You do write well, Mike. That is partly because you do it a lot and are in practice. When someone does anything a lot, and is not burned out and uncaring about the results, they usually do it well. That certainly goes for photography. When I am in practice my photography is good. I never use rules. I have a gut feeling when I see a strong picture in my viewfinder and usually I am right (though I have screwed it up often enough to know that the gut feeling has to be backed up by good technique).
Almost all of us seriously into photography have looked at thousands if not millions of photos over the years. We develop likes and dislikes there are photos we do so often that they become part of our style, and others we would never do ourselves. But, I think that if we don't have a gut feeling about a shot it will not be great, and I don't think we can get that gut feeling by following some arbitrary rule. Unfortunately, those rules seem to live on in many camera clubs and if you do not follow them your work will be criticized harshly. We see that in web critiques also. That is why I hardly ever critique someone's work other than saying I like it, if I do. And the corollary is that if I don't like it, that is my reaction and says nothing in general about the photo. So, I guess, what I see here is the camera club mentality in a lot of the arguments. You Mike, and I, do not like that mentality, but I guess it is as valid for them as ours is for us. I wonder when people, them and us, will grow up sufficiently to allow others their viewpoints without rancor? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I just think that when you're talking about "rules of composition," you're > talking about standardized ways of arranging subject-matter when you shoot a > picture. These rules, being generalized, have to be broad. Thus they are > things like "the eye must have a way into the picture, so don't cut off th e > foreground," or "place objects one-third from one border and two-thirds from > the other," and "focus on the front eye" and "don't cut peoples' heads off" > and "blur out confusing backgrounds" and Lordy, I don't know what-all. > > 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. > > Furthermore, I personally contend that reflexively applying any such "rules > of thumb" is just as likely to blind the photographer to recognizing other > possibilities. > > The last time in even semi-serious photography that rules of composition > were taken seriously were in the "serious amateur" journals of the 1930s and > 1940s. "Compositional guidelines" were much beloved of writers for these > journals and "posing guides" were actually sold for money. An example I have > in front of me right now, _The American Annual of Photography 1935_, > published by American Photographic Publishing Company of Boston, features > nicely-made photographs and a few that retain some small interest, in some > cases incidentally. Most are pictorialist, stiff, posed, pretty, hackneyed, > careful, trite, or superficial. Apart from Leonard Misonne, I don't > immediately notice any names of photographers I know or that we still look > at today--although sometimes one will indeed come across a famous name in > one of these old journals. > > For the most part, this vein was mined thoroughly by the 1950s and most > photographers began to see that far more photographic possibilities existed > where the standardized approaches were done away with entirely and a sense > of freedom and discovery were substituted. This freedom is simply taken for > granted today; no photograph is necessarily dismissed because it isn't > pretty or posed, standardized in some way, or explicable in terms of a set > of guidelines. > > I'm not saying it's _wrong_ for anybody to make nice pretty pictures. My > position is that photography belongs to no one, no one has the right to tell > others what to do or not do, and, as long as it's not immoral or destructive > or illegal, anybody can photograph anything they want to however they > please. If anybody wants to make a list of rules and figure out eight things > they'll allow themselves to photograph, well, it's not for me to tell 'em > not to. They can knock themselves out. > > But I most definitely do _not_ think that good photographers are merely > "unconsciously" or "instinctively" following all of these rules. Quite the > contrary: I think that the rules themselves are deleterious to good work, > and that each situation ought to be approached in any way you can devise or > invent to try to make it new or unique or interesting or just pleasing to > yourself. The challenge is not to make something pretty according to a set > of rules; the challenge is to do something that is somehow distinctive to > your own tastes or concerns and does _not_ look like eighty thousand > pictures of the same thing already made by others. > > Just my $.02; like I say, I don't own photography and if somebody wants to > do the exact opposite of what I suggest, they've got a perfect right.
