| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/08/2003 08:00:11 PM · #1 |
I am a big fan of a few authors on the subject of photography. One of my favorites is Brooks Jensen who is the editor of LensWork magazine. I find just about everything he writes to be useful in my own learning path. In the current issue of LensWork (#50), which is the 10th anniversary edition, Brooks has a short article titled:
"Things I've Learned About Photography"
He has a list of 131 things that he has learned in his 34 years in the photography field. As I read through these today, I saw a lot of things that apply to all of us here. I thought I would include two of them here:
"Breaking the rules is one of the greatest sources of growth and will always result in lots of criticism from the small-minded."
When I read this, I think I understand the intent. "Rules" of photography are not really rules. The are, however, guidelines that can be used to help produce a stronger image. Afterall, they aren't there just for our simple reading enjoyment. They often do provide strength for a photograph. The very next thing he listed in his "List" is:
"Breaking the rules does not insure anything of value, either in learning curve or in a good photograph. Sometimes the small-minded are right."
After I read this one, I understood everything he was talking about. Some of the greatest photos I have seen break some or all of the rules. Likewise, some of the greatest photos follow them perfectly. We have discussed some of these things here before. There is nothing wrong with breaking the rules. However, you can't simply break a rule and expect it to make the photo better or "more artistic" simply because you have done so.
When it comes to breaking rules, I see a few things that happen. In the world of general snapshot photography, most photographers are not aware of or simply not considering any rules. They are not out to produce any particular work of art. This being the case, how does 'art' find its way out of a snapshot gallery? My opinion is that any given photo in a collection of shapshots could have high emotional impact to any particular viewer or group of viewers. When I see a photo that I consider to be great that has no rules being followed, why is it that I like it so much? It's usually because there is some overpowering emotional value in the image.
The other case is where a photographer intentionally breaks a rule. When you do this consciously, do you ever ask yourself why? If you can't list one or two solid reasons why you are doing it, it may be worth reconsidering. I don't believe that doing it "because rules are made to be broken" is a great reason at all. However, I do believe that doing it "because it looks cool" is a perfectly reasonable choice. If you like the way it looks, go for it! After all, you should be making photos that make you happy. If you do this expecting others to be supportive of it, there needs to be some definite strength added to the photo as a result of your choice.
Just some food for thought :)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2003 08:05:34 PM · #2 |
| Excellent and thanks for the food for thought. |
|
|
|
12/08/2003 08:19:37 PM · #3 |
I happen to be a guy who likes to follow the rules, to adhere to the standard practices. However, where no standard exists, I do not fear blazing the trail in new areas. Allow me speak for the followers of the rules and disagree with the author of the list when I say that I adhere to the rules but my mind is not small. It is vast and full of knowledge, wisdom and visions of what could be!
The "Small Mind" argument is used in many ways today as a method of belittling those who would stand in disagreement to a cause or an irrational belief.
But hey, feel free to experiment and break the rules with your camera. Only do consider others when you take your liberties, that you would care for and condsider those who think differently!
~This has been a purposefully overly dramatic speech for your enjoyment.~ |
|
|
|
12/08/2003 08:25:23 PM · #4 |
besides the rule of thirds what rules are we following?
i tend to read the rules, and follow if it's beneficial to whatever it is i want to do. otherwise i just keep the rule in the back of my mind so i dont get caught breaking it ;}
|
|
|
|
12/08/2003 08:38:55 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by EL-ROI:
I happen to be a guy who likes to follow the rules, to adhere to the standard practices. However, where no standard exists, I do not fear blazing the trail in new areas. Allow me speak for the followers of the rules and disagree with the author of the list when I say that I adhere to the rules but my mind is not small. It is vast and full of knowledge, wisdom and visions of what could be!
The "Small Mind" argument is used in many ways today as a method of belittling those who would stand in disagreement to a cause or an irrational belief.
But hey, feel free to experiment and break the rules with your camera. Only do consider others when you take your liberties, that you would care for and condsider those who think differently!
~This has been a purposefully overly dramatic speech for your enjoyment.~ |
EL-ROI,
I believe the quote implies "small-mindedness" of those who would blindly criticise folks who "break the rules"; perhaps narrow-minded would be a better choice of words. It does not follow that those who follow the rules are small-minded.
I don't believe for a second that you would criticize someone merely because they broke the rules, though you choose to follow them.
John,
Thanks for posting those quotes; truer words were never spoken.
- edited for typos
Message edited by author 2003-12-08 20:39:58.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2003 09:11:43 PM · #6 |
FIRST OF ALL: I'm no expert, as my challenge results prove!
BUT - there are more rules than the rule of thirds we follow, even if we don't know it. I know you've run across other photographers who produce great looking shots intuitively (but not unfailingly) at a high rate. Maybe you ARE one. Well, some I suppose are intuitive. I decided that I need help.
For a scholastic approach to the topic, check out Richard D. Zakia's book "Perception and Imaging." He writes of such things as: figure-ground relationship; graininess & noise; visual gestalt laws; association; color temperature and modality; contour; and much more.
So, while there are "rules" that exist in satisfying a competition - where flaunting them is peril - there are also inate visual/conceptual rules that exist whether we know it or not, and these rules are what makes something appeal to the eye/brain.
The benefit this has given me personally is that now when I'm taking a photograph, I try to incorporate some of the things I've learned and take a few (or many) extra pictures - isn't that a great benefit of digital photography??
For us, when we get a critique stating "you did't use the rule of thirds," what the writer really usually means is "if you used the rule of thirds, the picture's appeal may have been better." After all, there's no way to know, unless the critic already tried that photo in that certain way - maybe you DID try to use the rule, but didn't like it - so - they're wrong - no problem.
All we can do is try to understand what other people want to see and produce THAT, just shy of the point of our dis-satisfaction. All of the rest of our shots need to please us (and maybe some just say the heck with the other people, but then, why are you here, to change us?)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2003 09:24:24 PM · #7 |
I look at it this way:
The various rules are the distilled essence of a variety of much more complex visual ideas.
If you don't understand those underlying principles, and how they work, then following the rules can tend to improve pictures than if no thought was given to composition at all.
If you probe a bit deeper and start to understand the principles at work (e.g., centered subjects are more static, upper left corner can be more 'in your face than lower right corner for Western readers etc) then you can make much more informed choices - you can 'break the rules' because you understand the cases they work and don't work - you can start to move beyond the basic guidelines and really begin to put real meaning and communication into your shots.
In these cases the 'small minded' I think refers to the people who've read the Kodak Guide to Better Pictures, and then assume that every compositional guideline must be followed as written, with no exceptions, just because. It is more shallow understanding than small mindedness.
Message edited by author 2003-12-08 21:25:26. |
|
|
|
12/08/2003 10:28:20 PM · #8 |
I agree with Gordon that the rules can help guide a photographer, but they should not be a straitjacket. In one sense, I think you have to take a lot of pictures with the rules strictly in mind at first. When you have mastered them (and I clearly haven't yet), then you can feel confident in breaking them if you believe you have a good reason.
|
|
|
|
12/08/2003 10:50:25 PM · #9 |
heya kirbic,
I think I got what the guy was saying in the article. I'm sure he meant small-minded in the nicest way possible. hehe.
Creating cannot be bound by rules, for then it would be copying.
|
|
|
|
12/09/2003 12:02:33 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
"Breaking the rules does not insure anything of value, either in learning curve or in a good photograph. Sometimes the small-minded are right."
|
And to this, I had a chuckle. :-) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/09/2025 06:21:25 PM EDT.
