I’ve spent over a decade out shooting landscapes, putting the time in when it would be easier to walk away. I’ve stood in -40°c in Finnish Lapland waiting on light that might never come, hiked three hours in the Dolomites for just one photo, and waited in absolute torrential rain questioning my life choices on the edge of a fjord in the Faroe Islands, watching the weather and hoping it would break at the right moment. I’ve fallen asleep on hay bales while shooting astrophotography, dropped cameras into lakes, and put in tens of thousand of hours the hard way. This isn’t theory. It’s experience earned through time, mistakes, and actually being outside.
This guide covers everything I have learnt and know about composition in landscape photography. It’s long, in fact it tells me this has a 45 minute read time, this has taken me weeks to write. But the subject deserves it. I’ve tried to write it the way I’d explain it on a tour, in plain language, with the kind of detail that actually makes a difference in the field. Throughout the post I’ve used visual aids on my own images, lines, arrows, and annotations drawn directly on the photos, to show you exactly what’s happening compositionally in each shot rather than just describing it.
Composition is the one thing that separates a snapshot from a photograph. Not your camera. Not your lens. Not the location. Composition.
And yet it’s the thing most beginners spend the least time thinking about. They get to a beautiful location, point their camera at the most obvious view, press the shutter, and wonder why the photo doesn’t feel like what they saw with their eyes.
Now, some people just have a knack for photography too. They’ve never even heard of the rule of thirds, couldn’t tell you what a leading line is, and they still come away with something that stops you in your tracks. They don’t even know they have it. Then you’ve got the people who think consciously about what they’re shooting, they work the scene, they consider their options, they apply what they know, and they come away with a great photo. Both paths lead to the same place. This guide is for the people who want to build that instinct deliberately, rather than waiting to find out if they were born with it.
What You’ll Learn
- How to build a composition from scratch, not guess your way through it
- When to use common “rules” and when to ignore them
- How to approach any scene, even when nothing looks obvious
- The mistakes that weaken most landscape photos
Jump to a section
- Light is Everything
- The Rule of Thirds
- The Rule of Odds
- Leading Lines
- Foreground Interest
- Depth and Layers
- The Horizon Line
- Framing Within the Frame
- Symmetry and Reflections
- Negative Space
- The Golden Ratio and S-Curves
- Scale
- Composition and the Aurora
- Breaking the Rules
- Less Is More
- How I Actually Approach a New Location
- Common Beginner Mistakes
What Is Composition, Really?
Before we get into the different rules and techniques, let’s be honest about what composition actually is.
Composition is the decision you make about what goes inside your frame, and where.
That’s it. Everything else, the rule of thirds, leading lines, foreground interest, all of it, is just a collection of tools to help you make better decisions.
Think of it like cooking. A recipe gives you a structure to follow. But the best cooks understand why the recipe works, so they can adapt when something isn’t quite right. That’s what I want for you with composition. Not a checklist to run through at every location, but a genuine understanding of why certain arrangements of elements work, so you can apply that instinct anywhere.
Why Composition Matters More Than Your Camera
I want to get this out of the way early, because it matters.
I’ve seen guests arrive on tours with brand new full-frame cameras and walk away with disappointing images. I’ve seen others shooting crop sensors, kit lenses, even phones, and come away with stunning photographs. The difference was almost always how they thought about the frame before they pressed the shutter.
A camera just records what you point it at. Composition is the act of deciding what that is.
Your camera can’t do that for you. No amount of megapixels will rescue a poorly composed image. A technically perfect photo with a weak composition is still a weak photo.
I’m not saying gear doesn’t matter. It does, to a degree. But if you’re reading this guide wondering whether you need a new camera before your next trip, the honest answer is: probably not. Work on your eye first.
You Don’t Have to Use All of This at Once
Before we go any further, I want to also say something important.
Everything in this guide is just a tool. And just like a toolbox, you don’t empty the whole thing out every time you have a job to do. Sometimes you need one tool. Sometimes three. Sometimes a scene calls for something completely different from what you used yesterday.
Every location is different. Every subject is different. Every light is different. A wide beach at low tide with a dramatic sky is a completely different compositional problem from a forest in flat light, or a Lofoten village at blue hour, or a lone tree on a hillside in fog. The tools that serve you in one situation might not even be relevant in the next.
The goal isn’t to stand at a location and mentally tick boxes. Leading line, check. Foreground interest, check. Rule of thirds, check. That approach leads to formulaic images that look technically correct and feel completely lifeless.
The goal is to understand these principles well enough that you can reach for the right one instinctively, when it matters, in that specific scene, with that specific light. Some images will use several of these ideas working together. Others will be built on just one strong idea, and be better for it.
Read through everything that follows with that in mind. You’re building a vocabulary, not a checklist.
Light Is Everything
Before we get into any compositional techniques, I want to say something that I think should come first.
Without good light, none of the rest of this matters.
You can have perfect rule of thirds placement, a strong leading line, beautiful foreground interest, and a well-layered scene. If the light is flat and featureless, the image will still be flat and featureless. Light isn’t just something that happens while you’re taking the photo. It is the photo. It creates depth, reveals texture, separates your subject from the background, and sets the emotional tone of the entire image. A mediocre composition in extraordinary light will often produce a better image than a technically perfect composition in dull light.
I say this not to put you off learning the techniques that follow, but to frame them correctly. Composition and light aren’t separate things. They work together, and the best images are usually the result of both being right at the same time.
Flat light produces flat images:
Overhead midday light is the enemy of landscape photography. It fills in shadows, flattens texture, and removes the depth that side or directional light would reveal. The same scene that looks lifeless at noon can look extraordinary at sunrise or sunset when the light is raking across the ground at a low angle, throwing long shadows and revealing every texture and contour.
I was in the Scottish Highlands recently and experienced this first hand. The locations were stunning, genuinely beautiful places, but the light just wasn’t there. Flat, overcast, directionless. And I found it incredibly hard to get inspired to shoot. Not because the landscape wasn’t worth photographing, it absolutely was, but because without light it was almost impossible to find images that felt alive. I knew from experience that a shaft of morning light across those glens, or a stormy sky breaking at the last moment, would have completely transformed what I was looking at. The bones of great images were all there. The light just wasn’t playing ball.
That’s the reality of landscape photography. Sometimes you don’t get the light. But understanding what light does, and why its absence makes everything harder, is what separates photographers who come home frustrated from the ones who manage to find something worth keeping regardless.
Light creates depth and dimension:
When light comes from the side, it creates shadows. Shadows are what give a landscape its sense of three-dimensionality. A hillside lit from the front looks like a flat green shape. The same hillside lit from the side, with light catching the ridges and shadow pooling in the valleys, suddenly has form, volume, and weight. You can feel the contours of it.
This is directly relevant to composition because it means the same scene, composed in exactly the same way, can look completely different depending on where the light is coming from. Always be thinking about light direction, not just the scene in front of you.
Light and leading lines:
Side lighting can actively strengthen a leading line. If the sun is low and raking across a road or a beach, the alternating light and shadow across the surface adds rhythm and visual interest to what might otherwise be a straightforward line. The light doesn’t just illuminate the line, it enhances it.
Don’t only chase the obvious light:
Golden hour is spectacular, but everyone photographs golden hour. Some of my favourite images have come from less expected conditions. Overcast days produce soft, even light that reveals colour beautifully without harsh shadows. Storm light, when a shaft of sun breaks through heavy cloud onto a dark landscape, is some of the most dramatic and painterly light you’ll ever find. Blue hour, the twenty minutes after sunset when the sky goes a deep rich blue and the world goes quiet, is consistently underrated.
Learn to see in all light conditions, not just the obvious ones. The photographers who come away with the most interesting work aren’t necessarily the ones who got the best golden hour. They’re the ones who kept shooting when everyone else packed up.
How to think about light before you arrive:
When I’m planning a shoot at a location, I’m thinking about light from the start. Where will the sun rise or set relative to the scene? Will the light be on the front, the side, or behind the subject? What time of year will give me the angle I want? Apps like PhotoPills or The Photographer’s Ephemeris are useful here, they show you exactly where the sun will be at any time and date.
Arriving at a location without thinking about light direction is like arriving at a concert without knowing what time it starts. You might get lucky. But you might also turn up to find the best moment has already passed.
Try this: Next time you’re at a location you know well, visit it at three different times of day. Early morning, midday, and late afternoon. Photograph the same subject each time from the same position. Look at the results and notice what the light does to the depth, texture, and mood of the image. That comparison will teach you more about light than any written guide.
The Rule of Thirds
Let’s start with the most well-known compositional “rule” in photography. You’ve almost certainly heard of it. And you’ve probably had it explained to you as a rule you should always follow. I want to push back on that slightly.
The rule of thirds is a starting point, not a law.
Here’s how it works. Imagine your frame divided into a three-by-three grid, two horizontal lines and two vertical lines, creating nine equal sections. The idea is that placing your subject, or your horizon, along one of those lines, rather than dead centre, creates a more dynamic and interesting image.
This was shot at Sakrisøy in the Lofoten Islands at sunset, and it’s a good illustration of the rule of thirds working across multiple elements at once. The horizon sits on the lower third, giving the sky two thirds of the frame, which is exactly the right call when the sky is doing what it’s doing here. The yellow fishing huts sit along the right third, giving the image a clear subject without centring it. The long exposure has smoothed the water in the foreground into a soft reflection of that extraordinary pink and orange light, which balances the busy right side of the frame. The jetty on the left provides a gentle leading line pointing toward the sun on the horizon. Everything earns its place. Nothing is fighting for attention.
The four points where the lines intersect, called the power points or crash points, are particularly strong positions for placing a focal element within a scene.
Why does it work?
Dead centre placement tends to feel static. It’s too balanced, too expected. Our eyes don’t need to do any work. When you shift the subject off-centre, you create tension in the frame. The viewer’s eye has to travel. That journey is part of the experience of looking at the image.
A practical example:
When you’re shooting a coastal scene with a dramatic sky, try placing the horizon on the lower third rather than cutting the frame in half. This gives two thirds of the image to the sky, which immediately communicates that the sky is the story. If the foreground is stronger, flip it. Horizon on the upper third, more space given to the rocks, water, or whatever is happening in front of you.
When to break it:
Symmetry, reflections, and minimalist seascapes sometimes call for a central composition. If you’re shooting a perfectly still lake with mountains mirrored on the surface, dead centre can work beautifully. The reflection creates its own internal rhythm that doesn’t need the rule of thirds to function.
The point is: know the rule. Understand why it works. Then make a conscious choice about whether to use it or not. Breaking it on purpose is fine. Ignoring it without thinking is where you get into trouble.
Try this: Turn on the grid overlay in your camera or phone. For one full shoot, make a deliberate decision about horizon placement before every single shot. Sky interesting? Horizon on the lower third. Foreground interesting? Horizon on the upper third. Don’t let it happen by accident. Do it consciously every time, and notice how it changes the feel of each image.
The Rule of Odds
This one is simple, but once you know it you’ll see it everywhere.
The rule of odds says that an odd number of elements in a frame feels more natural and visually interesting than an even number. Three rocks. Five trees. Seven fence posts. A group of three fishing boats. An odd number creates a natural tension that an even number doesn’t. Even numbers resolve into pairs. The eye finds them, matches them up, and moves on. Odd numbers don’t pair off so neatly. There’s always one left over, and that leftover element keeps the eye engaged.
It’s the same underlying reason that dead centre feels static. Even numbers, like two halves of a frame split by a centred subject, feel resolved and finished. Odd arrangements feel alive and slightly unresolved, which is what keeps the viewer looking.
In practice:
You can’t always control how many elements are in a scene, but you can control how many you include in the frame. If there are four trees, move until one disappears behind another or steps outside the edge of the frame. If there are two rock formations, find an angle that brings a third into view. It sounds trivial, but it makes a genuine difference to how balanced and natural the image feels.
The rule of thirds and the rule of odds are closely related. The grid itself is based on odd numbers, three rows, three columns, nine sections. It’s not a coincidence that placing a subject on a third rather than the centre feels right. Odd numbers and off-centre placement are expressions of the same underlying principle.
Try this: Next time you’re composing a scene with multiple similar elements, count them. If you have an even number, see if you can include or exclude one to make it odd. Notice how the image feels different.
Leading Lines
This is the one I talk about most on location. Leading lines might be the single most powerful compositional tool in landscape photography.
A leading line is any element within the scene that guides the viewer’s eye through the frame. If it has direction, it can be a leading line. And crucially, it does not have to be a straight line. A zigzag path up a hillside is a leading line. Three lampposts in front of a church, the first one large and close, the next smaller, the next smaller again, that’s a leading line. A gentle S-curve in a river is one of the most beautiful leading lines you’ll ever find. As long as it leads the eye somewhere, it’s doing the job.#
This was shot at Fairhead in Northern Ireland, and it’s a simple example of leading lines working alongside the rule of thirds. The cliff edge leads your eye from the large rock formation in the foreground up through the frame toward the distance, giving the image a clear sense of direction and depth. What makes the line work is the light. The warm golden light raking across the rock face creates strong contrast between the lit surfaces and the shadows, making the edge stand out and guiding your eye without needing anything artificial. The cliff sits roughly along the right third, which gives the image structure and stops it feeling centred or static. There’s a person standing at the top right, small against the scale of the headland, which tells you everything you need to know about how big this place actually is.
It also does not have to be a physical object at all. That’s something most guides miss, and it’s worth spending a moment on.
Leading lines are everywhere, if you know what to look for:
At the beach, you have more leading lines available than almost anywhere else. The line where wet sand meets dry sand. The edge where water meets shore, constantly shifting, constantly interesting. Dark and light patches in the sand after a wave pulls back. Look down at the sand itself on a windy day and you’ll often see wind-blown patterns running across the surface, subtle streaks of movement that pull the eye just as powerfully as any road or fence.
In Lapland or anywhere with snow, the texture and pattern in the snow is full of leading lines. After wind, you get rippled dune-like formations. When the sun is low and raking across the surface, shadow and light alternate across the snow in long diagonal stripes. Those are leading lines. They’re not objects, they’re just light and texture, but they guide the eye just the same.
Shooting a waterfall in Ireland? Look at the water before it reaches the main drop. With a slightly longer exposure, water cascading over rocks and pooling between them can create soft, flowing lines that lead the viewer directly into the scene. The water is doing the work for you.
At a harbour, you’re surrounded by them. The harbour wall pointing into the frame. The edge of a grass bank sloping down to the water. A rope trailing from a mooring cleat. The painted line along a pier. Any of these, on their own, can anchor an entire composition.
Why they work:
We are wired to follow lines. It’s instinctive. A strong leading line doesn’t just guide the eye toward the main subject, it creates a sense of depth and movement, a feeling of travelling into the scene. That’s what makes a flat two-dimensional photograph feel immersive.
The most common mistake:
People spot a line and point the camera at it without asking where it goes. A leading line that ends in nothing, that disappears into a flat horizon or a wall of trees with no destination, loses its power. The line should lead to something worth arriving at. Your main subject, a point of light, a focal element. The line is the journey. Make sure there’s a destination.
How I think about it in the field:
When I arrive somewhere new, one of the first things I do is look for what’s moving my eye around the scene. Where does it want to go? I’m looking down at the ground as much as I’m looking out at the view, because that’s where a lot of the best lines are. Look down. Look close. Look at what’s literally at your feet before you look at the mountain in the distance.
Sometimes the line is obvious. A straight road, a jetty, a river. Sometimes it’s subtle, a ripple in the sand, a shadow across snow, tall grass bent by wind leaning toward your subject. Both work. The subtle ones often make for more interesting images because they reward the viewer who looks carefully.
- Converging lines (two lines meeting in the distance, like a straight road or railway) create strong perspective and depth. They’re dramatic and direct.
- Curved and S-shaped lines are gentler and more elegant. They invite the viewer in slowly, giving the eye time to travel.
- Diagonal lines add energy. Horizontals and verticals feel stable and calm. Diagonals feel like movement.
- Zigzag lines create rhythm. The eye bounces through the frame rather than gliding, which can add real energy to a scene.
Try this: Next time you’re at a beach or anywhere with open ground, before you raise the camera, spend two minutes just looking at what’s directly in front of your feet. Wet sand, dry sand, pebbles, grass, snow, mud, whatever is there. Ask yourself: is there a direction here? Is something pointing somewhere? More often than not, the answer is yes. Build your composition from that point outward.
Foreground Interest
I want to be honest with you about foreground interest, because I think a lot of the advice out there around it is either oversimplified or, frankly, not that useful.
The classic instruction goes something like this: find a rock, place it in the lower third of the frame where the grid lines intersect, and you have foreground interest. Job done.
I’ve never really liked that advice. To me, a rock plonked in the corner of the frame as a compositional tick-box is just a distraction. It pulls the eye to the wrong place, it fights with the main subject, and it makes the image feel like it was composed by a checklist rather than a human being. I prefer to keep things simple, and I’d rather have no foreground element at all than a bad one.
But here’s the thing. When I actually look back through my own images, I use foreground interest constantly. What I don’t do is force it. It’s always something that was genuinely there, something that felt like part of the scene rather than something I squeezed in to tick a box.
This is a good example of foreground interest at work. The sharp, detailed subject is the sea stack in the distance, but what makes the image work is everything happening in the foreground. The out-of-focus pebbles catching the golden light create a layer of interest at the bottom of the frame, giving the image depth and drawing you in before your eye moves toward the main subject. Without that foreground, this would be a much flatter image of a rock in the sea. The sea stack sits roughly on the upper third, which keeps the composition balanced, but the real strength here is that foreground layer. It’s what makes you feel like you’re standing right there on the beach.
What foreground interest actually does:
A landscape photograph with nothing in the foreground feels like you’re looking at the scene through a window. Add something meaningful in the near foreground and suddenly you’re standing in it. It creates depth, it creates layers, and it gives the viewer a way in.
What it actually looks like in practice:
It might be rocks. It might be grass. It might be broken ice on the edge of a frozen loch. It might be a patch of wildflowers, a line of pebbles, the texture of wet sand, or the way light falls across a snow-covered slope in the immediate foreground. None of these are forced. They’re just what was there, seen properly.
And this is where foreground interest and leading lines often overlap. Some of my images that I’m happiest with are using both at the same time without me consciously deciding to. The rocks in the foreground are also pointing somewhere. The grass is also leaning in a direction. When those two things align, the image has a real sense of pulling you through the frame from front to back.
The honest version of the advice:
When you arrive at a scene, look down before you look out. What’s at your feet? Is any of it interesting, does it have texture, shape, or direction? If yes, think about whether including it strengthens the image or complicates it. If it strengthens it, get lower and include it. If it’s just clutter, leave it out. Simplicity usually wins.
Getting low is still important. Most people shoot from standing height their whole lives and never experience what a scene looks like from knee height or lower. The difference is significant. A wide-angle lens close to the ground exaggerates the near foreground and stretches the distance, creating real depth in a way you simply can’t get from standing upright.
What to avoid:
A messy, shapeless foreground is worse than no foreground at all. Random twigs, an ugly muddy patch, litter, a distracting bit of ground that has no relationship to the rest of the scene. If it’s not contributing, exclude it. Move a step left or right. Sometimes a very small shift completely changes what’s in the foreground.
Try this: On your next shoot, before you raise the camera to eye level, crouch down to knee height and look at the scene from there. Then go lower still, camera at ground level if you can. Notice how the foreground elements change in size and prominence as you get lower. Notice how the sense of depth in the scene changes. You don’t have to use any of those low angles, but seeing them will change how you think about the bottom third of your frame.
Depth and Layers
Closely related to foreground interest is the idea of building layers into your composition. The best landscape photographs almost always have three distinct zones: foreground, midground, and background.
Each layer serves a different purpose:
- Foreground draws the viewer in and creates an entry point.
- Midground is usually where the main subject sits.
- Background adds context, scale, and atmosphere.
When all three layers are working together, the image feels complete. You can explore it. Your eye moves from the foreground in, through the middle, and into the background. It’s like a journey compressed into a single frame.
This shot from Uttakleiv in the Lofoten Islands is a good example of all three layers working together. The textured wet rocks fill the foreground, giving you an immediate entry point into the scene. The long exposure has smoothed the water in the midground, creating a soft contrast against the hard rock that separates the foreground from the background. Then the snow-capped mountains sit across the upper third, giving the image its drama and destination. Each layer is doing a different job. Take any one of them away and the image loses something. The rocks are sharp and detailed, the water is soft and ethereal, the mountains are vast and cold. Your eye travels through all three without being told to. The horizon sits on the upper third too, giving the foreground and midground the space they need to breathe.
How to think about it practically:
Before you set up your tripod, ask yourself: what’s my foreground? What’s my main subject? What’s happening behind it? If you don’t have an answer to all three, keep looking. Sometimes changing your position by just a few metres will bring all three layers into alignment.
This is why landscape photography rewards patience and exploration. The viewpoint everyone shoots from is usually obvious. The viewpoint that gives you all three layers working together often takes time to find.
The Horizon Line
I’ll keep this section short because it’s straightforward, but it’s a mistake I still see constantly.
Keep your horizon level. Full stop.
In landscape photography there is no excuse for a tilted horizon. A tilted horizon is distracting. It tells the viewer something has gone wrong, even if they can’t immediately say what. It pulls them out of the image.
Cameras have electronic levels. Use them. Tripods with ball heads often shift slightly when you tighten them. Check the level after you lock off. Make a habit of it.
Where to place the horizon:
Back to the rule of thirds. Ask yourself: where is the interest in this scene? If the sky is dramatic, give it the space it deserves and drop the horizon to the lower third. If the foreground is doing the work and the sky is blank, push the horizon up to the upper third and give the ground more room.
The exception is symmetrical reflection shots, where splitting the frame exactly in half can work beautifully. But even then, your horizon should be perfectly level.
Framing Within the Frame
This is a technique that feels a little magical the first time you use it deliberately.
The idea is to use natural elements within the scene to frame your main subject. An archway, a cave mouth, overhanging branches, a gap between rocks, a doorway. These natural frames within the frame do two things: they draw attention directly to the subject, and they add a sense of depth and context that makes the image feel more immersive.
This is Lake Bled in Slovenia, and it’s a good example of natural framing doing exactly what it should. The trees on either side and overhead aren’t just part of the scene, they’re actively directing your attention. They create a natural window that pulls your eye straight to the island church in the middle distance, which is the clear subject. Without them, this would be a wide open lake shot with the church sitting a little lost in all that space. The trees give it context and focus. The still water adds a reflection that almost doubles the image, and the church sits right in the centre of the frame, which works here precisely because everything else is symmetrical around it. Sometimes dead centre is the right call, and this is one of those times. The framing does the compositional work so the symmetry can breathe.
Why it works:
Our eyes are naturally drawn to what’s enclosed or contained. When you put a frame within a frame, you’re essentially telling the viewer: this is what to look at. It’s a focusing device, both compositionally and psychologically.
Using it in practice:
You need to be looking for it. It’s rarely the obvious shot from the obvious position. Often it requires moving around, getting into an unusual position, looking back from a height, or noticing a gap in the foreground that creates a natural window.
Trees are one of the most common natural frames in landscape photography. Branches overhead can frame a sky beautifully. But don’t force it. If the framing element isn’t contributing to the image, it’s just clutter.
Try this: On your next shoot, actively look for one natural frame, just one. An arch, a gap between rocks, overhanging branches, a doorway, anything that encloses a view. Get behind it and see what it does to the scene beyond. You don’t have to use it. Just practice noticing them, because once you start looking, you’ll find them everywhere.
Symmetry and Reflections
Some scenes call for symmetry, and when they do, embrace it.
Reflections are the most obvious example. A still lake on a calm morning, mirroring mountains or a pink sky. The reflection and the reality create a perfect symmetrical split, and in those situations, placing the horizon dead centre makes sense. The symmetry IS the composition.
This is Reine in the Lofoten Islands, and it’s a good example of how a reflection can carry an entire composition. The mountain and village are reflected almost perfectly in the water below, and the horizon sits right in the middle of the frame, which is usually something to avoid. Here it works, because the symmetry between the real scene and its reflection is the whole point. Splitting the frame in half is the right call when the reflection is this strong. What stops it feeling sterile is the ice. The broken, shifting patterns across the water’s surface disrupt the reflection just enough to give it life and texture. A perfect mirror would have been almost too neat. The imperfection makes it feel real. The dominant mountain sits roughly on the right third, which anchors the composition and stops the image feeling evenly weighted across the whole frame.
Making the most of reflections:
- Calm conditions are everything. Wind breaks a reflection almost instantly. Early morning is often the best time, before the day’s breeze builds.
- Get low. The lower you are, the more of the reflection you can include.
- Include something to break the symmetry slightly. A single reed, a ripple, a rock in the water. Perfect symmetry can feel sterile. A small interruption makes it feel alive.
- Look for foreground elements that are partially reflected. The transition between real and reflected can be incredibly interesting.
Other forms of symmetry:
Symmetry doesn’t have to mean water. These houses in Tromsø, Norway are a good example of finding it in an everyday scene. The repeating pattern of the buildings, alternating orange and green, the matching rooflines, the evenly spaced windows, all of it creates a rhythm across the frame that feels balanced and satisfying without being a classic reflection shot. The deep snow in the foreground adds a clean, simple base that lets the colour and pattern of the buildings do the work. It’s the kind of image that comes from slowing down and noticing what’s around you rather than chasing the obvious dramatic viewpoint. Composition opportunities are everywhere, not just at sunrise on a mountain.
Try this: Find any still body of water, even a puddle will do. Get as low as you possibly can and look at what’s reflected. Notice how the reflection changes as you shift your position. Then try splitting the frame exactly in half and compare it to placing the horizon on the lower third. Neither is wrong. The exercise is just about seeing the difference and making a conscious choice.
Negative Space
Negative space is one of the most underused tools in landscape photography, and one of the most powerful.
Negative space is the empty space around your subject. A lone tree against a vast grey sky. A small boat on a flat sea. A single figure on an open hillside. The subject is tiny, the space around it enormous, and yet that contrast is what gives the image its power.
This was taken in the Dolomites, Italy, and it’s one of the clearest examples of negative space I have. The slack liner is tiny, sitting just above the lower third of the frame, and everything else is sky. That’s the point. The vast, dramatic clouds aren’t just a backdrop, they’re the composition. The empty space above and around the figure is what creates the feeling of exposure, of being completely alone up there with nothing beneath you. Your eye finds the figure immediately, not because it’s large, but because it’s the only sharp, dark, defined thing in the frame. The wire adds a leading line that runs almost the full width of the image, which grounds the figure and gives the eye a path to follow. Converting to black and white was the right call too. Colour would have been a distraction. In mono, it’s just light, shadow, and one small person against an enormous sky.
Why it works:
When a subject is surrounded by empty space, it feels isolated, small, or lonely. That emotion IS the photograph. It communicates something words struggle to say about scale, solitude, and the relationship between a small thing and the world around it.
The courage it takes:
Most beginners feel uncomfortable with negative space. It feels like they’re wasting the frame. There’s an urge to fill it, to zoom in, to include more. Resist that urge. Let the space do its job.
When to use it:
Minimalist seascapes. Misty mornings where the fog obscures everything except a single element. Wide open moorland with a solitary figure. Dramatic skies where the land is just a thin strip at the bottom. Any scene where the feeling of scale, solitude, or emptiness is the point.
Try this: Find one single subject, a tree, a boat, a post, a person in the distance, and zoom in or move until it fills maybe ten percent of the frame. Let everything else be sky, water, or open land. Resist the urge to zoom in closer or include more. Look at what the empty space around the subject does to how it feels.
The Golden Ratio and S-Curves
The golden ratio sounds more complicated than it is. It’s a mathematical proportion that appears throughout nature and has been used in art and architecture for centuries. In photography terms, it’s a more refined version of the rule of thirds.
You don’t need to calculate it. The practical takeaway is this: when things curve and spiral naturally, like a winding river, a shell, a coastline, a snaking path, and you can align that spiral loosely with the golden ratio, the composition tends to feel deeply satisfying in a way that’s hard to articulate.
The S-curve is the most common expression of this in landscape photography. A river or road that curves gently through the frame in an S-shape draws the eye naturally and gracefully from foreground to background. It doesn’t feel forced or mechanical. It feels like it belongs.
This is Magilligan Strand in Northern Ireland at sunset, and it’s about as clean an example of an S-curve as you’ll find. The channel of water winds from the bottom right of the frame, curves left through the midground, then bends back toward the right and disappears into the distance. Your eye follows it naturally, slowly, without being pushed. That’s exactly what a good S-curve does. It gives the viewer a journey rather than a destination. The rippled sand texture in the lower right adds foreground interest and contrast against the smooth water, and the horizon sits on the upper third, giving the sky room to show off that sunset light. The water also acts as a mirror, picking up the pink and orange from the sky and pulling that colour down into the foreground. Several things working together here, but the S-curve is the backbone of the whole composition.
You can’t manufacture an S-curve where one doesn’t exist. But you can learn to recognise one when you’re in the field, and position yourself to make the most of it.
Scale
Scale is an often-overlooked compositional element, but it’s one of the most effective ways to convey how vast or dramatic a landscape really is.
The problem with big landscapes is that they can compress in a photograph. A mountain that looked enormous in real life looks oddly modest in a two-dimensional frame. Including something of known size, a person, a building, a fence, a boat, instantly restores the sense of scale.
Using people as scale:
A figure in a landscape is one of the most powerful compositional tools you have. Not as the main subject, but as a reference point. A person standing at the base of a cliff, a silhouette on a ridge, a lone walker on a beach. These instantly communicate: this place is enormous.
This was shot at La Palma, and it’s a strong example of how scale can be conveyed through a combination of perspective and people. The repeating concrete arches get progressively smaller as they recede into the distance, and that diminishing rhythm already tells your brain this structure is enormous. But then you notice the two figures at the far end, and suddenly the true scale of it hits you. They’re tiny. Not because they’re far away, but because the tunnel is genuinely that big. Without them you might appreciate the geometry. With them, you feel the size. It’s also a strong example of converging leading lines. The curve of the tunnel wall on the right, the line of the floor, and the succession of arches all pull your eye toward the same distant point, and that’s exactly where the two figures are standing. The black and white conversion strips out any colour distraction and puts the focus entirely on form, geometry, and light.
It also does something else. It invites the viewer to imagine themselves in that scene. We’re hardwired to relate to other people. When we see a human figure in a vast landscape, we project ourselves into the frame.
Practical tip:
If you’re shooting alone and the scene needs scale, look for natural scale references. A familiar object or a known size helps. A lighthouse, a farmhouse, a fencepost. Anything that gives the viewer a measurement to work with.
Composition and the Aurora
This deserves its own section because it’s one of the most common mistakes I see on my northern lights tours.
When the aurora appears, the instinct is to point the camera at it. The lights are over there, so that’s where you shoot. I understand the impulse, but it’s almost always the wrong approach.
My rule for aurora photography is this: find your composition first, then wait for the aurora to come to you.
This was shot in Senja, Norway, and it illustrates the approach I always take with aurora photography. The tree was the composition. I found it, positioned it, and waited. The aurora came to me. The bare winter tree sits centred in the frame, which works here because the aurora is swirling symmetrically around it, the green light framing the silhouette from behind almost like a spotlight. The tree trunk leads your eye up from the snow-covered ground through the branches and into the sky, where the aurora is doing its thing across the upper two thirds of the frame. The snowy landscape in the lower third grounds the whole image and stops it feeling like the tree is floating. If I had chased the aurora and pointed the camera at wherever the light was brightest, I would have come home with a green sky and nothing else. The tree is what makes it a photograph rather than a record of an event.
I’ll arrive at a location, walk around, use my phone if I need to, find a composition I’m happy with, the foreground, the lines, the layers, the horizon placement, all of it. I set the camera up for that composition. And then I wait.
Sometimes the aurora drifts into the frame exactly where I want it. Sometimes it doesn’t. And that’s fine. A mediocre composition with a spectacular aurora is still a mediocre photograph. But a strong composition with the aurora in the right place, that’s the image you’ll be proud of for years.
The aurora moves quickly and unpredictably. You can’t chase it around the sky and expect to come home with well-composed images. What you can do is commit to a strong composition and give yourself the best possible chance of the lights cooperating.
It’s also worth knowing that the aurora doesn’t have to fill the frame to make an image work. A thin band of green light sitting on the horizon above a dramatic foreground can be more powerful than a full-sky display shot from a bad position.
Breaking the Rules (And When to Do It)
Everything I’ve written above is a framework, not a rulebook. The best photographers understand all of these principles deeply, and then set them aside when the scene calls for something different.
Placing your subject dead centre can be powerful. A horizon bisecting the frame can be perfect for certain reflections. Filling every corner of the frame with a complex, layered texture can work beautifully.
This was shot in Lapland, Finland, and it’s the image I’d use to explain why rules exist to be broken thoughtfully. The cabin sits dead centre in the frame. The aurora rises directly above it, also centred. By every conventional rule of composition this shouldn’t work. But it does, completely. The reason is that the aurora and the cabin are telling the same story. The lights appear to be rising directly from the chimney, as if the cabin itself is producing them. That relationship only works if both elements are centred and aligned. Move the cabin to a third and you break the connection. The symmetry of the snow on either side reinforces it further. The warm glow from the cabin windows against the cold blue of the snow and sky adds a human warmth to an otherwise vast and inhospitable scene, which again is about scale. That tiny lit cabin surrounded by all that empty frozen landscape says everything about what it feels like to be out there. Dead centre was the only right answer here.
The key word is deliberately. Break a rule on purpose and your image can feel bold and original. Break it by accident and it just looks like a mistake.
How to know when to break them:
Ask yourself: would following the convention here make this image better, or would it make it ordinary? If the conventional composition is the one everyone else will take from this viewpoint, consider what happens if you do the opposite.
Some of the most interesting images I’ve seen on my tours have come from someone who ignored the obvious viewpoint entirely and found something quieter, more unexpected, more personal.
Less Is More
If there’s one lesson I’ve learned that has improved my photography more than any other, it’s this: less is usually more.
This was shot at a fisherman’s cottage in Senja, Norway, and it’s a good example of simplicity doing the heavy lifting. The scene is almost entirely white and pale blue, snow, mist, frozen trees, a flat grey sea. And then there’s the red cottage. That single pop of colour against the near-monochrome surroundings is all the image needs. Your eye goes straight to it and stays there. The cottage sits roughly on the left third, which gives the frost-covered trees on the right room to balance the frame without competing. The horizon sits in the middle of the frame, which in most situations I’d avoid, but here the mist blurs the line between sea and sky so softly that it barely registers as a horizon at all. It just fades. The enormous expanse of snow in the foreground isn’t wasted space, it’s part of the mood. It makes the scene feel quiet, still, and cold in a way that a busier composition never could. Less is more isn’t just a saying. Sometimes one red door in a white world is genuinely all you need.
When you arrive at a dramatic location, the instinct is to include everything. The mountain AND the loch AND the trees AND the sky AND the flowers. But cramming everything in rarely works. The image becomes busy and confusing. The viewer doesn’t know where to look.
The best landscape images often have a single, clear subject. Everything else in the frame supports that subject. The moment I start including things just because they’re there rather than because they contribute, the image gets weaker.
Try this: Before you shoot, ask yourself: what is this photograph about? One sentence. If you can’t answer that clearly, you probably don’t have a composition yet. Keep looking until you can. Then, once you have a composition you’re happy with, ask yourself what you can remove from the frame. Step back, zoom in, shift position. Simplify until removing anything more would lose the image entirely. What’s left is usually your best shot.
How I Actually Approach a New Location
This is what I actually do, in rough order, when I arrive somewhere for the first time. It might surprise you how little of it involves the camera.
1. The camera stays in the bag.
The last thing I do when I arrive at a new location is get my camera out. I walk around first. I just look. I’m asking myself whether there’s anything here that catches my eye, anything that peaks my curiosity. If nothing does, I keep moving. Only when something genuinely interests me do I start thinking about the camera.
I see this done wrong on every single tour I run, without exception. Someone arrives at a location, walks out to a spot, the tripod comes out immediately, fully extended, the camera goes on top, and that’s them planted. They’ve committed to that exact position before they’ve even looked properly. From that moment on, they’re not going to move. The tripod has made the decision for them.
Don’t let the tripod make the decision. The tripod is the last thing out, not the first.
2. I use my phone to find the frame.
Here’s something I don’t think people talk about enough. Sometimes you can see a composition straight away with your eyes. Other times, you’re standing in a scene and nothing clicks. It happens to me regularly, even after all these years.
When that happens, I pull out my phone.
Using a phone to frame a scene is one of the most underrated tools in landscape photography. The small screen forces you to isolate. You’re no longer looking at the whole overwhelming scene in front of you, you’re looking at a rectangle, and suddenly you can see what works and what doesn’t. It simplifies the decision in a way that just staring at the landscape can’t.
I’ll hold it up, move it around, try different heights and angles. It costs nothing and takes thirty seconds. If I can find a composition on the phone that excites me, that’s where the camera goes.
3. I move the camera around before the tripod comes out.
Once I have a rough idea of what I want to shoot, the camera comes out but the tripod stays put. I physically move the camera around, up and down, left and right, closer, further back, trying different heights and angles. I’m searching, not settling.
I’m looking at how the foreground changes as I move. I’m watching how the lines shift. I’m checking what comes in and out of the edges of the frame. That search is where most of the compositional work happens.
Only once I’ve found where I want to be, once the composition feels right and I know roughly where the camera needs to sit, does the tripod come out. And when it does, it doesn’t go fully extended until I know the height I actually need.
4. I ask: where is the interest?
Before I decide where to place the horizon, I ask myself a simple question: where is all the interest in this scene? Is it down low, in the foreground, in the rocks and textures and patterns at my feet? Or is it up high, in the sky, the clouds, the light?
If the sky is on fire, I know immediately that I’m giving two thirds of the frame to the sky. The horizon drops to the lower third. If the foreground is dramatic and the sky is blank, the horizon goes up. Simple as that. The sky earns its space, or it doesn’t.
5. I check the edges.
Before I shoot anything I’m happy with, I check the corners and edges of the frame. What’s creeping in that I don’t want? A telegraph pole, a parked car, a distracting bit of sky, an ugly patch in the foreground I haven’t noticed yet. The edges of a frame matter as much as the centre.
6. I take a test shot and look at it critically.
Not to check focus or exposure, but to see the composition as a flat, two-dimensional image on a screen. Sometimes what looks obvious through the viewfinder reveals something different when you actually look at the result. If something feels off, I’ll adjust before I commit.
Common Beginner Mistakes
I don’t say this to be critical. I made all of these mistakes myself, and I still catch myself making some of them on bad days.
Getting the tripod out first. This happens on every single tour I run. Someone arrives at a location, walks to a spot, and the tripod is out and fully extended before they’ve even looked properly. From that moment, they’re planted. The tripod has made the compositional decision for them. Always explore with the camera in your hand first. The tripod is the last thing out, not the first.
Putting the horizon dead centre every time. It bisects the frame in a way that gives equal weight to sky and land, which rarely serves either one well. Make a decision about which is more interesting and give it more space.
Not having a foreground. The image starts at the midground and everything feels flat and distant.
Including too much. The frame is full but there’s no clear subject. The eye wanders and gives up.
Not getting low enough. Foreground interest usually requires getting right down to ground level. Most people shoot from standing height and miss what’s available at knee or ground level.
Shooting from the obvious viewpoint. The place everyone stands, at the fence, at the car park edge, at the top of the steps. Move. Find your own angle.
Ignoring the edges of the frame. A strong central subject surrounded by distracting edges is still a weak image. Clean up the corners.
Rushing. Composition takes time. The best images usually come after ten minutes of searching, not ten seconds.
A Final Thought
Composition is a skill, and skills take time to develop. You won’t apply all of this on your next shoot. That’s fine.
Pick one thing from this guide. Just one. Take it out with you and consciously think about it every time you raise the camera. Foreground interest. Leading lines. Simplifying the frame. Whatever resonates with you right now.
Do that for a few months. Then add another principle. Build the vocabulary gradually. Over time, it stops being a checklist and starts being instinct.
That’s when it gets really enjoyable.
I’ve watched it happen on nearly every tour I’ve run. Someone arrives thinking composition is the complicated bit, and they leave realising it’s actually the most freeing part of photography. It costs nothing, works with any camera, and it’s entirely yours.
Get out and use it.
Leave a comment