Breaking the rules?

simon ess said:
Steve.. c'mon....you must realise that in the context of this thread, that's ridiculous.

It follows the rule of being in focus.

It follows the rule of having the main subject well exposed.

C'mon, that's not the point, is it?
Click to expand...

I disagree... the decision as to what is, and what is not in focus is one of the big differences between a snapper and a photographer.

I see rules as composition guidelines, and selective focus is definitely one of them..... a landscape photographer using f2 is breaking the rules, but an infinite focus is not
 
Steve said:
It's a lovely candid photo....beautiful

But you have followed the rule of selective focus to ensure a cluttered background does not distract from the image, so not really a proper ruler breaker.

Very pretty girl...make sure you show this to her first boyfriend in x years time :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I don't think throwing a backdrop OOF is a rule ... as someone said, there is no real rule book. the only ones people tend to really go by are the rule of thirds, and decentralizing the subject. Otherwise, everything is under some form of rule. Like, even HDR - you must go waaaaaay OTT with it to be funky :D
 
Cagey75 said:
Thanks, but I don't think throwing a backdrop OOF is a rule ... as someone said, there is no real rule book. the only ones people tend to really go by are the rule of thirds, and decentralizing the subject. Otherwise, everything is under some form of rule. Like, even HDR - you must go waaaaaay OTT with it to be funky :D
Click to expand...


Well.. it's not often I agree with Cagey, but I think he's right here.. I think some people are in danger of saying things like "It's in focus.. see? You're obeying rules" which is patently nonsense. It's obvious the OP was referring to clasical tenets of composure. Placing in thirds, things leading the eye into the frame, no one walking out of a frame, always in... stuff like that.

Some great images have been taken that don't obey these common rules. Lots of stuff by Winnogrand spring to mind.
 
I accept I'm in a minority.... not arguing about what is in focus but what is not in focus.

Yes, it's a given that the subject should be in focus. My thinking is the rule is that the background should be OOF if it's distracting.

I assume the clasical (sic) tenets of composure are from painting?

I often hear the rules of photography being referred to, but is there a consensus as to what they are?
 
Yup, most 'rules' come from painting, even lighting 'rules'. Rembrandt even has a basic/common lighting set up named after him. Because most of his portrait paintings used this lighting technique.
 
simon ess said:
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree :)

Here's something for amusement.

:)http://gawno.com/2009/05/78-photography-rules/
Click to expand...

Well, to put it in simple terms, quite a few of those wrongs are not really wrongs, and some of the rights could be said to be wrong. Then, some of the wrongs are indeed wrongs, but as there are no wrong rules per se, by being interpreted as wrong they may be said to be right in the sense that it is right to break the 'right' rules by going down the wrong path, photographically (or indeed artistically). From this it is plain that there are wrong wrongs, right wrongs, and right wrongs that are neither right nor wrong, but simply interpretations of the subset 'wrongly interpreted rights'.

Hope that helps.
 
Steve said:
I often hear the rules of photography being referred to, but is there a consensus as to what they are?
Click to expand...


Yes... take your lens cap off first... everything else is up for grabs so far as I'm concerned.
 
jon ryan said:
Well, to put it in simple terms, quite a few of those wrongs are not really wrongs, and some of the rights could be said to be wrong. Then, some of the wrongs are indeed wrongs, but as there are no wrong rules per se, by being interpreted as wrong they may be said to be right in the sense that it is right to break the 'right' rules by going down the wrong path, photographically (or indeed artistically). From this it is plain that there are wrong wrongs, right wrongs, and right wrongs that are neither right nor wrong, but simply interpretations of the subset 'wrongly interpreted rights'.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Did Donald Rumsfeld write that for you? :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
 
jon ryan said:
Well, to put it in simple terms, quite a few of those wrongs are not really wrongs, and some of the rights could be said to be wrong. Then, some of the wrongs are indeed wrongs, but as there are no wrong rules per se, by being interpreted as wrong they may be said to be right in the sense that it is right to break the 'right' rules by going down the wrong path, photographically (or indeed artistically). From this it is plain that there are wrong wrongs, right wrongs, and right wrongs that are neither right nor wrong, but simply interpretations of the subset 'wrongly interpreted rights'.

Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

:LOL:

Excellent!

That clears it up entirely ;)
 
"quite a few of those wrongs are not really wrongs" - well, if they're not really wrongs, then the whole statement is void from there. ;)
 
The ones I hate are those I tend to see on tumblr etc, you know were someone has taken a shot thats out of focus, poorly exposed and has motion blur on it.. they convert it to B&W then post it saying they break all the rules or that its artistic, its neither, its just a bad shot that shouldn't even make it from the camera to the PC.
 
Surely the only rule of photography is that it can't be drawn with a pencil? :)
 
iancandler said:
The ones I hate are those I tend to see on tumblr etc, you know were someone has taken a shot thats out of focus, poorly exposed and has motion blur on it.. they convert it to B&W then post it saying they break all the rules or that its artistic, its neither, its just a bad shot that shouldn't even make it from the camera to the PC.
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
Cagey75 said:
The main ones are the obvious ones, rule of thirds - see, rule? - and don't place your subject dead center, for a scenic portrait for example.

This one kind of breaks the general 'rules' - it should probably be portrait orientation, and she's also very central, but it got more hits and likes than any of my other recent pics. I wasn't thinking on any rules when I shot it, I did think of the lighting, I was mixing ambient with flash, and I did intentionally blur the backdrop - it's shot at f/1.4 after all - but the composition was just natural. Seconds later she moved, ran off, the chance would have been gone if I'd thought more on it.


One pose too many by Cagey75, on Flickr
Click to expand...

This shot doesn't break any rules, to me its a classic thirds composition..ie. your subject is in the centre of all crossing thirds.
 
:thinking::cautious:
 
Cagey75 said:
This one kind of breaks the general 'rules' - it should probably be portrait orientation, and she's also very central, but it got more hits and likes than any of my other recent pics.
Click to expand...

Because not everyone looking at a photo bothers to try and look at it properly, understands what they should be looking for or even cared enough rather than lazily clicking "like".

My mum likes all my photos, even the ones that should never have seen the light of day. Does that make me the best ever photographer because of my 100% success rate? Of course not!

Don't take casual approval as critical success - well, by all means take it but don't expect to wow your peers.
 
it doesnt break any rules - its a great picture

Cagey75 said:
The main ones are the obvious ones, rule of thirds - see, rule? - and don't place your subject dead center, for a scenic portrait for example.

This one kind of breaks the general 'rules' - it should probably be portrait orientation, and she's also very central, but it got more hits and likes than any of my other recent pics. I wasn't thinking on any rules when I shot it, I did think of the lighting, I was mixing ambient with flash, and I did intentionally blur the backdrop - it's shot at f/1.4 after all - but the composition was just natural. Seconds later she moved, ran off, the chance would have been gone if I'd thought more on it.


One pose too many by Cagey75, on Flickr
Click to expand...
 
Cagey75 said:
The main ones are the obvious ones, rule of thirds - see, rule? - and don't place your subject dead center, for a scenic portrait for example.

This one kind of breaks the general 'rules' - it should probably be portrait orientation, and she's also very central, but it got more hits and likes than any of my other recent pics. I wasn't thinking on any rules when I shot it, I did think of the lighting, I was mixing ambient with flash, and I did intentionally blur the backdrop - it's shot at f/1.4 after all - but the composition was just natural. Seconds later she moved, ran off, the chance would have been gone if I'd thought more on it.


One pose too many by Cagey75, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Great picture - doesn't break any of the 'rules':thinking: in fact it pretty much underlines them well. Why do you think it should be in portrait orientation?
Why do you think she's too central?
Imagine what the shot would look like with her more on the 1/3s in portrait - nowhere near as strong an image. As far as improvements go, the only classic 'mistake' are the bright OoF windows - the shot would be better without them, but it's far from ruined.

This entire thread is full of misconceptions about 'rules' including the OP who seems to believe that his total disregard for photographic 'skill' can be put down to him being a maverick 'rulebreaker':wacky:
 
Phil V said:
Great picture - doesn't break any of the 'rules':thinking: in fact it pretty much underlines them well. Why do you think it should be in portrait orientation?
Why do you think she's too central?
Imagine what the shot would look like with her more on the 1/3s in portrait - nowhere near as strong an image. As far as improvements go, the only classic 'mistake' are the bright OoF windows - the shot would be better without them, but it's far from ruined.

This entire thread is full of misconceptions about 'rules' including the OP who seems to believe that his total disregard for photographic 'skill' can be put down to him being a maverick 'rulebreaker':wacky:
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

I will add it's an even stronger composition if you crop it tighter with the girl nearer the third line, I'd post it but Cagey75 has the don't edit button ticked.
 
Phil V said:
This entire thread is full of misconceptions about 'rules' including the OP who seems to believe that his total disregard for photographic 'skill' can be put down to him being a maverick 'rulebreaker':wacky:
Click to expand...

But thats it on the head really.... one of the first things people discover in photography is that the much vaunted holy grail is "originality".

At this point they havent had the dawn of realisation that is the infinite monkey effect whereby probably whatever you think of its been done a gazillion times already, possibly just not in the sources you have chosen to look at.

Anyway, so armed with The Quest the next thing they hear is that there are "rules".

"Aha!" says world's newest and least experienced photographer, "I can see why they are all constrained and unoriginal, they stick to a list of bloody rules" and off he goes muttering "we'll see about that then!".

And then we see the output, the bad and the ugly, with the occasional good hit upon by accident when it just so happens that their work intersects with a good composition but despite receiving both targetted crit for the poor stuff and positive crit for the good stuff they never manage to join the dots up and make the great leap to understanding what it is about an image that makes it work.

I can say all of this BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THERE TOO.

And then one day, the penny drops.
 
Cagey.. eye dead centre, follows you everywhere. Is it a 'rule'? It is a technique - accidental or not. Most/all photo/image rules are techniques which facilitate engagement.
 
Yes. They seem to underestimate the the rules and theories that were time tested before their grandfather was born. One photographer once told me (I just bought my canon A1 back in 1983) " memorise the rules until they are second nature to you because once you fully used and understood them only then you can start improving on them. And final advice, for all these rules, somewhere out there is a great picture that proves you can disregard the rules and still produce a fantastic image."

I am still looking for that photograph -:)
 
Reading the comments, Mike Panic (blog post author) is apparently unfamiliar with the "Viewpoint" rule.

I should imagine he's feeling a bit embarrassed right about now.
 
I create my images exactly how I want them when shooting analogue, BUT when shooting digital what's to stop me taking a few frames composed differently. Depends what medium I'm shooting with.
 
Tom. said:
I create my images exactly how I want them when shooting analogue, BUT when shooting digital what's to stop me taking a few frames composed differently. Depends what medium I'm shooting with.
Click to expand...

I would certainly never discourage anyone from taking whatever shot however they choose, whether they conform to formal/compositional rules or not.

The issue is not the liberty to shoot outside the realms of technique as you wish. The issue is taking those liberties and, while doing so, hoping/expecting to win the attention and appreciation of your audience.

But, completely regardless of any guides on aesthetics, always do what you like, and like what you do. Your first (and often only) duty is to your own satisfaction and happiness. :)
 
SimonH said:
I would certainly never discourage anyone from taking whatever shot however they choose, whether they conform to formal/compositional rules or not.

The issue is not the liberty to shoot outside the realms of technique as you wish. The issue is taking those liberties and, while doing so, hoping/expecting to win the attention and appreciation of your audience.

But, completely regardless of any guides on aesthetics, always do what you like, and like what you do. Your first (and often only) duty is to your own satisfaction and happiness. :)
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with this!
 
Phil V said:
Great picture - doesn't break any of the 'rules':thinking: in fact it pretty much underlines them well. Why do you think it should be in portrait orientation?
Why do you think she's too central?
Imagine what the shot would look like with her more on the 1/3s in portrait - nowhere near as strong an image. As far as improvements go, the only classic 'mistake' are the bright OoF windows - the shot would be better without them, but it's far from ruined.

This entire thread is full of misconceptions about 'rules' including the OP who seems to believe that his total disregard for photographic 'skill' can be put down to him being a maverick 'rulebreaker':wacky:
Click to expand...


Thanks, It was just an example really of what people would suggest was breaking the rules. Most portraits are in portrait orientation, and most people tend to throw the subject off centre as if it's making some dramatic difference. I posted this to show it can work without doing that/sticking to those "rules" - I personally do not follow any.
 
desantnik said:
Because not everyone looking at a photo bothers to try and look at it properly, understands what they should be looking for or even cared enough rather than lazily clicking "like".

My mum likes all my photos, even the ones that should never have seen the light of day. Does that make me the best ever photographer because of my 100% success rate? Of course not!

Don't take casual approval as critical success - well, by all means take it but don't expect to wow your peers.
Click to expand...

who said anything about wowing anybody? All I said was it was popular on flickr. Not everyone on there is a "like" - "nice shot" type, there are some serious photographers about on there, you'd be surprised. You really shouldn't assume when it comes to others.

And I think the image has proven to go down well with my peers on here, even though that wasn't the intention.
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
This shot doesn't break any rules, to me its a classic thirds composition..ie. your subject is in the centre of all crossing thirds.
Click to expand...

That actually does break the rule, she should be on one of the third lines, not in the center ... according to that rule that is.
 
Cagey75 said:
That actually does break the rule, she should be on one of the third lines, not in the center ... according to that rule that is.
Click to expand...

But she's not central, and if you look at the wobbly curve compositional thing posted earlier (you can tell I'm classically trained;)) it overlays your shot fairly well. What's more - I'm prepared to bet money, if it was cropped so that it overlaid it better, it'd be a more pleasing image.

So there you have proof that the rules just work.

And that pictures greatest strength - an engaging subject. Rule no 1 of successful portraiture(y)

I've no idea where you get the idea that portraits 'should be in portrait orientation', because in nearly 30 years of studying photography I've never heard that before :thinking:. And if anyone ever said it to me I'm sure I could point to thousands of examples to prove them wrong.

It's like I said earlier, most of the people talking about 'rules' here have no idea what the rules are, and most photographers who never learned the rules but just have a 'good eye' will follow the rules quite strongly without knowing that they are.

Like someone else said earlier, the rules weren't invented before any great art was created, they're derived from studying great artists composition.

A great photo will have:

  • Good composition
  • Great light
  • An obvious story or message

A good photo will have 2 of the above. If you're relying on one of them, you'll be lucky if anyone other than your mum likes it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top