>>3383343I fully agree on interestingness being subjective, but your point on composition is debatable to a certain degree. As I wrote earlier at
>>3382803it's almost impossible to take a photo that has absolutely no composition at all, as the elements in the frame always relate to each other somehow, which is basically the definition of composition. Still, the human brain finds certain relations and shapes more pleasing to look at, as they occur naturally. Good examples of that are the fibonacci spiral, or its approximation, the rule of thirds, but also the ball and the circle, as they have an optimal relation of volume to surface, or area to circumference. However, as nature wastes no space, the approximation of a circle is a hexagon; e.g. internal lava streams harden in a hexagonal shape.
This is why I didn't tell the kids about composition before we went out to take photos. Yet, they "naturally" used some of these schemes in their shots. Have another example, this time it's the complete frame, no cropping at all. Again, taken by a 1st grader.
