Do we take rules waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously?

L

lukewoodford

FYI, I am Luke Woodford.....by Luke Woodford
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,320
Name
Luke Woodford
Edit My Images
No
So I was watching America's next top model the other night. The shoot was on a boat with the sea horizon in the backgorund. Now it was all over the place, from totally at an angle to just off horizontal. Now I know for a fact if the ones with slightly wonky horizons were posted on here the first thing people would say is it needs a straighten yet these are photographers earning millions and what they do obviously works so you don't need to in EVERY situation.

Now I never went to college or university to study photography, which actually im extremely happy about because I didn't have tutors drumming these rules into my head. I believe just buying a camera and learning has meant I can be way more creative than I would have been. Its like when we are young we are told to go to school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids, we believe this because it's what we are told but we have a far more interesting life if we don't follow that path (in most cases).

Please don't get me wrong, I can see why alot of rules are in place and the rule of thirds does help my composition alot of the time but do we take all the photography rules way to seriously? If a pictures is posted with a slightly blown highlight the first reaction will be- "shame about that blown highlight". Does it really matter??
 
lukewoodford said:
..... If a pictures is posted with a slightly blown highlight the first reaction will be- "shame about that blown highlight". Does it really matter??
Click to expand...
Nope... not at all... I posted a similar comment in a portrait thread a few days ago. It is annoying, as you say, that when an image is posted say slightly blown, the first comment is as you stated above.

If you like the image, then that's fine.
 
theMusicMan said:
Nope... not at all... I posted a similar comment in a portrait thread a few days ago. It is annoying, as you say, that when an image is posted say slightly blown, the first comment is as you stated above.

If you like the image, then that's fine.
Click to expand...

Yes thats what I men, I do think it can affect an image but I don't think most people say it because of that, I think it's said because its what they think is meant to be correct or what they think they are meant to say.
 
Simple answer is no it doesn't matter. IMO the rules are there to help any guide people to get a good image, quite often the best shots I see break many of thes "rules".

However, it comes to the skill of the tog, the key is knowing when to follow and when to break the rules.
 
Indeed rules are guides, break them if the image is better suited without the rule.

I get a bit fed up with the 'There's only one true way to take a photo' shpeel.

That's why the extreme purism approach bums me out, the truth is there are many ways to achieve the same result and there is no singular way to do anything.
 
It's all art, innit.

One man's meat is another man's cheeseshop, and all that.

As an example:

My father is jolly clever, and we went to see a Damien Hirst exhibition. It was rubbish. Now - if you think I can talk bowl locks, you should meet my dad. At one point he pointed out a fire-extinguisher to me, and started pontificating on it's aggressive masculinity, thrusting up into the feminine air, as a clearly post-modern comment on the emasculation of the alpha male blah blah blah blah.

Within about 10 minutes, there were six or seven people standing around ear-wigging, nodding, and stroking their beards in appreciation.

This is my point.

"The highlights are blown"

"No it's meant to be like that"

"It's under-exposed"

"I wanted it dark"

Etc etc.

What is it they say about critics? "If you can't do, criticise."
 
There's an old saying "rules are meant to be broken", whether you agree with or not will probably depend on if you are a traffic policeman or not :lol: :police: :(
 
Context is everything.

If you frame your photo and put it in an art gallery, people will either like it, or not like it. - Either way they will assume that you meant it to look the way it does, that you have considered the image, exposure, cropping etc.

If you post it on a photography forum, people will assume that you did not notice the wonky horizon or the blown highlight. They may think the colour cast is a mistake and not intentional.

My advice, if you wish to avoid this sort of thing is to explain your thinking when you post. That way you will get the type of feedback you want. After all some people are new to this and may not have noticed some of the things that may improve their image.

Rules are indeed made to be broken - but it is still worth learning them. You can't push the boundaries if you don't know where they are.
 
Myky D said:
It's all art, innit.

One man's meat is another man's cheeseshop, and all that.

As an example:

My father is jolly clever, and we went to see a Damien Hirst exhibition. It was rubbish. Now - if you think I can talk bowl locks, you should meet my dad. At one point he pointed out a fire-extinguisher to me, and started pontificating on it's aggressive masculinity, thrusting up into the feminine air, as a clearly post-modern comment on the emasculation of the alpha male blah blah blah blah.

Within about 10 minutes, there were six or seven people standing around ear-wigging, nodding, and stroking their beards in appreciation.

This is my point.

"The highlights are blown"

"No it's meant to be like that"

"It's under-exposed"

"I wanted it dark"

Etc etc.
Click to expand...

:lol: I like the sound of your Pap, I'd get on well with him I reckon :)


Myky D said:
What is it they say about critics? "If you can't do, criticise."
Click to expand...

Very true :thumbs:
 
SimonTALM said:
However, it comes to the skill of the tog, the key is knowing when to follow and when to break the rules.
Click to expand...

Isn't it knowing your audience?

Whilst I love discussing technique with other 'togs, it's a great way to learn new things to try/how not to do things that irritate, at the end of it all the image only has to appeal to the audience you're aiming at. Usually that ain't 'togs and they wouldn't know a blown highlight from a groovy washed out effect unless you told 'em.

Many of my favourite pics are techincally crap. Go figure. :thinking:
 
To me photography is an art not a science and the picture that may break the 'rules' but is more pleasing to the viewer is worth 10 of the perfectly setup pics that are forgotten about a minute after you look at them. Photographs that have a meaning or feeling to them even if it's just to the person that took the picture and not to the viewer are just as credible as the perfect shots in my opinion.

Not sure I have really explained what I mean as well as I'd like but that's my tuppence on it anyway :thumbs:.
 
Did anyone see the Channel Four series of Photographer Idol or whatever?

The two finalists were: A: A girl who was a photography student, and ace ace ace at what she did. Not that being a student mattered, she was just utterly fab at operating a camera and manipulating light, and took great photos - clear, concise, and often playful - like scenes from nursery rhymes or similar.

B: an amateur woman, ex-alcoholic, who wasn't very au fait with either a camera or how to do anything with it. She mainly took photos of herself, recreating scenes from when she was really drunk, as a form of therapy, and they were generally off-angle, blurry, under/over exposed etc.

The ex-alcoholic won, because, er ... I honestly can't remember how she won.

The prize was your own book and exhibition. Her exhibition? A series of pictures of, er ... the feet ... of ex-alcoholic women ...

Erm ...

As I said - it's all "art", innit.
 
Lets put this into perspective...

There's a swimsuit photoshoot and you're looking at the horizons? :shrug:
 
Byker28i said:
Lets put this into perspective...

There's a swimsuit photoshoot and you're looking at the horizons? :shrug:
Click to expand...

:lol: There musings of a true photog IMO, picture the scene, a semi naked female posing and giving her best gold and the true photog is thinking 'Hmmm, expression, composition, angles, exposure...:thinking:'
 
I think the main problem is when people are trying to get the horizon level and it isn't. If the shot is aimed not to be horizontal it's fine.

From my point of view photography rules are normally suggestions and/or aids meant to help, not regulate
 
theres a def a point in going against the grain but almost every great artist has first learnt the rules in order to understand when and why to break them. have a look at picasso's early work, like when he was 15. he stormed through art school. he was simply awesome and could do figurative work standing on his head, he certainly tore up the rule book later but first he learnt the rules.

which is not to say you cant get by without not learning the rules (!?) just that understanding why they exist can often help when you want to break them
 
"Rules" are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools.

The wise will consider them before going and doing their own thing, the fool will follow them blindly believing they will make them good.
 
Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit....





...Wisdom is knowing NOT to put it in a fruit salad :thumbs:

Same thing with rules - knowing what they are is great, knowing how and when to use them or otherwise is even better :clap:

I was thumbing through one of the 'tog mags this lunchtime (can't remember which one exactly :thinking:) but there was a whole section of breaking the "rules":naughty:
 
well anyone can break the rules that is easy...

but the art is knowing what the rules are and when to break them . and if breaking them works ..;) imo


only he person taking the shot knows if they wanted to blow the highlights / or they got it wrong and thought ahh well it will be ok .. or it works better now...


a prime example of this is b+w's how many people go out to shoot a b+w and how many people look at a shot back home on the pc and think ill try that in a b+w it will work well....

again making the best of a bad situation;)

so break by all means but know what your breaking and why imho ;)


md:thumbs:



or what was said above lol
 
If the image is good enough.... rules do not matter.

If all the image has got to say for itself is technique... rules matter a lot.

It is important to understand "rules" and "technical skills" .... it make life easier and more certain for the times that such things are important.

However they should never be let to get in the way of the image, or destroy its meaning.
 
barbossa%201.jpg


Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway....

Yarrrr...
 
similar with motorsport as the one everyone seems to post is shutter speed too high cos the wheels arent blurred (esp in rally or motox) you can see the movement in the pic from the crap (dirt, dust or even sprat) coming out the rear yet people still seem to say it
 
Gonetae said:
To me photography is an art not a science and the picture that may break the 'rules' but is more pleasing to the viewer is worth 10 of the perfectly setup pics that are forgotten about a minute after you look at them. Photographs that have a meaning or feeling to them even if it's just to the person that took the picture and not to the viewer are just as credible as the perfect shots in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.

I remember when I took A level art, the very first piece of advice we were given was : the main rule of art is that there are no rules. The second thing we were told was if you like it, then it's good; it doesn't matter about the technicalities. I tend to stick to that :)
 
Byker28i said:
Lets put this into perspective...

There's a swimsuit photoshoot and you're looking at the horizons? :shrug:
Click to expand...


This is a valid point

In this instance the subject is the model, the background is there to add interest and not distract from the subject so it doesn't matter what angle the sea is at - it's 'Art' and it's 'Fashion'

Had it been landscape photography though, then well wonky can be ok but a fraction of a degree out is just plain 'wrong'

As for MyKy D's who makes these 'Rules'? I suspect the answer is... we all do

Given a range of images of the same subject, I'm guessing the majority will go for subjects/horizons on a 3rd; and level ones too when it's obviously just-off level, etc.

And by 'us' - I don't mean just we photographers, but the general buying public too, as I suspect a good composition image in Ikea or M&S that adheres to the 'rules' sells more than those that don't. So while I have seen plenty of wonky angles in such shops, I can't recall ever seeing a just-off

Majority Rules - and is often wrong too where artistic interpretation is needed

Whinging about the technicalities of 'blown' or not is more of a novice thing & is very common in club competitions where 'correct' is taught as a strict 'Rule' - artier types know when blown/blocked up can be ok

(Well that's my excuse for getting it wrong anyway ;))

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
This is a valid point

Majority Rules - and is often wrong too where artistic interpretation is needed
Click to expand...

Well this is the issue, isn't it?

How is it possible to be "wrong" in "artistic interpretation"?

That strikes me as very much like saying "The music I like is better than the music you like.". Which is a better song - Sweet Child O'Mine by Guns N' Roses, or Time by Pink Floyd? Which has more soul - My Way by Frank Sinatra or Sid Vicious? Etc.

Which is more valid: "I like that photo and am prepared to pay 50p for it and will hang it in my kitchen" or "The TLHC is slightly noisy around the stem of the lightbulb"?
 
I agree with the majority, we're creating something that needs to captivate or interest people, the odd blown highlight or wonky horizon won't stop a great photo from being great.

However most people will point out these things on here if they feel it detracts from the photo or if it just doesn't work, it's all a matter of judgment and it's aim is to help the person who took the photo to improve.

You will also get people who criticise a photo for minor technical niggles just to find something wrong even if it's outstanding in all other regards, these people are asshats and thankfully I've not come across any on TP :)
 
The thing with rules is to know them before you start breaking them. A blown highlight is technically an overexposure - of that part of the image at least. Sometimes it's avoidable and sometimes it isn't and it doesn't necessarily mean a blown highlight ruins an otherwise good image. I've yet to see an image improved though by a blown highlight which could have been avoided, so whether we like it or not there are rules for determining exposure and our shots are usually the better for getting it right where we can.

No-ones suggesting the rules should be slavishly followed - if you're after a particular effect/result then go ahead and break them - just know them in the first place, at least you can respond to your critics with the reasons you broke the rules - if you can't, then the logical conclusion is you just got it wrong, however much you protest otherwise. ;)
 
CT said:
The thing with rules is to know them before you start breaking them. A blown highlight is technically an overexposure - of that part of the image at least. Sometimes it's avoidable and sometimes it isn't and it doesn't necessarily mean a blown highlight ruins an otherwise good image. I've yet to see an image improved though by a blown highlight which could have been avoided, so whether we like it or not there are rules for determining exposure and our shots are usually the better for getting it right where we can.

No-ones suggesting the rules should be slavishly followed - if you're after a particular effect/result then go ahead and break them - just know them in the first place, at least you can respond to your critics with the reasons you broke the rules - if you can't, then the logical conclusion is you just got it wrong, however much you protest otherwise. ;)
Click to expand...

Well this is the thing - that's an entirely subjective statement.

Here's a pic where I've blown the highlights deliberately - in order to exemplify the stylisation:

2974918866_38dd14250f.jpg


I think the significant difference is between something that isn't to one's taste, and something that's "wrong".
 
Well there you go - you've explained why you did it. :shrug:
 
I remember posting a photo of a straightened Tower Of Pisa to have a wee dig at the compulsive wonky folk that commentated on my pics.

Now I always straighten horizons on landscapes and have nice vertical buildings.

I'll be checking the doors are locked half a dozen times next!
 
Mikesphotaes said:
I remember posting a photo of a straightened Tower Of Pisa to have a wee dig at the compulsive wonky folk that commentated on my pics.
Click to expand...

Were you, erm ... were you, ah, taking the pisa?

Personally the thing I find now is how difficult it is to look at a photo without at the very least being critical about it in my head. My friends will come back from holiday with their snaps, and my first reactions will be to think "BLurry. Blown highlights. Under exposed. Bad horizon. Bad composition" hahahaha
 
CT said:
Well there you go - you've explained why you did it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Did I need to explain, though? And if so, why?

Shirley one can only ever really make a subjective statement of one's taste as opposed to the exactitude of whether a photo - or indeed anything - conforms to any preconceived "rules".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top