Attached Link: Article by Wayne

Definitely food for thought - although i prefer the similar but slightly differently nuanced approach of "know the rules and then go and do your own thing" rather than what he stipulates of "do whatever works for you"

Also judging a photo on it's merit is always a personal thing, yet even then it is based on general guidelines.   To judge an image means there must be an image there to begin with.  So the building blocks of an image must be present: a set of pixels (in terms of digital onscreen) which resolve into something which one might call an "image".  Then if you want a colour picture, colours must be present; if you want a picture of a single flower, then the flower must be present; if you want to concentrate the viewer's attention on that flower then there are a few "techniques" which aid you to do so... This is where you have creative choice - however these are still loosely speaking "rules" - to name a few (in camera and post): selective focus, selective desaturation, uncluttered background, leading lines, and even in conjunction with all that the rule of thirds can help isolate the flower in the scene.  If you dont want to concentrate the viewer's attention on the flower then the flower isnt the subject any more so you need to then go back and decide what the subject is... unless you dont have a subject... but then you need to follow another (complete or incomplete) set of rules to make the image work anyway... (imo )

So i would tend to disagree that you just do what you think works as the rules are (as the author said) "arbitrary" - those "rules" are part of what a "self discovering" photographer might take a long time to codify as something which makes the images he takes work or dont work. Rules arent based on good/bad, but work/doesnt work in the first place - so that is why i think it is necessary to know them... and then disregard them as you see fit.

I think it is good to be able to look at any artform in an open minded way... There are no absolutes.. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... If it looks right, then it probably is. if you break the rules or not!! ... Rules... Lol well it is only a starting place... Composition in my view is about balance and harmony... It is not a bad idea to learn the rules well before you break them, that way you may well succeed far better..

Well I'm quite used to doing things wrong now, so don't think I'll switch to the "doesn't work" way of thinking LOL!!

I have to say that I found it a "difficult" read - these things always seem to sound so complicated and I think that's why I personally have so much trouble understanding them.

And no, I'm not stupid, I am in fact quite intelligent, but to the novice photographer (like little ole me!), it's just not simplified enough!!  I found myself having to read each paragraph through twice and breaking the sentences down to understand what he was saying - why couldn't he have just used a little brevity instead of making it so long-winded???

That's my two-penneth worth, not that it really matters what I think, but hey ho!!

I do agree with Danny though, we should understand the rules before breaking them - although I break many of them without ever understanding how or why LOL!!

Chrissy xx

Rules?

Never heard of a hobby that had rules.....Put me in the penalty box...or give me the red card then I guess....LOL!

The question i have is, who wrote the rules in terms of photography for everyone to follow? is it some guy that everyone decided is the best among everyone else, or the someone wake up one morning & decide that he or she has an eye for something like this ,so they wana start putting rules for everyone to follow?
As for me, i jus go with what ever i feel looks right or pleasing to me.

Oh dear I can see this disintegrating into exactly the point the author was making, thoughts and opinion dominated by absolutism. The use of language in the article has led it down the very path which the author is questioning. He has fallen into the trap of writing an article on a complicated subject phrasing it in colloquial terms and not choosing his words with care. 

The very concept that there are any rules is a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.  Through history scholars have attempted to explain why some things are more pleasing to the eye than others. That their explanations should be taken forward, by others, as rules is ludicrous. 

It is fact that the majority of the human race find some proportions more pleasing to the eye than others. Because of the explanation by classics scholars of why the Athenians chose to build the Parthenon to the proportions they did does not make it a rule that others must follow. 
Build your parthenon just the way you choose, but please don't come and ask later why the Athenian one looks so much more impressive, and why the steps look straight when viewed from the city below though they are curved when you are standing on them. There is an explanation, it is not a rule, you chose what you wish to do. 
The same as you choose to use horizontal or vertical lines in your images. It is a fact that on viewing angled lines there is more electrical activity stimulated in the human brain, that may not be what you want to inspire. 
You may choose to have no areas of high contrast or colour depth if that is what you want your images to be. Yet you cannot deny a person viewing the image will take far less time if these are not present because we are all by our nature predestined to notice areas of high contrast first and some colours before others, it is has been the essence of our survival as a race.

The choice of the word 'rules' in the article was not very helpful and devalued what I believe was the intention of the writer. It is worthy of consideration if this poor use of language has actually illustrated the predisposition of western culture to absolutism though.    
 

Nice save there Richard! ;')

good article, now ,as a newb to photography, if I may be arrogant to give my 5 cents....

What is photography?? Is it the true representation of a scene, whether that scene was created by yourself or not?? Or does it lend itself more to art, in which you take the scene and give it your individual twist?

There are 2 types of photography, Documentation and Art. 

Documentation is a straight photograph, with no manipulation other than cropping i suppose. The photographer may set up the scene. They may move things around to create a better asthetic. They may even ask you to say "Cheese" to reinforce, or add, the happiness to an occasion. But once that shutter has done its thing, the image has documented that scene. The image is set in its content and meaning. As soon as a coloured filter is applied, or the shadows are darkened to add that special feeling, the photographer has left the realm of photography and entered the realm of artist. The photographer has imposed their will upon the image, distorting its original content.

Art is a image that has been taken beyond the mundanity of reality. Into the realm of how we think it should look, not how it does look. The photographer may have added a higher saturation of green to some nature photos, they may have darkened the blue of some skies. These are their interpretations of how it should have looked. Interpretation is art. Once the decision has been made that the green isn't green enough, or the sun was too bright that day, lower the exposure, then the image is not true of what the camera tells us.

To me, photography is the capture and manipulation of light. It is Art.  My canvas is the monitor, my paint is the pixel and my brush is my mouse.

As to right or wrong, I don't see how either really exists. Art is art. Whether it is five thousand nude people in front of parliament house, or a dozen blenders in a row filled with water and one live goldfish each (this really happened, 5 of the goldfish were "blended" in the 1st week by curious gallery visitors wondering if the blenders were plugged in, lol), it will please some and won't please others.

In my humble opinion, 99% of photography we see is Art, not that that is a bad thing, and art is never right or wrong. Art just is.

Do whatever you want but don't be insulted if the "common public" or the jurors at an exibition think your work has no merit.  There is a common area in which certain conventions are accepted and others are seen as strange.   

Les Paul was ridiculed when he tried convincing the guitar makers to try an "electric" guitar..that broke the convention of the time. The Beatles released the first memorable "theme based" album and the single 45 disc hit the dust...sometimes when conventions are broken the result is wonderful, sometimes not.

Each camera with auto exposure has the basic "technical conventions" built in.  What you do with that is up to you. Still, any piece of art or new thought or twist of an old thought or method is either accepted or rejected much according to the ingrained conventions of the viewer, whether cultural or from the ivory tower cirtics strict standards.

As with the electric guitar..the intention was the same: Music.  With bending convention you do risk rejection but many successes are build on just such a bend or twist.

I want a pic of a nephew "making a face" and my mother-in-law wants the kid posed straight as a board...go figure.  Go do you own thing but remember some convention does create more appeal to others.             just a thought or two.        TomDart.

"a dozen blenders in a row filled with water and one live goldfish each (this really happened, 5 of the goldfish were "blended" in the 1st week by curious gallery visitors wondering if the blenders were plugged in, lol), it will please some and won't please others."

That is actually fairly amusing - sorry to all the animal lovers out there, but the guy who did that has one interesting mind.  Link?

...and behind the Art and the Music lies self expression, the need for we as humans to express something within ourselves and hopefully have it connect with others. Great commentary jedink and Tom.

goldfish blenderisation.....it was a couple years ago, here is the result of a google

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/Content?category=22175&issue=29083

enjoy.....