>>3382682Yay! I’m glad this was made into its own thread.
I’d say that both are actually about equal. Ideally, you want to have both good composition and a good subject (subject here including timing and such).
That being said, there are certainly good photos of good moments with bad composition and good photos of shitty subjects with great composition. Sufficiently good composition can make up for bad subject and vice versa.
Bad subject/good composition photos tend to be stuff like Shore, Eggleston (arguably; I personally think his composition is also shit), and others who go for an almost abstract look with their photography. Photographers love these, but people who don’t aren’t immersed in photography look at ‘em and say “what? It’s just a picture of a wall. This is boring.”
Good subject/bad composition is what you see a lot in photojournalism or even just on Facebook taken by amateurs. Photographers qua photographers don’t think much of it, but it’s the stuff that’s really accessible, since anyone can see the appeal of a picture of a good subject.
When you combine them, though, you get stuff that everyone enjoys. The good subject makes it accessible to the masses, and the good composition makes it stand out for photography nerds plus makes regular people like it more for reasons they can’t articulate.
