Thinking beyond "The Rules"

pgriz · Feb 4, 2012

Kevin, kudos on a well written piece. But you touch upon the emotion or engagement that a good photograph "should" evoke, and therein lies the disconnect. Most beginners couldn't even start telling you what emotion an image should evoke in a viewer. Sure, if it's your kid, or your pet, or your spouse, one hopes the photographer has some emotional attachment to the subject. But how to extend that emotional connection to the stranger who sees the image... that's a much harder task. We, as photographers, focus on the easy part of image-making (exposure, composition, lighting, etc.), but we really don't spend much time thinking about how to capture and convey emotion or engagement. Where are the rules or guidelines that would help imagers make the emotional connection to their viewers? I don't know of any. I do see some photographers who are able to more or less consistently capture images that evoke emotion, but there are not many. In fact, it may be worth posting images that do touch us and to see what elements contributed to transmitting feeling. Perhaps certain gendres of photography are more suitable for conveying emotional content?

kkamin · Feb 4, 2012

Let me put it this way.

If you are directing a wedding scene in a movie and it is suppose to be a happy scene, would you shoot while it is a gray day and raining? Would you light the scene with harsh bare bulbs? Would be dress people in a macabre black? Would you tilt the camera to give strange skewed angles? In post would you give the scene a cold blue color treatment? Would you ramp up the contrast to crush all the quarter tones into black? All of these things would be fighting against the idea of love and joy.

Some examples of easy things you can do:

•For intimate feeling portraits, get close to the subject and use a shallow depth of field. We only see people in this way in real life when we are really close up to them (an intimate distance) and our visual focus is especially shallow, much like a shallow DOF on a camera lens. Hold your hand two inched from you face and focus on it. Everything else blurs out to an extreme degree.

•Warm color temperatures give images an emotionally warm feeling to photographs, while cooler color temperatures invoke a feeling of emotional distance. This isn't always true, but it does work most of the time.

•Extreme low angles looking up give the subject a feeling of superiority while looking down at a subject can give a feeling of inferiority. This probably comes from when we are children and constantly looking up to powerful adults. And we look down at children or perhaps physically weaker people.

Every decision you make will contribute towards a reaction in the viewer. If you are just starting out, go slow, and ask yourself 'why' constantly in regards to whatever you are doing. Show your images to artistically articulate people for a crit. People are going to see different things or feel different things from your images. But overall, if enough people's reactions are close to your intent, you can feel happy about the clarity of what you are doing. Just because you can't measure these things like stones on a scale, doesn't mean they don't exist, or you cannot pursue creative excellence. Every great artist or creative professional I've seen has worked their a$$ off to get to where they are. Talent will take you only the first few steps on a mile long journey. Every great artist has an enormous amount of mediocre work in a landfill somewhere, work they produced that was either just unsuccessful or they were trying to figure things out.

-----------------

If you want to see some amazing photography with clear intent, go to:

Browse the Book :: AtEdge

This is the best of the best American advertising photographers. You need to be accepted by them to be listed and it costs about 10K a year. It's a physical book that goes out to the ad agencies around the world, but it has an online version that I provided the link to. I chose this link, because commercial photographs NEED to meet emotion and intellectual goals or it's a waste of an incredible amount of money. They need to make you think and feel a certain way about a product, person, or idea. Not all the work is 'wow' but if you scan enough pages you'll see what I mean.

Bitter Jeweler · Feb 4, 2012

That link is fantastic!

It's good to see how recognized photographers use all of the "rules", all of the elements of design and visual organization, and the theories of composition.

Proof is in the pudding, I guess.

Beginners who think they are going to be successful ignoring, or breaking the "rules" any time soon...well... :biglaugh:

pgriz · Feb 4, 2012

Ok, so there goes the rest of the day.

As Bitter says, great link! The images reinforce the idea that good images are crafted as opposed to captured, and that a lot of thought goes into conceptualizing and then staging. As I mentioned in another post, one of the major improvements in my photography recently was started by my joining a local camera club which had many professional members. It was a revelation to discover how much work went into the conceptualizing, planning, preparing, making, and then developing/postprocessing the images to achieve the goals of the professionals. And so it is here - much to study. Thank you.

Garbz · Feb 4, 2012

Good images are definitely crafted. Just take a bunch of people with cameras out and put them infront of the same subject in the same area and watch them produce pictures of widely different quality.

On the topic at hand, I hate the word "Rules" what the hell is a "Rule"?

Is it the "Rule of thirds" that is critical?
What about the golden mean?
Screw both while trying and create an image with perfect symmetry?

I can't think of a single image out there which breaks a rule because the rules themselves aren't complimentary.

kkamin · Feb 5, 2012

With all due respect, I feel you are over simplifying the discussion by attacking the rather clumsy word "rule", and this is dangerously bordering on a semantic argument.

I think when most of us say the word "rule", we don't mean a "law" that is unbreakable. There is no professor of the arts that I know of that instructs students from stone tablets; visual communication is in constant progression. I think the rules or principles of the visual arts are based from known contexts. And it is up to the student to understand why it works in those instances and to try to apply that knowledge in random future situations.

To address one of your examples, "the rule of thirds" obviously doesn't apply to a symmetrical composition. "The rule of thirds" is a theory that works in a finite number of situations, perhaps best by breaking people's innate desire to center their subjects. Anyone who religiously cuts their composition into thirds to position their subjects is missing the point. It's just a concept that works at times and at times isn't applicable or simply doesn't work. It's up to the practicioner to figure these things out.

It's unfortunate that these concepts are not as easy to grasp as the solid technical aspects of photography, but I feel they are exponentially more important. Admittedly at times it can be like chasing a ghost. But luckily, most of the time its a beautiful experience where your ability to "see" and create is being constantly expanded.

Don't call it rules, call it principles. Or call it potential, effective techniques within limited contexts. Whatever, but it is worth exploring why things works or don't work under various circumstances and try to find the wisdom within. : )

Garbz said:
Good images are definitely crafted. Just take a bunch of people with cameras out and put them infront of the same subject in the same area and watch them produce pictures of widely different quality.

On the topic at hand, I hate the word "Rules" what the hell is a "Rule"?

Is it the "Rule of thirds" that is critical?
What about the golden mean?
Screw both while trying and create an image with perfect symmetry?

I can't think of a single image out there which breaks a rule because the rules themselves aren't complimentary.

Garbz · Feb 7, 2012

kkamin said:
I think when most of us say the word "rule", we don't mean a "law" that is unbreakable.

Actually you'd be surprised exactly what many people think. There's almost a pedantic overuse of the rule of thirds in general which often breaks compositions. A large number of people enter photography, learn about this compositional aid, master it and then never move on.

It may seem semantic, but the discussion is about there being more than just rules. You'd be amazed at the number of people who do not realise this, to the point where it stops being semantic and starts being a pandemic problem. Really this is fueled by every idiot spending $1k on a DSLR, come to a forum asking about exposure, iso and shutter speed, and thinking they are pro, without so much as spending $50 on a basic guide on how to take a good looking photo (damn the technical camera settings).

mishele · Jun 28, 2012

I thought I would give this thread a bump!! There is a lot of wonderful information here.
-ENJOY!!!

The_Traveler · Jun 28, 2012

The_Traveler said:
People see everything, although they might not be conscious of it or realize the impact - but we should. The 'rules' are simplified versions of the results of the many and various cues that people get from images. These cues are, I think, in a clear order and related; unfortunately the rules aren't.

I'm working on a small article about the cues.

I gave a workshop Tuesday evening on the subject of understanding what people see in images and put the text slides and the images up on the web at lewlortonphoto.com/finishing .
The notes for the class are at https://www.yousendit.com/download/QlVqbUpSbEFtMEkwTWRVag until July 5th

Following the text slides are some before and after examples unfortunately with no explanatory text.

(If you happen to see your own image there, relax, I'm not violating copyright, I'm using it under the Fair Use provisions of the copyright law.)