There, I said it. I finally got it off my chest. Maybe it's just me, but one of the biggest pet peeves I have about the online photography culture is the reliance on certain "rules" of photography. I know what you're saying, "But Rich, what about the Rule of Thirds?" What about the Rule of Thirds, indeed! The RoT is the biggest offender in my book, but it's not the only one.
Let me back up a moment, and set this up for you. There's a couple of photography forums that I frequent, and occasionally post on. Recently, on one of them, I got involved in a couple discussions that eventually led to me wanting to write this post. The first one was essentially about the Rule of Thirds. I took the standpoint that it can be counterproductive to teach the RoT to newer photographers because it pigeonholes them into thinking inside that little box. Rather than try to teach composition organically, you can go to about a million photography sites that list compositional rules. By calling them rules, people assume that they are supposed to shoot that way. What a way to box someone in artistically! One poster asked me how I was taught about photography in that discussion. I explained how I had a mentor who never told me about the Rule of Thirds until I asked him about it. But by then, I had built my eye up compositionally that I didn't need to think about the RoT, I just automatically placed my subjects/horizons/etc where I thought they looked best. He replied saying that it's impossible to teach photography online like that, unless the more experienced photographers are willing to spend a lot of time mentoring newer photographers. I had never thought about it that way.
In another discussion, a newer photographer asked what the best ISO setting for a particular circumstance was. In this case, it was low light, indoor, sports photography. A few people had replied with answers like, "Oh, 400-800 ISO should be fine," and "It doesn't really matter, just don't go above 1600 ISO, there will be too much noise!" (These quotes are actually paraphrases, and not actual quotes from the discussion). I started thinking about how unhelpful these answers were. They seem helpful, but anyone who's been into photography for a while can see the trap here. That trap is getting pigeonholed by a rule. My reply to this new photographer was simply use the lowest ISO that will give you the shutter/aperture combination that's appropriate for the shot. This may be a rule, but I dare you to find me a situation where you couldn't use this. (And no, saying you want noise for artistic reasons, is not a reason. We're working off the assumption that noise is bad.) Considering that you only get one benefit, but also one big drawback by raising ISO (more light, but more noise) there's no reason to go any higher than you need to.
Now, before I go too much further, let me say that, I agree, most of the time, with all of the popular rules of composition. They were labeled rules for a reason (as in, most of the time, they will give you the best shot), and I am not an advocate for straight, non-converging lines, centered subjects, centered horizons, etc. I simply believe that composition needs to be taught in a way where the rules are automatic. But that the photographers eye automatically knows when to break the rules. Unfortunately, that's the sticking point.
Here's the rub. We call them rules. We learned in grade school that you aren't supposed to "break the rules." Sure, we've heard the cliche, "Rules were meant to be broken," but honestly, do people really believe that? Rules are meant to be followed. If they weren't meant to be followed, they'd be called "guidelines" or "suggestions." There's a rule that says you aren't supposed to go faster than the posted speed limit in your car. Is that rule meant to be broken? Why should someone who's new to photography assume that the compositional rules were meant to be broken? The answer is, they shouldn't because we're conditioned to follow rules, and we are hesitant to break them.
So how am I now combating this semantic war against the "Rules" of photography? Simple. I don't call them rules. If I critique someone's photo, I say, "Nice job not centering your subject and horizon, it looks good like that!" Or in the negative, I might say, "Make sure your subject isn't centered, and maybe move the horizon up or down a bit." Yeah, it's a little more verbose than saying "Check your RoT," but at least I'm not responsible for reinforcing the idea of "Rules" of photography. I suppose I should be glad it wasn't called The Law of Thirds.
Let me back up a moment, and set this up for you. There's a couple of photography forums that I frequent, and occasionally post on. Recently, on one of them, I got involved in a couple discussions that eventually led to me wanting to write this post. The first one was essentially about the Rule of Thirds. I took the standpoint that it can be counterproductive to teach the RoT to newer photographers because it pigeonholes them into thinking inside that little box. Rather than try to teach composition organically, you can go to about a million photography sites that list compositional rules. By calling them rules, people assume that they are supposed to shoot that way. What a way to box someone in artistically! One poster asked me how I was taught about photography in that discussion. I explained how I had a mentor who never told me about the Rule of Thirds until I asked him about it. But by then, I had built my eye up compositionally that I didn't need to think about the RoT, I just automatically placed my subjects/horizons/etc where I thought they looked best. He replied saying that it's impossible to teach photography online like that, unless the more experienced photographers are willing to spend a lot of time mentoring newer photographers. I had never thought about it that way.
In another discussion, a newer photographer asked what the best ISO setting for a particular circumstance was. In this case, it was low light, indoor, sports photography. A few people had replied with answers like, "Oh, 400-800 ISO should be fine," and "It doesn't really matter, just don't go above 1600 ISO, there will be too much noise!" (These quotes are actually paraphrases, and not actual quotes from the discussion). I started thinking about how unhelpful these answers were. They seem helpful, but anyone who's been into photography for a while can see the trap here. That trap is getting pigeonholed by a rule. My reply to this new photographer was simply use the lowest ISO that will give you the shutter/aperture combination that's appropriate for the shot. This may be a rule, but I dare you to find me a situation where you couldn't use this. (And no, saying you want noise for artistic reasons, is not a reason. We're working off the assumption that noise is bad.) Considering that you only get one benefit, but also one big drawback by raising ISO (more light, but more noise) there's no reason to go any higher than you need to.
Now, before I go too much further, let me say that, I agree, most of the time, with all of the popular rules of composition. They were labeled rules for a reason (as in, most of the time, they will give you the best shot), and I am not an advocate for straight, non-converging lines, centered subjects, centered horizons, etc. I simply believe that composition needs to be taught in a way where the rules are automatic. But that the photographers eye automatically knows when to break the rules. Unfortunately, that's the sticking point.
Here's the rub. We call them rules. We learned in grade school that you aren't supposed to "break the rules." Sure, we've heard the cliche, "Rules were meant to be broken," but honestly, do people really believe that? Rules are meant to be followed. If they weren't meant to be followed, they'd be called "guidelines" or "suggestions." There's a rule that says you aren't supposed to go faster than the posted speed limit in your car. Is that rule meant to be broken? Why should someone who's new to photography assume that the compositional rules were meant to be broken? The answer is, they shouldn't because we're conditioned to follow rules, and we are hesitant to break them.
So how am I now combating this semantic war against the "Rules" of photography? Simple. I don't call them rules. If I critique someone's photo, I say, "Nice job not centering your subject and horizon, it looks good like that!" Or in the negative, I might say, "Make sure your subject isn't centered, and maybe move the horizon up or down a bit." Yeah, it's a little more verbose than saying "Check your RoT," but at least I'm not responsible for reinforcing the idea of "Rules" of photography. I suppose I should be glad it wasn't called The Law of Thirds.
2 comments:
This has me thinking about how I relate skills to others. One part of me thinks that the "rules" should be learned and understood before they are broken. When I have instructed about the RoT I usually add it's only a guide and as you increase in experience you discover appropriate times to ignore the rule. I like how you worded it though about "not centering", etc. It can be difficult to teach concepts, in minimal time and with minimal words without referring to the rules (for me to convey them anyway). But this post has me thinking about how to convey concepts differently.
While I agree on the semantic aspect, I still think the regular snapshooter may gain from a set of rules, since the focus of interest is not the artistic aspect of the picture, but the memory effect. With a set of rules, he/she may be able to obtain slightly better photos on average. The snapshooter willing to be a better photographer should learn the basics ideas behind composition, of which the Rule of Thirds is just a shortcut (do you like Shorcut of Thirds?)
Post a Comment