There are many people out there that believe in very hard fast rules when it comes to taking a picture and feel that if those rules are not followed, that their images will not be considered "GOOD". Well, let me totally destroy that notion in one phrase. All of the greatest photos ever done BROKE with convention. My suggestion is the following. Whenever you are about to press the shutter for a planned shot, STOP! Ask yourself the following questions. Is what I am about to capture something that is different in approach to what I have seen before? Is it really what I am feeling at the moment or am I more worried about the technique than the substance? Could I not approach this subject from a totally different perspective? Perhaps imagine that you are an ant with a camera or a giant towering over the subject matter. Maybe the subject you are focusing on should take a secondary role in the image allowing the banal to take precedent. Perhaps this would add an interesting counterpoint to your theme.
If you are shooting a beautiful landscape, try adding an element that enhances the message with a garbage bag in the foreground to add a message to your statement. You could add some humor by bringing a plastic picnic table and chairs with plastic flowers as the foreground with the perfectly gorgeous backdrop of mountains, streams and towering trees...! Counterpoint is a very powerful tool in any mode of expression. Always attempt to observe your intent when you are about to commit to the pressing of "The Shutter". It is a very important decision that may live on after you have left this dimension. So the next time you take a photo, remember that it is a reflection of who you are and how you view the world around you.
I like your recent series of posts that are instructional as well as passing on your experience.
Most of them don't seem to be the kind that we reply to, but I'm replying to say I think they are valuable and also so that they get bumped up to stay on page 1 for a while.
Creativity will start with the conception of an idea. If the concept or composition of a shot feels weak beforehand, then it should be thought out. Merely adding an element haphazardly right before the shot will do very little to a shot, except maybe confuse or clutter a shot.
i think this can be very wise advice but in the same way that saying "always follow the rules of photography," it's not always valid to "break the rules of photography"-after all, if my vision happens to work by using the rule of thirds or by using a hair light to get separation from the background, why is that any less valid than using very unconventional methods? i think there's room for both
i would disagree with the statement that ALL of the greatest photographs broke the rules-i don't find that to be true-it's certainly true for many but not all of them-some of the great documentary photographers utilized the rules, for instance, to create brilliant photographs
i'm not writing to say i disagree with your post-it's useful perspective but you write in such a way as to say that you HAVE to break the rules-that's just as limiting as sticking to the rules ONLY-every photographer should follow their own vision, what they want to say-if a beautiful landscape shot says what they want to say, why do they need to add a chair for humor? that sounds like your vision-it could work for some but i just want to call for balance in the discussion so that it's not all of one and none of the other
hope this helps balance the thread-thanks for your thoughts, benjikan
radioblurs wrote:
i think this can be very wise advice but in the same way that saying "always follow the rules of photography," it's not always valid to "break the rules of photography"-after all, if my vision happens to work by using the rule of thirds or by using a hair light to get separation from the background, why is that any less valid than using very unconventional methods? i think there's room for both
i would disagree with the statement that ALL of the greatest photographs broke the rules-i don't find that to be true-it's certainly true for many but not all of them-some of the great documentary photographers utilized the rules, for instance, to create brilliant photographs
i'm not writing to say i disagree with your post-it's useful perspective but you write in such a way as to say that you HAVE to break the rules-that's just as limiting as sticking to the rules ONLY-every photographer should follow their own vision, what they want to say-if a beautiful landscape shot says what they want to say, why do they need to add a chair for humor? that sounds like your vision-it could work for some but i just want to call for balance in the discussion so that it's not all of one and none of the other
hope this helps balance the thread-thanks for your thoughts, benjikan
Thanks for your very wise and illuminating words Daniel. I do agree, that it helps to know the rules to understand which rules you are breaking. But more often than not, accidents may set the new precedent and become the next rule to be broken .
Maybe the subject you are focusing on should take a secondary role in the image allowing the banal to take precedent. Perhaps this would add an interesting counterpoint to your theme.
Banal is on of my favorite adjectives. Serendipity is one of my favorite nouns.
Banal applies to way too many photos, because many people are more interested in rules than serendipitous creativity.
When a photograph is visually appealing it's because of a lot of factors which cannot be broken down into rules for they will often be mutually exclusive, they'll contradict each other, or they simply may not work.
A photograph is ultimately an aesthetic experience and there has never really been any consensus on what codes constitute the perfect aesthetic experience due to variance in people's preference, expectations, education, and previous experience with 'art'.
The 'rules' we've created serve a function, but they're by no means any kind of limitation.
Edit:
And in response to your first post, Benjikan, I think what you're talking about is the creation of art - a very purposeful and rational attempt at going through a process to bring a vision into the world through craft.
A lot of photography seems like a reaction, a quick response to an action, or an impulse, whereas I think the sort of mindful and careful consideration you're speaking of is what will really lead to the production of what can truly be called art
Andrew Burnett wrote:
When a photograph is visually appealing it's because of a lot of factors which cannot be broken down into rules for they will often be mutually exclusive, they'll contradict each other, or they simply may not work.
A photograph is ultimately an aesthetic experience and there has never really been any consensus on what codes constitute the perfect aesthetic experience due to variance in people's preference, expectations, education, and previous experience with 'art'.
The 'rules' we've created serve a function, but they're by no means any kind of limitation.
Edit:
And in response to your first post, Benjikan, I think what you're talking about is the creation of art - a very purposeful and rational attempt at going through a process to bring a vision into the world through craft.
A lot of photography seems like a reaction, a quick response to an action, or an impulse, whereas I think the sort of mindful and careful consideration you're speaking of is what will really lead to the production of what can truly be called art
great advice everyone. I had a gal approach me a while back that used to go to the same school I did (she is much younger) about getting into fashion photography. I told her to start to visit FM and if fashion is what she wants to check out some of your posts Ben.
She has enjoyed reading and learning
Keep it coming, fashion type stuff may not be everyone's cup of tea but their is always something to learn.
Doug
A thought: for those among us who are relative beginners and are still learning, following the rules has value. You get a basic toolkit of experience upon which to draw, and said rules guide a photographer to the safe middle ground that is pleasing to the eye for most people. There's a time and place for the 'corporate headshot' with perfect rembrandt or loop lighting. How can one know which "rules" to break, and where and how to break them, yet still create a compelling image, if one does not know the "rules" to begin with?
Jim Rickards wrote:
I like your recent series of posts that are instructional as well as passing on your experience.
Most of them don't seem to be the kind that we reply to, but I'm replying to say I think they are valuable and also so that they get bumped up to stay on page 1 for a while.
! Counterpoint is a very powerful tool in any mode of expression. Always attempt to observe your intent when you are about to commit to the pressing of "The Shutter". It is a very important decision that may live on after you have left this dimension. So the next time you take a photo, remember that it is a reflection of who you are and how you view the world around you.
