Thoughts About Photography

Category: Thoughts about photography

Jul 29

No Rules photography

Whenever I visit the bookstore, I find every photography book out there talks about rules, guidelines and recommendations for better photography. There’s really no motivation behind these books other than teaching you how to make better photos, and they suggest doing so by shooting “correctly” or using Photoshop, or more often a combination of the two. Follow their teachings and in no time, you will command photography like a real pro.
Really?
So what do we have? We have books about the “basic rules for better photography”, “tips for sharp photos”, “composition for better digital photos” and “understanding exposure”. These books will even teach you how “to see creatively”.
Just buy the book and you will see things you haven’t seen before.

But don’t be surprised, there are in fact many people who insist art doesn’t have any rules (I guess I must have just imagined all these books, articles, websites and lectures about “good photography”), however, after claiming there are no rules in photography, they will immediately say something like “anyway, great photographers make their own rules” and if they are really confused they will state that “good photographers just break the rules”.
When people talk about “no rules” in photography they often talk about breaking the rules. If you search Google for “no rules photography” other than getting links to my sites and books, the only other result you see is “no rules= breaking the rules”.
Breaking the rules of course demands that you actually learn the rules, and you’d better learn them well. Or else you might not break them correctly.
Give me a break! (pun intended)

By the way, just so we are clear, Rules are not always called Rules, in fact very often they are hiding behind lovely and less provoking words such as: guidelines, tips, instructions, fundamentals, principles, recommendations and so on.
So keep that in mind.
OK, rules or not, the question still stands: why shouldn’t you follow the rules? We all want to make better photos, right?
So why not learn the conventions to good composition?
In fact it seems the common theory is that beginners need a set of rules or at least some kind of uniformity and structure in order to learn the basics of photography and help them achieve that greatness in photography.
And just then, once they rank Master Photographers they can set out to the wonderful road of breaking the rules…
I tell you; sometimes I think I live in the twilight zone.

And I promise you I heard it so many times “good photographers make their own rules” that I will surely cry if I hear it once 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 what is good photography, they are less likely to take chances, dare or
come up with their own style and approach.

So yes, we all want to make great photos but we are more likely to find them if we trust
our own drive and creative intuition.

7
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography no rules San Francisco street photography

Jul 11

Photographing people in street photography

Photographing strangers is one of the most challenging aspects of street photography.
Most frequently street photographers aim for candid shots; pictures taken without the subject’s knowledge, and quite often they are presented with a difficult decision whether to ask for permission, to secretly photograph people or maybe find some compromise between the two.
Most photographers will develop some method or another to deal with this challenge in a way that works best for them.
1) Some photographers choose to secretly photograph people; Walker Evans employed this method while photographing people in New York City in the 1930’s and 40’s hiding his camera under his coat and capturing his subjects through a buttonhole. After talking to many street photographers through emails and blogs, I find that many of them often choose to photograph people using this approach and though I’m not a fan of this method, I recognize why many photographers will choose to be unseen as it gives them a truly candid and authentic looking photos.
They will typically take pictures using automatic compact cameras or even telephoto lenses so they can photograph their subjects from a “safe distance”.
2) Other street photographers believe that sneaking on people is morally wrong and therefore should be avoided. They rather ask for permission before taking pictures of strangers, arguing that even if not candid, engaging with the subject will always yield better results. And sure enough this method works just fine sometimes and I agree it can actually be rather fun, not to say interesting, to meet and learn something about the people you are photographing. However this technique is certainly not always practical and speaking for myself, I’m not always in such a frame of mind to stop and chat with everybody I photograph.
3) Finally there are those street photographers who simply opt for the “fast shooter” method which consists of making quick snaps without attempting to hide or be unseen. This method can produce candid photos however eliminate the creepy factor. I know it because this is how I shoot for many years now. People simply don’t get offended or annoyed just because you picked up your camera and took a picture.
You are in public and taking pictures in public is legitimate and most people get it. But people get awfully suspicious and even angry if they notice you sneaking up on them like you’re doing something wrong. As a “rule” I avoid photographing people who don’t want to be photographed. It’s their right and I respect it. Now, if I was secretly photographing them I would have taken that right away from them. Though I have to mention that at times I take pictures of someone, who, for various reasons, just doesn’t notice me, but as I don’t take compromising, offensive or questionable pictures to begin with, the risk of ever upsetting anybody is quite minimal.
If you really think about it you will recognize this method of capturing street photos makes a lot of sense because it demands that you adjust to the energy of the streets; quickly recognize your potential scene and grab it.
With some practice you’ll be able to make your picture just as you imagined it and before the scene changes forever. You’d be surprised how positive people’s reaction can be in the face of your confidence and candor.
And it won’t hurt employing your cute smile as well

photographing people in street photography #2

photographing people in street photography #3

11
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography, street photos candid how to photograph people strangers street photograhy

Jun 13

Traveling with film or digital?

It’s not going to happen until fall but I’m already agonizing which camera to take when I’m going to Virginia. I mean, even with some obvious inconvenience I was ready to travel with film cameras in the past, but after coming back home from San Francisco once and finding out 4 rolls were blank, I decided, that’s it! I’m not going to travel with film anymore!
But now, at this point, I really don’t want to photograph VA with a digital camera! Bljhaa. Yeah well, it’s probably just me but nowadays I just don’t have the capacity to visualize great photos that are made of bits and pixels.
What to do? There must be a middle ground! Lucky me, I have a few more moths to fret about it.

Both of the above pictures were taken along the Mount Vernon Trail in Virginia during a biking trip from Alexandria to Mount Vernon (the home of George Washington). The majority of the trail stretches alongside the Potomac River.

9
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography digital film travel

Apr 13

Don’t buy expensive cheap cameras!

In the last few years toy cameras gained popularity among many photographers who enjoy their little imperfections and remarkable effects.
A few years back when I got interested in toy cameras, the Holga was definitely a cheap (i.e. inexpensive) plastic camera.
But shortly after, the Lomographic Society got involved and took over the concept and marketing of toy cameras and the prices went up, way up. Their prized possession is a plastic soviet camera called the Lomo LC-A which they have a monopoly over and currently sell at outrageous prices starting at $250 ($600 for the same camera gilded in 24-carat gold. Seriously!)
But don’t worry; they didn’t forget to price gouge the Holga as well. On their website you can get your Holga wrapped in some sort of a starter kit for a $100 and more.
And a word of caution here: For some unknown reason (called Profit) the Lomographic Society found it necessary to upgrade the original Lubitel 166 to something they call Lubitel 166+ and they sell for a low price of just $350. What a bargain!
Remember? We are still talking about PLASTIC cameras.
Smart people; no doubt, their profit margin calculator is working overtime.
But hey, why not? I mean, it’s a free market and if there are people who are willing to pay high prices for cheap cameras…then go for it.

Myself, I strongly believe photography should not be such an expensive trade/hobby and I constantly look for the most inexpensive solutions. I often buy my cameras at garage sales or second hand stores, I search for good deals on ebay or craigslist, I opt to modify the cameras myself, I look for expired or close-dated film (half priced!) etc.
And if I may, let me quickly recommend Freestyle Photographic Supplies where you can find toy cameras at great prices.

You can too, shop around, find out what’s out there and remember;
you don’t have to buy your cameras overstated and packaged with all sorts of unnecessary accessories.

Just something to think about before you decide to delve into the world of toy cameras.

PS. Feel free to share your suggestions for solutions and places to get toy cameras for bargain prices. (I’m going to include as many of them in my next book.)

You can find this article and many creative photo processes in my new book:
So Much More than Photography – eBook edition is now on sale for $10.
Get it here

4
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography, toy cameras buy cheap diana freestyle holga lomographic society Lubitel photographic supplies plastic camera shop toy cameras

Mar 31

Something about color photography

I’m not at all a big expert on color photography but one thing I learned from my experience is that it’s difficult to predict the colors captured by the color film ( or even the digital camera) because sometimes these colors are not seen by the human eye.

As you probably know, the human eye can only sense the three primary colors (blue, green and red), and we only see other colors through a mixture of these 3 colors.
Sometimes color photographs have unexpected results. This happens mainly because the eye tends to ignore the small differences in colors but the film records them “as is”.

A few weeks ago I was photographing in Hollywood at night and I have to say I was quite surprised to see the rich colors in some of these photos.
I mean, obviously there was some color shift due to long exposure, but still, how come I’ve never noticed these colors there before?
ha. I always thought these cement slabs of hand prints and footprints of the stars were gray!
Obviously I am very observant!

2
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography color Hollywood long exposure night

Dec 27

Read this or else!

First posted: April 2, 2009
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The following is a commentary I wrote in the last part of my book I am not an artist.
I think everybody should read it, not because I wrote it, but because there are a lot of people who just don’t know how good they are and/or they let fear and criticism stop them from doing things they really enjoy and wish to do.

And finally some final thoughts

So if you actually read through this book page by page, it ought to be apparent to you by now that all methods, practices, and suggestions presented here are simple and can be easily done, even by someone who considers themselves artistically challenged, maybe someone just like you.
It’s true that often people who see my work claim “you are a true artist!” but I know they are wrong; I am not an artist. What I am is an imaginative (Ok a dreamer) (but always resourceful) person whose brain does not stop coming up with ideas, sometimes just weird or impractical, but always pure fun.
And this is what it’s all about: F-U-N
In the first few years I just took pictures, for my pleasure no doubt, but also mainly because I felt like I HAD to. I tried photographing simultaneously to the energetic pace of the streets. It meant photographing while on the move without paying too much attention to the common rules of photography (you can read all about it in my previous book: No Rules Street Photography).
This has not changed much.

However, as I entered my fifth year of taking streets and city pictures, I became weary and even, yes, well, bored.
Not all the time though; when I traveled to new places it was great and exciting and I took pictures like there is no tomorrow. But around home things just did not feel so thrilling anymore. And even though I was slowly loosing interest, quitting photography was never an option. Instead I began looking for new (and possibly more stimulating) ways of taking pictures. I went to bookstores looking for the right book (didn’t find any). I visited many photography sites in search for new ideas. At my lowest I even read through a few discussions on a couple of photography forums (yes, those places where people sign up to complain about various obstacles in their fascinating life.)
But the solution, as so often happens, hit me in an entirely unexpected place.
It happened while standing in line at our local drugstore.
While standing in line, I noticed they were selling Polaroid cameras over there.
“That is it!” I said to myself, “New and fun cameras! This is exactly what I was looking for.”
Obviously, I bought the Polaroid, and it did not take long before I began shooting medium format film in toy cameras and hunt second hand stores and garage sales for classic cameras.
While shooting toy and classic cameras I realized the final photo does not have to be at all perfect, and I began looking for new ways to present my photos in non-traditional ways.

One mistake people often do is they think that just because they have no known artistic ability they cannot approach their work in an artistic manner.
In fact, I believe the fact I have no artistic education whatsoever, along with the sad reality I cannot draw, paint, sculpt, or even make a straight line, provided me with the freedom to experiment with non-standard and unusual (not to say bizarre) approaches to my photo presentation.

So, that’s all I have to say. Don’t be afraid to explore, experiment, fail, and discover, no matter what others (or even you), might say about your limited abilities.
It’s about time to toss away and forget about the memory of your sixth grade art teacher and her opinions about what is good art.
Find your own style. In fact, you don’t even have to precisely follow any of the methods presented in this book but you can use them to inspire and jumpstart your creative thought to develop your own unique direction.
Sometimes people show me images they processed that were inspired by one of my techniques; however, if I can be blunt here, what they come up with has little similarity to what I do, and that’s the beauty of it. Whatever you make will be a one–of-a-kind creation based on your own unique experiences and viewpoint.

2
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography

Nov 30

What’s the difference between street and urban photography?

A few days ago I’ve receive an email asking me to answer a simple question: What’s the difference between street and urban photography?
I would suggest they are two terms which pretty much describe the same thing; for the most part street photography is about photographing urban life or people in urban situations.
However, some photographers insist to make a distinction between the two genres;
Street photography often features people or some other human element, frequently to reveal a social comment, while urban photography tends to portray the urban landscape; buildings, structures, bridges and does not necessarily include the human component.
I’ve seen a few passionate arguments amongst street photographers about the definition of the genre and which pictures can be accepted into the street photography category.
Maybe there is a difference but maybe its just semantics, it doesn’t really matter because when you’re out there armed with a camera you probably photograph both people and the urban landscape and whatever else unfolds in front of you.

5
comments

Posted in Best Photos, Thoughts about photography, texture layer philadelphia street photography urban photography

Nov 05

Nitsa breaks the rules! or does she?

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.

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

3
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography Add new tag

Aug 21

An interview with Nitsa by Nitsa

And just in case you thought it can’t get any worse, here is a weekend bonus for you:
(it is from my book No rules. street photography.)

An interview with Nitsa by Nitsa
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nitsa: Ok, enough about open minds, inner drives and dreams. puhleeeease! Let’s get serious now. What kind of a camera do you use?
Nitsa: Ha ha, this is always the first question I’m asked.
Nitsa: What’s wrong with this question?
Nitsa: Nothing, except it really doesn’t matter what camera I use. It’s never about the camera anyway.
Nitsa: None the less, the readers would really love to know.
Nitsa: I have a few cameras; Polaroid, Nikon N-75, Holga (medium format plastic toy camera), Kodak Reflex TLR (1940′s), my beloved Kodak Brownie (1952) and a few others classic cameras.
Nitsa: Now, what’s with all this non-photography stuff? You don’t actually expect people to give up their camera gear, do you?
Nitsa: certainly not. But they could. In street photography all you need is a camera.
Nitsa: yeah, whatever. And what about all this drivel about the rules? Everybody knows that a good photographer masters the rules and then breaks them.
Nitsa: is that so? So why even bother learning them?
Nitsa: Excuse moi; I thought I’m asking the questions here. So you don’t think photographers should learn the principles for good photography?
Nitsa: It’s wasted time which could be used for something more creative… like taking pictures!
Nitsa: I see, finally you’re making a little sense. Ok then, next question, what techniques do you use in non-p?
Nitsa: anything that comes to mind; I especially like to experiment with new ideas; things that go beyond the step of pressing the shutter button.
Nitsa: . . .
Nitsa: I will share many of these ideas and experiments in my next book which is titled “I’m not an artist”
Nitsa: why am I not surprised…. O.K. one last question: do you really think non-p is for everybody?
Nitsa: it is!
Nitsa: … But don’t they need to have a special skill?
Nitsa: yes, a mind of their own.
Nitsa: ahhhh! This is probably the worst interview I’ve ever done! This whole non-photography thing is just ridiculous and obnoxious! Besides, I don’t even think there are really any rules in photography and you are just blowing it all up so you have something to write about!
I’m outta here!
(I hope next time I get to interview someone more interesting… like Paris Hilton… )

4
comments

Posted in Thoughts about photography interview Nitsa no rules street photography

Aug 12

Non.photography in one sentence

You know how everybody can appreciate a good and to the point summary?
It’s true, nobody really likes it when you go on and on in order to make your point (I wonder if Buzz Aldrin knows he has a tendency to do just that).
So if I had to sum up non.photography (no rules photography) in one sentence it would have to be: “It doesn’t matter how good you are but how far you take it.”