JZA B1 wrote:
Square crop, rule of thirds, or something completely different?
How do you know which one to apply in any given situation? Any time-tested rules or just what looks best?
At 68, after making photographs seriously for 56 years, I use a little bit of everything. It's all intuitive, now. I don't sit and analyze a scene. I look through the viewfinder and if time permits, I move the camera until I've included what I want to see, placed it where I want it, excluded what doesn't work with the scene, and then when the time is right, I make exposures.
I may wind up with a rule-of-thirds, golden triangle, alphabet shape, leading lines, vanishing lines, layer cake, or something else, or a blend of styles. It just happens. My instincts come from looking at lots of great art and photographs for decades and internalizing what works. Being merciless in judging my own work helps, too.*
I'm not one to worry too much about in-camera composition if my vantage point can't be controlled, or if there is no time to move, or if I have the wrong lens. I go for the moment when that is what is important. If I have to crop, I have no qualms about that. Frankly, many images can be cropped several different ways, and each crop will "say" something different. Other images must be cropped because the capture wasn't composed properly for the intended usage.
For still life work, I take my time. In the studio, it is all about light and details. Add timing if a portrait is the goal.
As a serious photographer, I worked for a yearbook advisor for four years in high school. As an AV/video producer, I worked for an art director for eight years. Both were merciless when they needed to be, and I soon learned what worked for each of them. My own preferences are in between their habits, somewhere. Making 35mm slides was a completely different discipline from giving publications editors "flexible" images they could crop to fit a layout. Fortunately, we had a sophisticated slide copying setup. With it, we could crop to recompose, and enhance images when needed.
*I believe most creative people do something similar. Creative process fascinates me. I'm currently following a young rock band by listening to all their formative works as children, and to interviews with them by industry insiders. Amazingly, but unsurprisingly, the music THEY listen to often has NOTHING to do with what they write and play! They hear a lot of classical, jazz, K-pop (!), folk, rock, country, and other genres. Consequently, they use a little of everything in their own compositions. It's what makes their music fresh and interesting. One song will be hard rock. The next will be a heart-wrenching tragic ballad. Somehow, they match mood to message as well as the best. It works for them; at 19, 22, and 24, they've been together for ten years, produced an EP and three albums, have a five year record contract, and they're touring the Americas and Europe — nearly 200 dates in the last two years. Best of all, they are real musicians, not manufactured image from a corporate behemoth.
Best advice I can give? Go out and photograph something. The more you exercise your skills, the better you get. A course of photo education is useful, to a point, but don't take it too seriously. If it tastes like cult Kool-Aid, spit it out and try another approach. Creativity should be a fluid process. You can learn and follow rules, but you really grow when you learn to break them in the right circumstances.
FEED YOUR HEAD. I'm NOT singing
White Rabbit here...** I'm just talking about looking at great art, great photography, and great design. I still find inspiration from other photographers useful. Someone always teaches me something. I tuck it away in my subconscious, to be burped out when needed.
**Jefferson Airplane reference to their radical song from the '60s about drugs