Being quite the non-conformist, I just wanted to float a few things
past the NPN gang. This morning, as I surveyed the recent submissions
and comments, I began to wonder why it is that certain stylistic
selections have become virtual rules to so many photographers. Is it
because they learned them in school or read them in a book? Or is it
because they have less creative ability to adapt their compositions to
what they see. Three Cases In Point:
1. Moving water must be shot at long exposure settings, so as to
emphasize the "flow" and turn it into stretched plastic.
I prefer moving water shots with fill flash, so that both the
flow and the life / sparkle are evident. Water is a living
thing. It should look alive. (Just my creative opinion)
2. The "Rule of Thirds" Most of the time this does aid in
pleasing composition, but it is not an absolute. Sometimes,
the effect you are after requires a different division of
the image. (i.e. exagerated elevation / depression)
3. The "Avoid Centering Rule" Frequently it holds true, but
not always. Sometimes you want to pull the viewers eye to
center. Usually you do not.
I always laugh when I see critiques of nearly perfect shots that
obvioulsy intentionally broke the rules that recite back
"The water exposure is to short.", "It's not divided in thirds",
"The spiral is to centered." I say, "Enjoy, think, investigate,
consider; THEN critique.
Just probing to encourage all of us to allow variation in creative
technique, while still being constructively critical of the vast
treasure of beautifull and various skilled shots.
I find that most non-conformists are really the most conformist of all - they make a point to conform to the opposite of what others may deem as the norm. Look at all the kids with mohawk orange hair and piercings for example. Non-conformism is not about breaking rules by adopting other rules or by insisting on doing the opposite - it is about individualism. When a rule works - use it, when it doesn't - don't. Better yet - don't even think about it.
I personally don't think in terms of rules wen photographing. To me it's a chicken-and-egg situation. I compose images the way I like them and quite frequently they happen to comply with these so-called rules. That doesn't make them any better or worse in my mind. A good image is a good image.
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -- Ansel Adams
As Guy hinted at, I find one of the biggest mistakes that I can make is to over-think the composition in the field. I need to be able to feel what works for the specific moment rather than think whats rule-abiding, if that makes sense. Oftentimes, I will find that when I "break" a supposed "rule", I will compliment a different "rule" at the same time. Go figure. All in all, the more I photograph, the more I realize that my intuition about an image is what I should follow, nothing else. I'm not convinced its really worth thinking about to much in either direction honestly. I prefer to make photographs if I feel some consonance with a scene. Others can worry about the "rules" from there.
It shouldn't be surprising that many 'good' photographs share similar stylistic qualities any more than it should be surprising that, despite the vast number of species, most trees share similar fundamental qualities. I believe that it's the infinite possibilities for subtle differences that are the source of creativity rather than a non-conformist approach to breaking the general "rules".
With regards to the example critiques that you cite, I see those as examples of a personal preference on the part of the person making the comment, not an admonishment to 'stick to the rules'. To have a little fun with what you wrote , I might argue that... it's your subjective opinion that the image is "nearly perfect", then you've assumed that the photographer "intentionally" broke the rule, and you're inferring that the critic's comment has no merit because you've concluded that they're indiscriminately reciting rules. I see that as an interesting and debatable perspective rather than non-conformity.
I always find it interesting when photographers analyze there photographs. The compositional rules are guidelines that can help with composition not hard and fast rules. If they work for a photograph use them if not you can certainly make some outstanding image without following them. The image that comes to mind is Ansel Adams’ Moonrise image it certainly doesn’t follow any rules but it is an image that has always spoken to me.
Posted by Frank Winters on April 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Gary has done something we all do every time we post or show a photo -- he has stuck his neck out.
My preference is to do it with images rather than words. Much harder to do (for me) with words -- less fun (for me) also.
I just read that Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous book "The Decisive Moment" was originally called (in French) something like "Photographs Taken on the Run" -- That appeals to me somehow. Henri said that the Decisive moment occurred when the photographer put his heart, hand and mind on the same line and then took his best shot (poorly paraphrased I'm sure).
So I take images that appeal to me and hope they appeal to others -- some do some don't. But when a person reviewing my work starts with technical details ("now this is a landscape -- why on earth would you shoot it at F7.1) or with rules ("You seem to have ignored the rule of thirds") I shut down like a clam.
Put your hand, heart and mind into your work and rules be damned!
The rules of composition we are familiar with are mostly ideas handed down to us from western European painters. In an effort to make two dimensional images look three dimensional they came up with rules about how to use line, form, vanishing point, balance and how to imply where a light source was. These were all good and valid ideas that developed as the craft and art of painting developed. The rule of thirds for example, came about in the middle ages.
In developing our skills as photographers I think it is important to learn these concepts and learn how to apply them just as we must learn to master the equipment we rely upon to make our images. As when learning any skill or craft, we need to develop a solid grasp of the basics to be able to move on to the higher levels of creating art. (No, I'm not going to define art!) Once we've mastered the craft of photography, which to me includes knowing how different styles of composition work, we begin to develop our own style. Some of us will be able to create what other people consider to be art while the majority of us will probably stay at the level of competent craftsmen.
When I look at the image Gary posted to start this discussion I see a number of the standards of composition applied here: an S curve formed by the water, solid objects to frame the image and the use of a light area in the center to draw the eye. The dark objects on each side of the image make for a symetrical composition. The point of view is a pretty standard one from the bank of the stream. To me this image definitely conforms to the rules. I see no signs of non-conformity here though I don't think that detracts from the image.
Our sense of what is right in a composition is probably the result of our upbringing and education. While beginning photographers and other practitioners of the visual arts often need the guidance of rules to help them get started, eventually we all internalize what we see as a pleasing composition and apply that without consciously articulating any particular rules. In a sense this is conformity to the notions of visual arts that we have been surrounded with all our lives. I see this as a common language of communication that allows us to show our vision of what we photograph in a context that others will understand.
Slavish adherence to a particular set of rules may tend to produce cliches but look at any photograph that moves you (like Ansel Adam's Moonrise) and you will find that the "rules" have been used there too. For me using these rules gives us a common starting point that the viewers of our images can use to interpret our efforts. I think these are useful tools in our efforts to communicate what we see and think. Excellent photography for me is a blend of craft, vision and even the application of some of these rules. I think the photographer's vision is where a non-conformist approach comes in to get the viewer to look at a subject in a new way and perhaps unexpected way.
Thanks for the lively response. The photo above was taken at the confluence of Dunbar Creek
with Limestone Run. The equipment was my first digital camera, a Kodak DC-5000 Zoom. I
bought it because it was built like a tank and could withstand rain and cold and other wide sorts
of abuse through which I had destroyed several other cameras I had owned. I do all weather
nature photography, climbing around in the Dunar Moutains, documenting a 36 square mile
watershed, winter, spring summer fall and fall-down. The equipment for this was a point and
shoot with very limited settings available. That particular shot (Only Auto Available) turned out
to be 1/91 sec, F/2.9 6mm-internal-lens zoom, with no flash. (Manual overide). It was shot with
available light, after waiting for the sun to shine on the rapids through dappled clouds during a
foggy morning hike. The title I normally use for the photo is "Foggy Mountain Morning" The
photo is intended to show a great deal of "compromise" The image is dark, because I waited for
those exact conditions to repeat, after I observed them during a previous sun exposure. I was /
am extremely happy with the results. It is one of my favorite Kodak DC-5000 photos. I was
after, wet and dark and bright and foggy, like the beautiful morning I was experiencing. By the
way, the DC-5000 has been destroyed once too; something about falling into a rushing spring
thaw stream and being dunked just a little too long Kodak replaced it with a refurbished
unit for the paultry service fee of $150! It has since been sent into semi-retirement after being replaced by my new "tank", an Olympus E1. Boy do I love my E1 as it combines a metal
sealed body and lenses with SLR versatility.
So sorry, that anyone took my comments as a putdown! They were only meant to encourage
creativity and analysis in critiques, that should contain more than one or two word answers.
Especially when the comments are negative. Congratulations on almost all of you on avoiding
easy attacks on my posted image. Thanks to all of you for your insights and instruction.
To those that suggest the conformity of "non-confromity", You hit the nail on the head, but as so
many of you have said. It is about the skill of accomplishing a given communication through the
resulting photogaph, not about a set of rules. That is where I come from. I have worked as a
research scientist for over 30 years and have found that "rules" are boundaries. Places to stretch
possibilities. I have been both a professional industrial photographer and semi-pro nature
photogapher off and on for around 30 years also, so I do know about format limitations. But I also
know about pushing the technical envelope.
A tiny camera mounted "fill flash" will not change much at normal landscape shooting distance,
but guess what; flying water droplets are excellent retroreflectors, so they will return the flash as
a lively sparkle accent in the flowing scene.
I came to NPN because of the general quality of most of the critiques I found here. As far as I
can tell, it is the best peer reviewed photography site on the web.
As for Ansel Adams, he is my primary photographer hero. Why? because he established new
standards for nature photography. He used extensive artistic creativity through the use of filters
and darkroom "post-processing" to MAKE his photos convey definite pure moods. If you study
his work, you will find one unifying concept; balance. Balance of tone, depth, mass, flow,
attraction..... When the balance led to thirds, that is what happened. if halfs, so be it. To me,
no one else, I have seen, has consistently accomplished his level of skillfull communicative
image creation. We would all do well to emulate his adventurous and precise spirit.
Thanks again to all for some interesting and instructive points of view. I make it a practice to
revisit both my and others critiques of both my and others photos, so I can internalize their
ideas and apply an ever increasing toolset to my future photographic efforts.
I think you have made some interesting and legitimate observations/comments. I would like to add that when I began photography I made it a point to follow the rules. I placed elements according to the rule of thirds, would immediate stop any time I saw an "S" curve and, though not a "rule", was overjoyed the first time I made a photograph with a cascade represented as silky water. It was a valuable learning experience for me.
Now, I honestly can't remember the last time I actually stopped to think, "Oh, better use the rule of thirds." I just compose the image according to my own likes/dislikes. If I break a rule I usually don't realize it until after I've made the image and am viewing it on the monitor at home (and some times even then I don't recognize it!). If my water appears "fuzzy" or as "stretched plastic" it is usually because I require DOF in most images and am usually photographing moving water in dim light, hence the longer exposures that create this effect. Combine that with a low ISO and there is almost no escaping the soft water that drives some photographers nutty.
I think what I'm trying to say is that the "rules" have a place in photography. They can be powerful learning tools for beginners who usually, at some point, make images without conscientiously referring to the rules.
Here is the way I look at photography: I will use rules (or whatever they are called) if they help me achieve the result I am after. If they don't I will abandon them without feeling guilty. Its not a big deal, really. The same also applies to any other equipment that I employ in my work - cameras, lenses, filters, film, etc.
To draw an analogy, when I was in school I was taught several good programming practices that are supposed to help in the writing of efficient and correct software. Do I always live and breathe by these rules of thumb? No. Have they proved helpful in some cases? Yes. You get the idea...
1. Moving water/ stretched plastic as you call it cotton candy as it's also so frequently described. Shooting any low ISO film or digital you can't help but get it. I certainly don't shoot landscapes at anything over ISO 100, Velvia 50 is my normal film, add to that, most rainforest/waterfall shots are best shot in overcast low light conditions and the water is all of a sudden stretched palstic, can't escape it. No matter how you look at it retaining detail in the folage but having sliky smooth water sure beats blocked up shadows, which you image has in the lower left.
2.The rule of thirds....never really thought about it much, I shoot what pleases my eye at the time, but even your shot here has the rule of thirds, so it's nothing new. you have followed the rule even if you tried to break it...go figure
3.The don't centre the subject rule...Well this does hold true most of the time. Sometimes not but that is very rarely. As you shot here has no real main feature to it nothing is really centred.the only central thing I see is the white water but it's there because of the blocked up shadows.
I also always laugh at ones who think that others critques must be usless if they say things like the water exposure was not long enough, it's not divided into thirds etc etc. WHY? because opinins are like a#*eholes.....everyone has one....meaning what you think is right in a image I might think sucks.
Rules are meant to be broken yes but if someone thinks a image doesn't work because a rule has been broken, then maybe in their mind it could have been better, or would prefer everyone to think your way only???????
My self introduction as a "non-conformist" was meant as a literary device, more than a
real description of my own tendencies. I realy did not expect that line to be of much
consequence. (Funny how the same thing happens in all forms of communication.) It was meant
as a deflection that I thought would be common to almost all of us, sort of a self and shared
deprecating joke. The skills I value most were taught to me by absolute pains in the neck, that
always treated me as a foolish child but smilled and encouraged me to excellence. I started
photography as a no-knowledge novice, than learned some things from books and then under
the tutalage of an about to retire industrial macro and micro photographer that hated cameras
and enlargers and film! (because of their limitations (All Leitz-Leica large format equipment),
but loved to make create and prune, both her garden, her images and her 3 photographic
deciples. I remember taking the same exact shot (remember industrial setting) four or five
times with different contrast films, and eventually finding the best available solution to
communicate the impression that the contracting engineer wanted for their report. Nature
photography usually doesn't provide such repetitive opportunities.
In all of my activities, I strive to achieve the best quality I am able to bring to the task at hand.
So, I do start with basics, but I also start with the equipment I currently have and a desire to
capture and communicate a particular impression. I am limited by various characteristics of
the scene, of my equipment and of my skill both as an observer and as an artist / technician.
All the comments on black saturation or blocking of the accompanying photo are quite
accurate. That is one of the reasons I moved away from my DC-5000 with its 8 bit jpg only
format. That is also the reason that I now shoot iin RAW mode with my SLR. Short of the
noise floor, I can now control the amount of clip and the general transfer curve of my images.
My 12 bit per plane raw images have12 to 16 times the range in brightness and hue of 8 bit jpg
originals like the image above. I have been waiting for the once in a lifetime lighting and stream
conditions to repeat themselves during the moments that I pass that spot, so I can try to do
a better job this time. HA HA HA. Have any of you tried that? Much easier said than done.
For me, it seems I invariably get loss in image chaos. Focusing on the last shoot's problem
and coliding with another one, untill the subject dissapears into past time as the buds open or
the flower fades or the season changes.....
Have any of you noticed that many of us are just now getting to real (for our skill level)
constructive critique of the submitted image? Some of the weak points of the image are: Under
exposure of the shaddows, Over exposure of the highlights (Both are there). How do I avoid this
when I see something with my eye and its extreme dynamic range and want to capture it!). The
shot would be better if taken just a bit further from the right. (Sometimes possible, in this case
only if I have a long remotely controlled boom or am able to stand in the air, 10 feet above the
water and 7 feet away from the rock ledge I am balancing on!)
I see that for many of you, I have colided with my own complaint. Large format cameras can't
do the job they were designed to do without compromising exposure time. I am uncomfortable
with people criticising images, based on the limitations of the equipment. But I am Guilty Too.
Well it is time to get out in the field and follow and break a few rules, on this beautifull overcast,
rain threatening spring day, with spring bloom begining to erupt.
Thanks to all for a very interesting discussion. Does anyone have anything more to add?
Gary
Gary W. Sherwin
Posted by Randy Beacham on April 15, 2006 at 9:08 PM
Well, as is the norm with these types of posts there's always interesting comments.
The one word I like was Guy's "individualism." I think people who have a strong sense of self, or inner confidence, can learn greatly from critique forums like NPN while still retaining that individualism, which allows someone to trust that gut instinct when out in the field over what constitutes a good composition or what an individual likes.
For myself, I started participating at NPN five or six years ago and was already pretty well developed as a photographer (though I still had a lot to learn then as well as now). Particularly with regards to forest images I like photos that are not the norm so if these types of photos do not receive many comments or have negative comments concerning the composition it doesn't bother me and I chalk it up to a difference in styles. If you're someone who likes unorthodox images you just need to accept that you'll probably not get as much response as for images that are more the norm.
Yet there have also been comments that I have taken to heart and have been a great help to me. For instance, while I feel that I am a creative person one of my weaknesses is that I'm not a real meticulous or real observant person when it comes to the little details, like distractions creeping into the corners of my images or tilting horizons or scans that don't bring out the best in an image. In cases like this it has nothing to do with being a non-conformist, it's just not paying attention to little details. Thanks to the people who critique at NPN my photography today is much stronger in that regard.
Like Guy when I'm out in the field I really don't think about rules of composition. I focus on what catches my eye and then slowly work the composition until I'm satisfied with what I see through the viewfinder. Once I have the composition I like I then consider the mood of the image, ie. do I want to blur or freeze the water (there's good reasons for both, such as freezing the water during spring runoff to show the power of water), do I want to add fill flash to either add some contrast or balance the contrast, etc.
What I never think about when out in the field or at home editing images, is what other photographers do. So I don't think about freezing water because most people don't or vice-versa. When on the road photographing travel photography though I do think about what is marketable.
Concerning the posted photo, unlike Darren I think who didn't like the darker foreground, I think the best thing about the image is the contrast in lighting between the foreground and background.I think it adds a certain dynamic to the image that wouldn't be there if the lighting were all the same. For me at least I think that's the primary aspect with what makes it a good photograph, whether the water is frozen or blurred seems secondary.
That's one thing about the digital/internet age: it seems that contrast has become a real no-no with most people. Maybe it's because of the ability to manipulate images digitally or because of the use of histograms or graduated ND filters but I think contrast can be a real important element in the mood or look of a photo. I can't remember the issue but some time back Rod Planck wrote a real good article in Outdoor Photographer conerning this.
As for the use of fill flash, I'm not sure if most landscape photographers use it or not but I know that I use it frequently. In fact, now now that I'm using a digital camera and can view the image instantly I might be using flash for as much as half of my landscape photos. I disagree with whoever commented on the un-natural look of flash; for many photos where the foreground is darker than the rest of the image if you dial back the flash comp as far as it will go, like three stops, it looks very natural. Where I live it seems like we have heavy overcast conditions 99% of the time and I might use flash to balance the exposure when you have, for instance, small stream banks in the foreground that are darker or I might use flash stronger to where it's evident but adds some needed contrast. And Gary is right about fill flash adding a sparkle to water, I don't like it all the time but it does add an interesting look. If you haven't tried it before I would recommend giving it a go, you'll be suprised at the results. I like to use it for closeups of small little streams that have little falls--it adds a nice abstract look.
What looks natural in a photo is also a very subjective thing. Think about it: saturated photos either from digital work or films like velvia, the use of polarizers or the heavy use of Grad ND's, the use of telephotos or wide-angle lenses. All of these techniques can be very un-natural, yet we've become used to certain looks in nature photos so much that in our minds they look natural.
Thanks for the suggestion of low level fill flash for unwanted impossible dard foreground situations.
Geez! another possibility to try! Hee Hee HEe. There is always another technique or skill to try.
Don't you all just love this place. By the way, NPN is far and away better at providing real constructive
chriticism than any other site I have tried. In some places, people are down right personally insulting.
I have never seen that here.
Like Randy, I would encourage all of you to investigate minimally effective flash in water scenes.
It's not the correct way and its not the wrong way. Its just another technique to try. By the way,
two weeks ago, I was at a conference at University of Maryland, College Park. We ate lunch in
one of their exibit galleries, where a very interesting painter's works were on exhibit. I already
forgot (AHHHHHH) the artist's name, but his extremely realistic surreal images definitely held
me spell bound. One particular portrait was particularly effective. I kept looking at it, wondering
why it had such an effect on me. There was something about the eyes, that brought the painting
to life, but what? One of my colleagues, then pointed out, that the artist had set small faceted
gem-stones at the edge between the pupil and iris. The live sparkle effect, was absolutely
amazing! Bet a lot of painters would hate that technique! Guess I am a sparkle-holic. So is my
wife ha ha ha. (Diamonds are a girls best friend). Anyway, as a fly fisherman, I am obviously over
sensitive about water. It's almost a religios or at least a pholosophical thing. That is why I tend
to overlook or atleast reduce my emphasis on flow, except for that associated with the surface
tension of the water (fly fishermen call it drift). Forgive me for neglecting to consider the other
side as much as I sense some refuse to consider my oppinion. This is great, I continue to learn
more every day. Thanks to all
Sorry, but I can`t see how the photo that accompanies Gary`s post displays "nonconformism" except for some minor rule-breakings. If you think this is a departure from the norm of lanscape photography, you really should spend some time on Mark Hobson`s or Eric Fredine`s websites... etc.
I'm like alot of other people here and compose by "feel" sorta thing, but I must say this thread has me thinking perhaps part of that is being on auto pilot sometimes. I mean it is possible that before we fully absorb the idea of what is being presented we start to apply past
processes that we know will get the job done. The job being a "successful" image.
I'm sure many people would think "no way" the complexity of recording a scene with a camera is pretty high and there are alot of things that can go wrong. But consider how complex it is to drive an automobile home, especially in traffic.
How you ever driven home, under stress, worry about a loved one etc., or thinking about something else entirely and then as you shut off the key in your driveway, you sorta realize you've arrived and you can hardly remember any details about the trip?
I think you are able to do that because you've driven that road so many times and your driving skills are very good that you don't have to be REALLY present.
How many general photographic stuations have you seen, that you haven't seen before?
Another thing that I noticed is that they are many self imposed rules. for example;
Keith said ;
"Moving water/ stretched plastic as you call it cotton candy as it's also so frequently described. Shooting any low ISO film or digital you can't help but get it. I certainly don't shoot landscapes at anything over ISO 100, Velvia 50 is my normal film, add to that, most rainforest/waterfall shots are best shot in overcast low light conditions and the water is all of a sudden stretched palstic, can't escape it."
So there you go, would you say that "as a rule" Velvia 50 is the normal film choice, certainly nothing over ISO100. Same for digital. That's not a rule ,that's a choice. Of course Keith is quite right in the majority of cases of landscape photography and others. Why is that choice made? I believe it's because most photographers ( including me ) want the lowest amount of grain / noise etc. In other words they want them to look their best.
But what if the idea doesn't include stretched plastic or cotton candy water? Too bad,
"can't escape it." Maybe the hardest rules to break are the ones we impose on ourselves, like wide angle only for landscapes and long telephotos for avian.
The biggest problem I see is that by doing stuff like that we are forgetting about the most important thing, why we wanted to take the picture, what we wanted to say. And for what?
Oh yeah , success. Seems like an empty victory to me. Tim
You have distilled my feelings to their essence. Very well done. When I shoot landscape, I am
usually trying to capture the impression that I experienced. Usually I stake my level of technical
and compositional skill and the limits of my equipment, against a set of excesses, present in the
scene. When I am good, I catch the excesses, and am able to control their effects, either with
composition, settings or occasionally with post processing (development, enlarging, PS...).
For me (though not for most people) when I "loose" to the physical conditions of the scene and
am unable to draw the recording of the scene to the impression I experienced. I am completely
disatisfied. That is why I want water to both flow and sparkle. Why I occasionally want sillouetted
foregrounds. Why I will sometimes live with 200-(Ghast)3200 ISO and the grain they generate,
because they still preserve the lighting and action of the scene. That is not to say that there
are not occasions when I use motion blur. I have used it both in capturing dance and windblown
flowers. I wil never be satisfied with my level of skill because there is always another technique /
compromise that I can learn to make, that tilts the balance toward the impression, rather than
the physical characteristics of the medium.
I would realy like to see some large format shots, where some "sparkle" flash was added.
I no longer have access to a large format camera to do it myself, for demonstration.
Thanks to all for all your interesting points of view.
Discussion
17 repliespast the NPN gang. This morning, as I surveyed the recent submissions
and comments, I began to wonder why it is that certain stylistic
selections have become virtual rules to so many photographers. Is it
because they learned them in school or read them in a book? Or is it
because they have less creative ability to adapt their compositions to
what they see. Three Cases In Point:
1. Moving water must be shot at long exposure settings, so as to
emphasize the "flow" and turn it into stretched plastic.
I prefer moving water shots with fill flash, so that both the
flow and the life / sparkle are evident. Water is a living
thing. It should look alive. (Just my creative opinion)
2. The "Rule of Thirds" Most of the time this does aid in
pleasing composition, but it is not an absolute. Sometimes,
the effect you are after requires a different division of
the image. (i.e. exagerated elevation / depression)
3. The "Avoid Centering Rule" Frequently it holds true, but
not always. Sometimes you want to pull the viewers eye to
center. Usually you do not.
I always laugh when I see critiques of nearly perfect shots that
obvioulsy intentionally broke the rules that recite back
"The water exposure is to short.", "It's not divided in thirds",
"The spiral is to centered." I say, "Enjoy, think, investigate,
consider; THEN critique.
Just probing to encourage all of us to allow variation in creative
technique, while still being constructively critical of the vast
treasure of beautifull and various skilled shots.
Gary
I personally don't think in terms of rules wen photographing. To me it's a chicken-and-egg situation. I compose images the way I like them and quite frequently they happen to comply with these so-called rules. That doesn't make them any better or worse in my mind. A good image is a good image.
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs." -- Ansel Adams
Guy
With regards to the example critiques that you cite, I see those as examples of a personal preference on the part of the person making the comment, not an admonishment to 'stick to the rules'. To have a little fun with what you wrote
My preference is to do it with images rather than words. Much harder to do (for me) with words -- less fun (for me) also.
I just read that Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous book "The Decisive Moment" was originally called (in French) something like "Photographs Taken on the Run" -- That appeals to me somehow. Henri said that the Decisive moment occurred when the photographer put his heart, hand and mind on the same line and then took his best shot (poorly paraphrased I'm sure).
So I take images that appeal to me and hope they appeal to others -- some do some don't. But when a person reviewing my work starts with technical details ("now this is a landscape -- why on earth would you shoot it at F7.1) or with rules ("You seem to have ignored the rule of thirds") I shut down like a clam.
Put your hand, heart and mind into your work and rules be damned!
Cheers,
Frank
The rules of composition we are familiar with are mostly ideas handed down to us from western European painters. In an effort to make two dimensional images look three dimensional they came up with rules about how to use line, form, vanishing point, balance and how to imply where a light source was. These were all good and valid ideas that developed as the craft and art of painting developed. The rule of thirds for example, came about in the middle ages.
In developing our skills as photographers I think it is important to learn these concepts and learn how to apply them just as we must learn to master the equipment we rely upon to make our images. As when learning any skill or craft, we need to develop a solid grasp of the basics to be able to move on to the higher levels of creating art. (No, I'm not going to define art!) Once we've mastered the craft of photography, which to me includes knowing how different styles of composition work, we begin to develop our own style. Some of us will be able to create what other people consider to be art while the majority of us will probably stay at the level of competent craftsmen.
When I look at the image Gary posted to start this discussion I see a number of the standards of composition applied here: an S curve formed by the water, solid objects to frame the image and the use of a light area in the center to draw the eye. The dark objects on each side of the image make for a symetrical composition. The point of view is a pretty standard one from the bank of the stream. To me this image definitely conforms to the rules. I see no signs of non-conformity here though I don't think that detracts from the image.
Our sense of what is right in a composition is probably the result of our upbringing and education. While beginning photographers and other practitioners of the visual arts often need the guidance of rules to help them get started, eventually we all internalize what we see as a pleasing composition and apply that without consciously articulating any particular rules. In a sense this is conformity to the notions of visual arts that we have been surrounded with all our lives. I see this as a common language of communication that allows us to show our vision of what we photograph in a context that others will understand.
Slavish adherence to a particular set of rules may tend to produce cliches but look at any photograph that moves you (like Ansel Adam's Moonrise) and you will find that the "rules" have been used there too. For me using these rules gives us a common starting point that the viewers of our images can use to interpret our efforts. I think these are useful tools in our efforts to communicate what we see and think. Excellent photography for me is a blend of craft, vision and even the application of some of these rules. I think the photographer's vision is where a non-conformist approach comes in to get the viewer to look at a subject in a new way and perhaps unexpected way.
Thanks for the lively response. The photo above was taken at the confluence of Dunbar Creek
with Limestone Run. The equipment was my first digital camera, a Kodak DC-5000 Zoom. I
bought it because it was built like a tank and could withstand rain and cold and other wide sorts
of abuse through which I had destroyed several other cameras I had owned. I do all weather
nature photography, climbing around in the Dunar Moutains, documenting a 36 square mile
watershed, winter, spring summer fall and fall-down. The equipment for this was a point and
shoot with very limited settings available. That particular shot (Only Auto Available) turned out
to be 1/91 sec, F/2.9 6mm-internal-lens zoom, with no flash. (Manual overide). It was shot with
available light, after waiting for the sun to shine on the rapids through dappled clouds during a
foggy morning hike. The title I normally use for the photo is "Foggy Mountain Morning" The
photo is intended to show a great deal of "compromise" The image is dark, because I waited for
those exact conditions to repeat, after I observed them during a previous sun exposure. I was /
am extremely happy with the results. It is one of my favorite Kodak DC-5000 photos. I was
after, wet and dark and bright and foggy, like the beautiful morning I was experiencing. By the
way, the DC-5000 has been destroyed once too; something about falling into a rushing spring
thaw stream and being dunked just a little too long
unit for the paultry service fee of $150! It has since been sent into semi-retirement after being replaced by my new "tank", an Olympus E1. Boy do I love my E1 as it combines a metal
sealed body and lenses with SLR versatility.
So sorry, that anyone took my comments as a putdown! They were only meant to encourage
creativity and analysis in critiques, that should contain more than one or two word answers.
Especially when the comments are negative. Congratulations on almost all of you on avoiding
easy attacks on my posted image. Thanks to all of you for your insights and instruction.
To those that suggest the conformity of "non-confromity", You hit the nail on the head, but as so
many of you have said. It is about the skill of accomplishing a given communication through the
resulting photogaph, not about a set of rules. That is where I come from. I have worked as a
research scientist for over 30 years and have found that "rules" are boundaries. Places to stretch
possibilities. I have been both a professional industrial photographer and semi-pro nature
photogapher off and on for around 30 years also, so I do know about format limitations. But I also
know about pushing the technical envelope.
A tiny camera mounted "fill flash" will not change much at normal landscape shooting distance,
but guess what; flying water droplets are excellent retroreflectors, so they will return the flash as
a lively sparkle accent in the flowing scene.
I came to NPN because of the general quality of most of the critiques I found here. As far as I
can tell, it is the best peer reviewed photography site on the web.
As for Ansel Adams, he is my primary photographer hero. Why? because he established new
standards for nature photography. He used extensive artistic creativity through the use of filters
and darkroom "post-processing" to MAKE his photos convey definite pure moods. If you study
his work, you will find one unifying concept; balance. Balance of tone, depth, mass, flow,
attraction..... When the balance led to thirds, that is what happened. if halfs, so be it. To me,
no one else, I have seen, has consistently accomplished his level of skillfull communicative
image creation. We would all do well to emulate his adventurous and precise spirit.
Thanks again to all for some interesting and instructive points of view. I make it a practice to
revisit both my and others critiques of both my and others photos, so I can internalize their
ideas and apply an ever increasing toolset to my future photographic efforts.
Gary
I think you have made some interesting and legitimate observations/comments. I would like to add that when I began photography I made it a point to follow the rules. I placed elements according to the rule of thirds, would immediate stop any time I saw an "S" curve and, though not a "rule", was overjoyed the first time I made a photograph with a cascade represented as silky water. It was a valuable learning experience for me.
Now, I honestly can't remember the last time I actually stopped to think, "Oh, better use the rule of thirds." I just compose the image according to my own likes/dislikes. If I break a rule I usually don't realize it until after I've made the image and am viewing it on the monitor at home (and some times even then I don't recognize it!). If my water appears "fuzzy" or as "stretched plastic" it is usually because I require DOF in most images and am usually photographing moving water in dim light, hence the longer exposures that create this effect. Combine that with a low ISO and there is almost no escaping the soft water that drives some photographers nutty.
I think what I'm trying to say is that the "rules" have a place in photography. They can be powerful learning tools for beginners who usually, at some point, make images without conscientiously referring to the rules.
My two cents...
To draw an analogy, when I was in school I was taught several good programming practices that are supposed to help in the writing of efficient and correct software. Do I always live and breathe by these rules of thumb? No. Have they proved helpful in some cases? Yes. You get the idea...
1. Moving water/ stretched plastic as you call it cotton candy as it's also so frequently described. Shooting any low ISO film or digital you can't help but get it. I certainly don't shoot landscapes at anything over ISO 100, Velvia 50 is my normal film, add to that, most rainforest/waterfall shots are best shot in overcast low light conditions and the water is all of a sudden stretched palstic, can't escape it. No matter how you look at it retaining detail in the folage but having sliky smooth water sure beats blocked up shadows, which you image has in the lower left.
2.The rule of thirds....never really thought about it much, I shoot what pleases my eye at the time, but even your shot here has the rule of thirds, so it's nothing new. you have followed the rule even if you tried to break it...go figure
3.The don't centre the subject rule...Well this does hold true most of the time. Sometimes not but that is very rarely. As you shot here has no real main feature to it nothing is really centred.the only central thing I see is the white water but it's there because of the blocked up shadows.
I also always laugh at ones who think that others critques must be usless if they say things like the water exposure was not long enough, it's not divided into thirds etc etc. WHY? because opinins are like a#*eholes.....everyone has one....meaning what you think is right in a image I might think sucks.
Rules are meant to be broken yes but if someone thinks a image doesn't work because a rule has been broken, then maybe in their mind it could have been better, or would prefer everyone to think your way only???????
My self introduction as a "non-conformist" was meant as a literary device, more than a
real description of my own tendencies. I realy did not expect that line to be of much
consequence. (Funny how the same thing happens in all forms of communication.) It was meant
as a deflection that I thought would be common to almost all of us, sort of a self and shared
deprecating joke. The skills I value most were taught to me by absolute pains in the neck, that
always treated me as a foolish child but smilled and encouraged me to excellence. I started
photography as a no-knowledge novice, than learned some things from books and then under
the tutalage of an about to retire industrial macro and micro photographer that hated cameras
and enlargers and film! (because of their limitations (All Leitz-Leica large format equipment),
but loved to make create and prune, both her garden, her images and her 3 photographic
deciples. I remember taking the same exact shot (remember industrial setting) four or five
times with different contrast films, and eventually finding the best available solution to
communicate the impression that the contracting engineer wanted for their report. Nature
photography usually doesn't provide such repetitive opportunities.
In all of my activities, I strive to achieve the best quality I am able to bring to the task at hand.
So, I do start with basics, but I also start with the equipment I currently have and a desire to
capture and communicate a particular impression. I am limited by various characteristics of
the scene, of my equipment and of my skill both as an observer and as an artist / technician.
All the comments on black saturation or blocking of the accompanying photo are quite
accurate. That is one of the reasons I moved away from my DC-5000 with its 8 bit jpg only
format. That is also the reason that I now shoot iin RAW mode with my SLR. Short of the
noise floor, I can now control the amount of clip and the general transfer curve of my images.
My 12 bit per plane raw images have12 to 16 times the range in brightness and hue of 8 bit jpg
originals like the image above. I have been waiting for the once in a lifetime lighting and stream
conditions to repeat themselves during the moments that I pass that spot, so I can try to do
a better job this time. HA HA HA. Have any of you tried that? Much easier said than done.
For me, it seems I invariably get loss in image chaos. Focusing on the last shoot's problem
and coliding with another one, untill the subject dissapears into past time as the buds open or
the flower fades or the season changes.....
Have any of you noticed that many of us are just now getting to real (for our skill level)
constructive critique of the submitted image? Some of the weak points of the image are: Under
exposure of the shaddows, Over exposure of the highlights (Both are there). How do I avoid this
when I see something with my eye and its extreme dynamic range and want to capture it!). The
shot would be better if taken just a bit further from the right. (Sometimes possible, in this case
only if I have a long remotely controlled boom or am able to stand in the air, 10 feet above the
water and 7 feet away from the rock ledge I am balancing on!)
I see that for many of you, I have colided with my own complaint. Large format cameras can't
do the job they were designed to do without compromising exposure time. I am uncomfortable
with people criticising images, based on the limitations of the equipment. But I am Guilty Too.
Well it is time to get out in the field and follow and break a few rules, on this beautifull overcast,
rain threatening spring day, with spring bloom begining to erupt.
Thanks to all for a very interesting discussion. Does anyone have anything more to add?
Gary
Gary W. Sherwin
The one word I like was Guy's "individualism." I think people who have a strong sense of self, or inner confidence, can learn greatly from critique forums like NPN while still retaining that individualism, which allows someone to trust that gut instinct when out in the field over what constitutes a good composition or what an individual likes.
For myself, I started participating at NPN five or six years ago and was already pretty well developed as a photographer (though I still had a lot to learn then as well as now). Particularly with regards to forest images I like photos that are not the norm so if these types of photos do not receive many comments or have negative comments concerning the composition it doesn't bother me and I chalk it up to a difference in styles. If you're someone who likes unorthodox images you just need to accept that you'll probably not get as much response as for images that are more the norm.
Yet there have also been comments that I have taken to heart and have been a great help to me. For instance, while I feel that I am a creative person one of my weaknesses is that I'm not a real meticulous or real observant person when it comes to the little details, like distractions creeping into the corners of my images or tilting horizons or scans that don't bring out the best in an image. In cases like this it has nothing to do with being a non-conformist, it's just not paying attention to little details. Thanks to the people who critique at NPN my photography today is much stronger in that regard.
Like Guy when I'm out in the field I really don't think about rules of composition. I focus on what catches my eye and then slowly work the composition until I'm satisfied with what I see through the viewfinder. Once I have the composition I like I then consider the mood of the image, ie. do I want to blur or freeze the water (there's good reasons for both, such as freezing the water during spring runoff to show the power of water), do I want to add fill flash to either add some contrast or balance the contrast, etc.
What I never think about when out in the field or at home editing images, is what other photographers do. So I don't think about freezing water because most people don't or vice-versa. When on the road photographing travel photography though I do think about what is marketable.
Concerning the posted photo, unlike Darren I think who didn't like the darker foreground, I think the best thing about the image is the contrast in lighting between the foreground and background.I think it adds a certain dynamic to the image that wouldn't be there if the lighting were all the same. For me at least I think that's the primary aspect with what makes it a good photograph, whether the water is frozen or blurred seems secondary.
That's one thing about the digital/internet age: it seems that contrast has become a real no-no with most people. Maybe it's because of the ability to manipulate images digitally or because of the use of histograms or graduated ND filters but I think contrast can be a real important element in the mood or look of a photo. I can't remember the issue but some time back Rod Planck wrote a real good article in Outdoor Photographer conerning this.
As for the use of fill flash, I'm not sure if most landscape photographers use it or not but I know that I use it frequently. In fact, now now that I'm using a digital camera and can view the image instantly I might be using flash for as much as half of my landscape photos. I disagree with whoever commented on the un-natural look of flash; for many photos where the foreground is darker than the rest of the image if you dial back the flash comp as far as it will go, like three stops, it looks very natural. Where I live it seems like we have heavy overcast conditions 99% of the time and I might use flash to balance the exposure when you have, for instance, small stream banks in the foreground that are darker or I might use flash stronger to where it's evident but adds some needed contrast. And Gary is right about fill flash adding a sparkle to water, I don't like it all the time but it does add an interesting look. If you haven't tried it before I would recommend giving it a go, you'll be suprised at the results. I like to use it for closeups of small little streams that have little falls--it adds a nice abstract look.
What looks natural in a photo is also a very subjective thing. Think about it: saturated photos either from digital work or films like velvia, the use of polarizers or the heavy use of Grad ND's, the use of telephotos or wide-angle lenses. All of these techniques can be very un-natural, yet we've become used to certain looks in nature photos so much that in our minds they look natural.
We'll I think I've rambled on enough. Randy
and All:
Thanks for the suggestion of low level fill flash for unwanted impossible dard foreground situations.
Geez! another possibility to try! Hee Hee HEe. There is always another technique or skill to try.
Don't you all just love this place. By the way, NPN is far and away better at providing real constructive
chriticism than any other site I have tried. In some places, people are down right personally insulting.
I have never seen that here.
Like Randy, I would encourage all of you to investigate minimally effective flash in water scenes.
It's not the correct way and its not the wrong way. Its just another technique to try. By the way,
two weeks ago, I was at a conference at University of Maryland, College Park. We ate lunch in
one of their exibit galleries, where a very interesting painter's works were on exhibit. I already
forgot (AHHHHHH) the artist's name, but his extremely realistic surreal images definitely held
me spell bound. One particular portrait was particularly effective. I kept looking at it, wondering
why it had such an effect on me. There was something about the eyes, that brought the painting
to life, but what? One of my colleagues, then pointed out, that the artist had set small faceted
gem-stones at the edge between the pupil and iris. The live sparkle effect, was absolutely
amazing! Bet a lot of painters would hate that technique! Guess I am a sparkle-holic. So is my
wife ha ha ha. (Diamonds are a girls best friend). Anyway, as a fly fisherman, I am obviously over
sensitive about water. It's almost a religios or at least a pholosophical thing. That is why I tend
to overlook or atleast reduce my emphasis on flow, except for that associated with the surface
tension of the water (fly fishermen call it drift). Forgive me for neglecting to consider the other
side as much as I sense some refuse to consider my oppinion. This is great, I continue to learn
more every day. Thanks to all
Gary
http://www.adirondacklight.net/
http://www.ericfredine.com/
or maybe
http://www.crowmountain.net/
or maybe
http://www.chrisjordan.com/
just for a start. now go to people who eat spotted mushrooms and do polaroid transfers
But in the end - isn`t the real point of it all to enjoy what you`re doing? Rules or whatever.
processes that we know will get the job done. The job being a "successful" image.
I'm sure many people would think "no way" the complexity of recording a scene with a camera is pretty high and there are alot of things that can go wrong. But consider how complex it is to drive an automobile home, especially in traffic.
How you ever driven home, under stress, worry about a loved one etc., or thinking about something else entirely and then as you shut off the key in your driveway, you sorta realize you've arrived and you can hardly remember any details about the trip?
I think you are able to do that because you've driven that road so many times and your driving skills are very good that you don't have to be REALLY present.
How many general photographic stuations have you seen, that you haven't seen before?
Another thing that I noticed is that they are many self imposed rules. for example;
Keith said ;
"Moving water/ stretched plastic as you call it cotton candy as it's also so frequently described. Shooting any low ISO film or digital you can't help but get it. I certainly don't shoot landscapes at anything over ISO 100, Velvia 50 is my normal film, add to that, most rainforest/waterfall shots are best shot in overcast low light conditions and the water is all of a sudden stretched palstic, can't escape it."
So there you go, would you say that "as a rule" Velvia 50 is the normal film choice, certainly nothing over ISO100. Same for digital. That's not a rule ,that's a choice. Of course Keith is quite right in the majority of cases of landscape photography and others. Why is that choice made? I believe it's because most photographers ( including me ) want the lowest amount of grain / noise etc. In other words they want them to look their best.
But what if the idea doesn't include stretched plastic or cotton candy water? Too bad,
"can't escape it." Maybe the hardest rules to break are the ones we impose on ourselves, like wide angle only for landscapes and long telephotos for avian.
The biggest problem I see is that by doing stuff like that we are forgetting about the most important thing, why we wanted to take the picture, what we wanted to say. And for what?
Oh yeah , success. Seems like an empty victory to me. Tim
You have distilled my feelings to their essence. Very well done. When I shoot landscape, I am
usually trying to capture the impression that I experienced. Usually I stake my level of technical
and compositional skill and the limits of my equipment, against a set of excesses, present in the
scene. When I am good, I catch the excesses, and am able to control their effects, either with
composition, settings or occasionally with post processing (development, enlarging, PS...).
For me (though not for most people) when I "loose" to the physical conditions of the scene and
am unable to draw the recording of the scene to the impression I experienced. I am completely
disatisfied. That is why I want water to both flow and sparkle. Why I occasionally want sillouetted
foregrounds. Why I will sometimes live with 200-(Ghast)3200 ISO and the grain they generate,
because they still preserve the lighting and action of the scene. That is not to say that there
are not occasions when I use motion blur. I have used it both in capturing dance and windblown
flowers. I wil never be satisfied with my level of skill because there is always another technique /
compromise that I can learn to make, that tilts the balance toward the impression, rather than
the physical characteristics of the medium.
I would realy like to see some large format shots, where some "sparkle" flash was added.
I no longer have access to a large format camera to do it myself, for demonstration.
Thanks to all for all your interesting points of view.
Gary