 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Do you always shoot DEAD CENTER like a bullseye target- BAD composition posted by Joe M on May 18, 2004 at 14:00:23:
Yeah, the rule of thirds will always guarantee you a "good photo." Puuulleaase the "dead center = bad composition" is a farce being foisted off by people who use formulas for composition instead of what works best for the subject.Rules of composition were made up AFTER the fact by people trying to analyze a successful work of art. S-curves, rule of thirds, triangular compositions, etc. etc. sure, they may work with some subjects, but use of a compositional rule doesn't guarantee a good image.
Just put the subject into the frame where it's most comfortable and quit using "rules" - or, please show me a copy of the "Photo Composition Rule Book." I prefer the latest edition. Does it have an ISO number?
Follow Ups:
With all due respect to Joe , who is an excellent photographer, I agree with you and would add that the rules of photography (and for that matter, music) change when a particular "wrong" method breaks the commercial ice and then becomes accepted:
You can't shoot photojournalism with wide-angle lenses.
You can't shoot studio fashion with just one light.
You can't shoot woman looking natural.
You can't shoot ethnic-looking women for fashion.
You can't shoot black and white ads in major magazines.
Flare is bad.
You can't shoot black and white at weddings.
You can't shoot photo-journalistic type shots at weddings.
You can't shoot portraits unless you just show the persons face and shoulders.
You can't crop out a persons head on a photo even though the person isn't the subject.
I ignored all of those "cannots " as well as others.
I hope that those just getting started out do the same.
You may not enjoy financial sucess or fame, but you will experience the joy of creativity.
The more you become familar with the cpompositional guides (not rules, ok) handed down from the Great Masters of the past through out Art history. The more successful your creation becomes. This may ensure your hard work, will be admired by more viewers.It's akin to raising children, they need structure in their upbringing. Before they can be adults on their own.
Anyway it's to early and I need my coffee! This can be discussed to death.
You mean painters? Yeah, that's real applicable to photographs. Look very carefully at DaVinci's "Last Supper" some time. How many vanishing points does it have? How do you do THAT with a photograph where the vanishing point is geometrically generated from the optical center of the lens? Oh, and check out the distorted perspective. How do you do that with a photograph.See that's the problem. These western rules of composition were developed over a period of time by painters who used all sorts of compositional "tricks" (forced perspective, multiple perspectives, multiple vanishing points, etc.) to generate the final image. Photography (as a single exposure image) doesn't have all that latitude to force a composition to work. So while your admiring the "triangular compositions" within the "Last Supper" that "make it work," you're missing the other more subtle compositional elements used within the image that reinforce the main compositional rule elements that you can identify.
Then if you study something like Chinese art history, you'll find out that their "rules of composition" are totally different than western (European) rules of composition. So, now just which rules are we to follow?
"The more you become familar with the cpompositional guides (not rules, ok) handed down from the Great Masters of the past through out Art history. The more successful your creation becomes. This may ensure your hard work, will be admired by more viewers."
Oh, give me a break. You don't really believe that do you? You mean, let's make rule bound photos because that's what the majority of people can relate to? Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun and a sure-fire road to interesting photos.
Sorry, can't buy into that one. There are only two types of photographs: the interesting kind and the boring kind. Slavish adherance to rules WON'T move a boring photo in the interesting category just because it follows a rule of composition. It will still be a boring photo composed according to a rule of composition.
Also, don't have the faintest idead what your attempted "children / adult" metaphor has to do with photographs.
Every asshole has one! :^)Were you a wedding photog? Sounds that way, you never had to please an editor for a paycheck did you.
Just get aunt Martha's face in the shot and the bride was happy.
You can't seem to discuss an issue, so instead you reveal your true intellectual level. No wonder you compose photos by rules - you don't have to think for yourself or make something original.Interesting that you think you can pinpoint exactly what type of photography I used to do - except your totally wrong.
...they don't know what the floor is till their face has been wiped with it.
Only, secret code, you're out of the Loop, sorry!..................Go have another Drink guy.
Luckily, I'm a recovering professional photographer who has now gladly attained the rank of amateur. I'll leave making all the great, important photos that follow the rules to guys like you.
| Register / Login |
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
