Breaking the rules

[DigMe]

Have you ever noticed that sometimes when people are critiquing pics on the internet (or elsewhere) the picture will be immediately dismissed because it doesn't follow some basic beginner "rule" of photography? As in there is no other reason for the critique than "it's a rule."

Anyone else feel like we need to get over the rules and start examining pictures for their overall value?

Example 1 - "Your horizon should always follow the rule of thirds" Andreas Gursky's Rhein II picture just set a new record for the most money paid for a photograph at $4.3 million. Guess where the horizon was on this pic - yup..smack in the middle. Now you may or may not agree that it's a great pic but that's beside the point. The point is that when Gursky composed this picture he made a conscious decision to break the "rules" to achieve an artistic goal. This is also a good rule to break when you're doing what Gursky did in creating layers or lines of separating or when showing a reflection of the primary landscape. Another rule that Gursky broke in this picture is "Only shoot landscapes in good light (morning or evening). His lighting is the kind that I would consider "the worst" lighting.. dreary cloud cover with no hint of sunlight oozing through. Again, beside the point and shooting a classic landscape was not his goal here.

Example 2 - "You should always shoot children at their level" This statement (found on every single "beginners photography tips for shooting children" article) is generally good advice but it seems to have become dogma for some. In fact when I shoot a session with children I always make a point to take a few pics fairly close up and looking down at the child. In fact this can result in some really cute pics... some of my favorites in fact. Think about how many times you've seen a child look up at you with big, puppy eyes. Never has that happened and I thought, "This kid would be much cuter if I were down at her level." ;)

Don't get me wrong.. I think we should all know the rules and the reasons for the rules before we break them and that generally they are often good advice but it bothers me when these become a religious chant for some.

Anyone else with me on this? Have you ever caught yourself mindlessly repeating a rule without really thinking about the picture? I think I'm probably guilty of having done this in the past before I was mature enough as a photographer to move past it.

Any other good examples of rules that should be broken sometimes?

brad

[groovyone]

Centered subject kind of falls in rule of thirds, but is one I see a lot, especially on portraits. Sometimes centering the subject enhances the photo or adds to the impact.

[Tom]

The thing about the rules, is that I really think you need to understand them and how to utilize them so that you can better understand how to break them to make a fantastic image.

Always show the eyes:


Don't center your subject

[Photogdude]

what tom said

[kenw]

Rules are a misnomer, they are just guides. But before we go around breaking them we should understand why they exist and why we need to ignore them this particular time.

[texkam]

Artists are troublemakers.

[auddii]

Most of the teaching blogs that talk about the "rules" of photography usually end their posts with a section on breaking the rules with examples, or links to posts specifically about breaking the rules and how it can work.

Half the fun of photography is being creative, and sometimes creativity is getting the shot to work within the rules, and sometimes its getting the shot to work despite the rules.

Personally, my biggest problem with getting around these shots is that my * button doesn't seem to work like it's supposed to, so focus and recompose isn't so easy for me. It's focus, turn off AF, recompose, take shot. A pain.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by auddii

Personally, my biggest problem with getting around these shots is that my * button doesn't seem to work like it's supposed to, so focus and recompose isn't so easy for me. It's focus, turn off AF, recompose, take shot. A pain.

That's what I do for every shot. I pretty much only use my center focus point on my 5D2 - which is my main body.

[SCone]

A "rule" is the little thing you use cut a mat

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by Tom

The thing about the rules, is that I really think you need to understand them and how to utilize them so that you can better understand how to break them to make a fantastic image.

Originally Posted by Photogdude

what tom said

That was what I meant at the end of my post about knowing "the rules" before you break them.

BTW, this thread was prompted by actual critiques that I've recently seen in photography forums.

brad

[auddii]

Originally Posted by DigMe

That was what I meant at the end of my post about knowing "the rules" before you break them.

BTW, this thread was prompted by actual critiques that I've recently seen in photography forums.

brad

I've seen it too. Perhaps it meant more like "I don't think centering the subject works here, perhaps try using the rule of thirds", but I've never seen it phrased that way. It's always. "rule of thirds" or "you need to have your horizon on the upper or lower thirds". Never a suggestion, more of a demand.

Some rules I find hard to break. I'll take a couple of "crooked" shots, and I usually just don't like how they turn out. With things like landscapes, you just want everything to look "right". Tends to work slightly better if doing a more chaotic type shoot like a crowd of people dancing or something.

[Flores]

when people are quoting rules about something artistic, they generally have already missed the point.

Which is not necessarily a knock on 'people', but the artist has failed to convey the message they were attempting to get through.

on the other hand....

Some folks have a compulsive need to be right. To the point that they need to show how wrong others are. not 'different point of view' wrong, but 'burn in hell for the damage you have done to the world' wrong.

The latter are not worthy of your attention. :)

[DigMe]

Originally Posted by Flores

when people are quoting rules about something artistic, they generally have already missed the point.

Which is not necessarily a knock on 'people', but the artist has failed to convey the message they were attempting to get through.

I like this point. What if some people "get it" and some people don't? What if you have a shot like the Gursky photo I mentioned in my OP that some people think is total junk and other people want to own at any cost? Or what if the message of the artist takes great effort to understand and that is by the artist's design? Some people will not go to the effort and some will. Has the artist failed to convey the message? Just some thoughts popping into my head right now. I don't claim to have the answers for them! :)

brad

[kenw]

speaking of which, I finally got around to enabling the back-button * AF and decided this time just to leave it set for awhile; forcing myself to adapt to it instead of quickly reverting back to the 'normal' way.... Once I got used to it, it makes breaking the rules of framing much easier. ;) It also makes obeying those same rules easier. go figger....

[Flores]

brad - that seems to be the whole idea of 'art'. it' subjective. Your not going to get the same message to everyone. I'm not sure you want to try to.

I've always thought the most amazing pieces are ones that speak to different people. The piece says something different to each of them. Being an artist who can get inside the head of the viewers, to the point you can think "this part goes to THEM, this part is for THOSE FOLKS, and this part here is just for YOU"... that is amazing.