composition - How do I make a landscape photo containing many important elements feel well composed?

On the question "Does this sunrise photograph have a problem with white balance?", there is a comment by Rob:

I know this Q is not asking for image critique and although I like the image I think its lacking composition what is the subject? - is it the tree? is it the shack? is it the sky?

How do you decide the subject when you have to photograph a scene containing a house, tree, row of trees, sky — all together. All of these form the scene all together in my opinion.

Is these kind of cases, it is still necessary to segregate a particular item rather then make appear everything equally important?

Can composition be improved somehow here so that one doesn't feel like asking what is the subject?

Answer

I think you're asking the question backwards.

The subject of a photograph already taken is whatever it contains. It might be a single thing, or there might be multiple subjects, or the subject may be an abstract concept represented by the relationship of those things, or simply that relationship itself. Whether the photograph succeeds in communicating some intended subject to the viewer is a complicated matter — as I've been reading a lot of Ansel Adams recently, I'll quote him:

“To the complaint, 'There are no people in these photographs,' I respond, There are always two people: the photographer and the viewer.”

So, there's that — one of the fundamental questions of art, and indeed of human life in general.

I say the question is backwards because from the second-person point of view — that of the viewer — there can never be a general answer, but only a discussion around each specific photograph. For any given image, what do you see in it? What do you think the photographer saw as the subject? What do you know of the history of that image, and the context in which it is presented to you? Do the objects or people represented have semantic or symbolic meaning to you? Might they have meaning to other people, and is that meaning what the photographer intended? In other words, how does one look at photographs?

The unasked question is that from the first-person point of view — that of the photographer. Here, the question is: what do you want to say, and what subject will communicate that? The subject of your photograph, is, after all, what you make it to be. But then, let me return to the Adams quote. Once you've decided on your subject, your task as a photographer is to communicate that to the viewer, and the roads for doing that are as many as there are photographers.

You can chose to be simple and direct (as is usually appreciated in commercial photography for advertisements or illustration) — or you can be coy and mysterious (a luxury more often allowed in artistic contexts). You can choose to directly tell your viewers what you see (either in words or in straightforward visual language), or you can make them work a bit for it. The latter approach is less likely to have mass appeal (many people won't "get it"), but may be more rewarding for those to whom your photograph does speak — and may be more rewarding for you.