Published photography breaking the rules.

[rexbobcat]

I just think that people take the guidelines of photography too literally.

I'll go into a thread that has a photo for C&C, it's technically good, it's symmetrical, it would look good if it was framed on a gallery wall, but then someones will say something like "it's too centered, remember the rules of 3rds!"

But if you ask them why they think this they can't give a good answer other than "that's what everyone else says." I think the rule of 3rds ruins a lot of the creative process.

 

[unpopular]

When I was in College I was taking a color photography class. Like many, I was obsessed with the rule of thirds. At first during our weekly slide review and crit my images were very well received. They were colorful minimalist abstracts taken at an abandoned mill just outside of town. Lots of decaying wood and colorful metal tanks which at one time held some sort of dyes. They were very well composed, and I kept getting a of of compliments about that.

But as time went on, the crits because tedious and even I found myself falling asleep to my own slide show! Midsemester drowsiness aside, the collection which was once very inviting and receiving great feedback was now bland and noteworthy. At the end of the semester we had to submit several slides which represent our best collection of images to the professor. He must have been prepared because he immediately took my slides and placed them on the light table, flipping a few, rotating the others and then stacked them up. They lined up strikingly well.

It turned out the entire semester I was taking the exact same composition in various orientations! They were "perfectly composed" no doubt, but that was exactly the problem. I reduced what makes a good composition to a formula which I had replicated over and over with mechanical precision and I think that if you go about looking at these "rules" you'll eventually get down to a single most efficient outcome that can be applied to almost any situation - and those which do not fit you start writing off as it not being a good subject. From my experience it starts to become a situation where you seek out the composition before anything else - it gets easy and you get lazy.

That same professor told me the next semester that the best thing to do with composition is to learn it completely and then forget everything. The idea is that you'll know when and how to apply conventional composition on a more intuitive level.

Another issue which I have with these composition guidelines is that they are designed to convey harmony and balance. Often though I seek to convey tension. Take for example these two images which follow traditional composition:

In this image I was struck by the symmetry and balance of the subject and;

This image I was struck by it's delicacy and stillness. In both images I chose a composition which best conveys these ideas. However these compositions have a different effect on the image:

In this image I was interested in conveying the idea that everything decays, juxtaposing the rubble in the foreground with the functional building in the background. To convey this tension, I obstructed the more recognizable subject.

In this image I was interested in the absurdity of the situation. Here I found a flyswatter on the sidewalk positioned over some utility markings. I was struck by how the flyswatter lacked it's function when taken out of context, and how in some ways without the context of the sidewalk the markings have no meaning - together, it's just a jumbled mess of meaningless data. To convey this contextual dilemma I again chose a composition which is best suited, one where the eye really has no where to go.

Composition should be seen as a tool to convey ideas about the subject. An image where the model's arms and legs are cut out of the scene will not convey a sense solitude or complacency, it will convey urgency, feeling restrained or boxed in.

So I think it's always going to be OK to break the rules, so long as you aren't just doing it for the sake of doing it, and choices which you make regarding composition should reflect what you're trying to convey.

 

[Overread]

Publications often butcher a photographer's work to accommodate the space and requirements they have to work with within the limits of the publication.

I always think their greatest crime is when they print a single print over two pages - nothing ruins a good photo like having its whole middle lost in the curve and spine of the book I'd rather it be half the size and viewable than twice the size with a chunk missing.

Also remember photography isn't just about artistry - its also about recording events. Many "great" photos might be artistically terrible, but what they capture in content is what is of interest. There is also availability, again there are many well spoken of photos from older generations which are famous not because of their art, but because they show something from a previous generation and are the only photo (or one of very few in existence) to show such.
Note I'm not saying that photographers should be one or the other - that a recorder does not need artistry or that that artists cannot record events; but simply that many photos are not taken nor presented based upon the artistic approach.

 

[unpopular]

Also remember photography isn't just about artisty

Successful artsy photographs still convey ideas about the subject. You can't just muddle up a photograph for the sake of art.

 

[rexbobcat]

It turned out the entire semester I was taking the exact same composition in various orientations! They were "perfectly composed" no doubt, but that was exactly the problem. I reduced what makes a good composition to a formula which I had replicated over and over with mechanical precision and I think that if you go about looking at these "rules" you'll eventually get down to a single most efficient outcome that can be applied to almost any situation - and those which do not fit you start writing off as it not being a good subject.

I've run into this before. I'll take a photo, it will be wonderfully exposed and composed, but that's all they are. It's like the comparison between a Walmart studio photographer, and a self-aware photographer (lol). The Walmart photos are technically pretty close to perfect. They're too perfect. They almost seem mechanical. There is no human element to them, other than the people who are posing.

That's what I try soo hard to avoid. Yes, I might get images that aren't critically the best. Maybe the background is a bit busy or w/e, but if the image captures the essence of the scene, then I've done my job. I'd take genuineness and emotion over perfection any day.

It seems like such an abstract concept. It's hard to explain.

 

[unpopular]

It is hard! Once you "get" composition, it's time to move on, you know ... but "perfect composition" is so seductive and easy to do once you've done it it's really hard to break away from it.

Even now I sometimes have to catch myself from repeating successful images.

 

[blackrose89]

That same professor told me the next semester that the best thing to do with composition is to learn it completely and then forget everything. The idea is that you'll know when and how to apply conventional composition on a more intuitive level.

.

I understand what your professor was talking about. When I first started drawing when I was 13, we learned "Ok, this is how you draw a nose, this is how you a draw a mouth, this is how you shade for hair etc" We followed these steps diligently when we started. Followed these rules religiously for years. But then after time, I stepped away and began developing my own style. And not quite following the guidelines anymore. For instance, I do not blend any of my drawings. I like extreme contrasts. My faces are usually pale with as little midtones as possible. But I am able to do so because I have a solid foundation in what I have previously learned/excersize I can judge how far away I go from conventional work and it still be a great piece of art. Some get it, some don't.

After about a month into my photography someone told me that to start, don't try to be super creative, stay away from flowers and "creative close ups with lots of bokeh" don't worry about being original. Just focus on creating compositionally/exposure correct photos as possible so you are comfortable, train youre eye. You won't need to use guidelines as a crutch after a point because your eyes will start to form photos automatically. When I started following this advice I say a big change in my progress. Before when I would post images of still life close ups, people would say (and justifiably so) random snapshots. Well about 2 weeks ago I posted an upclose photo of a feather and got good feedback on it, especially in comparison to the other types of photos I had done like this previously, on here and other photography sites etc. I was able to pull it off better (not saying its perfect lol) because I know more of what I am doing and there was purpose/intent/effort into it. It's probably got a million things wrong with it "technically" but I like it and it is a much stronger step forward.


Lone feather by blackrose1981, on Flickr

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

That same professor told me the next semester that the best thing to do with composition is to learn it completely and then forget everything. The idea is that you'll know when and how to apply conventional composition on a more intuitive level.

Exactly!
You really never forget things you learn, well unless you don't use them forever.
What he's meant is the bolded part. Learn it and and absorb it, but don't apply it as a formula, or "rule" as so many see it as.

Another issue which I have with these composition guidelines is that they are designed to convey harmony and balance. Often though I seek to convey tension.

You shouldn't have an issue with them, they also apply to creating tension, disharmony, and unbalance as you see fit by the image or work you are creating. Talking about visual balance includes images that are unbalanced for a purpose. It's when your image is unbalanced and it does not fit with the imagery at hand that is the problem. When to use the dutch angle, for instance. It isn't always effective. Why is that? How do you know when it IS effective? It's one of those things beginners do willy nilly, because it is deemed "artsy fartsy" with no other reason, no understanding to back it up.

So I think it's always going to be OK to break the rules, so long as you aren't just doing it for the sake of doing it, and choices which you make regarding composition should reflect what you're trying to convey.

Exactly! Except I really wish I could convert you to never using the term "rules" again when talking about composition.
It's not about breaking anying. It's about choices from your compositional toolbox. Not using the RoT's isn't breaking the rule. It is, or should be, a conscious decision to not use that tool in favor of another.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I understand what your professor was talking about. When I first started drawing when I was 13, we learned "Ok, this is how you draw a nose, this is how you a draw a mouth, this is how you shade for hair etc" We followed these steps diligently when we started. Followed these rules religiously for years. But then after time, I stepped away and began developing my own style. And not quite following the guidelines anymore. For instance, I do not blend any of my drawings. I like extreme contrasts. My faces are usually pale with as little midtones as possible. But I am able to do so because I have a solid foundation in what I have previously learned/excersize I can judge how far away I go from conventional work and it still be a great piece of art. Some get it, some don't.

You are talking about technique, and there are no rules when it comes to technique. Technique is merely a tool to get the job done the way you want it done.

 

[blackrose89]

I understand what your professor was talking about. When I first started drawing when I was 13, we learned "Ok, this is how you draw a nose, this is how you a draw a mouth, this is how you shade for hair etc" We followed these steps diligently when we started. Followed these rules religiously for years. But then after time, I stepped away and began developing my own style. And not quite following the guidelines anymore. For instance, I do not blend any of my drawings. I like extreme contrasts. My faces are usually pale with as little midtones as possible. But I am able to do so because I have a solid foundation in what I have previously learned/excersize I can judge how far away I go from conventional work and it still be a great piece of art. Some get it, some don't.

You are talking about technique, and there are no rules when it comes to technique. Technique is merely a tool to get the job done the way you want it done.

Aren't compositional guidelines nothing more then a technique people use to make a photo more visually stimulating? Same concept just a different medium.

And same as you said, a technique does not have to be followed, same as a compositional guideline.

 

[PictureBox]

^^ Exactly. But the point is...everyone has a different view or different opinions on how they came to whats produced. Technique, Form, Guidlines, Tools, Rules... Art.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

*ugh*

No.

 

[unpopular]

Aren't compositional guidelines nothing more then a technique people use to make a photo more visually stimulating? Same concept just a different medium.

And same as you said, a technique does not have to be followed, same as a compositional guideline.

No they are tools used to convey a certain idea. The problem is that "good compositions" are ones that make us feel at calm, relaxed with a clear idea of the objective subject. The issue isn't composition ​it's the value which we place on one type of composition over another.

Bitter is absolutely right - the word "rules" and "guidelines" are totally inadequate.

 

[rexbobcat]

^^ Exactly. But the point is...everyone has a different view or different opinions on how they came to whats produced. Technique, Form, Guidlines, Tools, Rules... Art.

Regardless of whether you're conscious of it or not...you're still following the principle guidelines of what makes an image aesthetically pleasing.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, it's just an intuitive thing.

Why do you think there are such things as complementary colors? Like blue and yellow. I've never met a single person in existence who says that blue and yellow clash.

 

[unpopular]

But they clash in an exciting way! And that excitement can be used to convey ideas.