Photography Composition - <AUTHOR> https://antongorlin.com/blog/photography-composition-definitive-guide/ <comment><USER2> This is very interesting as a piece of analysis, but I would caution folks against believing that this kind of complicated process is necessary to make striking photos.

Photography is an artistic endeavor, and art is strongest when it includes an intuitive aspect. That's how a photo becomes _your_ photo, not just a nice- looking photo. And while reading art criticism can help develop intuition, it's even more important to just perceive a lot of art. Photo exhibitions, books, online galleries, etc that you view will all go into your brain and get mixed around. Then you start taking pictures and reviewing your own work, to see what worked and what didn't--for you, the artist.

To be a strong photographer, there's no substitute for just looking at a lot of photography and taking a lot of pictures. Articles like this can give you mental tools to reason about what you're feeling, but the essence of art is the feeling.

The one simple piece of advice for landscape photographers is that you're taking a picture of light. Most of the example photos in this article were taken in interesting light. A lot of them would be boring photos (despite strong composition theory) if taken at noon on a clear day.

Edit to add: I incline toward landscape photography myself, and two books that have really stuck with me are Examples by Ansel Adams and Mountain Light by Galen Rowell. Hearing (well, reading) from the artist about their decisions in making a striking image provides a more subjective perspective on photography --a good counterpoint to what I'd call a more observational or analytical approach like in the linked article.

<comment><USER3> Well put. Everything you said and a little bit of elaboration on art...

One of the best parts of photography is the speed at which you can have a conversation with your own visual system, refining it in the process.

Understanding art can be thought of as getting bored and finding something new, which is no longer boring, and repeat. Eventually you find yourself bored by _almost_ everything, but with an intense passion for succinct relatable expression. This is often mistaken for pretension, and many do skip the process altogether; most unfortunately, even people calling themselves artists do so.

My point is all these composition rules _are_ great; it's invaluable stuff. But, you will get bored of them, and that is the beautiful part.

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't say "get bored of them", so much as sublimate them so you no longer think consciously about them. And you learn that it's not "following the rules of composition will make great photos", so much as "most great photos follow the rules of composition".

Composition is also about tension/resolution, much like music. You can increase tension, but that doesn't mean you're actually breaking rules.

<comment><USER3> Fair. I want to add that when I talk about "getting bored" of them, I personally do this in a childish and _un_ refined way on a regular basis. So I don't want to sound like I necessarily mean progressing beyond them. A childish rebel instinct can result in boredom all the same. Paired with curiosity, it's granted me with an accumulation of experiences in exploraing the visual world. The rules are wonderful but breaking them is what gives me resilience as an artist. It's why I can fall from great heights, lose access to a medium, and overcome jealousy. I can always recall my own fluidly evolving set of rules. Don't get me wrong; praise is really important, but the confidence in child's play has over time fostered a relationship with my eyes that I only know to call love; certainly the closest thing to freedom I've ever known. I wish I were exaggerating because I sound like an absolute dork.

At the end of the day, I am actually a rigid rule follower in my output. Most of the rule-breaking takes place in my imagination. I find myself giggling to myself on film sets regularly, for example. Or at bus stops for that matter. This is what gets me out of bed in the morning.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is some really great guidance here and some lovely images.

However, some caveats:

Almost all of the pictures used as examples are landscapes where people are not present or are mere compositional comments. In street or portrait photography, technical composition rules may be subordinate to the photographer's narrative. A better title for the article might be 'definitive guide for landscape photographers'.

All of the pictures use ambient light (admittedly some of the light is stunning, but it is all supplied by nature). Adding controlled light (e.g. flash but also studio lighting) can give a lot of additional compositional control. See [0] for examples.

There is no mention of considering how the picture will be used when considering composition. In commercial photography, the composition may have to fit a specific page aspect ratio, and include empty spaces where text or other elements can be added. Not taking this into account can limit the commercial use of the picture.

[Edit] Another way to get _interesting_ compositions is to use _different_ compositions than the other photographers. Simply crouching down to ground level is a good way to do this. Putting on a much wider angle lens can also help.

[0] [http://strobist.blogspot.com/](http://strobist.blogspot.com/)

<comment><USER6> Yes, the light in the shown pictures is natural, however the article fails to mention that all of them have a fair amount of post-processing (apart from cropping). A reader inexperienced in the matter is led to believe that if only the composition is right the images will come out of the camera as striking as shown, which isn't true. Good processing is one of the keys to creating pictures with impact. Especially when shooting digital the images out of the box tend to be flat and naturalistic as opposed to stylized or artistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Learn to previsualize.

If I would teach people one thing about photography. Is learning previsualization.

This is a very interesting and exhaustive guide. It's great for analyzing photos that work and explaining why they do work.

I think photography (for beginners) should be about personal fulfillment, capturing memories and telling stories.

Along with that (as others have pointed out) just learn about the rule of thirds.

You can practice previsualization all the time and like anything else, it's something you get better the more you do it. For example, my default street photography lens is 28mm. I think shooting with long lenses is not intimate. After many years, my eyes see in 28 and I know more or less what the frame will be once I look through the camera. I've usually taken the photo in my head before I even lift the camera. Sometimes the result is better than what I imagine, sometimes is worse.

<comment><USER8> There's one other thing that very few people learn or intuitively understand: there's an enormous amount of light and visuals that we process due to our peripheral vision. While we may _think_ the scene is 3:2 that we frame with a camera, in reality our brain captures 120-180 degrees of information outside the 3:2 frame which adjusts our perception of what would be in a photo vs. what would actually end up in a photo.

Same goes with the light: if you want to know how the camera sees the scene, squint -- it would compensate for extra peripheral light.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is very nice. A lot of good information!

But for beginners I believe there are just two simple rules that help a lot to create nice pictures:

* Rule Of Thirds (most camera's have an option to turn this on visually)

* Give people room to look. So when someone is looking to the right, place them in the left of the picture so they have "room" to look to the right.

<comment><USER10> I would actually place one rule before those, and it's a purely technical one:

Understand and embrace exposure compensation. If your camera doesn't give you rapid access to that control, get a new one. (Thankfully most cell phone cameras do these days.)

90% of crappy Facebook pictures could be made passable if the subjects were correctly exposed. Too often, bright or dark backgrounds are exposed as a dull grey, leaving subjects washed out or in shadow.

If the scene is bright ("high key"), nudge that knob up so it _looks_ bright. If the scene is dark ("low key"), nudge it down so it _looks_ dark. This can completely change the dynamics of a photograph for the better, and will allow you to more readily focus on the aesthetic aspects of photography such as composition.

<comment><USER11> I used to embrace exposure compensation a lot more on older DSLRs, but the exposure latitude of modern camera RAW output is now so great you can easily fix an image exposure +/\- one stop with little or no real perceivable loss of quality. Shoot RAW, worry about exposure nudges later. I'd say this is true pretty much of anything with a micro 4/3s or larger sensor since about 2013.

Even supposedly unrecoverable washed out highlights are surprisingly recoverable on newer cameras. For sure there are exceptions (bright snow scenes for example), but it's rare I will touch the exposure comp dial today.

<comment><USER10> Yes, if you're shooting RAW, you're past the point where the above advice is applicable. But there's a lot of people who don't (beginners, casual photographers who want something that looks better than Facebook selfies).

<comment><USER11> Perhaps, but to use the exposure comp dial effectively you need to know what an exposure "stop" is, which is a pretty complex concept if you are just a casual snapper, especially as it is inter-related to ISO/aperture/shutterspeed with changes in any one affecting the other two. This is probably why very few compact cameras even have a dedicated exposure comp dial, and virtually no OEM/standard cellphone camera apps expose this setting. If we are talking casual snappers nowadays we more often than not are referring to cellphone photographers, as the continuing collapse of the compact camera market illustrates.

Exposure metering is pretty great nowadays anyway (even on modern cellphones like the Pixel/iPhone), I love how you can effectively spot meter on the iPhone just by touching anywhere on the viewfinder.

<comment><USER10> Why would you need to know anything about stops? Just turn the dial up or down until the preview matches your experience. My phone's exposure dial doesn't even have markings.

I agree that tap-for-spot-expose is nice, but insufficient if your subject _should_ be bright or dark. E.g. taking a picture of a high- or low-key mural.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Wow, that's a really good photo! You must have a great camera!"

This article hits on a key thing - the main things controlling the quality/interest of a photo are composition, subject, and exposure. The main dimension "really good camera!" helps in these days is resolution, which has approximately zero to do with photo quality.

edit: I have a print of a favorite photo of mine above my fireplace mantle. It was shot with an old Motorola RAZR, at 320x240px. It's pixellated like crazy in print. It's also full of high-contrast problems - a large blown-out splotch off center from directly facing a light, and the mere shadow outlines of numerous hands in he air in the foreground (it was shot at a Flaming Lips concert). It's epic and beautiful. Why? Good composition, and interesting subject matter (hands in the air, facing a shadowy barely-recognizable human outline).

Great camera, indeed.

<comment><USER12> > The main dimension "really good camera!" helps in these days is resolution, > which has approximately zero to do with photo quality

I've mainly found exposure to be much easier to manage with a good camera.

<comment><USER4> Thinking about it, this also shows up in the divide between my two main cameras - a Nikon DSLR, which offers me total control and an experience very similar to the film environment I learned in, and an iPhone, which offers me almost no control at all. I use and love both.

<comment><USER13> I wish I could have a nice DSLR (but those things costs a pile of money!), unfortunately I wonder if I could be arsed to lug it around that often... Therefore I have an iPhone that is always on me and use the default app for quick snaps[0], but lately if I want to take a nice shot I'll use a more advanced app offering more manual control (as well as increased feedback (namely ProCamera). Just being able to have some fine, locked control on focus and tweak exposure compensation with a live mini histogram makes a world of difference†, even before you prioritise shutter vs ISO.

† Tip: (thank you non-discoverable UI) The default iPhone app can lock AE/AF by loooooong-touching until it locks, and you can adjust exposure compensation by sliding up and down, but the former is a AF _lock_ (not a manual set) and the second one is both highly imprecise and takes ages to go through large ranges when AE screws up. ProCamera's UI is both much more intuitive, responsive, and full-featured.

[0]: [https://twitter.com/lloeki/status/897158101706702853](https://twitter.com/lloeki/status/897158101706702853)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you enjoyed this then I highly recommend reading "Learning to see creatively" by Bryan Peterson.

The book basically consists of him walking you through how he made some of his great photographs. What the location looked like, which angles he considered and why some worked better (compositionally) than others. It was really eye opening and completely changed the way I walk around and take photos! (from random snapshots to well considered compositions)

Highly, highly recommended.

<comment><USER15> Another classic on the topic is "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I feel like it doesn't touch upon one of the most important aspects of composition: tangents.

[https://curiousoldlibrary.blogspot.com/2011/10/schweizer- gui...](https://curiousoldlibrary.blogspot.com/2011/10/schweizer-guide-to- spotting-tangents.html?m=1)

</comment><comment><USER17> I love photography, but I just don't think I'll ever be good at it.

I think I just don't have an 'eye' for what makes a good photograph.

I have taken some photographs I love, but they aren't technically good and are only good to me (because of the memories with the photo or who is in the photo).

It's annoying as I love it, and I love going out and practicing more. I've read lots on composition etc and how to use my camera but I find it so hard to actually picture the scene in my head and what will make a good photo.

Also, what are peoples throw away rates like? If I go out for a day with the camera and take say 20 photos. I might save 1.

<comment><USER8> > I have taken some photographs I love, but they aren't technically good and > are only good to me (because of the memories with the photo or who is in the > photo).

This is a dilemma of lots of people who shoot professionally - they have photos that they want to keep because of the subjects/moments/memories which are objectively not as good as the photos that _could_ take with the same subjects/moments/memories if they had approached them more as the professional shoots -- they did not.

The solution to that is simple - two different collections. One for the 'Personal photos' and one for 'Excellent Photos'.

> It's annoying as I love it, and I love going out and practicing more. I've > read lots on composition etc and how to use my camera but I find it so hard > to actually picture the scene in my head and what will make a good photo

Never take one photo. In fact, never take two or three photos. Take dozens photos even if you are just tapping a button on your phone camera app. Move phone left. Move it right. Change angle. Move closer. Move out. But keep pushing the button. After that pull the photos for the same scene into a strip and do an edit. First cull obviously bad photos - out of focus, washed out background if you did not want it, weird dude sucking on his thumb in a corner etc -- you took a dozen photos of nearly the same scene so it is not like you don't have a room to cut. After that do a tennis tournament. Compare two photos side by side. Pick a dinner. Delete the loser. Walk this down to 1 photo for that scene and be amazed at how much better that photos is than the one you thought you were going to get.

> Also, what are peoples throw away rates like? If I go out for a day with the > camera and take say 20 photos. I might save 1.

If you have people in the photos, then keeping one in twenty for a day of shooting is a very high and unnecessary precious keep rate ( please don't take it the wrong way ).

<comment><USER18> > After that do a tennis tournament. Compare two photos side by side. Pick a > dinner. Delete the loser. Walk this down to 1 photo for that scene and be > amazed at how much better that photos is than the one you thought you were > going to get.

It's also great for static things with too little light and no tripod. With enough attempts, at least one of them will be a _lot_ less blurry than the average.

In good light with static objects, I'll take a handful of shots even of the same framing. Even though one "would be enough", and nobody would notice anything wrong with it, if you take a bunch and compare them you can get rewarded greatly. The focus will never sit in the exact spot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Regarding filling the frame: Yes and no.

If you take it literally, then "No!"

Most photographers zoom out a little so they have room to crop. This is especially handy in landscape photography, because of the need for full front to back sharpness. Unless you have a fantastic lens/camera system, you cannot go down to f/22 and expect a sharp photo. But if you widen the aperture your depth of field is limited. So landscape photographers often zoom out and shoot at f/14 or wider, and then crop to what they initially wanted to catch.

So yes, fill the frame, but only _after_ cropping.

Finally, I tend to agree with one book I read. When it comes to landscape photography, just remember two rules:

1\. Convey depth (landscape photos are best when you have interesting elements both near and far).

2\. Utilize balance

All the other rules you tend to see tend to either support one of these two. If they don't, ignore them. There are several composition tricks to convey depth. But if you just learn the rules individually, you'll end up with compositions where you have multiple elements conveying depth (one is enough!)

<comment><USER20> If you zoom out and crop, you still lose the same angular resolution to diffraction as if you had just stopped down at the longer focal length. Object space lens resolution is diffraction limited by the size of the entrance pupil, in exact inverse proportion to the depth of field.

Plus when you zoom out and crop you waste sensor resolution and photon gathering power...

Plus, even an expensive camera suffers at f/22\. The only thing you can do is use tilt shift and an actual larger aperture.

<comment><USER19> >If you zoom out and crop, you still lose the same angular resolution to diffraction as if you had just stopped down at the longer focal length. Object space lens resolution is diffraction limited by the size of the entrance pupil, in exact inverse proportion to the depth of field.

Interesting - any real world tests to demonstrate this? When it comes to DOF, I'm not interested in logic or theory. I've seen too many flamewars that involve only theory and no actual field tests.

>Plus when you zoom out and crop you waste sensor resolution and photon gathering power...

I started digital photography on 2 MP. Then moved up to 8 MP. Then to 16 MP. From my experience, the difference between 8 and 16 MP is fairly small. The only benefit for me to go to higher resolution at this stage is the ability to crop and still get high resolution. Without cropping, I don't benefit from extra megapixels.

I'll concede the light per pixel point, though.

<comment><USER20> I just tested 100mm at f/32 against 50mm at f/16, which have the same entrance pupil size, and when cropped to the same part of the subject, the longer focal length simply wipes the floor with the shorter focal length.

[https://i.imgur.com/GtljNmg.png](https://i.imgur.com/GtljNmg.png) top is 50mm, bottom is 100mm

Why? The antialiasing filter and demosaicing destroy detail at a fixed scale relative to the captured image.

<comment><USER19> Wow - Thanks for actually making the effort.

A few quibbles:

1\. The goal is to maintain the DOF distance. For 100mm at f/32, if you go to 50mm, you need f/8.

2\. The assumption is that the lens is as sharp at 100mm as it is at 50mm (on some lenses this is a terrible assumption).

I tried a similar experiment comparing 25mm with 50mm (f/5.6 vs f/22). You can see the results at [https://imgur.com/a/ik6qe5K](https://imgur.com/a/ik6qe5K)

To me, they are almost identical - with 25mm seeming a tad bit sharper. In a way, though, you're right - the difference is so small that I might as well shoot at f/22.

<comment><USER20> The goal is to maintain DOF and field of view; if you crop to the same field of view, and the entrance pupils are the same size, then you have the same DOF.

100mm at f/32 is the same as 50mm at f/8 only if you don't crop 50mm by 2x.

These are both excellent lenses, and at f/32 and f/16, optical quality basically ceases to matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For a slightly different approach to this topic, I recommend reading two books by Michael Freeman: The Photographer's Eye [1] and The Photographer's Mind [2]

Instead of prescribing a particular process of composition, the books focus on clearly outlining the variables you control while taking a photograph. Once you've internalised the boundaries of the space you're working in, it's up to you to decide how to navigate through it.

Put another way, there may be definite rules for what makes something look pleasing, but a good photograph is not necessarily the most visually pleasing image. A great photographer has developed the intuition to know how to mix pleasing and disturbing elements to create a profound effect.

[1] [https://bit.ly/2My3WW1](https://bit.ly/2My3WW1)

[2] [https://bit.ly/2vOxveK](https://bit.ly/2vOxveK)

</comment><comment><USER16> I often see the rule of thirds suggested as a compositional tool. Yet I have never encountered any convincing justification for it. Ditto for the golden section. Anyone have strong opinions on this?

<comment><USER22> The golden section is complete woo and in scientific studies, people tend not to prefer compositions made with the golden section. As for the rule of thirds, think of it as a way of thinking about your photo rather than an actual rule. There's no reason why you can't think of the composition in your photo in quarters, or any other arbitrary subdivision. 3x3 is just a small enough number that you can approximately think about a picture that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This mixes up front and back light.

Otherwise it's very comprehensive.

Generally I just go by feel when composing, but these guidelines do match my photographic instincts.

</comment><comment><USER23> This is an amazingly well thought out and written article. As a budding (astro)photographer, I'm keen to read this over and over.

</comment><comment><USER24> never know photography can be this boring</comment>


Fact-checking can't do much for people driven by values instead of knowledge - <AUTHOR> https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/05/fact-checking-cant-do-much-when-peoples-dueling-facts-are-driven-by-values-instead-of-knowledge/ <comment><USER2> One solution for this may be – at least in part – in becoming more aware of these kind of cognitive biases. I'm hardly free from them, but a realisation of how they work does, at least occasionally, catch them.

The compassion vs. rugged individualism in racism/oppression debates is something I've noticed in the last few years as well. It's good to see my observations proven by some data :-) I'm pretty firmly on the "compassion" side myself, and realising this is a good way to ensure I don't jump to conclusions too fast, or at least not too often.

It's also useful when having discussions. Instead of arguing about whether or not something is or isn't racism you can talk about underlying views on racism/life/society, which is in my experience a better way to understand each other (which is the real value of any debate).

</comment><comment><USER3> There is an underlying assumption that facts are evident and we should be guided to the same conclusion by them, which is false. The authors are acting like it is a new discovery that people can have widely different views in the light of the same facts, that people have different realities. They authors even quote Goethe who figured this out a couple hundred years ago, so it is sort of laughable.

The article doesn't even touch the issue of the "fact-checkers" having bias themselves (who checks the checkers, as it were).

Even more silly is the list of things on which people disagree. Climate change and vaccination are the only issues with a overwhelming scientific consensus. The other issues, like the economy, minimum wage increases, etc. all have substantial bodies of research supporting both sides of the argument.

This book feels like a cash-grab, or maybe attention-grab.</comment>


Uber Cab: Tech Smackdown - <AUTHOR> http://blog.uber.com/2011/03/01/uber-tech-smackdown/

<comment><USER2> Brilliant marketing. Don't miss that if Facebook wins, all rides between Facebook and Google are FREE, and if Google wins, all rides between Google and Facebook are twice the price. ;)

<comment><USER3> Haha! I'm really pulling for Uber to succeed (and come to Denver).

<comment><USER4> Yeah, me too. Taxi Magic (iPhone app) seems to do half of it for Atlanta, but I'd seriously like the whole Uber if possible here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems a bit unfair for Google- after all, most people there probably use Android, and Uber is iPhone only. Yes, there is a text messaging version- but the app is mostly what justifies the extra cost associated with using an ubercab.</comment>


GDrive Google's next big thing? - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060305-6316.html <comment><USER2> I used to really look for news on the rumored GDrive, but with Amazon S3 available now I'm not sure I'm as excited. I wonder if they'd have a different offering.

<comment><AUTHOR> _'... but with Amazon S3 available now I'm not sure I'm as excited ...'_

it's an older article but anything google does changes B) the economics and B) gives greater choice.

 _'... wonder if they'd have a different offering ...'_

Been thinking about this. I've been getting reports back about data + storage + access/retrieval [0]. My bet is something. There is an explosion of _data_ occurring. The question is

\- what types of data storage of the web going to be?

\- what is the sql or retrieval method of the web?

\- what are the tools to interact?

\- what factors influence storage?

Also with storage it relies on bandwidth. What is the law on bandwidth? It's not like Moore`s law and relies on external forces beyond mere commodity markets. Well luck has it that there's Nielsen`s law [1] describing the increase of bandwidth per year, around 50%. So Moore`s law is number of transistors doubling every 18 months with an increase of about 60% per year. So anything google do with BigData will depend to some degree on peoples access to bandwidth.

What is google and others doing with bandwidth?

Reference

[0] Joe Gregorio, bitworking.org, 'ETech 07 Summary Part 2 MegaData'

<http://bitworking.org/news/158/ETech-07-Summary-Part-2-MegaData>

[1] Jakob Nielsen, useit.com, 'Nielsen's Law of Internet Bandwidth, 5th April 1998'

<http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html></comment></comment>


Thinking About Starting a Business? Try a Sales Job - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/independentstreet/2008/08/06/thinking-about-starting-a-business-try-a-sales-job/?mod=homeblogmod_independentstreet <comment><USER2> This almost sounded like an interesting article until the phrase "Cutco Cutlery" appeared. Those guys are only slightly less cult-like than Amway.

My ex tried working for them, years ago. Not a fun experience. Cost her money in the end -- the best salespeople at Cutco are the hiring managers, who begin by _selling_ their prospective employees an expensive demo kit. Beware, beware, beware.

And, in case you don't know, I should mention that even _high-quality_ expensive cooking knives are a big ripoff. The first words out of every pro chef's mouth are "go to a restaurant supply store and buy a basic steel chef's knife, with sterilizable plastic handle and a brand like 'Global', for about $19. That's what all the pros use, and they chop more than you'll ever chop."

<comment><USER3> Interesting advice on the knives.

But perhaps a chef's needs are different from an ordinary person's, in that a chef has a lackey to sharpen his knives every night? For those of us who are too lazy to sharpen our knives regularly, perhaps a $100 knife is worthwhile?

<comment><USER4> There's that and the fact that while you do hear this advice a lot, chef's (at least ones that actually cook) and busy line cooks typically walk into work with a knife case. It isn't filled with $20 knives. If you're using a tool for many hours a day, it pays to have a really nice tool. Even if it's only marginally nicer, that margin adds up. (It may never add up for the home cook, but that's another debate.)

But if you're making an order to fill out your kitchen, it's no surprise the cheap but fully functional knives will be ordered. $20 * 10 is a lot easier to justify than $100 * 10.

<comment><USER2> Okay, folks, you drove me to the books -- or rather to the _Cooks Illustrated_ website, which no self respecting geek who cooks should fail to subscribe to. They ran lots of knives through tests and recommended the Forschner Victorinox Fibrox Chef's Knife, which cost $25.33 in 2005.

So, I lied. You might not want to use a $20 knife. You shouldn't spend a penny less than $26. ;)

Note that this is a brand-name product. Wouldn't be surprised to see the no- brand version at a supply store for $19.

Note also that knives are a personal thing. If the cheap one doesn't fit your hand you'll want a more expensive one. C'est la vie.

It's true that keeping your knife sharp is really important. Unfortunately, you can dull an expensive knife as easily as a $25 knife. You should get a steel and try to figure out how to use it. You should get your knife sharpened when you sense it's getting dull, or you'll injure yourself. You should use the right cutting board. You should have a knife that's all your own and hide it from other people, lest they smash the edge into a solid metal object. You should watch Alton Brown's show about knives to learn these things.

Mr. Brown recommends pro sharpening because he thinks all the homegrown solutions suck by comparison. _Cook's Illustrated_ , OTOH, recommends the $80 Chef's Choice 110 electric home sharpener, which you can afford with the money you saved on that $110 chef's knife.

Pro chefs carry more than one knife, in a case. You also need more than one, but not many more. In his book, Anthony Bourdain (famous pro chef) recommended a chef's knife, a flexible boning knife, a paring knife, and an offset serrated knife. Alton Brown (famous geek pro chef) also suggests kitchen shears and a 4 to 5 inch utility knife. _Cook's Illustrated_ suggests that you might want a slicing knife if you carve a lot of roasts (alas, I don't; I married a vegetarian), or a cleaver if you often make homemade chicken stock (see above).

You'll also need some steak knives if you're not married to a vegetarian like I am. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is great advice.

I have a blog post I've been meaning to write called "What do you REALLY want to do for a living, aspiring entrepreneur?" inspired by a comment reply here where someone effectively said, "I'm not really that into growing a company, I just want to do a startup 'cause I love to build things and hate stupid managers". If your startup is successful, you generally grow (at least a bit). Before long, your job is hiring, BEING the stupid manager everyone gripes about, customer service, working with vendors and service providers, and doing sales/bizdev.

<comment><USER6> As a whole it is not great advice. It has two parts: the good one is _"Thinking About Starting a Business? Try a Sales Job"_ and the evil one is an advertising of Cutco Cutlery and similar businesses.

 _"Sales reps may have to buy their own demonstration equipment."_ It is a signature of a pyramid scheme. Encouraging young adults to participate in such scheme is evil.

<comment><USER5> The advice I'm referring to is that in the headline. At no point in the article did it say, "you really ought to work for CutCo"... It was just an example.

I don't know a damn thing about CutCo, but having people buy their own equipment isn't just the signature of a pyramid scheme... It's the signature of franchising as well. Hrm. Is McDonalds a pyramid scheme?

Either way, high commission "eat what you kill and pay your own expenses" aren't inherently evil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is fantastic advice.

When I moved to California in the jobless pit of the dot-com bubble burst, my first two jobs involved knocking on doors. The first was soliciting donations for the D.A.R.E. program for a Sydcor company called "Synergistic Marketing Concepts". The second was pushing Electrolux vacuums.

Nothing forces a geek to face their social ineptitude like knocking on a door and trying to convince an annoyed stranger that they should trust you enough to give you money. I was never very good at either job, but I managed to keep from starving. By getting from "terrible" to "barely competent", I learned some essential communication skills that have helped me greatly as a hacker.

Besides direct sales, another good training is to do technical support for a terrible company; the worse the product, the better the experience. If it's related to finances in some way so that your customers don't get paid if it doesn't work, so much the better. When you hear raw unadulterated panic in the voice of a customer, and the rage that this panic creates, and learn to convince them that you're going to make everything alright, it forces you to have a lot of compassion for users.

</comment><comment><USER8> At my last startup, I spent about a year in sales. It was out of necessity: after having conceived, designed and built the new product it needed to be sold. And the stuff that made it really shine was different and subtle. Which meant the story kept having to change to figure out what mattered and resonated.

The time on the road w/ the sales team was invaluable. I learned more in that year then I had in the past five at the company: creating a story, telling it well, listening to the customer and their pain points, deciding how to approach a new client, working up a quote, determining the relative value of a customer and more.

It has paid off handsomely in my current work. And I have much more appreciation for how sales work and how sales guys think.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is probably good advice.

But if you want to practice your sales skills, instead of getting involved in an existing door-to-door sales and/or multi-level-marketing racket, why not start your own door-to-door sales business? Pick a product, buy a trunkload of it, then try to sell it. You'll not only get the experience in sales, you'll get experience at choosing products that the consumer wants, and you'll get to keep all your profit (err, minus taxes) instead of a measly 10% commission.

</comment><comment><USER9> I've known some very good consulting & software sales people who make > $250K a year. They started selling copiers in college. One guy raised money for a couple charities, door to door.

</comment><comment><USER10> My insurance agent who is a top producer told me that the only way to learn sales is by doing it for at least 6 months. She said that initial half-year _will_ suck (e.g. make sure you have 6 month living savings to support yourself) but the experience with rejection and learning the difference between productivity and activity is worth it. It really doesn't matter what you try to sell either.

</comment><comment><USER11> Given that the article talked about knives, I'm surprised no one's mentioned Vector Marketing yet: [http://www.collegeotr.com/suny_binghamton/vector_marketing_s...](http://www.collegeotr.com/suny_binghamton/vector_marketing_scam_or_fast_cash_10453). They basically mass-mail high school students trying to recruit some to sell knives. A couple of my friends did it back in high school. While it can be a way to improve your sales ability, this particular scheme (and many others) was little more than a fancy scam.

I fully agree with the title, but these "independent reseller" schemes seem to be hit-or-miss at best. It might be a better experience to work in sales at a big company, rather than as an independent reseller. John Doerr plays up the fact that he worked in sales at Intel before his VC life. Or even better, sell something you made.

</comment><comment><USER12> This might be somewhat naive, but isn't the whole conversation on HN centered around the idea that we should be trying to make stuff that doesn't have to be sold? Something that people simply want? Where does this article fit in? I've never seen a facebook commercial on TV, or a youtube commercial. Or a MetaFilter commercial...

With my startup, I often have people telling me I should invest in radio outreach, print up business cards etc and do more marketing. This advice is all well-intentioned, and some of it is very good (like having decent business cards), but we've been doing a radio thing (free mind, you) for the last 3 months and haven't seen any fruit at all from it. I dunno. I think my time's better spent making the product better.

Also, as a journalist, that's about the lamest, least informative blog post I've ever read on a newspaper site.

<comment><USER13> Nothing sells itself. Even if people "simply want" it, you still have to sell if you want to be the leader in your space (and in some spaces being the leader is the only position worth having).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't think it is good advice. Maybe sales skills are useful, but the thing is, there are zillions of things one could learn before starting a business that could be useful (like getting a degree, saving enough money, ...). It is just one more thing that delays you actually doing what you want, and that is bad. Why not just learn on the job (starting a business)?

However, if you absolutely think you have to put yourself through that ordeal of selling crap door-to-door, perhaps collecting money for charities would be a better choice than selling products of questionable quality.

</comment><comment><USER15> cool. Lets all go work for sales company and then we will millionaires!</comment>


Microsoft: Sorry if Orth offended you — no comment on next Xbox - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/05/microsoft-were-sorry-if-orth-offended-you-but-no-comment-on-next-xbox/

<comment><USER2> Later tweets between the two of them show that they were joking with each other, but I guess that doesn't make a good story.</comment>


GitHub is experimenting with personal READMEs - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/mschoening/status/1265774218404233217 <comment><USER2> This is great, yet another place I have to repost my resume/portfolio/blog to satisfy the trend-following recruiters and hirers... Maybe I'll just do this

        # [CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS](https://mysite.tld)

<comment><USER3> Bonus points if you make it a redirect loop so they get sucked into a never ending void.

<comment><USER4> thats...that's beautiful.

<comment><USER5> I don't know, I think this is better: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23340697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23340697)

<comment><USER6> I've seen way too many Github projects where the "Website" link in the header is to the repo itself...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> When MSFT bought them, I predicted they would pivot to adding features I don't care about. I was right. They went from the best support I've ever seen (report an issue, get a personal email asking for details, see it fixed) to the worst (not touching a single feature I find worthwhile).

There's about a thousand things I wish they would fix or add before this. They still don't allow videos so every screencast demo on GitHub is still a giant GIF, right?

I used to like GitHub so much I paid out of pocket even when I was unemployed. Now it's on my list to check out GitLab again. Companies don't know when to stop. It's like they created the bicycle and add another wheel every year as an improvement.

<comment><USER8> "GitHub is adding too many dumb features, btw please support my use case of having videos in my repo"

<comment><USER9> I've often wished this feature actually, especially when submitting pull requests, and you'd like to showcase the new features. I've often had to either embed a video link or convert to gif.

<comment><USER10> I use gifs for this and they work great!

<comment><USER11> As someone who likes to do previews in PRs, mp4's are infinitely better than gifs. Better colors, better frame rate, better resolution, better size when you change any of those factors. It's really, really silly GitHub still don't support them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I see this in the context of TripleByte attempting to take on LinkedIn.

MS owns LinkedIn. This very much looks like an effort to turn GitHub profiles into LinkedIn-style profiles.

This is not going to be pretty.

<comment><USER13> Except this one is opt-in and it was a feature request from the community

<comment><USER14> Opt-in with the likely expectation that every developer worth hiring has one.

<comment><USER15> Who's expectation? I don't expect developers I hire to have a GH profile. Most GH links I see on resumes are thoroughly unimpressive anyway (one or two college homework assignments and an untouched fork of some open source project).

Having a good one is a plus, but having a poor one is worse than not having one.

<comment><USER16> Agreed: as a hiring manager I check every github profile I see on a resume. I have never been anything but disappointed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not a fan of turning GitHub into social media. Please GitHub don't go down this route.

<comment><USER18> GitHub is already social media. What else is the star system, the network of forks, the profile bio and the ability to comment?

<comment><USER19> Perhaps I'm in the minority but I use the star system almost like a bookmark. Is that not what it's for? Is a star the equivalent of a "like"?

<comment><USER20> Not sure what it is for but everyone I talked to uses it as bookmark system.. so you are not alone.. to the contrary.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, me too. Stars are for me just Github-scoped bookmarks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Please add math support in github markdown. Something real users need.

Stop trying to make it a social network.

<comment><USER23> We're definitely going to add math support to GitHub markdown.

<comment><USER24> Is there a timeline for adding math support to GH markdown?

I've had to resort to human-side rendering to put LaTeX/math in a GitHub flavored markdown file.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I don't like Emojis in my documents. I think they are distracting. Tools like Notion is actively promoting it like this new Github profile docs. Does anyone else feel the same? :-)

<comment><USER25> I suppose the answer is to simply not use Emoji in your documents.

<comment><USER4> Lol that's obvious. But, the trend is what I am concerned about and asking if others feel the same. I can't control if I am reading someone else document full of emojis. Can you imagine RFCs in this format?

To me, Emojis have a place when you're discussing with others and socially interacting. May be even in code reviews to reduce friction and add some human emotion to what you're saying in cold words. Use it to chat with people - totally ok.

Documents with emojis is definitely an anti-pattern IMO. To give an extreme example, can you imagine reading python docs with Emojis? Or Tolstoy? What about tax documents with emojis? Court proceedings? Job resumes? Aircraft emergency checklists?

<comment><USER26> "I don't like emojis so they are an antipattern."

I don't like emojis so I don't use them. I have no interest in demanding how other people define their docs.

<comment><USER27> > I have no interest in demanding how other people define their docs.

I definitely do _not_ want emoji's in official documents, emergency procedures, etc. And I would demand for the same - emoji's are at best decorative, and a lot of times a distraction. Most documents that are of importance to me should be straightforwardly written - and that means no emojis.

<comment><USER4> I totally agree. Emojis are great for _conversations_. Not when information needs to be conveyed in a document.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> There are a lot of commenters sharing their opinions of what they don't like abut Github's interface. It is true there are a lot of quirks and warts in what is a site many of us spend a lot of time on.

Ive found browser extensions have been a great way to augment and customize my Github experience, bringing quality of life improvements that Im grateful to have every day.

My top two favorites are:

Refined Github [1] -- huge collection of quality of life improvements. e.g. always sort issues/PRs as most recently updated first, when recently pushed to a branch show a button on project page (or upstream of fork) to open a PR based on that branch, quicklink to most reacted to comment on an issue page. Also provides a surface to inject custom CSS for personal tweaks.

Octolinker [2] -- Turns require/import/include paths in files into hyperlinks to that file or repository. I use this every single day to navigate code in projects.

I know that extensions aren't a panacea, but personally I have found them be very valuable to my workflow.

[1] [https://github.com/sindresorhus/refined- github](https://github.com/sindresorhus/refined-github)

[2] [https://github.com/OctoLinker/OctoLinker](https://github.com/OctoLinker/OctoLinker)

<comment><USER29> Some time ago there was an article posted with a proposal for redesigning the Github UI [1]. I thought it was mostly great, but it got roundly panned on HN. In general my takeaway was that people don't like change, even when it benefits them. Was unfortunate, especially from a crowd that's supposedly all about technological improvement.

[1] [https://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/](https://tonsky.me/blog/github- redesign/)

<comment><USER28> Found the link to the HN discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19276113](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19276113)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Sad to see such a negative reaction here.

We have something similar internally - we call them personal user manuals. They explain how we like to work (e.g. communication preferences), and a little bit about ourselves.

We ask new joiners to write theirs when they join. They make a good introduction to the company and can provide guidance when wondering how best to interact with others.

</comment><comment><USER31> I for one am looking forward to this — I'd love to use it as my resume.

<comment><USER32> I like the idea... a bit concerned about the future potential that there is an expectation developers have a GitHub personal README (err "resume") tho. That's just not practical for a lot of folks either due to time, interest, or contractual reasons.

On the other hand, most profession's do have portfolio's and other mechanisms to share work with new potential employers. For some reason developer's seem to think a hiring decision should be made entirely on a a handful of 1 hour interviews conducted in a single day when their work will usually have massive direct impact on the companies product.

I think there's mostly positives to this and some downsides.

<comment><USER33> > For some reason developer's seem to think a hiring decision should be made > entirely on a a handful of 1 hour interviews conducted in a single day

As opposed to... some generic profile on a central site? I don't think that is a substitute to actually talking to a candidate.

But what do I know? If I understand sites like HN correctly, talking to a person is not a good way to discover whether he/she has any skills, so maybe this is better from a recruitment standpoint. But I'm not going to create a personal profile there. For the simple reason that the words 'personal' and 'follow our format' don't go together in my mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> IMO - People are already viewing your github profile and making judgments, might as well be able to personalize what they see.

</comment><comment><USER35> I suspect you will soon see a project on github that will export your LinkedIn to read me format and vice versa.

Maybe even a git hook to do it automatically.

<comment><USER36> I think soon your github, vs code editor and windows 10 login will be connected with your linkedin profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This looks nice. I'm looking forward to using this as a page/list of blog posts/links.

</comment><comment><USER38> I currently try to convey my (code) interests by pinning my favorite repositories on my profile, but this personal README is a ton more expressive. Looking forward to this!

</comment><comment><USER39> its like my own personal space. they should call this feature myspace.

<comment><USER19> Time to dust off my CSS skills.

<comment><USER40> No need, just improvise. It will be more authentic that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> They've rediscovered .plan files?

<comment><USER14> That was my first thought also: .plan with MD

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is interesting move - I'm surprised they haven't done things like this earlier. The pinned repos was never a great way to provide an introduction since it lacks too much context. I've been experimenting with my own project [0] to get much more info out of GitHub profiles to demonstrate one's skills by generating portfolio sites, but if GitHub does a good job with this it might make my solution somewhat redundant.

[0] - [https://www.profiled.app](https://www.profiled.app)

</comment><comment><USER43> My first, automatic reaction to this was a whole-head eyeroll. Great. Now Github wants to be a social network.

My second thought was "Hey if I used this I could delete my stupid Linkedin account."

</comment><comment><USER44> I kinda like this, a way to make the profile more personable rather than a vanity graph and select repos.

But this emoji fascination is beyond me.

</comment><comment><USER45> Like it or not, people use github for self-promotion.

It's not at all unusual for recruiters to ask about your github profile. The code repositories are the resume. The personal README is the cover letter.

</comment><comment><USER46> Reminds me of personal user pages on Wikipedia. Very cool. I like it.

</comment><comment><USER47> Github as social media?

<comment><USER48> Time to collaboratively scrape the platform for archiving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Time to start thinking on how to tell visitors that Github is an outdated mirror at best because they like to comply with ICE.

</comment><comment><USER50> This is cool - would love to make one.

</comment><comment><USER51> Github will be enhanced by LinkedIn features then I guess. Smart move by MS.

</comment><comment><USER52> scumbag managers rejoice, every other incarnation of "check my readme to understand me" before that was a disaster.

</comment><comment><USER53> GitHub 2020: Aaaand it's gone.</comment>