Hi, Monday, December 30, 2002, 7:46:30 PM, you wrote:
> Mike wrote: >> There is not even one single definable compositional rule that either a) >> always results in a successful photograph or b) cannot be directly violated >> in a successful photograph. Not _one_. Furthermore, there is almost no case >> in which one successful photograph cannot closely resemble, in terms of >> geometrical composition, a much less successful photograph. Think about it. > You're mixing good composition with sucessful image. This involves subject matter >and whether the subject mature or immature. An immature subject, like bigfoot, UFO, >Loch Ness monster or anything > rare enough, will be considered sucessful almost regardless whereas a sunset shot by >the same principles will be considered a failure. Still, when bigfoot images becomes >common a badly composed one > will be destined for the trash. The rules for composition applies even if not so >well composed images may be considered sucessful in spite of faults. I think there is also some confusion in people's minds about the equivocal meanings of words such as 'rules' and 'laws' in phrases like 'rules of composition' and 'laws of physics'. They are not rules or laws in the same sense as 'keep off the grass'. Furthermore, rules of composition are not the same as laws of physics. Rules of composition are rules of thumb, that's all. Knowledge of them, whether you follow them or not, will improve your chances of making a successful photograph, other things being equal. The divine proportion is at least as useful as 'fill the frame' in this respect. --- Bob "Our heads are round so that our thoughts can fly in any direction" Francis Picabia
