composition rules exposed..

mysteryscribe · Jun 26, 2007

I started this explanation of why preaching composition rules on a forum is a really bad idea, but I decided that I was going to end up with a text book. Let me say this as simply as I can. When a new photographer is sent out to read the rules of composition, nobody bothers to tell him that every rule has hundreds of subtleties. So he runs out and makes his pictures using the rules and thinks my god this is easy, I finally understand all there is to photography. His pictures aren't better because he has been exposed to the so called rules. What he is ... is the guy with the little bit of knowledge that is a dangerous thing.

See I cut that down a heck of a lot. There are no easy answers.

See if your community college has night classes in adult education photography. If so sign up and you might learn a little about composition. If not shoot pictures, shoot more pictures and when you are sick of it, shoot more pictures. Post them in the galleries and ask for edits and comments. You will begin to understand a little at a time. Good luck and take all these guys, me included, with a full shaker of salt.

panocho · Jun 27, 2007

Rules are a first step; second is to trangress them. But one has to start from the first step, not directly on a second. Then if someone, just by following some basic rules, sees herself already as a master or something it's only her problem.
I prefer thinking that people will understand they are only following the ABC of photography, and precisely because of that, see themselves as beginners. If someone doesn't and thinks that's all there is to know, that is, as I say, a problem she has. And, by the way, I think she would feel exactly the same if following no rules -or even more that way, you know: I am the man and didn't even need any rules or learning of any kind!

Rules are like obbeying your parents: you need to first do it only to later find out sometimes you need not doing it.

mysteryscribe · Jun 27, 2007

Well don't worry about not being an expert there are planty here who are rofl. I do not consider myself to be an expert either. but like i said there are plenty who do.

panocho · Jun 27, 2007

mysteryscribe said:
but like i said there are plenty who do.

and does not have to do with having followed or not certain rules, does it?

I get your point on rules, and basically agree, but as I said I think that's only for when you've already followed them -as I guess you some time did. For the one who begins from scratch rules are somehow "needed" (please note: somehow)

craig · Jun 27, 2007

To me it is not clear if you are trying to discuss something or giving us your thoughts. Certainly rules are only guidelines to help us understand the final outcome of our photo. In some instances rules of proper exposure and composition etc can be thrown out. If it is the shot you perceived then isn't that valid?

Personally the only rule of photography is that you put everything you have into each frame.

Love & Bass

Don Simon · Jun 27, 2007

panocho said:
Rules are a first step; second is to trangress them. But one has to start from the first step, not directly on a second.

Personally my first step was to shoot impulsively, trying to capture images which I felt conveyed a certain emotion or mood, or simply which I found (and I know it's not going to be a popular word) 'interesting'. I don't think it did me any harm.

Because I love analogies, here we go: You can send someone on a course and teach them how to write a book well, but it doesn't mean they can write a good book (i.e. one that people will want to read).
Another one: It's not always the people who can readily understand the 'rules' of a foreign language who can speak it convincingly and comfortably.

Conventions (rules if you must call them that) are certainly helpful, but personally I would rather start with ideas, and rein them in with convention to better express them, than start with conventions and try to find ideas to work around them. I am not by any means suggesting that people shouldn't learn the "rules" of composition, or that they shouldn't do so when starting out, but I don't think learning them should be the first or most important step either.

newrmdmike · Jun 27, 2007

actually everyone here should listen to my advice. no salt shaker for me . . .

jk

mysteryscribe · Jun 27, 2007

newrmdmike said:
actually everyone here should listen to my advice. no salt shaker for me . . .

jk

If you dont have a salt shaker I'll happily lend you my jumbo shaker. It doesn't say salt on the side it says simply BS eliminator on one side and quick fix killer on the other.

In the world of instant everything it's not popular to say it's just gonna take time to figure out composition. It's like the difference between a 16 year old driver and Mario Andrette (sp).

Now here is a mixed metaphor... You can follow the rules of the road and still not hit a home run... god I love to do that where is Yogi Berra when you need him.

skieur · Jun 27, 2007

For all the discussion, I have not seen here, an example of a photo in which not following the rules of composition has contributed to an overall high level of visual impact and effectiveness.

skieur

Chris of Arabia · Jun 27, 2007

panocho said:
Rules are a first step; second is to trangress them. But one has to start from the first step, not directly on a second.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this is applied in the Critique Forums... :wink:

PNA · Jun 27, 2007

Chris of Arabia said:
I'm looking forward to seeing how this is applied in the Critique Forums...

Good point....!

And where is Yogi when you need him???? One of the best bad ball hitters of all time. Rules?????

skieur · Jun 27, 2007

Still waiting to see a convincing example of a photo that has great impact because it does not follow many of the rules of composition.

skieur

mysteryscribe · Jun 27, 2007

Yogi was a great wit knowing or unknowing... "When you come to a fork in the road take it."

As for high impact I think you need to define that for me I'm kinda slow. Impact on who? You ....or the person the image was made for.

I don't have the images but if you like I can tell you a story about a phone call I had this morning. Tomorrow is my birthday so my second ex wife called to make sure i would be around to celebrate. During the conversation she informed me that the photographs I had made for her partents in the early seventies now resided on her walls and in her shoebox of family images.

Now at the time i was still learning about photography and still am I don't know it all like some of you. But that makes the point even better. The images were of family members. They hung on one family's wall since 1973 or so and now they hang on another family's walls. I'm sure they are not perfect composition wise but they had an impact on the people who recieved them.

So you are going to have to define Impact for me... Do they hang in museums no but then lots of images with perfect composition don't hang in museums either.

PNA · Jun 27, 2007

skieur said:
Still waiting to see a convincing example of a photo that has great impact because it does not follow many of the rules of composition.

skieur

I have many that do not follow the rules of comp.....but none with any great impact!!! :lol:

mysteryscribe · Jun 27, 2007

I can look around at the images in my house on my walls. Most do follow compostion rules because I know what they are and subconsciously apply them, but some don't. I have a still life I shot for my father on one of his birthdays. All I have is the 11x14 image so I not going to take it apart to scan it. The image items in the still life are dead center of the image and the triangle is open at the the top with the lines going in all the wrong directions. I shot it that way because I was balanced on a shakey picnic table and shooting down on the items. I knew that the image would be what counted not me spending an hour arranging and rearranging the items till they were perfect.

So why did it have any impact on anyone. I shot the image of my dad's tools. Tools all of us kids had seen him use almost everyday when he was more healthy.

When I made the image he could move around but he was shakey just like I have been off and on in the last couple of years. The image of those tools hung over his tv in the den. He could look up and see an image of things from his better days. Now does that image have an impact on me, my brothers and sisters? You bet your butt it does. I doubt seriously it would have an impact on you.

I am reminded of a series of photos LaPhoto shot in a dance studio. The exposure was tricky and not always dead on. The backrounds weren't always straight but I venture to guess those images had a great impact on those kid's parents. I also venture to say if she had waited for only perfect compostion she wouldn't have made the images at all.

So can I show you examples of high impact but not perfect pictures, again define high impact for me.