I'm using the term "rules" very loosely here, just because it's easier to use one word than all the variations that could be used. I understand completely that "rules" may not be the right word for any specific aspect of photography.
Would you say that photography is one of the areas in which one should generally learn/know the rules and be able to follow them and then one might have the freedom to break the rules at times, so that if you generally know and follow the rules well you have credibility when you break the rules?
I come at it a little "sideways," as appears to be my general nature in life. I study the RULES as a way to pinpoint new ways to see and do. If you know the rules, that's the first step in understanding why they exist. Once you know that it's a lot easier to define "new" approaches and insights. So often the rules are just customs and can direct you away from fruitful areas to explore.
Yes, you're not supposed to shoot in bright midday light, for example. No, that doesn't mean you can't do it effectively. Set out to "break" the rule, and you learn when and how it can be done, and all sorts of work-arounds for challenging conditions.
It's a "rule" that photographers are supposed to look cool and use all the right gear, too. That means new clothing well maintained, and not a hair (or a camera strap) out of place. Of course I'm being tongue-in-cheek with that, but it's a good example. I bet that 999 out of 1,000 photographers shoot every scene standing fully upright in a comfortable position. Yet if you flop down on your belly in the mud and grime or climb the nearest rock or tree you see and shoot the scene from an entirely "new" viewpoint. I know of no better way to obscure distracting elements than to flop down on my belly and use the near foreground and lots of DOF to hide it and create new comps.
You can usually spot me among the crowd of cool photographers. I'm the one that looks like he's been rolling around in the mud and dirt. Cuzz I have been!
Here's a "belly flop" shot. I did it to capture the reflections rather than obscure anything, but it amply demonstrates the value in rolling around on the ground. No tripod needed, because in fact the camera was flat on the ground with a pebble under the lens barrel to adjust the angle.
Posted by Barbara Graham on January 10, 2011 at 10:15 AM
Thanks, Hank! I totally agree with you. I've already spent hours picking sticky things off my clothes from lying on the ground. That's a beautiful image that I'm sure you couldn't have captured in any other position.
Posted by Keith Bauer on January 10, 2011 at 10:20 AM
Barbara: The "rules" for photography have been "created" as they tend to lead to more pleasing images. That said, there are certainly plenty of times that rules should be broken. When I break them, I do it intentionally, and for a reason that makes sense to me. Might not make sense to anyone else, but ....
As Ansel Adams so eloquently stated:
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
Thanks, Barbara. RULES are a fun topic for me, because everyone moans about the need to develop their own style of shooting and to stand out from the crowd. That's hard to do if you confine yourself to shooting the same way everyone else is shooting! I use my understanding of the RULES to help me spot new ways to use photo ops and shoot them in ways no one else sees in their anxiety to do things "right," whatever that is.
Another way you can spot me in addition to the mud and grime: There's usually a stepladder in the back of my truck to provide extra elevation when no tree or rock is handy. What a great way to get over streamside vegetation for shots of rivers with clean foregrounds.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 10, 2011 at 11:43 AM
Barbara,
I never took a formal class or read a real book concerning digital photography, wildlife photography or otherwise. I learned by looking at other images and doing what I thought worked... I've had some photos were people commented "you broke all the rules and it looks great". Rules? What Rules? If you don't know them you can't be tied to them... the same is true for my equipment. Some people have been amazed at what I produced with the equipment I had (before I upgraded my gear). I pushed it to the limit, because I didn't know there was a limit...
Another example is my recent macro work where I've stacked images. To do this without a tripod is something no macro shooter would consider - and very few would try it without a macro rail but again I don't know the "rules" so I don't care what they are. I'm able to take images with different areas in focus and stack them in PS and make it look good...
It's OK to know the rules if you're looking to make an image that will appeal to all, but if you're looking to make an image that appeals to you - ignore all rules.
Great responses already. IMO, it's good to know basic "rules" ( I prefer to use the word Guidelines") as a starting point. Avoid flat light, use a low perspoective, crop to 4:3, the "rule of thirds", etc.
Keeping those in the back of my mind (sometimes) , I still forge ahead and do everything else too. Some of my best duck and water reflections have been with more overhead light, I crop randomly most of the time, and position things in the frame so they look good to my eye.
It would be easier for newer people, I suppose, if there simply were a set of rules to follow - and then if you did, one by one, you'd be guaranteed a perfect image.
But it is never so easy - that is where the ART of photography comes in. You'll develop a FEEL and SENSE for what works and what doesn't, and still be open to other ideas and ways to do things.
It all just takes time and practice, and your progress has been just great.
Sandy
Posted by Stan Rose on January 10, 2011 at 2:53 PM
It's OK to know the rules if you're looking to make an image that will appeal to all, but if you're looking to make an image that appeals to you - ignore all rules.
I know what you are trying to say, Luke, but i would argue that philosophy isn't necessary liberating--it can also hinder. Rules weren't devised overnight by one person--they're a careful result of many years of experience, by many very talented folks. Ignore rules at your own peril, because when you self-learn, you can teach yourself to be dependent on inefficient methods--and deny yourself a better chance at creating art that appeals to you and not just the greater audience. You are never at a disadvantage learning the rules--once you learn them, then, i agree, feel free to break them if the situation calls for it. An analogy to music: many great musicians were self taught and/or had no formal training--they played what felt right to them, and the very few who were naturally gifted made some outstanding music. But--not only were those folks rare, there is no telling how much more impressive their music might have been if they had learned all the theory first. Knowlege is power.
Photography is experiential. Learning the rules and applying them in the early stages of our learning gives us a basis for departure from those rules as we gain experience.
"Now to consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection . . ."
~ Edward Western
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM
Stan, thanks for the "thoughtful food" if you know what I mean..
I think Stan phrased my intention better - know the rules and ignore the ones you want when making something that appeals to YOU.
Posted by Mark Stahlke on January 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM
I dislike this use of the word rules. I prefer to think of them as the principles of classical composition. Understanding them is the key to violating them successfully.
Posted by Bill Brennan on January 10, 2011 at 5:09 PM
Interesting discussion. Stan's position makes a lot of sense. If you want to go deeper into the subject, research the psychology of perception.
If you don't know a 'rule', how can you break it? How many people 'think' about putting on the turn signal when making a corner? When we learned to drive it was a 'rule', it becomes second nature with experience. IMO the same holds true in photography, you need to learn the technology well enough that it becomes second nature.
I have nothing against breaking the rules but as one of my early mentors said, "You need to know how to use it in order to misuse it." He was a great one for documenting things as, should you do something out of the norm which produced unexpected good results, how could you repeat it if you didn't know what you did?
Posted by Lon Overacker on January 11, 2011 at 1:32 AM
Barbara,
I think the general response here is that the "rules" or guidelines as I like to call them, came in to existence for a reason. In general they are excellent guides and starting points to produce satisfying images. And rather than say "rules are meant to be broken," I would say instead that it's certainly ok to break them. Nothing preventing anyone from stepping out of the box and trying to see things in new and different ways. Certainly anyone here would claim that they have tried or thought about doing something different that outside the norm.
One of my favorite "guidelines," is "The Rule of Thirds." I even wrote a short piece about it years ago. And as David just pointed out, over time you learn to see in different ways; often times it's because of "guidelines" you learned long before and it does become second nature.
To your last statement, "if you generally know and follow the rules well you have credibility when you break the rules?" I wouldn't say you need credibility to break the rules. You only need a vision or an idea of what you want to visually communicate. Perhaps it might seem that way here sometimes because I know many people think that the prominent members get "passes" on some of these fundamental things where as a new member or beginner doesn't get a pass?
Now this isn't your claim, I brought this one up. I would say in your case for example, you clearly state that you're a beginner and it's clear that you have a great passion for learning and desire to improve your photography. In that light, I think it's natural that folks would respond in their comments and mention things like the rule of thirds, 50/50 comps, depth of field, bright spots, eye magnets etc. etc.
Great discussion. I am a born renegade and a fighter. When I was advised to apply rule of thirds and other elements to my photos I was very skeptical but i found to my chagrin that my photography improved.
kat enns
Posted by Lorna Taylor on January 27, 2011 at 11:02 PM
Hi Babara, I may be a little young to this forum to add my two cents, but my photography evolved from a painters background and I applied the rules of painting ( similar to those of photos) to my work. I am more in to the feel of my images and others . I love European photography and Middle eastern work. I love angles with tension ,having a subject walking out of an image rather than in.I love work that makes the viewer a little uncomfortable but their not sure why! My Lensbaby helps me bend the rules (pardon the pun). But even though I know the rules in both forms they are there for a reason, and once you have mastered them then Bending them more so than breaking them , adds new life to our work! The images I love I rarely show. I read a blog today about abstract images this photographer loved yet were not sellers as the buyers just wanted sharp focus and pretty photos. Yet I have found the opposite , I work on my technical skills and bend the rules a little and show these images in photography forums like this one, yet in my solo art shows it is my abstract work that sells and intrigues the buyer . And I have produced some whack-a-doodle work!!! The work were I have pushed the boundaries more but would flop in any sort of competitions and to be honest I am not open to critique on ! So my belief is that you should always be open to new ideas and push your boundaries and make the viewer pause and truly see your image , but the root of the image should still retain some fundamental of the rules or the viewer has a much harder time trying to figure out what your image is about and what it means.Ignoring the rules will just leave you with an image that is chaotic ,even abstract painting and photography has rules in order for it too make since.Any way for what it is worth that is my two cents! Great topic! Cheers
Posted by Carl Donohue on January 30, 2011 at 10:50 PM
Stan Rose wrote:
An analogy to music: many great musicians were self taught and/or had no formal training--they played what felt right to them, and the very few who were naturally gifted made some outstanding music. But--not only were those folks rare, there is no telling how much more impressive their music might have been if they had learned all the theory first. Knowlege is power.
Hey Stan
Can you name one musician who, once an established and renown artist, got any better because they took a class and learned music theory? I can't. Because music theory does NOT make great musicians. Miles Davis, probably one of the greatest artists of the last century, quit Juilliard to play with Charlie Parker .. and I doubt a few more years in school would've improved "Kind Of Blue" one iota.
Great artists make great art; we write the rules afterward; the rest of us merely study and effectively blueprint what they did in order that we might assimilate their gift and improve our own work. But I don't believe for a second that Jimi Hendrix' Woodstock performance might have been 'better' had he taken a class?
Dave Pritchard wrote:
"If you don't know a 'rule', how can you break it? How many people 'think' about putting on the turn signal when making a corner? When we learned to drive it was a 'rule', it becomes second nature with experience. IMO the same holds true in photography, you need to learn the technology well enough that it becomes second nature. "
Dave .. the purpose of a turn signal, as with so many traffic 'rules' is to help us safely negotiate the intersection. One needn't know, or obey, any rules in order to do that.
" I was discussing art recently with a talented piano player friend, and he explained it to me like this: "Carl, rules are a lot like Stop Signs and Traffic Signals. What's important is not that you obey them, or even that you stop, but that you know how to navigate the intersection safely." Wise words. Certainly, an understanding of how to abide by the rules of the great red Stop Sign can help some people cross some roads (though the high number of traffic accidents we see on the daily news may point to a lower-than-expected success rate.) We can also, of course, simply pay close attention, consciously and intently engage the world around us, listen to its signals, and safely cross the intersection. "
Discussion
22 repliesWould you say that photography is one of the areas in which one should generally learn/know the rules and be able to follow them and then one might have the freedom to break the rules at times, so that if you generally know and follow the rules well you have credibility when you break the rules?
Yes, you're not supposed to shoot in bright midday light, for example. No, that doesn't mean you can't do it effectively. Set out to "break" the rule, and you learn when and how it can be done, and all sorts of work-arounds for challenging conditions.
It's a "rule" that photographers are supposed to look cool and use all the right gear, too. That means new clothing well maintained, and not a hair (or a camera strap) out of place.
You can usually spot me among the crowd of cool photographers. I'm the one that looks like he's been rolling around in the mud and dirt. Cuzz I have been!
Here's a "belly flop" shot. I did it to capture the reflections rather than obscure anything, but it amply demonstrates the value in rolling around on the ground. No tripod needed, because in fact the camera was flat on the ground with a pebble under the lens barrel to adjust the angle.
As Ansel Adams so eloquently stated:
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
Another way you can spot me in addition to the mud and grime: There's usually a stepladder in the back of my truck to provide extra elevation when no tree or rock is handy. What a great way to get over streamside vegetation for shots of rivers with clean foregrounds.
I never took a formal class or read a real book concerning digital photography, wildlife photography or otherwise. I learned by looking at other images and doing what I thought worked... I've had some photos were people commented "you broke all the rules and it looks great". Rules? What Rules? If you don't know them you can't be tied to them... the same is true for my equipment. Some people have been amazed at what I produced with the equipment I had (before I upgraded my gear). I pushed it to the limit, because I didn't know there was a limit...
Another example is my recent macro work where I've stacked images. To do this without a tripod is something no macro shooter would consider - and very few would try it without a macro rail but again I don't know the "rules" so I don't care what they are. I'm able to take images with different areas in focus and stack them in PS and make it look good...
It's OK to know the rules if you're looking to make an image that will appeal to all, but if you're looking to make an image that appeals to you - ignore all rules.
Keeping those in the back of my mind (sometimes) , I still forge ahead and do everything else too. Some of my best duck and water reflections have been with more overhead light, I crop randomly most of the time, and position things in the frame so they look good to my eye.
It would be easier for newer people, I suppose, if there simply were a set of rules to follow - and then if you did, one by one, you'd be guaranteed a perfect image.
But it is never so easy - that is where the ART of photography comes in. You'll develop a FEEL and SENSE for what works and what doesn't, and still be open to other ideas and ways to do things.
It all just takes time and practice, and your progress has been just great.
Sandy
I know what you are trying to say, Luke, but i would argue that philosophy isn't necessary liberating--it can also hinder. Rules weren't devised overnight by one person--they're a careful result of many years of experience, by many very talented folks. Ignore rules at your own peril, because when you self-learn, you can teach yourself to be dependent on inefficient methods--and deny yourself a better chance at creating art that appeals to you and not just the greater audience. You are never at a disadvantage learning the rules--once you learn them, then, i agree, feel free to break them if the situation calls for it. An analogy to music: many great musicians were self taught and/or had no formal training--they played what felt right to them, and the very few who were naturally gifted made some outstanding music. But--not only were those folks rare, there is no telling how much more impressive their music might have been if they had learned all the theory first. Knowlege is power.
Photography is experiential. Learning the rules and applying them in the early stages of our learning gives us a basis for departure from those rules as we gain experience.
--P
~ Edward Western
I think Stan phrased my intention better - know the rules and ignore the ones you want when making something that appeals to YOU.
Bill Brennan
I have nothing against breaking the rules but as one of my early mentors said, "You need to know how to use it in order to misuse it." He was a great one for documenting things as, should you do something out of the norm which produced unexpected good results, how could you repeat it if you didn't know what you did?
I think the general response here is that the "rules" or guidelines as I like to call them, came in to existence for a reason. In general they are excellent guides and starting points to produce satisfying images. And rather than say "rules are meant to be broken," I would say instead that it's certainly ok to break them. Nothing preventing anyone from stepping out of the box and trying to see things in new and different ways. Certainly anyone here would claim that they have tried or thought about doing something different that outside the norm.
One of my favorite "guidelines," is "The Rule of Thirds." I even wrote a short piece about it years ago. And as David just pointed out, over time you learn to see in different ways; often times it's because of "guidelines" you learned long before and it does become second nature.
To your last statement, "if you generally know and follow the rules well you have credibility when you break the rules?" I wouldn't say you need credibility to break the rules. You only need a vision or an idea of what you want to visually communicate. Perhaps it might seem that way here sometimes because I know many people think that the prominent members get "passes" on some of these fundamental things where as a new member or beginner doesn't get a pass?
Now this isn't your claim, I brought this one up. I would say in your case for example, you clearly state that you're a beginner and it's clear that you have a great passion for learning and desire to improve your photography. In that light, I think it's natural that folks would respond in their comments and mention things like the rule of thirds, 50/50 comps, depth of field, bright spots, eye magnets etc. etc.
Just my take on things...
Lon
Learn the established principles first, IMHO.
I believe that is worst than just following the rules.
The balance is to be a rule-follower and know the exceptions, when a rule is broken I like to have a reason other than "I'm so smart"
kat enns
Hey Stan
Can you name one musician who, once an established and renown artist, got any better because they took a class and learned music theory? I can't. Because music theory does NOT make great musicians. Miles Davis, probably one of the greatest artists of the last century, quit Juilliard to play with Charlie Parker .. and I doubt a few more years in school would've improved "Kind Of Blue" one iota.
Great artists make great art; we write the rules afterward; the rest of us merely study and effectively blueprint what they did in order that we might assimilate their gift and improve our own work. But I don't believe for a second that Jimi Hendrix' Woodstock performance might have been 'better' had he taken a class?
Dave Pritchard wrote:
Dave .. the purpose of a turn signal, as with so many traffic 'rules' is to help us safely negotiate the intersection. One needn't know, or obey, any rules in order to do that.
From "Art And Soul":
" I was discussing art recently with a talented piano player friend, and he explained it to me like this: "Carl, rules are a lot like Stop Signs and Traffic Signals. What's important is not that you obey them, or even that you stop, but that you know how to navigate the intersection safely." Wise words. Certainly, an understanding of how to abide by the rules of the great red Stop Sign can help some people cross some roads (though the high number of traffic accidents we see on the daily news may point to a lower-than-expected success rate.) We can also, of course, simply pay close attention, consciously and intently engage the world around us, listen to its signals, and safely cross the intersection. "
Cheers
Carl