Not really a camera question, but photography in general.

[Zenmervolt]

OK, I'll start off defining what I mean by "rules". Obviously, photography is not football. There are no "penalties" as such for breaking "rules" and there are not even technically prescribed "rules". For the purposes of this discussion though, a "rule" is a convention, a way of doing things, a "technique" that historically has been shown to produce "better" photographs. For example, the "rule of thirds" or "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" (for print film, slides were opposite), or "don't shoot directly into the sun".

I let myself get dragged into a discussion today about the place of "rules" in photography and I'm curious where the rest of you stand. I see a lot of "art" photographers who are very quick to spout off about how "there are no rules" and that one should never worry about following any rule. The advice they give to people with no experience at all is "don't think".

This seems off to me. While I agree that sticking rigidly to "rules" leaves out room to make a truly great photograph, I think that there needs to be a period where one learns the "rules" so that one can understand the reason that the "rules" came about. Once one understands the reason that the "rules" exist, then one can ignore them and focus on the reasons behind the "rules". But if one ignores everything from the beginning, it seems to me that this would handicap someone who is starting out.

Thoughts?

ZV

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I believe that there are some "rules," although I prefer to think of them as more of a psychological thing, as practices that tend to lead to the moment you're trying to capture. You have to think about what emotions you're trying to evoke out of the photo.

For example, simplicity. If you want to create a pleasing, calming photo, you want to keep the picture simple. Frame the serene mountain range at sunrise with the glassy lake underneath it. Don't frame in the wild tangle of brown bushes that are in the foreground where you're standing because it breaks the flow of things for the mind. If you can't have simple, then at least have patterns. Patterns can be very calming or curious to our minds.

If you're trying to evoke something of a strong negative-ish emotion, like stress of some sort or excitement, you can have a complex, noisy picture with random debris everywhere like a gritty wartime scene or fast action frozen with a fast shutter speed.

A roaring waterfall: You can use a fast shutter speed to freeze the action of the water, resulting in a photo that shows the not-so-gentle nature of the falls. Or you can use a slow shutter speed and blur the motion, resulting in something far less complex and relaxing to the eye. Or you can do something in between - blur it enough to show its gentle grandeur but freeze it enough to remind people that this is something not to be messed with. In this case the photographer might want to know beforehand what emotion they're trying to capture. Lots of photographers just know subconsciously what they want; if I approached a waterfall, my first instinct would be to blur it, and I would hardly even think about freezing its action. I would take one picture, and move on.

So I think "rules for a good photograph" is too broad. Rather, it should be something like "suggestions for the photograph you're trying to take." Or something.

 

[randomlinh]

I don't agree with the "don't think" argument at all. That may fit for them, because they may naturally have an artful eye to begin with. But I see the "rules" more as guidelines to grow from. Eventually you'll find what pleases you the most, and gravitate towards that style of shooting.

 

[rudder]

Take for instance the Rule of Thirds....

from wiki:

The rule of thirds is a compositional rule of thumb in photography and other visual arts such as painting. The rule states that an image can be divided into nine equal parts by two equally-spaced horizontal lines and two equally-spaced vertical lines. The four points formed by the intersections of these lines can be used to align features in the photograph. Proponents of this technique claim that aligning a photograph with these points creates more tension, energy and interest in the photo than simply centering the feature would.


Its a good rule to follow... and personally I think it makes for a better photograph and a lot more keepers...

but there is nothing to say you have to follow this rule to get a striking photograph.

And with portraits there are a lot of rules... but if you follow them all then you might as well go to sears portrait studio and get a nice flat boring photo.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Nice to hear some agreement. I think that the best phrasing of my own view of rules was written by Robert Pirsig. It's actually about teaching Rhetoric (an older term for English Composition), but the idea still applies.

Now, at last, the standard rhetoric texts came into their own. The principles expounded in them were no longer rules to rebel against, not ultimates in themselves, but just techniques, gimmicks, for producing what really counted and stood independently of the techniques...Quality. What had started out as a heresy from traditional rhetoric turned into a beautiful introduction to it.

He singled out aspects of Quality such as unity, vividness, authority, economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance, precision, proportion, depth and so on; kept each of these as poorly defined as Quality itself, but demonstrated them by the same class reading techniques. He showed how the aspect of Quality called unity, the hanging-togetherness of a story, could be improved with a technique called an outline. The authority of an argument could be jacked up with a technique called footnotes, which gives authoritative reference. Outlines and footnotes are standard things taught in all freshman composition classes, but now as devices for improving Quality they had a purpose. And if a student turned in a bunch of dumb references or a sloppy outline that showed he was just fulfilling an assignment by rote, he could be told that while his paper may have fulfilled the letter of the assignment it obviously didn't fulfill the goal of Quality, and was therefore worthless.

Now, in answer to that eternal student question, How do I do this? that had frustrated him to the point of resignation, he could reply, "It doesn't make a bit of difference how you do it! Just so it's good."

ZV

 

[JulesMaximus]

I look at the rules more as general guidelines. I keep them in mind when composing a shot but I may stray from them too if I feel like something else might work or I just want to try something different.

 

[virtuamike]

Do whatever. Just do it well.

 

[dug777]

I just frame it so I like it

 

[jmagg]

Learn the rules, then bend them.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: jmagg
Learn the rules, then bend them.

/winnar

Seriously, this is the best answer so far. FBB listed several specific examples of what rules can and cannot do, as well. Start off by learning the tried and true methods. Then once you get a feel for it, capture images or create photographs the way you want them to be.