I guess it depends on how good an "eye" one has. Some people have an innate ability to design beautiful images. Others struggle. For the latter, the rules can help. And sometimes they can lead to a realization of innate abilities. Cameras tend to confuse new photographers. The focusing fresnel or split screen is in the center of the viewfinder. When shooting a portrait, newbies tend to place the center of the viewfinder at the model's eyes. It's a mindless response to the way the equipment was constructed, but the application of a simple rule can help resolve that. Ultimately, that photographer might find that they have an innate vision that will express itself. But a few simple rules can help them find it. Paul Stenquist
Mike Johnston wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > Mike, I don't believe anybody has made these claims during this > > discussion. On the contrary, people have repeatedly pointed out > > the ambiguity in the word 'rule' and warned against misinterpreting > > it. But you've continued wilfully to misrepresent the position and set > > it up as a straw man just to knock it down. > > Bob W., > But I have NOT done that. I'm simply applying a simple, basic empirical > test. If a "rule" doesn't help and ignoring it doesn't hurt, then what > possible good is it??? > > If you're saying that in some cases it might work and thus might or might > not be applied, and in other cases it might not work so might need to be > rejected, then what in the world is the difference between that and simply > photographing freely "by eye" without recourse to such rules of thumb?? > > --Mike
