Rules, rules and more rules?

A

AliB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
7,762
Edit My Images
No
This is one I have pondered on and I'm still not sure that I have my own conclusion so let's have yours!

"Rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools" is one sentiment.

Just how much of what we shoot is guided by the rules that we have learned over the years. "Sunny 16" "Rule of thirds" I've seen people trying to learn studio lighting by rote. "If I put this light here, with this power, then it should work" Yet I have seen some stunning stuff from people who either don't know the "rules" or choose to throw the book out of the window.

When you choose to break the rules, do you worry about it? worry that it will work? Composition rules, rules on blowing highlights, sharpness, movement.............

I've seen really good stuff criticised for not being pin sharp when, really it didn't need to be!

Are we overdoing it on technical content just because the technology lets us or should we cut free a bit more and go with ArtMessiah:naughty:

Ok, that last bit is tongue in cheek but there is a question there.

I think my own ponderings are a mixture of the two, using the technology to get the results that I envisage. Oh and a few shots that are happy accidents along the way.
 
personally i dont know the rules . and try alot of different things to see what works for me.

i would like to know the rules so i could say i broke them on purpose..:lol:

another good question. imho

i look forward to the answers


md:thumbs:
 
Do you love causing arguments.......................................:D

I think the rules depend on when, what, why and above all else the time to do it.

Many toggers on here are self learning and are bummbling their way through. (this is a good thing)

And to finish, photography is art. What pleases one will not please the other.
 
AliB said:
When you choose to break the rules, do you worry about it?
Click to expand...

I think the only rule I know is the thirds thing... and have enough to worry about making sure the camera is set right and will give me the exposure I want.
 
The rules were shown the door a long time ago. I compose, focus and expose for only the aspects of the shot that caught my eye at the time. In doing so I hope that the viewer has the chance to share what I saw and with a bit of luck what I felt too.

But it also depends on the type of work I'm doing... the above would be meaningless for a pack shot :lol:
 
This is the way I see it Ali

I shoot for me, even when I am being paid to shoot.

If I think it is a good photograph then it is.

I might share it with you all here but I do not care if you think the photograph works or if you think it doesn't. I don't care whether you think it is within certain rules or outside of them.

The rules of photography should be seen more for guidance. If you think of them as you are learning the craft they will guide you towards better photography for they are based on good photography. With experience you will not need to think of them because they will have become part of you :):)

stew
 
The only rule that is important to me is 12 inches ( or 254mm ) or 304.8mm long :thumbs:
<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't play by the "rules" :D

I do what it take to get an images that I am happy with
if its not on "third" I don't care
If I use F/8 in bright sunlight so what :shrug:

Oh and I won't do the joke about "something" being 12 inches long, and not used as a rule ;)
Because this is not OoF and would be against the rules :thumbs:
 
hmmm, I posted on a flickr pic today "its all about breaking the rules, but first of all, you have to know and understand the rules you are breaking." That doesn't mean its a conscious knowledge, though of course for many it is, the have gone out of their way to learn the basics of composition, lighting, etc but as Ali rightly says, some of the best images seem to have completely bypassed the rule book and yet work in every way. Whilst ArtMessiah was a bit [ok, a lot tongue in cheek] but it was based in some reality by whoever came up with the idea, that photography is still an art form and sometimes we have to remember that and look at the whole image and what the artist was trying to achieve rather than its technical merits. Just imho of course ;)
 
as far as I am concerned, the only rules in portraiture are expression, expression, expression

L
 
Good stuff so far, thank you. :)

I did once copy the settings I was taught on a course for shooting a first dance (my only reference to weddings, I promise) and last week I threw them out the window and got all experimental once I had taken 3 or 4. Much better! :)

I do believe there are "rules" for Art too and that some of them are even quite different to photographers ones. :) I'd ask my cousin who is a Lecturer on Arts and Humanities to comment but she said B*******s, She's like that!
 
The only way a 'rule' should be broken is if you have reason for it.

Just because you couldn't focus in time doesn't make it art.

For me, it's just if it doesn't get chucked out at the first viewing stage.

Graham
 
artona said:
This is the way I see it Ali

I shoot for me, even when I am being paid to shoot.

If I think it is a good photograph then it is.

I might share it with you all here but I do not care if you think the photograph works or if you think it doesn't. I don't care whether you think it is within certain rules or outside of them.

The rules of photography should be seen more for guidance. If you think of them as you are learning the craft they will guide you towards better photography for they are based on good photography. With experience you will not need to think of them because they will have become part of you :):)

stew
Click to expand...

I really couldn't have put it better Stew.
I was thinking of posting something pretty much along the same line but you've said everything I was going to say anyway.

If it looks right then it is right, and sod the rules!

cheers
 
But then there is the deiberate "soft Focus" Graham. They even sold (and still do) soft focus lenses and millions of us rubbed vaseline all over lenses just to achieve that soft focus look. So why does every shot have to be sharp?
 
I think when you start photography you do your best to follow every rule in the book, when you get better you do your best to break every rule.
I'm trying to think of my favourite 10 photos and i think most of them are rule breakers :)
 
AliB said:
But then there is the deiberate "soft Focus" Graham. They even sold (and still do) soft focus lenses and millions of us rubbed vaseline all over lenses just to achieve that soft focus look. So why does every shot have to be sharp?
Click to expand...

I don't think I implied a soft focus shot was bad, just that it should not be achieved because of a failing of the skill level of the photographer.

Graham
 
AliB said:
But then there is the deiberate "soft Focus" Graham. They even sold (and still do) soft focus lenses and millions of us rubbed vaseline all over lenses just to achieve that soft focus look. So why does every shot have to be sharp?
Click to expand...


filters Ali, we rubbed it over filters :D:D
 
But if you look at it in hindsight and think.......actually that works! (AKA a happy accident) then were does that leave you. Discarding it just because it was unintentional?

(and I do know what you mean but just expanding my own thinking rather than disagreeing with you)
 
I agree with the general sentiments here. Rules are very useful for guidance, because they "work". I think it's important to have an understanding of what works and what doesn't, but the fundamental question must always be - "does your audience like the image?"
 
Photo Plod said:
...but the fundamental question must always be - "does your audience like the image?"
Click to expand...

A better question, as mentioned earlier, is "Do I like the image?". I don't take photos to please an audience, just me. Other people liking them just pays the bills ;)
 
Another one I thought of. Tilting.

My tutor hates tilted shots with a vengence. T***ting about he calls it.
Unless, you can demonstrate sound reasoning why you thought that composition would work. If you are demonstrating sound compositional technique he might not slap you round the back of your head and holler "Stop T***ing about!"

Certainly makes me think about tilting!
 
Argumentative and I cant be harrised.
 
AliB said:
But if you look at it in hindsight and think.......actually that works! (AKA a happy accident) then were does that leave you. Discarding it just because it was unintentional?

(and I do know what you mean but just expanding my own thinking rather than disagreeing with you)
Click to expand...

As in a lot of art, the justification if you had to explain it is what makes it art.

If you can say why you picked the picture with any conviction, you probably could use the happy accident.

The art there is picking it out to keep.

But it's a broad topic with ironically no hard and fast rules!

Graham
 
I laugh when people say things like 'I don't play by the rules', like they're some wild free spirit. What that normally means is 'I don't know the rules'.

I understand the argument that art has no rules, but typically a picture works because it does conform to generally accepted priciples - whether by design or happy accident.

I always relate photography to music - mainly because I'm a better musician than photographer, but there are definite parallels. There are very clear rules in music, certainly in western music, and when some music doesn't follow them, it normally sounds wrong.

It's generally accepted by accomplished musicians that you learn the rules first, get to know them inside out - then try to break them if you want. But it's an exceptional, or very lucky, musician that manages it.
 
Cobra said:
The only rule that is important to me is 12 inches ( or 254mm) long :thumbs:
<<<<<<<<<<<< I don't play by the "rules" :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Have you gt one of those cheap ebay rulers............
 
AliB said:
Good stuff so far, thank you. :)

:) I'd ask my cousin who is a Lecturer on Arts and Humanities to comment but she said B*******s, She's like that!
Click to expand...


I am a letcherer too. :thumbs:
 
pxl8 said:
A better question, as mentioned earlier, is "Do I like the image?". I don't take photos to please an audience, just me. Other people liking them just pays the bills ;)
Click to expand...

Hehe :p

I was careful with my choice of words. I would say that in your case, your audience is you! Last night, I was asked to take pictures of my mother-in-law's 60th birthday. The shots are okay - personally, I don't give a monkeys about them, since I'm not particularly interested in the subject - but the rest of the family are cooing over them and arranging them into photobooks, so...job done. In keeping with the topic of this thread, they follow general photography rules, technically sound, compositions are okay, etc - so I suppose in situations like that, knowing rules actually helped a lot. I imagine (in a way) it's a situation professional photographers find themselves in quite often. I'd be interested to know their thoughts...
 
tiler65 said:
Have you gt one of those cheap ebay rulers............
Click to expand...

Yep :thumbs:
on side English the other side French :D

Well spotted :thumbs: I did indeed mean 304.8mm
 
Photo Plod said:
I imagine (in a way) it's a situation professional photographers find themselves in quite often. I'd be interested to know their thoughts...
Click to expand...

For "commercial" jobs you fall back on the tried and tested formulas that work - standard bread and butter paying the bills stuff. But is this thread really about that kind of paid work?
 
Lasagne said:
I laugh when people say things like 'I don't play by the rules', like they're some wild free spirit. What that normally means is 'I don't know the rules'.

I understand the argument that art has no rules, but typically a picture works because it does conform to generally accepted priciples - whether by design or happy accident.

I always relate photography to music - mainly because I'm a better musician than photographer, but there are definite parallels. There are very clear rules in music, certainly in western music, and when some music doesn't follow them, it normally sounds wrong.

It's generally accepted by accomplished musicians that you learn the rules first, get to know them inside out - then try to break them if you want. But it's an exceptional, or very lucky, musician that manages it.
Click to expand...
I like your post here Lasagne... very thought provoking for us musicians.

I never studied musical theory per sé, and don't really have a clue about what the 'rules' say, but... some of the stuff I like, no... stuff that I don't just like, I love, involves sounds that I would think don't conform to the generally accepted 'rules', i.e. discordant tones, repetition, and non compound time siggys.

You can't beat a Maj7th, minimalism, or the likes of 7/8. I've written plenty of stuff containing the likes of this.

But whats that got to do with this thread I don't know... hehehe. I guess it's saying 'break the rules' as often as you like. If you like the image then that's all that matters.
 
Of course the problem with the "rules" for photography, music, painting, etc. is that they are trying to define the outline, boundaries and shape of something that has none.

Music wasn't invented by first writing down a set of "rules" and then following them. IMO the rules are simply a means for those who don't have the ear, eye, etc. to "have a go" much the same way that paint by numbers might produce acceptable results but it won't turn someone into Constable.
 
pxl8 said:
Of course the problem with the "rules" for photography, music, painting, etc. is that they are trying to define the outline, boundaries and shape of something that has none.

Music wasn't invented by first writing down a set of "rules" and then following them. IMO the rules are simply a means for those who don't have the ear, eye, etc. to "have a go" much the same way that paint by numbers might produce acceptable results but it won't turn someone into Constable.
Click to expand...

But to be fair, Constable was a terrible guitarist
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top