Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

I try to avoid getting too hung up on the terminology used. Whether referred to as a rule, guideline, or technique, I focus on its content; what does it provide me with in terms of being “mindful” as a photographer? The Rule of Thirds, for example, is far from being an actual rule which must be followed lest I suffer dire consequences (a bad composition). However, in knowing it, and purposely considering it when composing, it is a compositional technique that is often helpful in moving toward a composition that works. The same is true for “guidelines” such as “use leading lines”, or “don’t crop off limbs”, or “check the corners and background before tripping the shutter”. In my opinion, the more one consistently refers to the content of these “rules”, and consciously evaluates their relevance to the composition we are constructing, the greater the chances of our being successful.

Rule of thirds, leading lines, use of symmetry, attention to corners

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It's a regional thing.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

Just what is this word "acoarst" you keep using? Did you make it up?

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

In my early art classes it was suggested that we follow the rules of composition. Once you learned the rules it was suggested that you break them. The line a professor once used was; You learn the rules so you know how to break them. I think that was a suggestion.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Thus, disproving a proverb in place since mid-evil times.

exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis, which translated means:
“the exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted”.

The true meaning, and value of the proverb has been argued since it's first utterance. Most people use it more or less in jest, not that it does or doesn't have any real intrinsic value.

But I get what you are saying.

Bill P

I'm sorry to report that you haven't, but still, I also haven't seen anyone explain exactly why we, in photography, need any rules at all.

I mean i understand rules like thou shalt not kill, or how to go through a 4 way stop or a traffic circle, but in photography? As I have said, the rule of turds is the direction to the road of mediocrity. There are others that are of no particular benefit.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Again, I think people get hung up on the terminology rather than looking at the content and how it can be used to help one be “mindful” when composing a shot. The Rule of Thirds is not a “rule” that must be followed slavishly, but what it says can be helpful in moving towards strong compositions if it is consciously considered, evaluated as to its relevance in the shot, and then utilized, modified, or ignored as seems best.

It’s not really a matter of there being “rules” in photography. It’s more a case of there being a set of knowledge summaries that are easily called up and which, when used mindfully, can aid a photographer in creating good work.

MrMophoto Loc: Rhode Island "The biggest little"

Since I teach photography in an art dept., I deal with the concept of composition all the time. I will say what I tell my students; When it comes to composition (rule of thirds is just one of about ten), these are guidelines that help with composition, they are not hard and fast rules. The process I describe is - first you find something interesting you would like to photograph, THEN you decide which composition would be best to emphasize and enhance that subject and you adjust the camera angle, settings etc to get the shoot you want. I use the term, previsualization, Which means you have visualized what the final print will look like before you press the shutter button. Basically you know what you want as an end product and manipulate the settings and camera placement to achieve that goal.
One last thing, when taking about composition, I don't call them "rules of composition" but rather "compositional structures" and like all structures they are completely adaptable.

Bill P

Again, I feel there are quite a few here that seem to have an overwhelming need for rules. NO UV filters!! Ever!! Always a lens hood. (Just saw a piece by a prominent blogger, who in the past has seemed to me not controversial, who stated that he Never Never uses a hood, and we shouldn't either!) and I can't forget, you will never get a sharp photo without a tripod.

I can't argue the mindfulness thing, but I do think it should be apart of what you do instinctively, not something that you have to stop and consider before the press of the button.

I think that many of us would lead happier lives if we set aside the need for rules.

Bill P

You seem to be a well reasoned person, so I would like to know what you do when a student without fail follows to the death the rule of turds to a precise mathematical precision, and is proud and makes a big point of that? Nothing more likely to suck the humanity out of a piece of art.

User ID

While agreeing with your whole post, I would
more strongly enforce the idea in this one line
of yours, particularly the part I underlined:

"I use the term, previsualization, Which
means you have visualized what the final
print will look like before you press the
shutter button."

For too many users, the hardware is a crutch,
a totem, a distraction or a blend of all those.
Therefor, I would go even further with your
"before you press the shutter button", all the
way to "before you even touch your camera".


&@#%&@&%#%@%#&&#&@%#@%


That might seem kinda picky-picky, but I live
in a somewhat photogenic place, and there
are some "photo students" from the colleges
prowling around ... whom we can reasonably
expect are somewhat serious about getting a
"worthwhile" image. Acoarst there are others
who are obviously non-students who exhibit
that same "image maker on the prowl" type
of camera-in-hand and camera-at-the-ready
behavior, which always progresses into the
eye-at-the-eyepiece "photographer dance".

The whole dance would best be done without
the camera ... especially dancing with an eye
at the eyepiece. By the time you even touch
the camera, it's best to have finished 95% of
your prowling and squinting. Visualizing with
open mind, unencumbered eye, no camera in
hand sending techie thoughts via the fingers,
up the arm and into the mind ... IOW, resist
fondling that totem while visualizing !

I observe a whole lotta "previsualizing before
pushing the shutter button" and some of it is
entertaining or laffable. And I've seen results
to match the behavior. A standard of greater
"purity" for the visualization stage results in
using the camera as a slave to the mind. The
"hardware influenced" version of visualization
lets the slave influence the master, a machine
influencing its operator. Some will argue how
that is a good thing, gives the photographer
"camera vision" or "photographic vision". And
I do agree that yes it does give you "camera
vision" ... but I vehemently disagree whether
that is really a good thing.

First you visualize as an open mind, not as a
"photo mind". Then you bend the medium to
your will, to record something that will share
YOUR vision, not the medium's vision, with
the viewer.

User ID

MrMoPhoto's reply is of great interest to me
as well. Pretty sure for myself, if faced with a
student proudly[!] enslaved by tirds, I'd give
such a student a very specific assignment to
put the center of interest, the subject object,
in the center of the frame. Assignment is 100
different photos, not 10 versions of 10 ideas.

I'd emphasize that no "masterpieces" would be
expected, tho a few may happen by chance :-)
It's just a simple exercise about producing 100
workman-like images with "bulls eye" framing.
No heavy critique involved.

Bill P

Good idea. I have been preached the subject of previsualization, and have a problem with what most people consider that is. For me, both in my personal street photography and in my professional work shooting construction projects in progress, I always had in mind a very general idea of what I wanted, but I would simply await a photo to reveal itself to me. But I never had a rigid view of a specific composition.

But I have met and seen the work of many photographers (and painters, sculptors, etc.) that I would love to push out of their comfort zone, and I think your idea could change lives.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

In a number of ways you and I are in agreement; we are both advocating approaching our shooting from a position of (my term - mindfulness). Where we diverge (in a minor way really) is in the idea of when to pick up the camera. I go to mine fairly early in the process. When I encounter a scene that interests me, I start moving around, snapping off frames from many angles, heights, different zooms, etc. i don’t think too much about composition at this point, nor do I have much of a well developed idea as to what the final composition will turn out to be. From there, I start “chimping” or reviewing these quick shots, looking for one that catches my eye as having interest and potential. I do this to help myself move from my total view in the three dimensional world to seeing possibilities in a two dimensional world with a constraining frame. If one of these “pre-shots” intrigues my, I will set up my tripod and start refining the shot into a final composition. This is when I might purposefully think about the “rules” and “guidelines” (compositional structures) and how they can be used or adapted to a final vision.

This may not be how many think about “pre-visualizing”, but it is a routine that works to help me build a composition that I feel good about. I don’t claim it to be the right way, or the best way, or the only way to approach pre-visualizing, but it works well for me (and possibly for others who might try it).

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The problem is with these ever-reemerging arguments about rules and guidelines is that there is too much etymology and philosophy and not enough PHOTOGRAPHY.

Photography is an art and a science. Art, in many instances, is a product of talent, imagination, and sometimes innovation and can be very open-ended.

The science of practically applied photography is usually based on proven theories, practices, standards, procedures and time-honored engineering principles having to do with optics, mechanics (camera and related gear operation) and, chemistry and some computer-related technology and electronics. If there are any "rules" they are more scientifically based and usually can not be seriously altered, broken or disputed unless you can somehow change the molecules, so to speak. You needn't be a physicist, an engineer or a master technologist to be a good photographer but a firm grasp of the basics of exposure, focus, depth of field, the inverse square law, and many other principles where if you jump too far out of the box, you won't land in a good place.

Artistically speaking there are many guidelines, a good deal of which are based on traditional principles that may apply to specific areas and specializations of photography- some find the roots in classical and modern art. Theses may have to do with the aesthetics of light and lighting, the dynamics of light, the "mathematics and geometry" of composition- the rule of thirds, The Golden Section, Divine Proportions, etc., color and tonal and harmony, and again, much more. Many of these principles are good learning points, they provide a means of analyzing, studying, teaching and critiquing photography but the artistic basics are all debatable and can be purposefully broken. If you really know the so-called "rules" you will be better equipped to break or alter them with much more finesse because you will know the exact effect of breaking them.

The problem that I see in many cases is photographers just running before they can walk. Some never take the time and exert the patience the learn the basics in a more disciplined way and just go on and on without even satisfying their own goals or aspirations. The problem is since the production of art is very dependent on the photographer's technical skill and savvy, the art may suffer greatly without the technical know-how. I analogize this to a dog chasing his own tail and if he should catch it and bite it off, it can be very painful. If the photographer is too involved with trial and error and constantly fumbling with his gear, there is no time or space left for concentrating on the art and the moment. If the photographer has a vision and knows exactly how to materialize it, he will do better.

Knowing all the rules, principles and guidelines, should not impede or impair a photographer's creativity or propensity for experimentation and discovery. When the tools become extensions of the hands, the eyes and the heart and the mechanical operation becomes almost autonomic, art has a better chance of emerging. In the other extreme, if a photograher stick to every rule to a fault he or sh may be a better "technician" that an artist or one's work may tend to stagnate.

I can respect anyone's wish to not abide or even refer to any accepted standards, principles, rules or guidelines in photography and strictly want to go it on their own and see what materializes. Every now and again, however, I see somethings that are simply just poorly crafted work and when criticized, the maker claims it is "artistic license". After a while you kinda get to know the difference!

Mastery of any visual, literary or performing art all require study, practice, learning and finally mastering a compliment of basics. The artist then has many options but basically to stay with traditional practices, standards, principles, and tenets or move in other directions- knowing exactly where they are going!

Others may disagree, but his is my take on the matter.