The Rules of Photography in Everyday Shooting

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I don't give a single thought to the "rules of photography" when I am actually shooting. Does anyone?</p>

<p>If I see something and like it, I try to frame it and shoot it. I try to get the exposure right, and I do think about the depth of field I want, whether I need to use exposure compensation or a tripod or timed release, etc. Generally speaking, though, shooting is not something I do too much<em> thinking</em> about in terms of the value of the shot--when I am actually out shooting. Conscious <em>rational</em> analysis of the value of the shot, that is, is strictly <em>ex post facto</em>.</p>

<p>After I get back home, that is, I can perhaps analyze why I like or liked a potential shot, maybe even think about the "rules of photography"; but, generally speaking, shooting for me is a profoundly <em>non-intellectual activity</em>. That is, I shoot, if not from "the gut," from something quite divorced from deduction from rules. Reason is operating on a variety of levels, to be sure, but most of the time<em> not in my aesthetic evaluation of a potential shot--</em>at least not at the conscious level.</p>

<p>All of this raises the question for me as to whether or not there is something which one might call an "aesthetic sense," something that is separate from reason <em>per se.</em></p>

<p>I would like to hear from others on this issue, especially those who might not go to the Philosophy of Photography forum too often, including ordinary, even casual, shooters.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>About the only one I even think about is the "Rule of Thirds" (sounds kind of like a video game, doesn't it?).<br>

And that only because I have almost all my digital cameras and many of my film ones outfitted with grid finders. "Think about it" is about all I do however, since I don't always DO anything about it.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>there are no rules only suggestions, and they are often wrong</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Most "Rules for photography" posts I see are updates on social media trying to drive traffic to articles on websites and blogs that rehash the same tired piffle. It's usually some writer who misspells "My comfort zone" as "Stuff everyone should do".</p>

<p>If the article is in bullet point checklist form - "Seven, 11 or 30 things you should do to make your photography conform to my expectations!" - I'll give it a pass.</p>

<p>But if it's an essay with a persuasive opening paragraph and premise I haven't read a dozen times before, I might read it.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I think about composition on almost every shot. When I see a scene with my eyes, I have to chose the right lens to represent it, then within the limits of that lens, I need compose the big in the most pleasing way. I also Expose To The Right, purposely over exposing to get the best image file possible, but then I need to check that I didn't blow out the highlights.</p>

<p>Shooting action, such as birds-in-flight, I need to assure that my shutter speed is high enough to freeze the action, but I don't want my ISO too high, such that it adds noise.</p>

<p>I find that if I don't think about exposure needs and composition, then I'm much more likely to get a disappointing shot. </p>

[William Michael]

<p>For "casual shooting" I do think about where I am standing and whether or not I should move; and I do think about the Focal Length of the (zoom) lens that I am using. I think pretty quickly about those two "rules": and I can still move pretty quickly.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

I think about how I want to direct (polite euphemism for manipulate) a viewers perception of both the subject and the

photograph.

 

But while I probably break the rules of how a photograph is supposed to work to most effectively shape that perception, I

think that learning those "rules" are a necessary foundation for learning how to make good or better than good

photographs on a regular basis. Once you know what the rules are, you can first consciously and then unconsciously

break them in order to make an individual photograph a better vehicle for conveying the impression of your subject that

you want another viewer to emotionally, aesthetically, and intellectually get.

[dan_south]

Generally, I try follow Ansel Adams' advice:

 

"There are no rules for good photographs. There are only good photographs."

 

Practically, I follow a few guidelines:

 

1. Composition is the most important element to consider while shooting, because a bad composition can't be undone (as, to some degree,

a bad exposure can). I try to ensure that the composition is pleasing to my eye and that clutter doesn't detract from subject.

 

2. I try to ensure that the camera is stable or that the shutter speed is fast enough so that camera movement won't matter.

 

3. I try to optimize the exposure, but I'll bracket if I feel that it would be helpful.

 

4. I try to ensure that the focus is on the most important visual element.

 

Those are the key principles that I keep in mind while shooting. I want to take care of the elements that cannot be adjusted later. Everything else comes down to aesthetics.

[dan_south]

I find it difficult to reconcile "expose to the right" and "don't blow the highlights."

 

If you are dead set on never blowing a highlight, your photos will quite often be underexposed and prone to noise. It's more

practical to gain a sense for highlights that can be blown without impacting the quality of the photo - light bulbs, for

instance. Who cares if you can't recover enough to see the filament? Or highlights on metallic surfaces. Backgrounds in high key shots and silhouetted shots can be blown way out without issue depending on how you want the final image to appear.

 

There's a certain amount of "exposure intelligence" that one should develop over time. Following some simple minded rule

works against that development.

[Vlado]

<p>I always have the grid turned on in my viewfinder. In that case you know when to override it (the rule of thirds)!</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"there are no rules only suggestions, and they are often wrong"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one considers an artist as having an artistic duty of some sort, then those duties will be bound by rules as all duties are.</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, an artist owns nothing to anyone, then he will not be bound by rules but will risk ridicule for his complete disregard over the acceptability of his work. </p>

<p>In other words, rules are as much about "what not to do" as it is about "what to do". </p>

 

[david_smith110]

<p>The rules of photography are the sound of one hand clapping.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Rules ... we don't need no stinkin rules :)</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Depends on what I'm shooting. If it's a moving subject it might be a little hard to think about photo rules, but if it's a stationary subject, then yes I might think about the rule of thirds especially when shooting portraits or Macro. I might also think about the most appropriate shutter speed and aperture. </p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>I lived by the Rule of 16, (also known as Sunny 16) for quite a while, while my F2's meter was dead. Transposed to whatever stop/speed I needed, and compensated for conditions. Sort of a rule and a guess. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> The Rules of Photography in Everyday Shooting

 

Always leave home with a freshly charged battery.

[AlanKlein]

<p>If you shoot from "the gut",chances are you'll be following many of the rules. The "rules" come from people's aesthetic sense which is in their DNA not the other way around.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There are many quality kinds of thinking and intellectualizing other than the rule-oriented kind. Some of my own photo shoots, for example, seem like a stream of consciousness. I often do think ahead about my shot and about a particular day's shoot or even my whole approach to shooting as well, be it a moment before, an hour, a day, a month . . . Sometimes I don't think ahead. I don't find myself separating thinking from feeling. I find my gut and my brain acting together most of the time, though I may emphasize one to myself more than the other at any given time. I tend to experience things more holistically. I have no idea where I'd draw a line between my own thinking and feeling. They seem nicely intertwined.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Faced with a subject of interest, I wish only to show it in some new or fresh manner, to make a visual statement that excites me and possibly others. I consider myself a link between it and a viewer. Even if I seek a process of communication, I am first and foremost photographing for my own pleasure and need. What do I see in the subject that is revealing of it or of something it can suggest through my image of it? Composition rules are useful at times but really of secondary importance overall. They can't get in the way of the interpretation of the subject and the communication or what I believe (or instinctively feel) to be the best rendition of the subject, however rule-less or eclectic that may be. Something, if I am lucky and understand and perceive the subject well, may surprise or delight me and others.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>if you shoot from the gut chances are that you'll be aiming low</p>

 

[charles_stobbs3]

Photography on the right side of the brain? That finds the subject and viewpoint for me, after that it's

stable camera and shutter speed as Dan says.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Maybe I am blessed with little formal education; I know little rules, and out of the few I know, I reject some as being too rigid and anti-creative, and the rest are just little helpers, but not hard rules. Which helps, because while I am shooting, I want to have a clear and open mind on what I am seeing, and try to frame that in the way that seems best to me. Which often is the way "it struck me", so often those thoughts tend to be very quick too. When I'm out shooting, I want to be as free as possible to see. Not get dragged down in rules.<br>

And sometimes, a scene strikes but compels to think a bit more while I am there, reflect on how I want to show that scene to whatever audience the photo may have. And then some rules pop in and out, some bits of colour theories, a dash of Gestalt psychology, a curiosity for breaking the rules, and whatever else could be useful. It doesn't necessarily slow me down, though sometimes it does. Depends a lot on the scene and the complexity of its (perceived) message.</p>

<p>Obviously, I do not direct my photos, but it's "found stuff"; a response to what I see. Things will probably be vastly different for those working in a more studio-like/manageable environment.</p>

[pmind]

<p>I just shoot what I would like to see—and hope that others agree.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>You cannot fail to follow the rules of exposure and stop-action, when applicable, and expect a good image. However, these day, the camera will get it right 90+% of the time. Although the image may not be optimal, it'll be acceptable to most people.</p>

<p>About composition, many of us learn from looking at the images of others and just absorb and adopt the "rules" subconsciously. Other, like me, learned composition as a 12-year old student, aided by rules and examples that our instructor showed us. Fifty-four years later, without a checklist, I'm looking for something of interest in the foreground, or out on the extremes on an ultra-wide; I'm placing the horizon somewhere other than the middle (unless it's a reflection), etc., etc. </p>

<p>Could a gifted artist shoot very attractive images without any express knowledge of the rules of composition? Yes, of course, but I'd say that such people are the exception rather than the rule. Go to Flickr and pick out a random user that's not "Explored" or "interesting" and you'll likely find someone that needs to learn a few "rules."</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>Could a gifted artist shoot very attractive images without any express knowledge of the rules of composition? Yes, of course, but I'd say that such people are the exception rather than the rule. Go to Flickr and pick out a random user that's not "Explored" or "interesting" and you'll likely find someone that needs to learn a few "rules."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think its very common. In fact that;s why many people will be impressed with a great photo that is shot well without ever lifting a camera or shooting a picture themselves. They innately see the beauty or are reacting to something that the photographer shot that is innately attractive to the viewers. The problem is that it is actually hard to use a camera. I'm not talking about the technical aspects of focus, exposure etc. But rather how to see through a viewfinder, move around to get into the right position, eliminate part of what is framed that obscures a good picture. That's the part that takes training and lots of practice and experience. Photographers have to learn how to compose to catch the feeling they already know in their gut. </p>