Breaking the rules?

S

sdavada

Messages
48
Name
Sandeep
Edit My Images
No
Before I start, I haven't taken any photography courses or read vasts amount of photography how to guides or the history about the art :)

How do you feel about people breaking the 'rules' of photography, I mean composition, exposure, post processing etc?

I know I have a different approach to capturing photos and post processing, it generally does not get support from the experienced photographers, but it keeps my customers happy. I guess there isn't a complete rule book for do's and don'ts?

Thoughts?
 
Rules are for the guidance of wise men an the obedience of fools.
 
Well - what are rules for? To be broken of course.

Personally, nothing winds me up more than someone saying I shouldn't do something because it "breaks the rules." I immediately go out and do it more.

The rules, whatever they are, serve as a very useful guide and tend to work well. But, I would have thought, part of developing your own style and your own voice requires pushing, bending, breaking and ignoring rule. See what works for you. You may end up coming back to the more conventional, but you have to experiment to develop I believe.
 
simon ess said:
Well - what are rules for? To be broken of course.

Personally, nothing winds me up more than someone saying I shouldn't do something because it "breaks the rules." I immediately go out and do it more.
Click to expand...

Is this because you're simply a troublemaker or is there some underlying principle at stake? :LOL:
 
simon ess said:
Personally, nothing winds me up more than someone saying I shouldn't do something because it "breaks the rules." I immediately go out and do it more.
Click to expand...

Me too. and if someone tells me something cannot be done, I do what I can to prove them wrong (or right!).


Steve.
 
sdavada said:
Before I start, I haven't taken any photography courses or read vasts amount of photography how to guides or the history about the art :)

How do you feel about people breaking the 'rules' of photography, I mean composition, exposure, post processing etc?

I know I have a different approach to capturing photos and post processing, it generally does not get support from the experienced photographers, but it keeps my customers happy. I guess there isn't a complete rule book for do's and don'ts?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not sure what this 'different approach' your talking about really is looking at your work, it seems to follow a lot of the classic rules of composition and the processing is hardly outrageous.

Which rules is it in particular you don't like or agree with? Do you have any examples of where you've broken them and it's worked?

Genuinely interested in seeing your interpretations.
 
Often break them, but not just for the sake of it, it really depends on what you see as the better composition. Though in saying that, it's no harm to follow them at times, there is a reason they became 'rules' - because they work, perhaps?
 
I used to be a member of a camera club many moons ago and on critique evenings all I ever heard was "you must stick to the rules". I went out of my way to prove that you could win competitions by breaking the rules - it didn't work and eventually I was drummed out of the club. Rules are set by men in corduroy jackets with leather patches on the elbows. Get out there and do what you want to do, it's meant to be fun :)
 
a1ex2001 said:
Not sure what this 'different approach' your talking about really is looking at your work, it seems to follow a lot of the classic rules of composition and the processing is hardly outrageous.

Which rules is it in particular you don't like or agree with? Do you have any examples of where you've broken them and it's worked?

Genuinely interested in seeing your interpretations.
Click to expand...

Good to hear that the rules are just a framework and it can be expanded and retracted as we see fit :)

a1ex2001, here are a couple of shots I've over processed as the client wanted them that way, but other photographers on the same project, whom are much more experienced at all levels than me kept going on and on to the point my photos were not selected.

IMG_3467.jpg

IMG_3241.jpg

IMG_3490.jpg
 
Rules are guides to help beginners. Once you understand the limitations of rules, you should be prepared to experiment with breaking them, but only if you can justify why to yourself. Breaking rules just for the sake of breaking them is as silly as sticking rigidly by them :)

(not that anyone here is breaking them for the sake of it.. that was hypothetical)
 
sdavada said:
Good to hear that the rules are just a framework and it can be expanded and retracted as we see fit :)

a1ex2001, here are a couple of shots I've over processed as the client wanted them that way, but other photographers on the same project, whom are much more experienced at all levels than me kept going on and on to the point my photos were not selected.
Click to expand...

Not sure those are the best examples of rule breakers that work! The first two compositions are full of the traditional composition rules and while the first is 'differently' processed it has left the sky looking very odd. The second hardly looks processed at all and the third does nothing for me just looks like a quick grab shot with some saturated pink in it.

It's funny how even when trying to break the rules often the best feature in a photograph are those that obey them!

Like everyone has said 'rules' are there to be broken but at the same time they have become established for a reason ;)
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Show me a cool/good/best photo that doesn't contain a whole heap of composition guides.

Cos theirs no such thing. ;)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that I can't show you a great photo that doesn't follow "the rules"? That no such image exists?


..anyway, even if I did.. you;'d just argue that it wasn't great :)
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
Yes.

and

No, Id argue and show/prove that its covered in compositional elements. :p
Click to expand...

Totally this even decent abstracts inevitably follow some if the rules of composition even if they weren't intended. Clearly this thread needs more rule breaker photos to prompt debate! I'd link some of mine but I'm sadly conventional!
 
The "rules" aren't written then art followed them, the "rules" are a reverse analysis of pleasing pictures where someone somewhen managed to nail why one picture is better than another.

Once you understand some of the concepts you don't think "must obey rule 234" you simply are aware of the elements that produce a pleasing shot - in the same way as you recognise an interesting subject or nice light or odd shapes.

Pretty much anyone moaning about "rules" hasn't yet had the penny fully drop about photography - you're not a rebel, you are just partially experienced.
 
You cant get badly composed good shots, they wouldn't be good shots if they didn't please us the viewer aesthetically, in the same way a pretty woman or handsome man grabs our attention, so does a well composed shot ..it pleases our like of the beautiful, or symmetrical and gets tagged as pleasing, or acceptable.

Good enough to eat in fact.

Edit: crossed with Kim a tad their. same point.
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
The "rules" aren't written then art followed them, the "rules" are a reverse analysis of pleasing pictures where someone somewhen managed to nail why one picture is better than another.

Once you understand some of the concepts you don't think "must obey rule 234" you simply are aware of the elements that produce a pleasing shot - in the same way as you recognise an interesting subject or nice light or odd shapes.

Pretty much anyone moaning about "rules" hasn't yet had the penny fully drop about photography - you're not a rebel, you are just partially experienced.
Click to expand...

+1
 
desantnik said:
The "rules" aren't written then art followed them, the "rules" are a reverse analysis of pleasing pictures where someone somewhen managed to nail why one picture is better than another.

Once you understand some of the concepts you don't think "must obey rule 234" you simply are aware of the elements that produce a pleasing shot - in the same way as you recognise an interesting subject or nice light or odd shapes.

Pretty much anyone moaning about "rules" hasn't yet had the penny fully drop about photography - you're not a rebel, you are just partially experienced.
Click to expand...

:plus1:
 
desantnik said:
The "rules" aren't written then art followed them, the "rules" are a reverse analysis of pleasing pictures where someone somewhen managed to nail why one picture is better than another.

Once you understand some of the concepts you don't think "must obey rule 234" you simply are aware of the elements that produce a pleasing shot - in the same way as you recognise an interesting subject or nice light or odd shapes.

Pretty much anyone moaning about "rules" hasn't yet had the penny fully drop about photography - you're not a rebel, you are just partially experienced.
Click to expand...

This.

I usually find the ones saying they disregard the rules are either a) crap or b) are actually using the rules without knowing it.
 
Where is this book of rules and how many rules does it have in it?

The higher the number of rules the higher chance of a photo complying to one of them (knowingly or not).

I usually look at the photo, see if I like it and then work out what rules apply to it and tick them off to truly know how good the photo is. The best photo I have seen got a score of 87%, pretty good eh.
 
Of those 3 shots I'd say the 'rules' broken are the hideous processing on 1 and 3 (sorry but you asked:)).

For the sanity of all new photographers, light performs according to the laws of physics. Using processing to breach nature will always look 'wrong'. The OP might think that a blue sky illuminating a brown landscape looks 'different' but frankly it looks 'wrong'. And fake DoF blur is never convincing, because to do it convincingly requires a graduated amount of blur, which is really difficult to emulate. It'll never look 'right' to everyone but most people can't put their finger on 'why'.

This isn't 'wrong' according to some 'rules', it'll just never look right, it could possibly be used in an artistic way, but if you don't hit 'wow' you just get 'wrong'.

But image 2 doesn't really break any 'rules', it'd conform better if the point of interest was at the intersection of thirds, but it's not a big deal.

How our brains 'know' when things look 'wrong' is quite interesting.
The best example of this are the really small DoF shots that are popular nowadays (from tilt shift lenses), they make things look 'miniature', but most viewers couldn't say why that is:thinking:. It's simply because macro images will never have a large DoF, so large objects with a shallow DoF look small.
 
POAH said:
there are no rules of photography only pictures you like or don't like
Click to expand...

Thats not true it's perfectly possible to demonstrate that thirds and fibonacci curve's make for a more interesting composition. Yes you can break them and still land up with an interesting composition but more often than not they work.

Personally I prefer the term 'guidelines' to 'rules' as the word rules has to many negative conotations and leads to threads like this. The so called 'rules' of photography are really just a set of classic compositional guidelines that make for something interesting to look at all ost all of which pre-date photography by a few hundreds/thousands of years as they were discovered by painters.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Thats not true it's perfectly possible to demonstrate that thirds and fibonacci curve's make for a more interesting composition. Yes you can break them and still land up with an interesting composition but more often than not they work.

Personally I prefer the term 'guidelines' to 'rules' as the word rules has to many negative conotations and leads to threads like this. The so called 'rules' of photography are really just a set of classic compositional guidelines that make for something interesting to look at all ost all of which pre-date photography by a few hundreds/thousands of years as they were discovered by painters.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the photo's being discussed don't actually break any of the rules per-se, however, as photographs 2 of them are just 'not right'.
 
and every one has 6 degrees of separation from Kevin bacon :LOL:

a1ex2001 said:
Thats not true it's perfectly possible to demonstrate that thirds and fibonacci curve's make for a more interesting composition. Yes you can break them and still land up with an interesting composition but more often than not they work.

Personally I prefer the term 'guidelines' to 'rules' as the word rules has to many negative conotations and leads to threads like this. The so called 'rules' of photography are really just a set of classic compositional guidelines that make for something interesting to look at all ost all of which pre-date photography by a few hundreds/thousands of years as they were discovered by painters.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
Last edited:
I see that one complies with the portrait rule of "squashing your face up with your hand". See there is always a rule to be found.
 
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 :)
 
Steve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top