Rules, rules and more rules?

Hi Ali
I seem to swing from one extreme to the other....I started out not knowing any rules (and was happy with my photography). Then i learnt the rules and i rarely found any of my shots measured up to what i thought they should be (or other peoples photography too..).....then I'll chill out a bit again, a few rules, like my images more, then try and improve, think of the rules again....my head hurts, i think you get the picture!

I'm sure there must be a happy medium where you know and understand the rules, know when you should break them with out having to thik about it too much... I'll probably be retiring when i get there :(

Anna
 
Ha ha

Sometimes knowing the "rules" tells you WHY you like an image rather than just knowing you like it.

I like to use negative space in mine and it's something I'm exploring but very slowly because I need to explore what works and what doesn't before I unleash that experimentation on customers. So in a sense i'm exploring that to give myself some guidance. I'd hope it would not become a self imposed rule in that shooting is often far more fluid than that and the negative space changes in relation to focal length.
 
AliB said:
Ha ha

Sometimes knowing the "rules" tells you WHY you like an image rather than just knowing you like it.

I like to use negative space in mine and it's something I'm exploring but very slowly because I need to explore what works and what doesn't before I unleash that experimentation on customers. So in a sense i'm exploring that to give myself some guidance. I'd hope it would not become a self imposed rule in that shooting is often far more fluid than that and the negative space changes in relation to focal length.
Click to expand...

I assume by negative space, you are referring to what we term in graphic design as 'white space'. You may find yourself still adhering to the rule of thirds though. In all honesty, these so called rules burn into the subconscience and do not be considered directly. They become second nature.

Graham
 
By negative space I mean having the subject biased to one side of the image. Kind of like this, but this is a very gentle example.

showphoto.php
[/url][/IMG]
 
might be a gentle example but it is an excellent piece of work, well done

stew
 
AliB said:
By negative space I mean having the subject biased to one side of the image. Kind of like this, but this is a very gentle example.

showphoto.php
[/URL][/IMG]
Click to expand...

But that is not negative space.

If she was looking the other way it would be negative.
 
tiler65 said:
But that is not negative space.

If she was looking the other way it would be negative.
Click to expand...

eh?

Negative space is the space around the focal point. Google has plenty of articles on the subject...
 
If you really want to learn about exposure take your camera off auto and look at the light, guess what the exposure should be, then point your camera at something that is roughly 18% grey, possibly a typical tarmacced road and then compare it to your guess.

stew
 
I always stick to these as a bare minimum...

Lens Rule (both parts)
Power Rule
1st Rule of Composition, and
The 1st Rule of Opportunity

These are fundamental to getting a shot, but the 3rds Rule etc. is also important for polishing a shot into a form others may appreciate too

Photography Rules (y)

DD
 
you are a very good boy Dave. Now tell us about those rules in detail :):)
 
Can't say i like the use of the word 'negative space', I'd tend to agree that that sort of space would be behind the viewing subject in the case of AliB's shot. For me I'd prefer 'viewing space' or ‘looking space' as there’s nothing negative about such a space in fact it can be far more important than the subject itself in combination.

Hmm, the rules, chicken or egg, art or rules.

...Is knowing the rules as important as understanding why they work in the first place?
I'm pretty sure most of us can recognise something pretty or beautiful, how different is that to knowing the rules do you think?

Not much I’d suggest.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
...Is knowing the rules as important as understanding why they work in the first place?
I'm pretty sure most of us can recognise something pretty or beautiful, how different is that to knowing the rules do you think?

Not much I’d suggest.
Click to expand...

That's the reason I asked the question FB, If you read the link I posted then it explains a lot of WHY we as humans like certain aspects of composition and WHY certain colours work while others don't.

As a photographer you can therefor deliberately manipulate an image to appeal to a viewer knowing that the buttons you are trying to push are hard wired in us.
 
artona said:
you are a very good boy Dave. Now tell us about those rules in detail :):)
Click to expand...

Just for you then Stew ;)

Lens Rule (both parts)

Put a lens on, take lens cap off

Power Rule

Make sure you have some or your fancy electronic camera is unlikely to do anything useful at all

1st Rule of Composition

Point the camera (and now with a lens on , lens cap off & power) towards your subject

The 1st Rule of Opportunity

If you don't have a camera with you, you'll miss it (whatever it is)


Yes I was bored even early this morning :D

DD
 
AliB said:
That's the reason I asked the question FB, If you read the link I posted then it explains a lot of WHY we as humans like certain aspects of composition and WHY certain colours work while others don't.

As a photographer you can therefor deliberately manipulate an image to appeal to a viewer knowing that the buttons you are trying to push are hard wired in us.
Click to expand...


Yeah defiantly, I didn't read that link soz, but I have studied the subject for years, and to be honest I didn’t quite get to grips with your question. :puke:

Its all about hitting the spots isn' it. (yes just like that ) ..those inherent keys, hints, tones, lines, that trigger our human senses and emotions.

This shot is very process and shows exactly what you've just suggested I feel.

standingman.jpg
 
Here's an interesting example.

SPP_1985.jpg


A minute (and 3 frames) later I decide to try it without the foreground elements:

SPP_1988.jpg


I had to walk about 50 yards to get the second version. What's interesting is that I put the island in the distance in exactly the same place in the frame in both shots - neither have been cropped and I don't have any grid lines, etc. on my viewfinder screen, it was just the spot that "felt" right at the time.
 
AliB said:
As a photographer you can therefor deliberately manipulate an image to appeal to a viewer knowing that the buttons you are trying to push are hard wired in us.
Click to expand...

Thinking about it manipulation is the perfect word for what we as photographers are trying to do, just like a hypnotist we're attempting to conjure stories, moods and emotions within the viewer via a single effective image..


These where my thoughts last year on why the rules where conjured in the first place...

When a composition ‘works’ it’s because it satisfies fundamental natural relationships with how humans view what’s good, (beautiful) and bad, (ugly) via the natural selection characteristics in built within our DNA to aid us to populate, prosper and survive…
A good composition ‘pleases the eye’ or rather pleases your cool DNA spotting senses.
Why, well mainly stuff to do with symmetry. …everything natural has it, designers strive to nail it, its natures blue print of what works and what doesn’t.
A beautiful human face is full of symmetry, as is a stunning human body, the female form ..From an apple to the curve of a trunk of full healthy tree on an horizon, the petals of a rose, that point at which the first leaf junctions its stem …evolution has chosen what fails and what survives, and as intelligent descendants we can naturally see what’s beautiful and what’s not … Tell me you find Girls Aloud unattractive and I’ll call you a fibber right.
We’ve learnt some of natures tricks, and the ‘composition rules’, guidelines really, are adapted from some of them by previous artists that spotted the designs.


This is a recent shot that based on symmetry and balance, and I'm thinking composition, not rules when shooting, its all down to what feels comfortable in the frame .. and yet I could argue the shot contains several rule sets, abet all slightly broken twisted and bent.

Not everyones taste I know, but makes my point.

manndog.jpg
 
When a composition ‘works’ it’s because it satisfies fundamental natural relationships with how humans view what’s good, (beautiful) and bad, (ugly) via the natural selection characteristics in built within our DNA to aid us to populate, prosper and survive…
A good composition ‘pleases the eye’ or rather pleases your cool DNA spotting senses.
Why, well mainly stuff to do with symmetry. …everything natural has it, designers strive to nail it, its natures blue print of what works and what doesn’t.
A beautiful human face is full of symmetry, as is a stunning human body, the female form ..From an apple to the curve of a trunk of full healthy tree on an horizon, the petals of a rose, that point at which the first leaf junctions its stem …evolution has chosen what fails and what survives, and as intelligent descendants we can naturally see what’s beautiful and what’s not … Tell me you find Girls Aloud unattractive and I’ll call you a fibber right.
We’ve learnt some of natures tricks, and the ‘composition rules’, guidelines really, are adapted from some of them by previous artists that spotted the designs.

And that's a great description FB. It's a really good idea to look at what we like and work out why we like at and the reverse is also true, why we don't like it. I do remember reading in a book that photographically we are disturbed when the photographer chops through limbs in their composition. We are actually more comfortable with limbs cropped at natural joints. Next time you are looking through a magazine, have a look at where those crops occur. It's interesting. :)

Oh and I remembered from my dim and distant memory that as well as positive and negative space there is also the additive and subtractive. I think it's the additive and subtractive that applies when you have a subject looking out of a frame. Looking from the edge inward is additive (such as in mine) and looking out is subtractive.

Either that or my head has melted. :)
 
:D I shoudn't have put that pan on should I. ;)

Ah yeah, that rings a bell here too, subtractive and additive… very interesting about the limb chopping thing, I remember the guys here arguing over hands in, or hand out, but not half a hand. …I’m so with you on the magazine thing too….More films and docs and adverts for me though, not many fashion mags lying around in my house, lol.


My feeling is you can only break the rules if you know why you need to break them for better effect….flexing it around a bit is fine though. :D

But then I have trouble not seeing the rules in every good shot I’ve ever seen ..in fact show me a good shot that really works that does break the rules someone?
 
RULE 1: Don't post things on internet forums that might get deleted by the forum mod bods!
 
Lensflare said:
RULE 1: Deleted by a mod to protect the innocent ;)
Click to expand...

Eh??? :thinking:

I think you need to elaborate as to why you wish to alienate a huge % of the population from photography there m8 - before someone comes along and uses our latest smilie :dummy::dummy::dummy:

:D

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