As I’m planning my next book (it’s going to be the best one yet!) I’m going over my photos and earlier writings. This blog is one of the sources for the book and as I was reading my posts from last year I came across one I thought deserves another look. Not so much because of the post itself but mainly because of the conversation that followed it.

Posted September 2008 by Nitsa
Nitsa breaks the rules.

Someone asked me a few days ago a simple question about breaking the rules of photography, which reminded me I haven’t talked about the rules for quite some time now. I guess I moved on, or at least tried to, after I finished my book:
No rules street photography. I thought everything had been said already and now it was understood and clear and I can rest on my laurels. But obviously there’s no rest for the wicked.
So this simple question about breaking the rules of photography irritated me a bit. In fact, I get a little annoyed when people talk about breaking the rules. Mainly because of the obvious fact that in order to break the rules you must first learn them dull rules. duh!.
While my great theory is pretty much based on the idea that we don’t need any trivial rule (or a guideline or a suggestion, or a tip ) to make lovely photos.
So why bother even learning these rules? Isn’t it all just a remarkable waste of time? Time that could be spent taking lovely photos.
The truth is that most people believe they need the rules, or at least some kind of uniformity and structure in order to learn the basics of photography and to become a good photographer who can then break the rules and/or make their own rules.
I promise you I heard it so many time “good photographers make their own rules” that I will surely cry if I hear it again.
Good photographers don’t make any rules they just make good photos.
And let me say this: if one is going to learn photography from a book or from a teacher with an objective to follow someone else’s idea of good photography, they are less likely to take chances, dare or come up with their own style and approach.

So don’t break’em just ignore them.
Rules? What rules? What are you talking about?

Pepper Beaumont

http://pepperbeaumont.blogspot.com/

I agree 100%!

****************************************

Stephen BRAY

http://pebblesfromparadise.com

This is very funny coming on the day that I downloaded a piece of software from the Royal Photographic Society that ‘trains’ you in the ‘rules’ necessary to become a licentiate.

The software includes a series of examples in which you’re invited to click boxes to determine if the ‘faults’ you find are the same ones as their ‘august’ examiners.

Whilst it seems relatively easy to go out and take a series of shots that meet the RPS criteria I doubt that anything ‘original’ would be achieved by doing so?

Stephen

****************************************

matt haines
http://matthainesphotography.com |

If you’re just starting out in photography, you haven’t yet learned how to think about photography. One benefit to following ‘the rules’ (a slippery bunch, those rules) is that it gets you thinking about images, and how to make them. How flexible someone becomes later on in bending or breaking the rules is another thing entirely. But rules, for a lot of people, are helpful guidance when the options are too varied and too meaningless.

Because let’s face it, when a person first dives into photography, they take pictures of everything. My son, who’s five, shoots with a film camera (natch) and takes pictures of everything. The cat. His feet. A bug that’s across the street. He hasn’t learned how to think about good images yet. He sees something that interests him as a physical object, and attempts to record it. Period.

Now, he could spend the next ten years shooting his feet and the cat, and slowly developing a set of rules to follow through trial and error. Yes, they’re rules, even if he makes them up himself. Or he could get some pointers from dear old dad about how to take better pictures.

So far I’m letting him waste film on his own, and haven’t given too many pointers (except perhaps, not to shoot ten frames in a row of the sleeping cat, as he’s not getting another roll of film right away).

Nitsa, while you might no like the thought, you’ve got your own photographic rules you follow. I know this, because I know every photographer who’s been doing it long enough, has their own internal rules. They might not be something you’ve written down, but they’re there. Even if it’s something as non-rule-sounding as “use my Holga, then overlay the image with a texture.” You don’t do that all the time of course, but it’s a frequent road you take to a finished image. In my mind, that’s a rule.

The photo above appears to be following some more widespread ‘rules’ too. You’ve got a significant diagonal in there with the roof line, and you’ve framed the building with the tree. And you’ve broken one too, which is that you’ve put the tower dead center in the image. You might not be consciously aware of these rules when you’re shooting, but you’re subconsciously aware.

I recall a few years ago when I belonged to a local amateur camera club (before I decided to make a living at this). I got so annoyed when a judge critiqued a fellow photographer’s image, because it had the subject dead center. “Oh you should have used the rule of thirds here, for a more dynamic composition” said the judge. But in this case, the subject matter was the ceiling of a building, with an ornate, very symmetrical dome. It made total sense for the image to be perfectly centered. But the judge dinged the image based on an ‘official rule’, rather than taking a case-by-case approach to photography.

I think perhaps that good photographers – you included – internalize rules rather than simply ignore them. They become part of your subconscious, and they’re available if you need them, but you’re not beholden to them. You form new rules when you try an experiment that works. And you discount rules that yield nothing. But I think they’re there.

****************************************

conglom

http://www.artistlies.com

Matt, I think you’re confusing “rules” with “style.” Everyone does shoot according to their own style, and style definitely takes time to develop. Newcomers tend to have very little style, and that’s why they tend to take pictures of everything — but you can learn the “rules” in a day of study, without ever picking up a camera.

****************************************

matt haines

http://matthainesphotography.com

I don’t think i’m confusing “rules” and “style”. I think I’m saying that “style” is actually a set of rules one chooses to follow. I think most of elements of a photographer’s style, if expressed verbally in an adequate manner, can be considered rules. After all there’s nothing magical or innate about The Rule Of Thirds. But enough artists and photographers incorporate it into their work, that it’s considered a ‘rule’. If you incorporate it into the way you shoot, then that ‘rule’ is part of your ’style’.

Style is the set of artistic decisions you make on a regular basis. Those decisions are governed by internal rules, including rules on when to break other rules. The fact that some rules are widely considered rules and others are very personal and unique, is just a question of popularity. I still say they’re rules.

****************************************

conglom

http://www.artistlies.com

So to you, everything is basically a rule, because you must be shooting for SOME reason, and whatever it is about a scene that caught your eye can be described as a rule?

That sounds like a very strict way of living!

****************************************

matt haines

http://matthainesphotography.com

Strict only if you think about each ‘rule’ consciously. A good photographer sublimates all the rules he/she has formed, so that they guide on a subconscious level. I haven’t suggested that; quite the opposite.

I think that claiming there are no rules sounds good and rebellious. But you don’t escape rules. Which is fine, because rules aren’t bad, they’re good: we use them to help guide our decisions, so we don’t have to start from square one every time we pick up a camera. Even to say “I don’t follow the rules” is simply a rejection of a certain set of rules, in favor of others.

Perhaps the problem you’re having with this is that you’re interpreting rules too strictly. A rule is a pathway, an option. There are rules that govern the selection of other rules. We create rules for living constantly, and they get modified all the time.

For example, “as a rule” I like to shoot people. However I don’t always shoot people. Am I breaking my own rule? Well…yes, but so what? If I’m alone in the desert with my camera, I have a different set of rules I use to guide my photography. It’s either that or be stuck with self-portraits! So I’m in the desert, I’m looking for form and shadow, rather than sunlight on hair and and facial expressions. Do I think about this consciously? Sometimes, sometimes not. But it’s all rules.

Perhaps “No Rules” simply means: disregard the most popular rules you’ve read about, and go make your own rules. It does however help to know what the common rules are, so you can then decide from a position of awareness (as opposed to accident or ignorance) whether or not the rule is useful to you.

****************************************

matt haines

http://matthainesphotography.com

I’ll shut up now. I’m taking up too much comment space on someone else’s blog, which is a bit rude of me.

****************************************

Massimo

http://blog.ornitorinko.org

Well, it was an interesting discussion. I tend to agree that we unconsciously make our own “rules”, but in most cases they are so internalized that we are not aware of them. A good photo just “feels right”. Maybe there is a set of shortcuts our brain takes to achieve that feeling, which are built through experience (see what works and what doesn’t). Some people build these instincts reading standardized “rules” from some book (hence all these photos looking the same). Others are more free in spirit and intuition, and appears less constrained by their own style. I tend to prefer the last kind…

****************************************

conglom

http://www.artistlies.com

Nitsa doesn’t comment on her own blog much so don’t worry about taking up space. And at least we aren’t just saying “nice photo” which you know she loves.

I think it’s a semantic debate because I don’t agree with your definition of rules. I think you’re too loose with that word, because a rule by definition is something that you are SUPPOSED to do — hence, if you don’t, you are doing something wrong. Sure you can say there are all these different rules for different situations, but if there are so many different rules because everyone has their own, then the word doesn’t mean a whole lot anymore.

I believe that there is something to be said for understanding why you enjoy a particular piece of art. That’s what makes the difference between something great and just a pretty picture. The pretty picture might follow rules of the external or internal sort, but that’s not enough — inspiration is not about rules, and without inspiration, you just get pretty pictures. With inspiration, the rules aren’t going to make a lick of difference, although they may help critics analyze the work afterwards. That’s where they’re the most helpful, I think. For the critics.

****************************************