>>2930203Well I'm a neophyte to photography myself, but I do have experience in some other art forms (8 years professional dancing, 4 years in graphic design, been a writer my whole life), and it's my understanding so far that all art can be judge in terms of content and composition.
In terms of photographer, content is simply WHAT you are photographing -- your subject. So, for instance, taking a picture of a bar brawl is gonna be interesting simply be virtue of the fact that it's a bar brawl. The photographer wouldn't necessarily do any more than just take basically competent shots and the subject matter would carry itself. The spectacle of action is attractive to everyone by nature.
Now when we talk about composition, we're talking about the way that the materials of the medium are arraigned. In photography (as in any visual art), composition is a matter of the layout of the shapes and tones.
Look at the first photo you uploaded (flowerresize): imagine that the photo is divided down the middle. See how you've mirrored the yellow sunshine with the yellow flowers? and how you've balanced the bokeh of the sunshine with the clarity of the flowers? That was competent composition. Basic, but there's nothing wrong with basic, per se.
Now compare that with the photo of the frog. By comparison, the photo of the frog is too busy. I see that you've got the frog slightly off center (golden ratio stuff), but there's no particular counter balance to the frog. Also the leaves are just kinda all over the place, so there's no sense of movement, or direction, or contrast. I know you couldn't have controlled that, but hey, it's what I see. Interestingly, the frog, being an animal, is inherently a more interesting subject than the flowers, but compared to the flower and the sunshine the composition is so messy as to detract from the potential of the frog.
See what I mean?
I think you get a lot of this instinctively, btw; that's why your stuff is "competent.
