10 photographers to ignore?

[markbarendt]

It is not a rule. It is simply a technique among many. There is no rule that says you have to "shoot to the shadows." You have been misinformed.

Beginners don't know the difference.

 

[miha]

I don't think we need to follow anybody in Photography, nor do we need to know all the techie stuff. In fact IMO the learn the rules first mantra stifles creativity.

A Holga or Diana loaded with HP5 or Portra 400 and a decent eye is a great start. Heck a disposable can be used to great effect.

How many times have we heard people say that they got worse at photography as they got better at the craft? Been pretty darn regular IME.

Very true.

 

[jeffreyg]

Before Ansel there was Carleton Watkins.

http://www.jeffreyglasser>com/

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

As for rules, I think photographers have to know the rules thoroughly before breaking them. Artist break rules for a reason. The F/64 railed against the Pictorialist and Impressionist painters stylistically divered from the Salon in Paris. Learning the rules is a solid foundation to move beyond rigid convention.

 

[pdeeh]

Ah, that's right, there are rules ... I know, let's prove the rules of photography by setting up an experiment at the LHC ...

[/shuffles off sighing, clicks "Ignore Thread"]

 

[removed account4]

As for rules, I think photographers have to know the rules thoroughly before breaking them. Artist break rules for a reason. The F/64 railed against the Pictorialist and Impressionist painters stylistically divered from the Salon in Paris. Learning the rules is a solid foundation to move beyond rigid convention.

what are the rules that photographers have to learn?
"technical rules" like you put the film / paper in developer first and then into fixer ?
or style/composition rules ?

i don't think there are any rules anymore.
people are bombarded with visual images all day from the time they wake up until they put their head on the pillow
the people making tv, movies, print media subliminally have infiltrated everyone's head so now people know "what looks good"
why do they need to hero worship well known photographers, to prove to themselves and others they can find someone else props,
tripod holes, motel room with a drunken nude model, fetish camera/lens &c and make another photograph that looks like someone elses ?

 

[MattKing]

I never use the word "rules", except with certain technical issues. "Open only in complete darkness" is a good example.

There are, however, some commonly recognized techniques that, if applied, will allow photographers to achieve certain reasonably desirable results - I refer to those as "guidelines". It is good to be able to use them (or not use them) with intention.

When it comes to the work of other photographers though, being aware of that does aid in being able to communicate thoughts and intentions toward photography in ways other than just mutely sharing pictures.

I enjoy sharing my photographs, and looking at photographs shared by others. I also enjoy communicating with others about photography - what inspires, what intrigues, what confounds - and for that, having knowledge about the work of "great" photographers contributes tremendously to the depth and breadth of the vocabulary.

Hmm - "what inspires, what intrigues, what confounds" - makes me think of jnanian's work.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

There are two kinds of people who indiscriminately rail against all rules. Geniuses and wannabes. And we all know what the normal distribution curve implies about the number of geniuses living among us...

Ken

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

"Eggleston may have won the war with the obvious, but now the obvious is getting its revenge in the form of the millions of banal, boring, dull photographs that are being uploaded to the web everyday. We don’t need to go far to find the ‘democratic forest,’ in fact, we may never be able to escape it."
​

I have to agree with this one. Just look at Instagram and you'll see that "everyone is Eggleston" now, photographing everything (which is somehow nothing) all with that iPhone perspective that's weirdly wide and yet completely flat. It's very depressing.

 

[Doc W]

Beginners don't know the difference.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at.

I meet all kinds of photographers who say they "break the rules" but I think that is just another way of being a little pretentious. The whole "rules vs free spirt" argument is getting so bloody tiresome. If a photographer wants to figure out how to control highlights, for example, there are those in this forum who will accuse him of slavishly adhering to some dogma or Byzantine set of "rules."

EVERYONE follows some form of guideline, or works within a set of parameters and limits. Even Jackson Pollock did. It is inescapable.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are two kinds of people who indiscriminately rail against all rules. Geniuses and wannabes. And we all know what the normal distribution curve implies about the number of geniuses living among us...

Ken

Yes and some of them have me on their own ignore list.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

There are two kinds of people who indiscriminately rail against all rules. Geniuses and wannabes.

Don't forget the curious and the insane. That makes great art.

 

[removed account4]

If a photographer wants to figure out how to control highlights, for example, there are those in this forum who will accuse him of slavishly adhering to some dogma or Byzantine set of "rules."

what does technique have to do with "rules"
exposing for highlights isn't a rule the last time i checked.
the idea that it is a rule that beginners or whatever have a library
of photographers whose work they have to emulate, or that they buy
the 3 ansel adams books and move up to 4x5 so they can do 3 or 4 days worth of film tests is kind of strange.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

what does technique have to do with "rules"
exposing for highlights isn't a rule the last time i checked.

Actually, technique IS a set of rules. Just as there are compositional rules. And photographic etiquette rules. And print viewing rules. Most view photographs right side up and not upside down, correct? That's a generally accepted rule.

Rules are nothing more than a set of standardized behaviors accepted by the majority. Time-saving abstractions. Rules are everywhere, and everyone uses them continuously. Even you.

For example, human languages are also a set of commonly understood audible (and written) linguistic rules, evolved to facilitate the exchange of ideas between human beings. Other examples? In the USA you drive on the right, in the UK on the left. And when venturing outside in public, everyone gets dressed first. All rules.

In the case of controlling highlights in a photographic negative, the standard rule is to vary the development time. But if one has a different outcome in mind, one can also apply the different rule of simply metering and placing the highlights in isolation, thus letting everything else fall where it may.

Rules allow mankind to make progress. They do this by encapsulating and distributing prior knowledge and preventing each individual from needing to reinvent the wheel every time out. And thus allow him to spend that saved time in thinking outside-the-box to figure out more creative ways to use the wheel instead.

Ken

 

[markbarendt]

Sorry, I don't understand what you are getting at.

Beginners tend to do things like, read The Negative and think that the Zone System is an accurate global description of the science of photography, when the ZS should be thought more of as manual for one of many possibilities. It gives novices a way to read a book, make a decent negative, and get a nice print using single grade paper.

Beginners tend to think that way, IMO, because of the high importance of specific numbers, all kinds of fancy graphs, and all that spot metering that the ZS implores us to use. Many beginners start thinking that every exposure on a negative needs to be exact or they will have failed and that as with slides a perfect camera exposure will result in a perfect straight print.

Beginners can't tell a rule from a rule of thumb, and IMO they don't need to.

Adams took a few good photos, but I generally ignore that, for me Adams (and his buddies) most important contribution was in the f64 manifesto and it's marketing brilliance.
Similar HCB is most notable in my world for using photography to automate his drawings. HCB didn't care about photography per se, he cared about the drawing it could make and automating the process. The photographic process was an afterthought, his purpose was to make art.

 

[removed account4]

mark

as the nipmuck tribe named their lake: Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
some have translated it to mean you fish on your side, we'll fish on ours, and no one fishes in the middle.
as it usually ends up wtih most of these thread that have anything to do with philosophy or personal ideas of what is and isn't important ...
some people will adhere to rules and regulations and
others will just take a camera and enjoy themselves with it, and not worry about it ...
there isn't much middle ground.
===
where's papagene !
i'm sure the nipmucks didn't name anything in az

 

[markbarendt]

mark

as the nipmuck tribe named their lake: Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
some have translated it to mean you fish on your side, we'll fish on ours, and no one fishes in the middle.
as it usually ends up wtih most of these thread that have anything to do with philosophy or personal ideas of what is and isn't important ...
some people will adhere to rules and regulations and
others will just take a camera and enjoy themselves with it, and not worry about it ...
there isn't much middle ground.
===
where's papagene !
i'm sure the nipmucks didn't name anything in az

yep

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Don't forget the curious and the insane. That makes great art.

"The most dramatic examples of savant syndrome occur in individuals who score very low on IQ tests, while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation, art, memory, or musical ability."

— Savant Syndrome, online Wikipedia article

 

[StoneNYC]

There are two kinds of people who indiscriminately rail against all rules. Geniuses and wannabes. And we all know what the normal distribution curve implies about the number of geniuses living among us...

Ken

Hmm am I a mean or an outlier?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

As much as we'd all like to think we know the answer to that question for ourselves, or worse have convinced ourselves that we already do, only a prescient fate truly does.

However, if we are talking probabilities instead of possibilities (or dreams, or delusions), then it's best for us all to remember that there is an undeniably obvious reason for that enormous hump in the middle of that curve...



Ken

 

[Doc W]

what does technique have to do with "rules"
exposing for highlights isn't a rule the last time i checked.
the idea that it is a rule that beginners or whatever have a library
of photographers whose work they have to emulate, or that they buy
the 3 ansel adams books and move up to 4x5 so they can do 3 or 4 days worth of film tests is kind of strange.

Whatever you do, don't look at the work of others, don't buy any books, never do any tests, and definitely stay away from4x5. Your photographs will be much better.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I am always amused by those who attempt mightily to wriggle out of the obvious. Everybody follows rules. Everybody. In photography and in life. From the moment we awaken each morning until the moment we fall asleep each evening. There is virtually no decision in life we make that does not appeal in some way to some rule somewhere, discovered and passed along by someone who came before us.

Our very survival as a species on this planet resulted entirely from our trial-and-error collective discovery of those best practices which allowed for that survival, and were then codified into rules passed down through the millennia. All it takes is being eaten once by a tiger to forevermore follow the rule that when you see fresh tiger tracks, leave.

Similarly, our very survival as photographers resulted entirely from our collective trial-and-error discovery of those best photographic practices which allowed us to successfully photograph. Those best practices were then codified into rules passed down through the decades. All it takes is one blank negative to understand the significance of the rule stating that developer comes before fixer.

From another thread, even if you gleefully fancy yourself a total rule-ignoring rebel for using yak piss to develop your film, you are still discovering and then following the best practice rules for developing film in yak piss, right?

Everybody follows rules because that's hardwired into our brains. Rules are the end result of abstract thinking. They are how we make sense of the world around us. And abstract thinking is the essence of intelligent life in the universe as we currently understand it.

Ken

 

[NJH]

My take on these things when reading or studying famous photographers is to lower my interest level in the technical aspects and try and get a feel for the person, their philosophy and the context of their time and place in the world. None of us are going to be that person but its my opinion that the most valuable things that can be transmuted from them are their philosophy, this is what I love about Salgado in particular when he writes about his approach. Its just a shame that as time goes on for 99.99% of us this is only going to come from secondhand information, and worse still if it comes from 3rd or 4th hand diatribe on the internet.

 

[blockend]

I never use the word "rules", except with certain technical issues. "Open only in complete darkness" is a good example.

I agree. The history of the last hundred years of photography has been about enablement - box cameras, cartridge film, auto loading, auto exposure. Use a monorail camera and you'd better know a few rules, pick up a point and shoot and fire away to your heart's content. That doesn't mean everyone will be a winner, but it doesn't suggest a knowledge of swing tilt and the zone system makes someone a genius either.

I took a look at a club photographic exhibition yesterday, and with a single exception none of the photographs detained me. Apart from the fact most were digital, the photos could have been taken in the 1950s. It was clear every one of them knew the technical rules, but they were all speaking in someone else's voice.

 

[removed account4]

Whatever you do, don't look at the work of others, don't buy any books, never do any tests, and definitely stay away from4x5. Your photographs will be much better.

i think you hit on a few of the major silver bullets but i don't think they are rules.

as i said earlier, i don't really think there are any rules. people might want to insist
there are, but there aren't.

people are bombarded with visuals 24/7 so they probably have most of
the " i wonder if this looks good" covered ( and if they don't who cares, they are enjoying themselves )
...i think it would be kind of impossible, unless
you are a hermit living in a cabin in the woods to be shielded from pre-made visuals.
and if you are, and have a camera, and the world is your oyster i am sure
cutting out a piece of cardboard with a square or cardboard or circle or whatever aspect ratio you like
( or holding your fingers like a circle or square, if you are a hermit you mgiht not have matvboard )
and holding it up to the world will be a good visual aid to learn what you like and what you don't. who
cares if it is what ansel said, or hcb said or anyone else. unless you are a professional, you are doing
it for yourself so why does it matter if you center weight everything. if you like it, do it.

i've always suggested a simple bracket/developer ( check light meter, shutter developer/printing ) test
although i have never thought it was a rule, but some folks live by the zone system.
they spend an awful lot of time making base+fog tests and use it as a rule. good for them.
it isn't necessary, and it isn't a rule for most people, especially beginners.
if someone wants to under expose and over develop and print everything down,
there isn't a rule that says someone can't do that. and while they are at it, they can use water instead
of stop bath, there isnt' a rule that you need stop bath too, water is just fine.

format, well, it is an obvious fact that even if you are terrible --- the bigger the format
the more of an impression you make on your friends, family, and strangers, so perceived skill oozes from 4x5
and bigger formats. but that isn't a rule either. one can make fantastic photographs from any format,
minox, box cameras, helga and her sister diana, pin-toid, and cellphones too. it doesn't matter, and 4x5 or bigger,
sure ... nothing like bling, ... if its fun, do what you want, its your money and time.

with regards to using a 4x5 camera .. i don't think knowing how to use a camera would
be considered a rule. plenty of 4x5 cameras have been used since the invention of photography
where the user didn't use hard to pronounce theorems. plenty of box,falling plate,slr press, portrait
cameras have been used over the decades that have no movements. some have no focus control,
no shutter speed or aperture control either. i've often suggested someone ditch everything but a box camera
or something with no focus or aperture control focus on learing how they like to compose images.
too many options ( lenses apertures shutter speeds film choices, developer choices, photographers to emulate &c )
tend to bog people down. then again, if that is what they want ( excess), more power to them ...

im not sure how any of these are rules.

the only rule that i know of in photography is if it is what makes someone happy,
they should do whatever they want. ... that is unless they do it for a living
then you need to find out what pleases your client/s and do what they want.

so getting back to the original-topic of this thread --
if someone suggests to their beginning photography class,
don't bother looking at the greatest hits of photography's websites or books,
it might not be a bad thing.

as i also said --- Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg