when does compostion have to obey the rules?

[jann1033]

the background....in a discussion with a friend( who shoots nikon so right there tells you something ) we were talking about old photographers( no not the two of us,i mean famous old photographers) and he said he is astonished that people rave about ansel adams due to his, in his terms,"poor composition". looking at his photos lots are dead center subject etc, & not according to "the rules" BUT in my opinion also some are the most thrilling photos i have ever seen. (personally i find some of them almost overwhelmingly beautiful.)

so here's the question(s) which is more important to you... "the rules" or the "kick you in the gut feeling" ? are you willing to go outside the rules of convention because to you the composition looks better another way? and what gives you the right to break the rules? do you have to pay "dues" first ie be regarded as a genius among your peers, to get away with it?

any thoughts or incredibly wise words?
my personal opinion is go with what you like best...i don't think any rule applies to all situations and in some situations, none apply, but then again i might be willing to get close to blowing out a highlight if i think it sets the mood so who am i to decide lol

 

[MICKEY88]

I don't look at them as rules, they are more like guidelines or suggestions.. as far as earning the right,,,

I shoot for myself, if others like my work, great, if not, hey I'm still happy because I shoot for me...


I don't think this follows the so called rules, but I like it a lot..

 

[mabas9395]

The only rules that matter are the ones that a paying customer gives you.

 

[MICKEY88]

The only rules that matter are the ones that a paying customer gives you.

great point...

 

[TheLionKing]

When I read a discussion like this, it always makes me thing of this quote by Melanie Griffith playing Tess in "Working Girl".

"You can bend the rules plenty once you get to the top, but not while you're trying to get there. And if you're someone like me, you can't get there without bending the rules."

Maybe that is slightly out of context since she was talking about rising in the business world, but the first statement has some truth for well known artists whether they be photographers, sculptors, painters or what have you.

For me, I try to compose for impact. That being said, if following the rules/guidelines is just as impactful to my eyes as another composition, then I stay with convention so I don't get comments about "breaking the rules".

Sometimes I think people like to make negative criticisms with regards to compositional "rules" to make them appear more knowledgeable and maybe even a little snobbish.

Bottom line it comes down to a matter of taste. And the history of art has established these rules because on the whole, most people find them appealing. Most does not always mean everyone.

 

[Gdad]

Photography is about creative expression- not rules. What is pleasing to my eye may be pleasing to yours- or it may not. No different from any other artform.

 

[YesDear]

My thoughts are that you shoot what looks to you period.

But.....

We all are drawn to great photos, art, etc. And I believe probably 99.9.% of the time, the ones we are drawn to the most follow most of the "rules" of composition. They just look better.

That is my story and I am sticking to it!

 

[boBQuincy]

...the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.
Captain Barbossa

Just following the rules would result in a lot of boring photographs, or something like what Adams called " a sharp image of a fuzzy concept". Use the rules when they improve the composition but be ready to ignore them when they get in the way of a good photograph.

 

[Geoff_M]

It's important in this discussion to understand why things like "The Rule of Thirds" exists. Such "rules" weren't decided by committee, or any other formal system. One of the best ways to make an image visually appealing to people in general is to give them something to look at that is out of the ordinary. A couple ways to do that is to provide an angle of a subject that is not normally seen (go high or low). "Most" people will reflexively shoot from their eye-level. Therefore "avoid eye-level shots" is one "rule" of composition. The same is true for "dead center" subject photos. However, if there are other aspects of a photo that make it visually appealing, then these "rules" can be tossed aside. Conversely, following the "rules" of composition doesn't mean a photo will be appealing. If I take a photo of a tennis ball on a plain table top, following the "rule of thirds" isn't going to help much. It'll still be a "boring" photo.


Exhibit A: Here's a "dead center" photo that I took that "works" due to other elements:

 

[thomas998]

I tend to think that the rules only apply when your taking a picture of something that is boring... if the subject is just beyond belief beautiful, then the rules don't really matter... in the end... what makes you happy or the person that your taking the picture for happy is all that really matters... I think in regard to Ansel, he took picture of breath takingly beautiful places... could you find a bad angle of some of those places? maybe but it would be hard... could he have found a better shot? probably nothing is every perfect... But in the end he sold his shots and was satisfied does anything else matter.

 

[drcandon]

I like the Captain Barbosa quote...more like guidelines....

I have had this arguement more and more with folks who have just graduated from various photography schools or courses..what they forget is that in "school" they are the paying customers and they are being taugh a skill???- how to "see" a picture. So they are given the various standard assignments - like shoot architecture from interesting angles, sunrise, sunset...macro, action etc etc..and are then critiqued by the teachers based on the established set of "rules"...What I find happens ( and I am sure I am going to get flamed for this) is that you get photography robots coming out - who shoot within the "rules".

yep, sure enough, their photos capture, lead the eye in and force movement around the photo no lense flares, perfect focus ( except when the rules tell them it is okay to soft focus or throw the pic out of focus) etc etc..and you can tell they have been to course...their pictures are compositionally perfect, and are cookie cutter boring...

My first example to these folks who think they can make tons of money now, is try to do a wedding using the rule of thirds..those of us who have suffered through doing weddings or any family based paying gathering know what I am talking about..sure you don't want a tree growing from the brides head, but just try a pass a photo of a bride not occupying the center stage....

I guess my point is whatever happened to photography being creative??? Just like the Adams of the world - they took shots of what they FELT not what some course told them to.

One other thing to consider..do you think every photograph that the "old masters" took was a keeper - doubt it - they probably wasted a landfill full of silver...that is why I love digital...I can finally take a pile of pics from every angle, exposure etc that I want..and no I don't think that weakens the creativity where you had to get it right the first time - or you wasted silver and money..oh yea there is something else we can discuss in this thread...

a quote I heard from an old school 35mm 2x4 large format guy...

"because you don't have to watch your settings, ie meter correctly, observe and note all things in the viewfinder, you can just shoot whatever junk you want then edit it later in the computer, digital photography is watering down the skills that photographers have cultivated for years"...

that is not my quote...I love digital - what does everyone think about that ???

 

[DueyDooDah]

I think people also don't realize that the rule-of-thirds is only the first part of the rule. The rule further states exceptions (which I will not list here) due to photo content.

The photo above is a prime example. The reason it works centered is that the subject is symmetrical. When shooting symmetrical subjects, centering is not only acceptable, but it may be preferred. The human psyche is attracted to symetrical subjects. It's one reason some people are attractive to other human beings while people who are not perfectly symmetrical in their features are less attractive. Without symmetry, something needs to shift to overcome the uneven appearance of of the subject, to make it more appealing. Hence, using the "rule" helps balance the lack of symmetry.

There are other "addendumns to the "rule" that help make a great photo. I'm sure many people that "break the rule" may be inadvertantly using one of them.

One test you can perform to see if you truly have the correct composition is to take a rule-breaking photo and one following the rules. Compare the two (better yet, have someone else compare them) and see which is more appealing.

 

[Groucho]

a quote I heard from an old school 35mm 2x4 large format guy...

"because you don't have to watch your settings, ie meter correctly, observe and note all things in the viewfinder, you can just shoot whatever junk you want then edit it later in the computer, digital photography is watering down the skills that photographers have cultivated for years"...

that is not my quote...I love digital - what does everyone think about that ???

The same can be said for virtually any advancement - the "fast and dirty" approach vs the "stop and think" approach. Forget even digital vs film - what about manual focus vs autofocus? For non-action shots (and even some action ones), manual focus can often be preferable to AF, but most cameras and lenses nowadays treat manual focus like an afterthought.

In the car world, most "advancements" mean that the drivers have less skill... automatic transmissions means less thinking about your driving and less understanding and control over what the car is doing, ABS brakes require less skill in braking, traction control requires less skill in driving in slippery roads, skid control systems require less skill in knowing how your car handles, GPS systems mean that you don't need to know how to read a map, etc...

I used to play paintball a bit back in the day, when all the guns were pump-action or similar one-at-a-time shooters. I played a few years ago and dusted off my old pump-action Tippmann and nearly every else had semi-auto guns and many would just blindly shoot in your general direction, happy to waste paintballs on whatever you're hiding behind, with the idea that hopefully at least one ball would hit you. Meanwhile, with my pump-action, I'm trying to conserve shots, aim carefully, and make the shots count. This is very comparable to cameras IMHO... when I pull out my K1000 or similar old all-manual camera, I'm going to think carefully about all the components of the shots, technical and artistic. Then I see some guys at Disney or other places who just fire off 5-10 shots at a whack with their high-end DSLRs, trusting that at least one will be the shot they need.

I guess is comes down to what is most important to you - the process or the results. I think I lean a little bit more towards the process.