Photographic rules do they really apply to a good photo ?

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Messages
3,678
Edit My Images
Yes
After seeing this argument/discussion start on my Holga thread I thought it would make a good basis for a thread so here we go.
Does a photo have to abide by all the photographic rules to be a good photo ? low grain/noise, rule of thirds,sharp focus , Do you care about these rules and do you try to stick to them ? Do you care what others think of you photos or are you making them for yourself first ?

From my point of view I do my photography for myself and if others like them then fair enough I like getting outside and exploring what is out there and trying to capture what I see if it doesn't work then I still have enjoyed the outing, I don't care overly about all the above and feel a lot of them depend on the camera in use. I would expect a modern digital to produce sharp images but when using vintage or low tech gear I really like some of my photos even if they do have their faults. As I tend to take a lots of photos of old things sometimes those faults give my photos a more realistic/authentic look where a modern camera with super sharpness would just be a very good photo but lack any feeling of age.Some of the shots in my collection from when I was a kid are awful but instantly bring back memory's of that time/place or people.

What do you think ?

I have now retired to a safe distance after lighting the blue touch paper.
 
Last edited:
The rule of thirds should always be broken - it is an awful 'rule' that makes for boring, formulaic pictures. Sharpness is a bourgeois idea (H.C. Bresson) - Monet and his friends managed without sharpness as did Van Gogh and many other brilliant artists. I like taking photographs in fog with absolutely no sharpness at all. When I am using my film cameras, I frequently develop the film in such a way as to maximise grain.

Any other 'rules' should be treated with equal contempt.
 
I know some are called rules such as "The rule of thirds"........................

But I would says they should be viewed( ;) ) as conventions!

The rule of thirds
Golden Circle (also as I recall sometimes called the Golden Arc)
Leading/Leadin lines

All the above create 'pleasing to the eye' imagery..............because it/they appeal to the way the brain works :)

Grain(noise), 'not sharp' are by degrees the aesthetics of photography. In the film days when it really was grain, its appearance in a print could IMO 'make or break' the way it looked.

But and and it is a big but IMO it pays to learn(?) and /or appreciate compositional 'rules', only then can you produce a composition that breaks the rules but all being well maintain a pleasing totality.

All to often (and I am not immune from this) a shot is not more than a record shot because it does not stir me like the live scene did.

If you are shooting entirely for your own satisfaction then maybe all gloves off..................though if you are also doing so to create something that is challenge to share then bring it on but don't expect everyone to agree with your "taste" on the subject ;)
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
What do you think ?
Click to expand...

I know nothing about such rules but I have heard of guidance. These guides can be very useful when planning and composing photos. The skill is deciding what you want as your final image and applying the appropriate technical and compositional skills to achieve it. When cropping images I do consider whether a subject looks better on a third and probably conclude that it does much of the time but I have no problem with deciding otherwise. A lot of the compositional guidelines are also used by painters.

Dave
 
Judges seem to like rules.
It gives them something to make judgement on.
If you want to win club competitions it is not a bad idea to take them into account.

The rest of us just take photographs.
But it is surprising how many of our better liked ones do tick a few boxes.

Which is hardly surprising when you think about it, as the rules came about by people discovering that there were common elements in many highly regarded images.

The rules were devised by expert, but non artists, who annalised, (or should that be analyzed,)
Many of the old masters.
 
Last edited:
I have never read the rules but have always found that a subject roughly on the thirds is pleasing to the eye. As for lead-in lines, sometimes I try to find them but my eye/brain sees things differently. I think it's something to do with the knowledge that you are translating a three dimensional object into two dimensions.
 
One time I was sitting on the platform at Oxford Circus waiting for a tube to Epping. It was not too busy and I had my camera out, also I took a quick shot of people getting on and off of a train to Hainault. I liked the angle of the composition, but it was out of focus. So I added noise and made it back-and-white to styler it as being soft and grainy

It is still rubbish hung the wall at 30x20", nothing is in focus. But the composition is still interesting, probably more than if it was clear and shape as you would be drawn to details and not the overall scene. No idea what anyone else things, but I like it.

Meanwhile the world is full of shots of absolutely perfectly focussed rows of batteries, and I have no desire to look at any of them.
 
mij said:
One time I was sitting on the platform at Oxford Circus waiting for a tube to Epping. It was not too busy and I had my camera out, also I took a quick shot of people getting on and off of a train to Hainault. I liked the angle of the composition, but it was out of focus. So I added noise and made it back-and-white to styler it as being soft and grainy

It is still rubbish hung the wall at 30x20", nothing is in focus. But the composition is still interesting, probably more than if it was clear and shape as you would be drawn to details and not the overall scene. No idea what anyone else things, but I like it.

Meanwhile the world is full of shots of absolutely perfectly focussed rows of batteries, and I have no desire to look at any of them.
Click to expand...

Have a look a some Cartier Bresson photographs, none of them are critically sharp. Most are hardly sharp at all, but they are great images.
 
Don't think of them as rules .. Think of them as gudelines and you will be OK
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Does a photo have to abide by all the photographic rules to be a good photo ? low grain/noise, rule of thirds,sharp focus , Do you care about these rules and do you try to stick to them ? Do you care what others think of you photos or are you making them for yourself first ?

From my point of view I do my photography for myself and if others like them then fair enough I like getting outside and exploring what is out there and trying to capture what I see if it doen't work then I still have enjoyed the outing, I don't care overly about all the above and feel a lot of them depend on the camera in use. I would expect a modern digital to produce sharp images but when using vintage or low tech gear I really like some of my photos even if they do have their faults. As I tend to take a lots of photos of old things sometimes those faults give my photos a more realistic/authentic look where a modern camera with super sharpness would just be a very good photo but lack any feeling of age.Some of the shots in my collection from when I was a kid are awfull but instantly bring back memorys of that time/place or people.

What do you think ?
Click to expand...

1) there are no rules. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. No one has codified these things, and consequently there is no governance body to adjudicate. There are some good starting points in certain genres if you want to take a certain style of photograph, but much depends on the intent of the photograph.

2) a good photo is subjective. What makes a good photo hasn’t been formally codified either. What you think is good, I may think is rubbish, and vice versa. Both viewpoints are valid.

3) other than family snaps, I make photographs primarily for me. If others like them, great. If they don’t, that’s fine. I’m sure more people would like my photographs if I shot beautiful landscapes, beautiful people or birds on sticks. I don’t, I make harsh black and white photographs of industrial buildings, usually derelict. That’s a niche interest at best, but I love doing it
 
Most of these 'rules' have a good basis and IMO it makes sense to understand them. But we should never forget that rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise . . .
 
If there is no single definition of "good" then there cannot be a single set of rules, if there are any at all. Good needs to be qualified, good in what context? If you want to win a local camera club competition or have something that immediately gets "likes" on Flickr or Insta then their might be a formula. If you want to be press photographer of the year then the "rule" is probably being in the right place at the right time, if you want to be landscape photographer of the year then the rule is probably being in the right place at the right time. If you want to be wildlife photographer of the year then the rule is probably being in the right place at the right time :)

But if you are in the right place at the right time, you still need to use an exposure and depth of field that makes the most of the subject, position yourself so that you get a good composition. With something as complex and wide ranging as photography photographs need to make the most of what they are trying to say and use a language that other people understand in the context of the subject and the purpose of taking the photo. The formula for a good fashion photo probably does not apply to a press photo from a war zone.

I think for many people photography is very much like playing a musical instrument, they want to be given a piece of music (rules?) that they can practice and then perform - in the case of a photo the performance is showing the photo to family, friends, a club or on line. That said I know many people who play an instrument just for their own enjoyment and never perform to anyone.
 
OK, I'll give you the full drsilver TED talk on rule breaking.

---

If you know the rules, follow the rules, and have the skill to pull it off, you'll get a good picture. Every time.

You should learn the rules. They're rules because they work. Another way to say that is, learn your craft. I like to think of myself as a proud craftsman. When I go out fishing, I go to catch fish. When I go out shooting, I go to come back with good pictures.

But there's a difference between craftsmanship and art. Between a good picture and a great picture. And that difference is often the ability to break the rules.

But you have to break the rules on purpose. An artist should be able to recognize which rules can be broken when and for what purpose.

I'm generally happy coming back from an outing with a few good pictures. But I'm always looking out for something better than that. Always looking for the opportunity to break a rule that will elevate an image.

No harm in doing it both ways. When you're getting your good picture, keep an eye out for a great picture. You're going to fail on that second attempt a lot. Great pictures are hard. Knowing why you're trying to break rules ups the odds a little bit. But at least you'll have a good picture on the reel.
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
What do you think ?
Click to expand...
I think the question is ambiguous enough that people who understand the rules can defend them and others can give a vague reason they don’t think rules are any use.

How about you post 3 ‘good’ photos and we can discuss the ‘rules’ or lack of therein.

As someone else posted; the rules exist because they were discovered in successful images not the other way round.
 
There isn’t a wrong or right answer to this sort of question
I can only say for the sort of photography I do wildlife/nature and macro I prefer the rule of thirds composition
for sharpness sometimes sometimes a shot works better if it’s not in sharp focus but that only works for certain things
 
After five and a half decades of making images I have come to the following conclusions...
  • All rules about composition are attempts to work out why A's picture sold and B's picture didn't.
  • For every popular image that fits the rules there are X pictures that don't (where X is any number that pops into your head).
  • If a picture is exhibited with a title like "Morning Mist" there is a high probability that the photographer has a copy of "The Rules of Composition" in his camera bag.
  • Following the rules is guaranteed to produce an image that follows the rules. No other warranty is offered or implied.
:tumbleweed:
 
john.margetts said:
The rule of thirds should always be broken - it is an awful 'rule' that makes for boring, formulaic pictures. Sharpness is a bourgeois idea (H.C. Bresson) - Monet and his friends managed without sharpness as did Van Gogh and many other brilliant artists. I like taking photographs in fog with absolutely no sharpness at all. When I am using my film cameras, I frequently develop the film in such a way as to maximise grain.

Any other 'rules' should be treated with equal contempt.
Click to expand...

Is that a rule ?
 
Phil V said:
As someone else posted; the rules exist because they were discovered in successful images not the other way round.
Click to expand...

Edward Weston I believe... "To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravity before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection."

Although your precis is more succinct.
 
Ganton Gunner said:
Erm there is rules ? I didn’t actually know this :(
Click to expand...


The problem is turning the configurations and compositions that have worked in the past, in to rules that must be repeated.

Like in music the variations and combinations are endless.
To turn successes in to rules, is to do the reverse, and to oversimplify the endless possibilities into repetition and sterility.
 
I suggest we show some examples. Here is an example of the Golden Triangle...

Rope support for mirror HX90 DSC00077.JPG

OK, it's black and white - so sue me! :naughty: :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:
 
Last edited:
I'll go back to my post above and try and expand my thinking. Which rules are we talking about? The only two I am aware of are the rule of thirds and lead-in lines.

Placing "the subject" of the photograph roughly on a line of thirds or perhaps on the intersection two of them seems intuitive to me and produces a pleasing image, in many cases. It's almost as if this was a natural, harmonic composition. There are times when you might want to put the subject in the centre either vertically or horizontally or both, but it's not really like "breaking a rule" because there wasn't a rule - as such - in the first place.

Looking for a lead-in line seems to be a more artificial construct to me. Taking a photograph is an attempt to produce a two-dimensional image from a three dimensional subject. Looking for a lead-in line is an attempt to give that two-dimensional image an illusion of depth and if done well can be effective, although I'm not very good at finding them. Is this a "rule"?

The problem with rules is if an image is judged according to whether rules have been followed rather than on its own merits - and one does see this happening.
 
Well I thought rules (guidance) were for beginners to avoid all the mistakes that "ruins" or produces a better picture e.g. crop in close if all outside the subject have nothing to do with the subject or isolate the subject to stand out from a boring back ground or for landscape don't let some one's eye wander off the picture without some sort of stop etc etc..of course there have been some great action shots that break all the rules.....so really there are no rules as a picture taken by someone could not only please him\her, family, friends but millions of other people.
 
there is also the rule of uneven numbers, groups and sizes

Three of something usually looks better two or four items.
however a large group can be balanced by a smaller one, much like a balance bar.
one big object can be balanced by a number of smaller ones.
 
end of the day depends if you do it for a living,so some of your clients may be bothered.
personally i dont give a s....t,if i like it ,thats all that matters. im probably the only one who will see my photos anyway.
do you take photos for yourself or for others preferences thats what you need to ask yourself.everyone has their own taste anyway even if they do stick to the safe middle path. going left and right is fun also
 
working in the hair business ive seen tecnically proficient haircuts that looked boring as f...k .then a bit rough around the edges finished cuts that have a tremendous expressive look
 
another example. someone plays tecnically perfect guitar that is appreciated for its correctness of timing and notes etc ,then someone plays the same piece but fluffs some parts of it but gives a nuance to it that takes you to another place,ive seen/ heard this many times, not talking fluffed notes now but expression and feeling ,a good example would be John williams versus Julian Bream
 
I love the following quote by drsilver that I picked up in the forum here some time ago:
Unless you break the rules, you'll rarely get anything better than good. But I have a rule about breaking rules: You can only break rules on purpose.
Click to expand...
A lot of the time I have the impression that people complain about photos not fulfilling the rules/being too noisy/not being sharp not because the photo is bad per se (though sometimes it is; I would never post an image of an animal if the eye wasn't sharp - well, nearly never), but because for some people, it's easier to judge a photo by these criteria than by the image as a whole. Whether or not an image is good is very (but not completely) subjective and it's about more than the sum of the parts. Ask 10 photographers what constitutes a good photo and you'll get 12 answers.
The composition rules can help you towards a stronger image, but they're not a guarantee or a strait jacket!
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
end of the day depends if you do it for a living,so some of your clients may be bothered.
personally i dont give a s....t,if i like it ,thats all that matters. im probably the only one who will see my photos anyway.
do you take photos for yourself or for others preferences thats what you need to ask yourself.everyone has their own taste anyway even if they do stick to the safe middle path. going left and right is fun also
Click to expand...

I spent a life time in professional photography and print.
Never one did a client even mention the rules of composition. And I was working almost constantly with graphic designers, lay out artists and printers and art directors.

It is only in amateur circles that such things are regarded important enough to discuss.
You can find the accidental, rudiments of at least a hint of a rule in just about any successful image.
If you "Ainalize" any image enough, you can discern something rule like in it.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
You can find the accidental, rudiments of at least a hint of a rule in just about any successful image.
If you "Ainalize" any image enough, you can discern something rule like in it.
Click to expand...
(y)
 
I'm also bothered by the conflation of the 'rules' of composition and whether an image is sharp (technically correct), well exposed (often a matter of taste) and noise free (outside the control of the photographer).

Composition is important to the viewer (though 90% of viewers won't realise it), sharpness is something photographers get hung up about - I'd never show an OoF image, but there's thousands of classic images that wouldn't meet modern standards. Likewise noise / grain is something only photographers get hung up on.

Non photographers will often react to an image with the phrase 'you've got an eye for a good picture' which literally translates to 'that's a pleasing composition' and will almost always refer to some composition rule being met.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top