Breaking rules #5 and #7
Posting a bit earlier because I have class tonight, and by the time I come back, you'll all be asleep :)
Now, I'm breaking two rules here, not going to mention them but I'm sure you know what they are.
My question is, if you clean you mind of any pre-conceptions, pretend you know nothing, will this work for you?
If yes, tell us why and if not, tell us why too.
Meant to be an exercise in observation and flexibility :)
Ah, and you don't have to be nice to me, rather give your honest opinion.
Always will get my honest opinion ... it may not be edumacated, but it'll be honest :)
I don't mind the egret looking to the left, because the turtles provide enough of an alternate focus point for my eyes ... so the lack of space for the egret to look into works pretty well I think. I like the subtle adn subdued light, but still, it looks somewhat muted overall. Not sure why quite frankly.
Last edited by KurtPreston; 02-16-2009 at 04:29 PM.
It's a beautiful picture...that's for sure, irrespctive of preconceptions. It is wonderfully exposed. In my view it is sometimes impossible to be certain why one image may work and another not. We may try to elicit reasons but it is only guess work. If a picture tells a story or expresses a mood then rules may have to go out the window. For me I think the bird looks incredibly graceful and carries a lot of detail and a shot with the space the bird was looking into may have worked equally well or better IMHO
Adrian.
Fabs, I think this is beautiful. Because it makes me think of the figurehead on the front of a sailing ship, I don't care that it's looking out of the frame (this would make the turtles ship's crew :)). The breeding plumes are beautiful and the bird itself is nicely balanced against the dark green background.
One of the (evidently) best kept secrets in photography: There are no rules.
It does work for me but because there is enough room for the egret to look at, a little less room to the left wouldn't have been as goo IMO. I have to be honest here :) I liked the other one of this series better ;) I can't help it Fabs!! Still, lovely! Congratualitons!
That's the spirit! It definitely works for me. What I see in this shot are forms that I find pleasing -- the graceful shape of the bird, the meandering, grained form of the log, the rounded forms of the turtle shells, and the blurred, clustered forms of the bushes in the mid-background.Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
To bring them out a little more, I played around with the light. Hope you don't mind, Fabs. With these forms accentuated a bit, to my eye everything now seems to be pointing left -- the bird's beak, the tip of the branch, the bushes in the background, and of course the turtles. A pleasing harmony ... to my eye. Is it just me? Can you see this? :cool:
I like it a lot Fabs.. My small suggestion would be to clone out the left turtle... the turtle with its head looking at the egret tell an interesting story, the egret ignoring the turtle with some attitude!
as always superb work.
The turtles balance it nicely, it would be great if the head of the turtle on the left were visible.
Beautiful composition and the balance is great . Love it exactly as posted and it is great to see what can happen when one does break a rule or two;)
Fab.
This is an interesting image and of course this compo is out of the box.
I am not too sure about the bird looking at a very narrow space but that is what makes this one different.
What I want to say is that I like this one more than the first one since I find it less ''typical''. Good job.
Juan, I think your comment illustrates the confining nature of "rules." If you box yourself
in with "rules," then this composition is of course outside the box you've built. But the bird isn't looking
at a very narrow space. The bird is looking into a space that extends -- who knows how far? --
beyond the frame of the image. What's narrow here isn't the space that the bird is looking into,
but rather the "rule" that says living subjects "should" be looking into the frame. Photography is
a visual medium, a visual craft. The "right brain" thinking inherent in this craft -- the perception of
image, form, color, symmetry, etc. -- can be conveyed via "left brain" language, description,
rules, etc., only to a very limited extent.
If you read the books by Betty Edwards about "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" and practice
her exercises (I have), you'll begin to understand how drastically "rules" and other linguistic guides can
restrict creativity in the visual arts.
Since discovering BPN not long ago, two things have struck me again and again: The first is the
amazing talent and skill of the many photographers who post here; I really am blown away
by the beauty and elegance I see here. The other is the frequent allusion to "rules"
-- the head angle isn't quite right, the light should have been over the photographer's
shoulder, the bird should be making eye contact with the camera, etc., etc. In short, I have
been struck by the sublime and the ridiculous.
I say that without a trace of disrespect. But I do most heartily challenge this sort of
rule-oriented thinking and critiquing. I really think there's an inverse relationship
between left-brain and right-brain thinking in this context: The more precisely you delineate
(in language, obviously) what is "good" and "correct" about a photograph, the less room is
left for truly creative photography. Creativity cannot be reduced to description, let alone prescription.
So, hats off to Fabs for posing "an exercise in observation and flexibility." Hats off to Fabs
for ignoring the "rules" and composing an image that is aesthetically pleasing. Hats off to
Fabs for her most useful invitation to set aside the "rules" and try using just your eyes
and your creative imagination. Turns out, those are all you really need.
To say that the bird is looking into a very narrow space isn't an observation. It is an inference
drawn from premises, one of which is a "rule" about where subjects "should" be looking.
On this point I stand with the wildest of rebels: There are no rules.
Now. I vacate the soapbox. ;) Hop aboard and let fly!
Hi Fabs, this works for me compositionally because the turtles are in the frame... without them, then the head position of the egret would probably be more desirable looking right. I like what David did to bring out the turtles a little more... doing so made my eye move more all around the image.
Rules? We have rules? Apparently they're even numbered! I'll be sure to stay away from that list if it means I'm allowed to capture images like this!
Love it Fabs. The feel is awesome in this image. Very powerful. No way would you achieve it if the rules were followed.
Thank you all for your comments, David, love what you did with the repost and thanks for your encouraging words :)
Fabs - I love it, the white bird really stands out against the dark greens of the BG - the turtles balance the shot nicely. It has a certain feel to it - reminds me of a viking ship.
Rules maybe the wrong word - Guidelines might be a better word, I certainly think there are certain guidlines that will help you consistently create a more pleasing image, and understanding these guidlines helps you know, when to work outside of them as fabs has shown so well in this shot.
Fabs, I think the image works, and thanks for posting it as it sparked some interesting comments. I particularly enjoyed David's thoughts here.
Cheers,
Greg Basco
I try to adhere to a quote that an artistic friend of mine has stated at a time and he maintains, "Judge art by how it makes you feel, not by what others say"
To me this quote personifies what we as photographic artist should do and when one gets an image like this one that Fabs has put up for discussion, it is then easy to judge the art by what it makes one feel and not the "numbers" that others need to assess it with. For me there is a mood in the image that portrays the late afternoon tranquillity of an everglade, with a flash of the opulence that one could expect as shown by the colour, form and shape of the main subject.
Fabs...
IMHO there is but one nit, but it bugs me....that being the turtle on the ledt not having a head.
Rules are simply "guidlines" that too many people drink the kool-aid of in my eyes.
I really appreciate someone who has the inner ability to see and create against the rules and pull it off.
Hi David!
I believe everything has been said. You are correct about ''me getting out of my own box''. Yes, sometimes we tend to follow rules that we believe it will help us to get a ''better'' looking image. But what if you break the rules?
I guess there is nothing wrong with ''getting out of the box'' is just that we, or at least myself, I am not too used to it. I prefer the ''typical'' ways of composition, I will say right here that I am not a professional photographer nor an artist, but one thing that I am sure I have since I remember is that I know when I like something and when not. I am a practical person and believe strongly in breaking the so-called rules but just if the product is going to be good. In this opportunity, Fab has done two things:
1- Breaking the rules to prove that we can go beyond.
2- That she is a brave lady who is not afraid to try different compositions.
This is simple, you can stand breaking the rules or you can't. In my case is simple, I play it by ear.
As I grow old, not just as a person but as photographer, I hope I will learn to get more out of the box as it sounds you are.
Thank you for your input, much appreciated.
A Bridge to Nowhere
Alright: My Opinion: I believe in rules, and without them we have chaos, and photographic anarchism. Without rules, critique is a total waste of time, so if you think them worthless, you are essentially saying that everything goes, everything is OK, and learning the rules of photography and artistic composition are just a waste of time.
Creating photographic images is a visual solution to the problem of how to communicate ideas of the photographer most successfully.
There are similarities between verbal and visual communication. In both there is a fundamental framework that helps to facilitate its success. Grammar is what connects words in a coherent understandable fashion, in the visual communication there are such things as composition, color harmony, exposure, and coherence. The image must make sense, or be understandable, even if it is an emotion that is understood.
In both verbal and visual communication there are rules, and although it is quite obvious they are necessary in language, it is easy to think not so in the visual language.
Psychologically viewing images is complex, and much goes on subconsciously. There is pattern recognition, attention to detail, association, and elemental context. Nonetheless an understanding of this process in the foundation of composition, and yes there are rules. There are a number of them, depending on the situation, and because one doesn't work, another may, and this doesn't mean that a rule is broken.
There is the rule of thirds, horizontal, vertical, and diagonal and symmetrical composition, for example. Geometry is obviously in play here.
Just as we use grammar everyday, and its rules, we are well versed in the rules of visual communication, even if we deny this fact. We are a visual culture, and all of us have seen probably millions of images since we were born, and we have subconscuously absorbed ideas of composition, balance, color harmony, and the like from thousands of photographers and artists. It is why we like one image or the other, we understand what has been
conveyed, and the rules. We do not like some images, and we often can't explain why. Just something about it. Well, your subconscious mind does understand. When the rules, the grammar, of visual communication have been violated, the idea meant to be conveyed is but a pile of meaningless imagery.
There are rules that should not be broken. Not that they couldn't be, but because it is counter to what we are trying to accomplish. Distracting elements, or merging of elements with the background are examples. We often want to emphasize one element more than others, a focal point, and framing techniques are used, which include a blurred background or repititious patterns as well as what we normally consider frames. We want a dynamic image that the viewer will get lost in, and be interesting enough to be closely examined and enjoyed. We want it to be memorable. We use color, and light, and composition, and these all have rules. We want elements to lead from one to the other, and harmony and balance to exist. What we should avoid is anything that directs the viewer away from the image; out side of it's boundaries.
This is the major flaw in Fab's image. She has used composition, and balance, and detail, and technical skill yet the image has elements (the egret) that lead us away from the image. Not only is the egret facing out of the image, but even if it wasn't a bird, but only a shape, the head is much like an arrow pointing us away.
Lets say the bird was obviously checking out the turtles. Here, even if the turtles were behind the bird, and he was looking away from the viewer to a certain degree, the image would be be dynamic. The viewers eyes would travel along one of the strongest of compositional elements: a triangle. The bird (his eyes), the branches and the turtles, and back again. Now that would be a great image! regards~Bill
I won't offer a rebuttal, but I don't agree that absent rules, critique is a waste of
time and anything anyone does is OK. I don't think we're stuck with choice between
rules on the one hand and aesthetic relativism on the other.
It's an interesting and worthwhile question that Fabs has raised, but probably too
large to be threshed out on a forum. A serious inquiry would have to begin with the
question, What is a rule? Seemingly simple questions like that can fill entire
books and still be unsettled. (Socrates asked, "What is justice?" Plato
answered in a book called Republic -- the first of many such books, and to this
day we still don't all agree on an answer.)
William I could not disagree with you more
There are no "rules" strong enough that you can not break. We have guidelines which help make an image what most of us say "a good image"
In particular the bird looking out of the frame is perfectly fine an makes sense, takes the viewer out of the frame and makes him wonder what is the bird looking at. There are other instances in which the surrounding bg behind the subject is so powerful you want to have more space behind the bird (not in front) as you would with a puffin standing on a ledge with a gorgeous lichen covered rock.
I respect your opinions and don't wish to change them. I like the alternative and creative thinking ... without it photography would be very dull.
btw Just my two cents and will not engage in what is right/wrong .... mainly because there are no right or wrongs.
Harry Chapin wrote a song 'Flowers are red', I have never forgotten the message in that song. Google up the lyrics or better still...listen to the song.
Thanks, Adrian, here's the lyrics, and as the commercial says, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste"
The little boy went first day of school
He got some crayons and started to draw
He put colors all over the paper
For colors was what he saw
And the teacher said.. What you doin' young man
I'm paintin' flowers he said
She said... It's not the time for art young man
And anyway flowers are green and red
There's a time for everything young man
And a way it should be done
You've got to show concern for everyone else
For you're not the only one
And she said...
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
But the little boy said...
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one
Well the teacher said.. You're sassy
There's ways that things should be
And you'll paint flowers the way they are
So repeat after me.....
And she said...
Flowers are red young man
Green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
But the little boy said...
There are so many colors in the rainbow
So many colors in the morning sun
So many colors in the flower and I see every one
The teacher put him in a corner
She said.. It's for your own good..
And you won't come out 'til you get it right
And all responding like you should
Well finally he got lonely
Frightened thoughts filled his head
And he went up to the teacher
And this is what he said.. and he said
Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen
Time went by like it always does
And they moved to another town
And the little boy went to another school
And this is what he found
The teacher there was smilin'
She said...Painting should be fun
And there are so many colors in a flower
So let's use every one
But that little boy painted flowers
In neat rows of green and red
And when the teacher asked him why
This is what he said.. and he said
Flowers are red, green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen.
Just One More Thing (just opinions)
The subject of this thread, other than the image, had to do with breaking the rules, and it got me thinking, and I appreciate that. I would like to clarify my previous post, and add a few things in addition.
As often is the case, the truth usually lies somewhere between two extremes of opinion. I have expressed one that lies in opposition to the idea that the guiding principle in photography should be that if it looks good to the photographer it must be good. My contention is that good photographs should be created by following certain rules, or as Al has called them "guidelines," which may very well be a more descriptive and apt word. In any case my reaction has more to do with the attitude that these guidelines are not necessary, and I firmly believe that they are.
Rules of composition are in my mind more important that other rules of photography. These rules should, in my opinion, run through a photographer's mind as he composes an image while peering through the viewfinder. Not that viewing things in new and creative ways isn't important as well, yet it should be done within the confines of effective composition. Composition is the absolute framework of any image and guiding principles are extremely useful in making the correct decision on when to capture the scene. To choose the best compositional
idea starts with the vertical or horizontal aspect decision, and has little to do with the actual subjects, but the shapes and patterns and the relationships of space and elements within that space. The rule of thirds, diagonal , linear, triangular, and symmetrical composition are all fair game, and one would most likely do the best job. Ignoring composition because you feel that rules are too confining, and not using any guidance is a hit or miss affair. You might get it right, or it might be a missed opportunity to create a truely memorable image. I think that
your chances are better if you take time to think of the possibilities.
Rules, or guidelines, can indeed be broken, and but if you have no idea what they are in the first place, it is a just a chance event. I also think that there should be a valid reasons to break rules.
Maybe some examples would be in order. What might be a rule or a guideline is that the subject, or focal point of an image, should be in sharp focus. Lets say the egret in the image in this thread is meant to be the focal point (main element of interest) and it is blurry, and clearly out of focus.
Does it add anything to the image? Does breaking this rule serve a purpose? If not, why do it?
Another example: Head angles and position of the subject in relation to the viewer (in the context of avian flight photography). The rule would be that it is preferrable for the head to face the viewer to a certain degree, and the bird to be coming, at least partially, toward the viewer. There are reason why the rule is valid, one being that apparent eye contact with the subject creates a connection to the viewer in the former, and an innate need of the viewer to see as much as possible of the subject in the later. This rule has many instances that cry out for it to be broken, for example the bird is looking at something in the scene, or flying away for another visable reason. But without these "reasons" should the rule be broken?
Another one: what is called "mergers" in which the subject more or less combinging with the background should be avoided. A good rule, but a valid reason to break it would be to show how well a a bird uses camoflauge. A valid reason, but without one, should we just ignore the rule?
These are all rules, and they can and should be broken at times, but not knowing of their existance does not create better photographs, and indeed the opposite is often true. Of course a blind sow occasionally finds a acorn, and a photographer who doesn't acknowlege the rules or thinks them unnecessary can take a great photograph. Occasionally, or with a little luck.
Sometimes a rule seems to be broken, yet is merely operating under another set of valid rules that are better under different conditions. An example would be an image of a bird, in water, with a reflection, in which the scene is divided into two equal parts vertically; the bird, and the reflection. The "rule of thirds" is violated, yet "rules" of symmetry are followed precisely. Alright, I got it out of my system. Thank You~Bill
That's fine, but please notice that no one in this thread has suggested that "if it looks good to the photographer it must be good." You are thrashing a straw man.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote