 David A. Richard |
Is the rules hendering the art of photography? Do we restrict ourselves to the rules of photography(lighting,composure, exposure...)that we smother the artful look of photos? Everyone looks at photos trying to see the beauty or "ugliness" in a photo by comparing them to the rules of photography. I feel we sould be expanding and pushing those rules and look for photos that do just that. I would really like other peoples views on this (especially the judges). Are we as a photographic society smothering creativity by saying if it isn't following specific critria that it isn't a photo that should be consideredas a beautiful photo?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jane M |
There are no official rules as far as I know, the unofficial rules are based on what looks good to most people. It's no different from painting (which has rule of thirds, etc) which hasn't stopped the Picassos and Pollocks from being recognized as great work.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sharon Day |
Yes, I'm smothered LOL. I'm not big on the rule of thirds, but so as not to offend the composition police I try to use said rule in most of my shots. That's not to say I want to shoot scenics with the horizon split in half between land and sky but I don't think a small subject always looks best in the power points.
|
|
|
|
||
- Dennis Flanagan Contact Dennis Flanagan Dennis Flanagan's Gallery |
There are no rules, just suggestions on what makes it look interesting. I compose in my viewfinder in the way I thing looks best. I started as a photo student 20 some years ago and never heard of the rules of thirds until BP. But I was using it all along. The most important rule is be true to yourself and shoot the way you think has impact. It would be very boring if everyone shot the same thing the same way.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
(lighting, composure, exposure...) lighting, composition, exposition... The only thing that's called a rule is rule of thirds, and that's not even an actual rule. There never were any.
|
|
|
|
||
|
anonymous A. |
The so-called rules don't smother photography: they enhance it. Take enough photographs and you will make a good one from time to time without a jot of talent. Look at great photographs long enough and you find that certain ways of lighting, arranging the elements etc. are common to these examples of graphic art, including those that break the mould and surprise us: they have exploited these "rules" to gain a new look, a different message or perspective. The rules don't lock us in; they help us break out by giving us a language to explore the image and better understand how to capture the aspects of the worlds we interact with through our lenses.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
Well, there are rules. There are rules of physics that require certian elements. Lighting is one. The relationship between the aperture and shutter speed, combined with the amount of light is what creates the image. And, this is both science and art. There are physical realities that exist no matter how creative you are. You can't adjust aperture without also adjusting shutter speed for the same exposure level. So, understanding the physical science of photography is very important to creating the art. Especially as it relates to light; which is all photography is is the capture of reflective light. Composition is only a creative act, and there are no rules, as others have pointed out, only suggesitons on what seems to look better than other things. Of course, however, you must remember that this is a construct, and not really true. HTH
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
There ARE defined rules in photography. There are however, only guidelines to determine what is art and what is considered artistic talent,...biased heavily by opinion. Many would agree that if true art were limited to specific "rules"...folks like Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger and others would be selling used cars. The rules in photography are that the the image must be technically accurate...(exposure, composition, focus) and convey the message that was intended.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
A 1/3 stop under with exposure with slide to make color a little extra saturated isn't accurate. And I'd like to see you explain how you're going to measure composition accuracy. But it's really nothing but generallities of appealing elements that come from shared experiences and shared human conditions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
David A. Richard |
Thanks for all that has responded. I agree with most of everyone here about generalities of photography but I feel we limit ourselves to trying so hard to "pose" the perfect photo that we lose site of what is really beautiful. Don't get me wrong posed shot are really beautiful but it is the candids that really make people smile. I think we lose something when we force people or things into what we think they should look. JMO
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mike Rubin |
The rules were made to be broken. If the final image is what you were striving for then it is good. Proper exposure is subjective, Do you want the image a little darker, or lighter to convey a mood?. Althought I think there is a lot to be said about the "Rule of thirds", Most images shot with that in mind are mor pleasing to look at.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jerry Frazier |
I'm not sure what you mean...my entire business and style is based on not posing. So, I am doing what you are trying to discover. Simply don't pose people, and sell it that way, and clients who want that will find you. People who want Monte Zucker style posing and all WILL NOT CALL ME because there's nothing on my website that looks that way. There might be a few photos that look posed, but they are not. Other than say, "go over there and sit down", I don't pose.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||