, and stuff around the subject that provides context for it, contrasts with it, or in some other way complements it.

This applies to centering things horizontally as well as vertically.

The general success of off-center compositions isn’t just about emphasis, either. Centered compositions (and we’ll talk about this more next week) often feel static, unnatural (pre-arranged) and/or formal. While any of those characteristics can be a positive in any particular image, we tend to be attracted more to dynamic images in general.

If the subject shouldn’t be centered, where should it be? Some textbooks tell you to follow the “rule of thirds“, which suggests putting a subject one-third of the way from one edge of an image the opposite edge. Classical literature suggests using the golden ratio, which would have you place things about 38% of the way from one edge to another.

I say: Ignore the numbers.

Instead, recognize that off-center placements tend to be more dynamic and to provide emphasis. At the same time, sometimes bringing an object very close to an edge starts feeling wrong too. The shape of the objects or areas involved may play into it as well. Look at Grasses and Volcanic Alluvium. There’s no single “point” to the main bunch of grasses.

With these ideas in mind, look with your eyes through the viewfinder (you have your camera on a tripod, yeah?). Take some time to look and see what feels right. Your intuition, once you’ve been doing this for a while, will be a much better guide to composition than any equation will ever be.