Mike you obviously don't get the point here that I and others have been trying to make. This e-mail suggests to me that you obviously know the rules.
These rules, being generalized, have to be broad. Thus they are >things like "the eye must have a way into the picture, so don't cut off >the >foreground," or "place objects one-third from one border and two-thirds >from >the other," and "focus on the front eye" and "don't cut peoples' heads >off" >and "blur out confusing backgrounds" and Lordy, I don't know what-all. > However, You seem to think that we are suggesting that if you don't follow the rules of composition your pictures will be not be any good. NO ONE IS SAYING THIS. What we are saying is that there are "rules" or whatever you want to call them --let's call them guidelines instead. If you take the time to learn them and use them your photography will improve. Once you learn them and you develop an eye for composition feel free to break them. I made it clear that some of the best photos are the ones that break the rules because they go against conventional thinking. But it really helps to know the guidelines to break them effectively. As an aside: I don't think photography is as complex as many other "arts." Once you understand the basic technical aspects of photography like exposure and depth of field, COMPOSITION becomes the most imporyant trait that sets you apart from every other photographer. We spend a lot of time here discussing the technical aspects of photography and very little about the artistic side which includes composition. Composition and the guidelines that come with it should be much more important to new photographers than what lens to buy next.. Vic In a message dated 1/1/03 2:51:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I just think that when you're talking about "rules of composition," you're >talking about standardized ways of arranging subject-matter when you shoot >a >picture. These rules, being generalized, have to be broad. Thus they are >things like "the eye must have a way into the picture, so don't cut off >the >foreground," or "place objects one-third from one border and two-thirds >from >the other," and "focus on the front eye" and "don't cut peoples' heads >off" >and "blur out confusing backgrounds" and Lordy, I don't know what-all. > >The fact is, nobody can possibly name a single "rule of thumb" a) such >that >it will usefully improve pictures in all situations where it can be applied >and b) such that pictures which do not conform to the rule will not be >strong or successful or good or whatever positive word you want to use. > >Furthermore, I personally contend that reflexively applying any such "rules >of thumb" is just as likely to blind the photographer to recognizing other >possibilities. > >The last time in even semi-serious photography that rules of composition >were taken seriously were in the "serious amateur" journals of the 1930s >and >1940s. "Compositional guidelines" were much beloved of writers for these >journals and "posing guides" were actually sold for money. An example I >have >in front of me right now, _The American Annual of Photography 1935_, >published by American Photographic Publishing Company of Boston, features >nicely-made photographs and a few that retain some small interest, in some >cases incidentally. Most are pictorialist, stiff, posed, pretty, hackneyed, >careful, trite, or superficial. Apart from Leonard Misonne, I don't >immediately notice any names of photographers I know or that we still look >at today--although sometimes one will indeed come across a famous name >in >one of these old journals. > >For the most part, this vein was mined thoroughly by the 1950s and most >photographers began to see that far more photographic possibilities existed >where the standardized approaches were done away with entirely and a sense >of freedom and discovery were substituted. This freedom is simply taken >for >granted today; no photograph is necessarily dismissed because it isn't >pretty or posed, standardized in some way, or explicable in terms of a >set >of guidelines. > >I'm not saying it's _wrong_ for anybody to make nice pretty pictures. My >position is that photography belongs to no one, no one has the right to >tell >others what to do or not do, and, as long as it's not immoral or destructive >or illegal, anybody can photograph anything they want to however they >please. If anybody wants to make a list of rules and figure out eight things >they'll allow themselves to photograph, well, it's not for me to tell 'em >not to. They can knock themselves out. > >But I most definitely do _not_ think that good photographers are merely >"unconsciously" or "instinctively" following all of these rules. Quite >the >contrary: I think that the rules themselves are deleterious to good work, >and that each situation ought to be approached in any way you can devise >or >invent to try to make it new or unique or interesting or just pleasing >to >yourself. The challenge is not to make something pretty according to a >set >of rules; the challenge is to do something that is somehow distinctive >to >your own tastes or concerns and does _not_ look like eighty thousand >pictures of the same thing already made by others. > >Just my $.02; like I say, I don't own photography and if somebody wants >to >do the exact opposite of what I suggest, they've got a perfect right. > >--Mike > >
