What is the layout you use for natural photos?

When taking photo at beach, forest, hill or somewhere is large. What is the layout you use for these natural photos? How many parts for model and how many parts for the rest?

Apologies if you are a person, but this sounds like a bad result of Google translate, or from a Japanese instruction manual from the 1960s. It's incomprehensible.

Good composition is impossible to define other than when you see, you will know it.

I agree with Sanford above.

Question #1: How much of the model do I want to show? - Head? Full body? in between?

#2: Camera orientation?

Any answer will depend on the model's width and whatever didn't go smoothly during the shot.

2 rules to pass to you:

1. Fill the frame! (i.e. if you are shooting a standing person in landscape format, get close enough to make them higher than half your image height)
   
2. Arrange subject according rule of thirds &/ "to taste".
   

Don't compromise due to a lack of DOF! Countless tourists did that before you.

Composition can be learned. If you have a balance between the main subject ( a person, animal, or beach umbrella) and the scenery). There are a few rules that you can follow by looking at satisfying works and those that seem awkward and mismatched. A good rule of thumb is to allow ehough room to crop your subject later on. And do not try to fit a pre conceived size like a 4 X 6 print. Or the shape of your viewfinder or sensor on the camera. More would take pages and illustrations. As said, the question is important, but its hard to know what you are seeking by the language. Look and observe samples you like and copy them first off.

I'm impressed you all discerned a meaning from the OP's missive. No insult to him or her (or machine) intended

The question can't be answered and shouldn't be answered generically. Rules are bound to come up when this type of question is asked. First, and I won't be the first to say this, don't think of these suggestions as rules. Think of them as guidelines and, more importantly, think of them as having ALREADY worked. You're allowed to do something different, maybe even encouraged to do so. How you place your subject and what role and proportion of the terrain of the picture depends on situation, effect desired, how much you may want to think outside the box in any given situation, and who your customer is if there is a customer, and likely a bunch of other stuff. One of the methods (sometimes to madness) I've used creatively is to consider any or rule or guideline anyone provides me as a challenge to break it. If 100 people suggest you compose a particular scene in a particular way with a particular percentage of space dedicated to the subject, I'd look for something different to do than what they're all telling you. Not just for the sake of breaking the rules. But rather as a means to develop an individual point of view, style, and approach to making a photo.

I'm impressed you all discerned a meaning from the OP's missive. No insult to him or her (or machine) intended

Robin it is easy to understand, it is new wedding pro asking how much space bride can take on beach wedding photo:)

Rules of composition are not an awfully bad place to start out actually for the water tester. Before you expand I mean. No tomes in my little photo library fail to address compositional guidelines ( Rules, no, we know tht is too confining of course and no fun ). I picked one up here by a well regarded writer, Tom Ang, title= " Digital Master Class." What doesTom say and show about "Composition." and placement within the selected frame? Well, balance and stability by one placement choice of the key element. And visual tension created by moving it elsewhere. It can be demonstrated and he illustrates. As always,we have to calibrate answer to the level of the questioner. which we only guess at. So. If I were teaching a little group, ( I tried it once with some friends) sure, you bet, I would encourage seeking some rules, even rules of a third, and then next class we be open to fugueal variations.. For landscape, give me some stability most of the time to fill the expectation of stasis and reliability, ( why do they put those levels for horizons that they all put in) I think. One of the toughies in arts and crafts. (Why did he not ask about getting right exposure or what is 18% or how do I get Hurrell lighting with my shoe flash. Asking how much space for foreground vs background is one of the great unanswerables. It all depends is a great answer when someone asks that one. Go read a book and look at our galleries. Is that too peremptory. Nah. Edited January 16, 2018 by GerrySiegel

It's a learned intuition.

 

Oxymoron.

I agree with Sanford above.

Question #1: How much of the model do I want to show? - Head? Full body? in between?

#2: Camera orientation?

Any answer will depend on the model's width and whatever didn't go smoothly during the shot.

2 rules to pass to you:

1. Fill the frame! (i.e. if you are shooting a standing person in landscape format, get close enough to make them higher than half your image height)
   
2. Arrange subject according rule of thirds &/ "to taste".
   

Don't compromise due to a lack of DOF! Countless tourists did that before you.

Yup! Thank you, that is the thing that I want to know. <3

Composition can be learned. If you have a balance between the main subject ( a person, animal, or beach umbrella) and the scenery). There are a few rules that you can follow by looking at satisfying works and those that seem awkward and mismatched. A good rule of thumb is to allow ehough room to crop your subject later on. And do not try to fit a pre conceived size like a 4 X 6 print. Or the shape of your viewfinder or sensor on the camera. More would take pages and illustrations. As said, the question is important, but its hard to know what you are seeking by the language. Look and observe samples you like and copy them first off.

Thank you!

Apologies if you are a person, but this sounds like a bad result of Google translate, or from a Japanese instruction manual from the 1960s. It's incomprehensible.

haha, I got some problem in find the exactly photography term to describle

Composition can be learned. If you have a balance between the main subject ( a person, animal, or beach umbrella) and the scenery). There are a few rules that you can follow by looking at satisfying works and those that seem awkward and mismatched. A good rule of thumb is to allow ehough room to crop your subject later on. And do not try to fit a pre conceived size like a 4 X 6 print. Or the shape of your viewfinder or sensor on the camera. More would take pages and illustrations. As said, the question is important, but its hard to know what you are seeking by the language. Look and observe samples you like and copy them first off.

 

 

i got the same impression in his question.

composition for each setting can varry. i like to frame my subject by foreground trees. where on the beach is about the shoreline n waves, the dunes with arrid shrubs n old snow fences n ocean debre.

 

learning to see, composition, requires viewing lots of other photographers work. its all about seeing...

learning to see, composition, requires viewing lots of other photographers work. its all about seeing...

Also paintings. Look at paintings. They are studies in perspective and composition. And the joy is getting to translate that to photography, which is different from the benefits you get (and I agree you do) from looking at photos. Looking at paintings give you a somewhat less literal view of composition and perspective than looking at photos, and a very valuable one because of that.

Composition can be learned. ... crop your subject later on.

For learning purposes because that is the ideal moment to do it and develop a taste that will urge you to shoot a tad tighter or avoid other framing mistakes the next time. of course you could bring examples worth copying and arrange your shots according to them. But considering that you'll also have to struggle with posing lighting and focusing, it is surely handy to get composition happening on a subconscious level.