Photographic rules do they really apply to a good photo ?

Phil V said:
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.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and there are plenty of images posted everyday on this forum and others that follow the rules perfectly but are still boring and dull, sometimes because the subject is just not interesting, but often because the composition could be improved.
 
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 ?
Click to expand...

If you make money from your pictures or care what others think then I suppose rules could matter but if you're free from those constraints and take pictures for yourself you have the luxury of not caring about.
 
This thread has the air of someone trying to prove something and rebel a bit.

I have my own set of rules that I work with based around what I know I like. So I know I like:
Strong graphic images with bold simple shapes,
Subject isolation with blurred background and smooth bokeh,
Softer images that are full of fine detail produced by high-sharpness of lenses but moderate sharpening and low clarity in processing
Contrasty mono images
Smooth clouds
Motion blur, usually down to ICM.
Subjects placed in the foreground, often on or near a third.
Panoramic formats

Many of these rules cannot be applied at the same time.

It's likely that many of you have similar internal lists of rules that you work with, possibly unconsciously. It's also likely that your internal rules change over time.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Why am I reminded of this and this? :)
Click to expand...
To some extent that just illustrates the need to see a body of work and understand what a photographer's style is. In part ii the HCB or the William Eggleston are hard to understand out of context like that.
 
sirch said:
To some extent that just illustrates the need to see a body of work and understand what a photographer's style is. In part ii the HCB or the William Eggleston are hard to understand out of context like that.
Click to expand...
Most hobbyists don't seem to me to have a style or a body of work. Do they even think of their photos as being a body of work? When they mention 'style' it's usually processing rather than a way of seeing and forming pictures.
 
SsSsSsSsSnake said:
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
Click to expand...
Back when I was having guitar lessons, I would try very hard to master a technique and my teacher would say - that's very good but it is not music.
 
Last edited:
Several years ago, I started writing a book on photography. My idea of photography, so no "how to photograph x" or extensive equipment discussions in it. My chapter on this topic was titled "Composition or Imposition" and amongst all the other things I included photographs that were ruined by following a specific rule, and showed exactly why the rule made a bad image.

Naturally, I brought in paintings and drawings as well - all the same to me, two dimensional images, just different media. I particularly enjoyed demolishing (with examples) the rule of thirds.

I seriously recommend reading Ernst Gombrich's Story of Art and Richard Zakia's Perception and Imaging. Add in Rudolf Arnheim as well worth reading.

Ian. Any idea where Edward Weston said this? I've seen it in one of David Ward's books, but not in any of the Weston I've read (Daybooks and several monographs/photo books).
 
StephenM said:
Any idea where Edward Weston said this?
Click to expand...

So you've made me pull my bookshelf apart looking! I was convinced it was in Barnbaum's "The Art of Photography" (see my sig for *that* rules quote!) or Blakemore's "B&W Photography Workshop", but after a search through the index of both, I couldn't find it. It's on the slides for my course - alongside Barnbaum's quote and is an attempt to encourage beginners to *not* become slaves to rules, because ultimately, rules will stifle creativity. It's been on there a long while though and my old memory can't remember.

It's on Google though!
 
I read it as an opening page quote (I think) in one of David Ward's books. Landscape Within, from memory. I can check if you like?

Edit. Just checked the citation I used when I quoted it. It's in Landscape Within. Locating a specific book in all the piles and shelves isn't easy (about 20 piles in this room alone, up to chest height; shelves covering all walls; floor to ceiling shelves in corridoor outside plus piles to waist height). So I'll leave it there, but I'm reasonably sure it was pretty close to the title page.
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
Why am I reminded of this and this? :)
Click to expand...

Nailed it[emoji1][emoji1]

Precisely why I gave up my membership of a camera club a few years back. Nothing against camera clubs (and I absolutely don’t want to pivot this into a pros and cons of camera clubs thread) but competitions seemed to be about standalone images without the opportunity for understanding context or intent or the part in a bigger body of work, not to mention the tendency of some members and judges to slavishly adhere to some dogma around rules of composition and exposure. But that’s just my own personal experience, others may differ.
 
ancient_mariner said:
This thread has the air of someone trying to prove something and rebel a bit.
Click to expand...

Not really Toni this was born out of an observation of 2 other threads, The first was a comment made on my happy Holga thread ( my first experiments) where someone had said that they were very soft but softness was overrated. On another thread ( show us your film shots) someone had posted an image that he thought was not great as it was fairly grainy and I commented that the grain for me made the photo more gritty than it otherwise would have been. this started two people off on a bit of a discussion/argument on the rules/guidelines of photography and how bad or good they were. I saw this and thought it would make for a good discussion. I have nothing on this subject to rebel against as whether you or I like or dislike a photo is your own choice whether you base this on meeting rules or otherwise.

I have a couple of things that would make me like or dislike a photo regardless of guidelines/or rules and I'm sure all of use would have similar feelings, subject matter is one of them if for instance someone posted a photo of a car or sport I would find it very hard to see it as a great photo as I have no interest in either , that's not to say you wouldn't like them though. The next one goes for anything really but I wouldn't always judge in this case a photo to be a good photo just because it was made/created by someone who is well known for taking good photos and the third thing for me is how difficult was it for the person to make the photo, did they just buy the best camera costing lots of money fly off to a great location costing loads of money and then have the ability to stay there as long as they wanted for ideal conditions (costing more money) or was it someone who had very little education hardly any money and had to build their camera out of scrap materials that they had to hand make their own emulsion on glass plates or save for ever 6to buy film and then find a great subject which to photo without the ability to travel far or do all this in a war zone. I would be far more impressed with the last one , although in fairness I would have to know this in the first place rather than just judging the photo/photos by them selves. again others may think differently.
 
On those specific points:

Subject matter. As an arachnaphobe, I will never like a photograph of a spider. As a cat lover, I will always like a photo of a happy and healthy cat. That said, I can still judge a spider photograph as a good image, and a cat photograph as a bad one, because I sharply distinguish the good/bad pairing from the like/dislike.

Ease of taking. As a criterion for how an image looks, this actually really gets my goat. The end result - the image - is all that bothers me. I don't care if "Moonrise over Hernadez" was just a rapid grab shot or if Ansel Adams spent days camped out waiting for the light. (It was the former.)
 
Last edited:
Love your succinctness, Dave :)

Since I read two original questions, my answers are 1. No. 2. No/Yes.

Question two was an either/or.
 
Last edited:
For my tuppenceworth, I prefer to refer to 'tools' not rules. Each rule of composition is like a tool in a toolbox and the photographer can use whichever he feels is most appropriate for the situation in front of him. A new photographer will tend to rely more on rules whereas an expert is more able to create a compelling image by 'breaking' the 'rules'.

Also, the rules tend to be there to provide visual harmony, but from music, we know that we can create something compelling by purposely creating disharmony (think Mussorgsky's Night on a Bald Mountain)
 
Well here goes, as a beginner perhaps I can best understand these 'rules' by posting a picture for comments

seagulll.jpg
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Not really Toni this was born out of an observation of 2 other threads, The first was a comment made on my happy Holga thread ( my first experiments) where someone had said that they were very soft but softness was overrated. On another thread ( show us your film shots) someone had posted an image that he thought was not great as it was fairly grainy and I commented that the grain for me made the photo more gritty than it otherwise would have been. this started two people off on a bit of a discussion/argument on the rules/guidelines of photography and how bad or good they were.
Click to expand...
But neither of those are ‘rules’; they’re technical standards. :thinking:
 
Rule of thirds - absolute rule.
Lead in lines - must be there
Only one centre of interest

A few more I can't think of off hand, but two relevant to landscapes:
Always use an extreme wide angle lens
Always have a big rock in the lower left corner

All the above tongue in cheek - but sady expecting agreement that they are rules.
There are a number of "compositional elements" that can be employed, but they require a measure of judgment and consideration that the rules are intended to obviate.
 
BADGER.BRAD said:
Not really Toni this was born out of an observation of 2 other threads,
Click to expand...

I might not have been especially referring to you.

BADGER.BRAD said:
The first was a comment made on my happy Holga thread ( my first experiments) where someone had said that they were very soft but softness was overrated. On another thread ( show us your film shots) someone had posted an image that he thought was not great as it was fairly grainy and I commented that the grain for me made the photo more gritty than it otherwise would have been. this started two people off on a bit of a discussion/argument on the rules/guidelines of photography and how bad or good they were. I saw this and thought it would make for a good discussion. I have nothing on this subject to rebel against as whether you or I like or dislike a photo is your own choice whether you base this on meeting rules or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Like Phil said, those are both technical aspects. However I find the 'softness is overrated' comment amusing because the whole Holga thing can become a little like someone holding a hammer - like using a fisheye lens for every picture or a fuzz pedal on guitar etc etc. I know at least one forumite who intentionally produced a body of work using polaroids, but at least they did it with intent and selected subjects and scenes with that medium in mind. Not to say a Holger user wouldn't do that, but if it's the only camera you take for a trip then it's back to the hammer/nail metaphor. These days I sometimes carry both conventional and film or IR-modified cameras at the same time for this reason.

BADGER.BRAD said:
I have a couple of things that would make me like or dislike a photo regardless of guidelines/or rules and I'm sure all of use would have similar feelings, subject matter is one of them if for instance someone posted a photo of a car or sport I would find it very hard to see it as a great photo as I have no interest in either , that's not to say you wouldn't like them though. The next one goes for anything really but I wouldn't always judge in this case a photo to be a good photo just because it was made/created by someone who is well known for taking good photos and the third thing for me is how difficult was it for the person to make the photo, did they just buy the best camera costing lots of money fly off to a great location costing loads of money and then have the ability to stay there as long as they wanted for ideal conditions (costing more money) or was it someone who had very little education hardly any money and had to build their camera out of scrap materials that they had to hand make their own emulsion on glass plates or save for ever 6to buy film and then find a great subject which to photo without the ability to travel far or do all this in a war zone. I would be far more impressed with the last one , although in fairness I would have to know this in the first place rather than just judging the photo/photos by them selves. again others may think differently.
Click to expand...

The gear tends to play a part, but only a part as you recognise above by the requirement of pre-knowledge to allow you to appreciate a work created through struggle. There are categories of subject that I don't care for, but that's personal preference and of no interest here, although I can still appreciate a really excellent image of the type: https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/newt-and-om-1.713693/
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
I have a couple of things that would make me like or dislike a photo regardless of guidelines/or rules and I'm sure all of use would have similar feelings, subject matter is one of them if for instance someone posted a photo of a car or sport I would find it very hard to see it as a great photo as I have no interest in either
Click to expand...
Absolutely not! I'm not very keen on highly magnified insects or street photography but I can still appreciate a good photo in those genres. It doesn't take much imagination to recognise how hard it is to get detailed macro, or getting the right subject in the right place with no messy distractions in a busy street. Good is good, I might not hang it on my wall or buy a book of such photos but I can still appreciate the effort that went in, and the skill required.

The same goes for you gear comment really, if we know that shot was on wet plate colloidion we can appreciate it by the standards of wet plate. A home made pinhole camera, we can appreciate by the standards of pinhole, there are still good and bad pinhole shots and just because you made it yourself is no excuse for failing to make a good composition (which is bloody hard on a home made pinhole with no view finder ;-) ), expose well, process well, etc. Assuming because you've got a crap camera means its OK to take crap photos is not right. You either adapt your style to your gear or get the gear to give the style you want, it's no good trying to do sweeping vistas with the Holga but the distortion and vignetting lend themselves nicely to some subjects.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
For my tuppenceworth, I prefer to refer to 'tools' not rules. Each rule of composition is like a tool in a toolbox and the photographer can use whichever he feels is most appropriate for the situation in front of him. A new photographer will tend to rely more on rules whereas an expert is more able to create a compelling image by 'breaking' the 'rules'.

Also, the rules tend to be there to provide visual harmony, but from music, we know that we can create something compelling by purposely creating disharmony (think Mussorgsky's Night on a Bald Mountain)
Click to expand...

I like the way you're going with this Tom. A lot of the 'tools' are there to emphasise the subject of our composition. We need these clues to help our eyes settle on the subject because in the field our eyes work subtlety different to our cameras. Things which are obvious to our eyes aren't to our cameras. The tools help us to overcome the differences to be able to visually communicate what caught our attention.
There are three things that our eyes commonly do that our cameras usually can't: (I) see in 3D, (II) have a wider dynamic range (approx. 18-20 stops vs. 12-14 in camera), and (III) selective vision - we only see detail in the central 5° arc of vision, unlike most modern lenses which provide full detail over the whole of the sensor.
Most of the rules - or tools - that we're talking about are attempts to overcome this third difference.
 
StephenM said:
Rule of thirds - absolute rule.
Lead in lines - must be there
Only one centre of interest

A few more I can't think of off hand, but two relevant to landscapes:
Always use an extreme wide angle lens
Always have a big rock in the lower left corner

All the above tongue in cheek - but sady expecting agreement that they are rules.
There are a number of "compositional elements" that can be employed, but they require a measure of judgment and consideration that the rules are intended to obviate.
Click to expand...
Landscapes must be taken at the golden or blue hours only - never in the middle of the day.

Horizons must always be level - and verticals vertical.

Subjects must always look into the frame.
 
sirch said:
Good is good, I might not hang it on my wall or buy a book of such photos but I can still appreciate the effort that went in, and the skill required.
Click to expand...
This is where religious wars start, isn't it? To me, a picture is interesting or it isn't and technical quality comes a long way behind that, for me.
 
StephenM said:
Rule of thirds - absolute rule.
Lead in lines - must be there
Only one centre of interest

A few more I can't think of off hand, but two relevant to landscapes:
Always use an extreme wide angle lens
Always have a big rock in the lower left corner

All the above tongue in cheek - but sady expecting agreement that they are rules.
There are a number of "compositional elements" that can be employed, but they require a measure of judgment and consideration that the rules are intended to obviate.
Click to expand...
I have had long conversations s with photographers as to why that rock is there. It is "foreground interest", obviously. My comment that fore ground boring should be avoided always falls on deaf ears.
 
And mine runs along the lines "Lovely rock. Why did you waste so much of the frame on that distracting background?"
 
Phil V said:
But neither of those are ‘rules’; they’re technical standards.
Click to expand...

As explained those two comments started two other people off on an argument about the rules of photography, it may help you if you read the text before trying to argue a non point !
 
There area great many 'rules' of composition, and I strongly suspect it's impossible to use all of them in a single image.
Applied exactly, many of them are incompatible anyway such as the rule of thirds which is really a approximate application of the golden ratio.

The rules have been developed as e understand more about how people view & subconsciously interpret images. A viewer doesn't need to know the rule suggesting diagonal lines increase drama, to find an image with them more dramatic than one that's very square on.

IMO great images always have features that some of the rules will approve of - they certainly don't follow them slavishly but they do make use of them.

The much touted rule of thirds, points out that generally things help the composition better when part way into the image, but there are circumstances where the image is symmetrical such that a central positioning becomes MUCH stronger.

It's not just a case of following the rules - very few shots (even snapshots) don't have features that follow rules - it's picking rules that suit the subject & applying them in the right way. One of the most important guidelines is know when to break the others :)
 
Sticking my oar in again....

If we're into how we subjectively rate photographs, on my part a photograph is

Interesting or uninteresting
An example of good photography or an example of bad photography
Technically excellent or appalling quality
Liked or disliked

All are a sliding scale from one extreme to the other, and in general none of them affect my rating on any of the other criteria.
 
Reading Stephen's post reminded me of something else from the guitar world - if you can't play with inspiration and creativity then you'd better be technically pretty damn good. Breaking the rules just because you don't want to follow them and think it's cool will make your pictures suck more surely than slavishly following the rule of thirds.

To me, there's room in photography for HCB and Thomas Heaton, Bill Brandt and Steve SFT with his mirror lakes, etc. All have their own rules, which allow them to build a body of work.
 
Last edited:
ancient_mariner said:
To me, there's room in photography for HCB and Thomas Heaton, Bill Brandt and Steve SFT with his mirror lakes,
Click to expand...
To me, there's room in photography for every one, every style and every criticism.
 
Ed Sutton said:
Why am I reminded of this and this? :)
Click to expand...

That is excellent satire but the problem is that this is the internet and we have no idea of the experience, achievements or background of the those posting.

I do agree with this which appeared somewhere in the comments section, though ......

"I wish someone would explain to me why the commonly accepted great photographs are considered to be great photographs. I think I could muster some satirical sarcasm of my own, but as far as explaining why these photographs are great, I wouldn't know where to begin. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top