Dearest APUG...I noticed you've been missing something...

[David A. Goldfarb]

All,
After reading through a couple of Ansel's writings last night, it struck me like a freight train. While I admit that Im among the largest gear-heads and techies on this board; we've been missing something. Just look at all the forums - LF gear, Film/Paper/Development, Metering, etc....Its all on the scientific and technical aspect side of photography (again, not like Im complaining...). We are missing out on the artistic side of things - discussions on composure, creative posing, etc.
Im not suggesting that ANOTHER forum be created for composition, Im just looking to fire up a discussion. Sure, we all know about the rule of 1/3rds, leading lines, ad nauseum. But what about some tricks ? What thought process goes through your head when you're photographing something that you feel is of great interest; but none of the above rules apply ?

Creating new forums for photographic genres has been on the agenda for a while (e.g., landscape, portrait, still life, street, photojournalism, etc., as needed/as interest motivates), and this sort of discussion would certainly be at home in these new forums. I think Sean has just been too busy keeping the server stable and working on the software upgrade to set these up, but once the new software is in place, I think that would be a good time to add these sorts of enhancements the forum structure.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

True, but if that is the only reason you are doing this, it won't get you far. For me, any pleasure derived by the viewer of my work is bonus. However, it is not made for them.

Yes, I hear this quite a lot.

Well, I can talk, and it may give me pleasure to hear my own voice.

I can talk, and you can listen, and it may give me more pleasure to know you hear me.

I can talk, you can listen, and then you can tell me that you agree or approve of what I have said, and that may give me the most pleasure of all.

I can make a photo. I can hide it away from the world - I didn't make it for you. And that may give me pleasure...etc.

How? I don't get this at all.

I stated it awkwardly, please forgive me. Let me restate. I find that I tend to appreciate photographs that the photographer apparently made with the express intent of communicating something to me (or any viewer) as opposed to photographs that a photographer appears to have made expressly to please themselves without regard to how it affects me.

I certainly hope so! If not, I am guessing it isn't going to be a story I want to hear.

Again, I gain more satisfaction from speaking to an audience than from speaking to myself. I listen to understand, and I speak to be understood. I gain no satisfaction from sitting alone in my house quoting my own prose to myself.

I understand your point of obtaining pleasure from simply making others happy with your work, but can't that also lead to pretty homogenous and potentially uninteresting stuff?

I can't deny it. I propose that extended bouts of self-gratifiction can lead to the same result.

I also agree that studying another's technique and style can be beneficial, but one is never going to get anywhere until all of these things become second nature and the mind is no longer polluted by them during the process of creation. There comes a time when you simply have to stop looking to others for the way.

I agree. If I wanted to learn to ride a horse, I might first examine how others do it. After I had mastered the basics, I might seek my own level of expression in the equestrian arts. Reinventing the wheel for the sake of rejecting everyone else's style seems a wasteful exercise to me.

Technique, gadgetry, rules and science are all quantifiable things. IMO it is the nature of many people that are drawn to photography to be done so because of one or more of these things. Trying to apply this to art and aesthetics is crazy however as there truly are no rules there. There can be accepted and acceptable guidelines to be sure, but not going beyond them as with technique and gadgetry is a disservice to yourself as an "artist". This is fine for photo clubs and anyone simply satisfied with making pretty pictures. Who can be faulted for that? This is why there are so many different types of photo enthusiasts.

As well as different interpretations of what one might call an 'artist'. I like pretty pictures, myself. I like avant garde. I do not demand that my art all be the latter. If I like the former, it's art to me, too.

As far as teaching "style" or how to inject "meaning" into your work. I doubt that it can be done.

When one insists that art must break boundaries, not be derivative, and be pleasurable only to oneself, I can well understand that.

I think I understand you, but statements like this are, IMHO, what often lead the hoi polloi to declare artists 'narcissists'.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'" I would take the view that the Honorable Mister Dumpty is wrong. The word means what it is understood to mean by those who perceive it.

My sure-to-be controversial and slanted opinion: Art is too much concerned with what the artist wants and not enough with what the arted want.

I care about what the artist has to say. But if the artist believes that their art was not made to be appreciated by me, or if my appreciation is merely tangential to their own and purely by accident, then I haven't much interest. I feel like I'm intruding on the artist's self-gratification in mid stroke.

 

[catem]

Po-mo schpo-mo! Postmodernism depends on the existence of preexisting methods/conventions/rules/law/blah of writing. You can't have Pynchon without a lot of leg work before him, so it's not like he's working without rules. Au contraire, he goes against the flow of the river, so that the river is still there!

Of course - you have the "rules", "conventions", and then you choose to ignore them - or, to give them different (less) emphasis. I didn't say more recent literary practice was built on air - of course it's firmly rooted in it's past. I was merely pointing out (not too seriously, I thought) the limits of Wigwam's literary analysis.

I disagree about your comparison between photo and poetry. People always think of poems as beautiful heartfelt meaninglessness, especially in the West since the late 19th-early 20th Century, but a large portion of western poetry is narrative to a large extent. The Illiad? Paradise Lost? Elegy written in a country churchyard? Beowulf? Granted, you can point to Donne's poetry as more symbolic, but it is nevertheless highly structured. Rhyme, versification, prosody, sound effects, all that we call poetics is what structures poetry. Shakespeare didn't write poetry like Jackson Pollock paints. Rimbaud was one of the first to tear down the edifice of classical poetics, but he also was a master of it at seventeenth. Yet he came with his own principles: vision, hallucination, impressions. All of which you could call "technique."

You might argue in return that eastern poetry is different, but here I must retreat into my ignorance, and point to the fact that the most ethereal form (for westerners), the Japanese Haiku, still has a codified number of syllables.

Ah - point of disagreement there, see thread on Haikus

All fair points on poetry, you point to a solid tradition. I had 'free verse' more in mind, i.e. modern poetry since the twentieth century. Of course you can analyze it, and of course it is built on structures - even when supposedly without structure. I didn't say otherwise, I was comparing it to prose story-telling, and finding it less rooted in literary conventions. It is also, often, to do with "the moment" in the way a photograph is.

Back to Wigwam Jones's original comment, he rightly pointed out that there are elements to a photo. Those elements are contignent, the product of a practice, but they exist nevertheless. I'm not a Positivist-type of codifier, but I don't think we can work on intuition alone in working/appreciating a photo, or any work of art for that matter. I'm also sick of people discrediting all sort of structure/technique because they are historically contingent. By the same reasoning, every person is historically contingent, therefore worthy of elimination.

The final point I'd like to raise is the fact that creating a photo can be a matter of seconds, so that by chance one can subscribe to a very elaborate but beautiful composition. Or not. People who paint "realist" painting take pains to decide which line goes where, and by doing so they force a compositional structure. Photo is a rare art in that composition can be left to chance. Not so with literature, music, sculpture or painting.

The initial creation of a photograph IS a matter of seconds - that is, if you wish to ignore the hours of setting up that can be involved. However, in my experience anyway, producing the final print you are happy with can take endless amounts of time. My comparison of photography and poetry-writing is based on personal experience, and I can say, that I find the two very comparable, both in terms of conceit, of 'capturing' the moment or moments, and of darfting and re-drafting. I have also written short stories, and I find that very different. However, I'm not altogether sure of the value of going too deeply into comparing writing and photography.

Cartier-Bresson was saying that the rules of composition help us understand why a picture is good, but also that we don't need to engrave the golden square on our ground glass. A trained eye will perceive a harmonious balance faster than it can be explicitely identified. All successful "intuitionists" are probably more aware of form than they'd care to admit...

As far as I know, no-one on this thread has denied the value of "rules" or conventions. I certainly haven't. If I am an "intuitionist" (I don't mind being called one) I have my feet firmly on the ground.

Cate

 

[catem]

I agree with Wiggy on this. All my life I have heard people tell me that the Artist must create only to please himself as if to say that to consider how others might relate to a work somehow soils its artistic purity.

I'm not sure I've ever heard this (only theoretically as a romantic idea about artists in the past). That an artist or photographer has to be true to themselves, yes. But I would have thought most artists and particularly photographers surely see communication with others as of the utmost importance - isn't it what it's all about? Otherwise why would we show our work to anyone else

Being true to yourself is not the same as ONLY being true to yourself, to the exclusion of everything else.

Cate

 

[tim atherton]

Let me restate. I find that I tend to appreciate photographs that the photographer apparently made with the express intent of communicating something to me (or any viewer) as opposed to photographs that a photographer appears to have made expressly to please themselves without regard to how it affects me.

How do you know that? (and related to it, how do you know that what you perceive or experiences is what the photographer intend to communicate...?)

 

[bill schwab]

I can make a photo. I can hide it away from the world - I didn't make it for you. And that may give me pleasure...etc.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy putting my work out there and do derive pleasure from the fact that people find pleasure in it. In fact, my life depends upon this and I am forever grateful. However, if I was doing it simply for that fact, it would be an empty existence and the photos just wouldn't be much good to me OR the viewer. I am still doing it for myself. Without that there is no point.

I find that I tend to appreciate photographs that the photographer apparently made with the express intent of communicating something to me (or any viewer) as opposed to photographs that a photographer appears to have made expressly to please themselves without regard to how it affects me.

Hey, if you want it to be all about you, that is your choice. Much is open to interpretation and you can take it any way you want.

Again, I gain more satisfaction from speaking to an audience than from speaking to myself. I listen to understand, and I speak to be understood. I gain no satisfaction from sitting alone in my house quoting my own prose to myself.

I'm happy for you Wiggy. You know what you want and are honest about that fact. Your love of what you do shows. Damn good thing there is an Internet, eh?

I propose that extended bouts of self-gratifiction can lead to the same result.

You can say that again!

My sure-to-be controversial and slanted opinion: Art is too much concerned with what the artist wants and not enough with what the arted want.

Then maybe the "arted" (good one) should get off their arses and make some art!

B.

 

[SteveH]

Maybe rules is the wrong word. Perhaps technique is better. I like the second definition from Merriam Webster (sorry - can't afford the online OED):

Agreed. In hindsight, I didn't mean rules as ridged...
To me, I see the rules of photography as being glasses of water. When they are contained, they are predictable, and perhaps most of the time boring....Yet at the same time still fluid. The interesting things happen when you spill the glasses, and let the water flow. Its still glasses and water, but the predictability is gone. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Let me restate. I find that I tend to appreciate photographs that the photographer apparently made with the express intent of communicating something to me (or any viewer) as opposed to photographs that a photographer appears to have made expressly to please themselves without regard to how it affects me.

How do you know that? (and related to it, how do you know that what you perceive or experiences is what the photographer intend to communicate...?)

Part the first:

I don't "know" it. I refer to my use of the phrase 'appears to have made'. I can only rely on my own judgment.

Part the second:

The art that a photographer makes and the art that a viewer perceives may indeed be different, as Barthes discusses in his book, "Camera Lucida." It is indeed a rewarding experience when what the artist intended is what the viewer apprehends. One might say that the very perception of the synergistic effect of the two working as one is 'how one knows'.

 

[SteveH]

One resource that I found very helpful was the book "Creative Elements" by Eddie Ephraums.

Thanks Mark, I'll look into it.

Creating new forums for photographic genres has been on the agenda for a while (e.g., landscape, portrait, still life, street, photojournalism, etc., as needed/as interest motivates), and this sort of discussion would certainly be at home in these new forums. I think Sean has just been too busy keeping the server stable and working on the software upgrade to set these up, but once the new software is in place, I think that would be a good time to add these sorts of enhancements the forum structure.

I see David. One of my fears is that we get into so many subdivisions, that we classify classifications. That is why I put the disclaimer into my origional post.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Then maybe the "arted" (good one) should get off their arses and make some art!

We arted pay artists good money to entertain us. Get busy. (grin).

 

[blansky]

Just a few points:

Some people shoot with their heads and some shoot with their hearts.

I think a lot more women shoot with their hearts than men.

I've never taken a picture to "communicate" anything. I have no need or desire to communicate, teach or preach through photography.

I take pictures to please myself and sell them to people who like them.

I still think structure is important, and in fact necessary, to learn. Then break the rules.

90% of what I shoot, I crop for style? impact? for the hell of it? in the darkroom.

A rule is just like religion. It tries to impose conformity.


MIchael

 

[don sigl]

How do you describe what is beautiful? Really, you can't. You can show people... but you can't tell people.

Simone Weill: "Beauty is the supreme mystery in this world".

Way back when I was an undergraduate, my school had 2 programs of photographic approach: One was the BFA program that operated under the philosophy that the tools were secondary. Be creative first and learn to use the tools as you need them.

The other school was the BS program that stressed mastery of the tools and apply that mastery to creative use.

I got the BS degree (I always like saying that). My minor was in Fine Art.

Although I would agree with the metaphor that a good typewriter (or word processor these days) doesn't make a good writer, I think that an inability to write legibly does nothing to communicate good writing to anybody.

Picasso was a masterful draftsman. Long before he developed cubism, he mastered the tools of drawing and paint. Once he had accomplished that, his genius was to apply that knowledge to a vision that was as free as that of a child.

 

[SteveH]

Thanks to everyone for your input. Now my geek side will be allowed to speak:
As I said before, Im a techie geek. I graduated with a degree in Physics....It doesn't get more geeky than that. Once I got into the 'real' world though, my biggest life lesson was that everything on the planet can be made up by numbers and figures; with the exception of people. Emotions, likes/dislikes, etc are all radicals. I guess Im still learning to figure that out....Which was why I started this thread to begin with.
My geek mind still says that perhaps if I had a better understanding of psychology for example, I can calculate what most people find pleasing about a photograph, or what subject 'speaks' to most people. I could then dissect that information, and apply that to my own personal interests in subjects, and create a balance of my photographic interests vs. 'most people'. Then maybe in that, I would find out what truly appeals to me as well. Then the little voice in the back of my head screams and proclaims that I would be "...taking the art out of art !"

So, here I am. After reading what I just wrote, I will admit what may be the most honest statement in this thread:

From an outside perspective; its clear that I am not confidant in my artistic skill and expression. That is obvious; as I am trying to lean on my comforts.

I admit that whole heartily.

 

[Flotsam]

My geek mind still says that perhaps if I had a better understanding of psychology for example, I can calculate what most people find pleasing about a photograph, or what subject 'speaks' to most people.

Like McDonald's did with food or TV producers did to entertainment or corporate music conglomerates did to music.
Giving "most people" what they want doesn't ensure creating something better.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

To say that because one is a photographer they either choose a composition or not and cannot "force" a compositional structure is oversimplification at best.

B.

I said that photo composition can be left to chance. I never said that it cannot be crafted. I said that painting &c forces you to compose. I'm afraid your logic is faulty.

 

[catem]

Just a few points:

Some people shoot with their heads and some shoot with their hearts.

I think a lot more women shoot with their hearts than men.

I've never taken a picture to "communicate" anything. I have no need or desire to communicate, teach or preach through photography.

I take pictures to please myself and sell them to people who like them.

I still think structure is important, and in fact necessary, to learn. Then break the rules.

90% of what I shoot, I crop for style? impact? for the hell of it? in the darkroom.

A rule is just like religion. It tries to impose conformity.


MIchael

I think I shoot with both my head and my heart, I'm not sure where one ends and the other begins - the same is also true of the 'rules' and 'technique' - I prefer not to think about them, which is why I find it hard to bring them to the forefront, and give them undue presence. I like to think it's automatic - you do it in a certain way, at a certain time, depending on the outcome you want. But I don't like to pay undue attention to what is "correct" (or, in vogue).

I thought you might like this quote from Joe Cornish - from a Zen maxim I believe, which pretty much says it for me:

"First develop an infallible technique, and then put yourself at the mercy of inspiration."

In fact it does seem to me like quite a lot of us feel much the same way.

Cate

 

[Steve Smith]

I thought you might like this quote from Joe Cornish - from a Zen maxim I believe, which pretty much says it for me:

"First develop an infallible technique, and then put yourself at the mercy of inspiration."

Another quote I like, though I'm not sure where it comes from is:

Good fortune is when preparation meets opportunity.

i.e. always be ready for any chance which may arise.


Steve.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Hello Steve H,

There is a psychology aspect to why some people like some works of art, or even why some people don't like certain works of art. The statement I don't know about art, but I know what I like is something that can often come up in discussions about works of art. Sometimes people can learn a bit about themselves when they figure out way they like certain works of art, and that process can become easier when people tend to choose very similar images. Unfortunately, it is not always that simple, and can rarely be dissected into formulas nor rules.

When studying for a degree in art, many students will start with a basis of foundations. These are mostly guides to seeing aspects of works of art; since we know there are not really rules. This includes simple concepts, like a diagonal composition, symmetry, asymmetry, et al; and often moves to more complex ideas such as warm or cool, push and pull, analogous colours, or atmospheric perspective. Some concepts mirror drafting or architecture, since architecture is a large aspect of the history of art. None of these things quantify works of art, which does not mean they are without value, simply that they are guides.

As a practical example, I recall that in one class in which we maintained a sketchbook, we had a later exercise to review our compositions. Our sketchbook began with the simple instruction of needing a certain number of images before the next class session, and that we should spend a certain amount of time doing the sketches. That later assignment came after the class was introduced to the concept of the Golden Section. Our assignment was to create a transparent GS template which we could use to check our previous drawings. The idea was to find how many drawing somehow fit into a Golden Section (GS) composition in one way or another, then write up a report about that including some example images. I was a little surprised how many of my drawings fit into GS proportions or intersections. This happened in my first semester in college in 1994. Anyway, that is only one example, and hopefully it gives somewhat of an idea that fits your questions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

 

[tim atherton]

Well, this very loosly links into the current thread:

zefrank on "Ugly" (and "rules")
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/07/071406.html

(and the vote on the ugliest myspace page:
http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/uglymyspace/

my favourite:
http://www.myspace.com/nuqneh )

 

[anyte]

When I'm out with the camera looking for interesting things to photograph, I don't go through a list of rules, but rather rely on what I have been able to internalize to the point of it becoming automatic. The more I photograph, the more of these concepts begin to shift to automatic mode.

I've never found the words to explain how I shoot. I think you have just provided me with the words.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

A rule is just like religion. It tries to impose conformity.

"Every knee shall bend." -Isaiah 45.23

Yeah, I guess that's conformity. I'd rather bend my knees voluntarily, but bend them we will.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Like McDonald's did with food or TV producers did to entertainment or corporate music conglomerates did to music.
Giving "most people" what they want doesn't ensure creating something better.

Nothing 'ensures' it; but talent and appreciation go hand in hand. Neither exists without the other.

I regret that an artist who wishes to produce artwork that he or she believes people will like must needs be a 'sellout' for that very reason. I believe it to be a humbug generally perpetrated by the unappreciated, but that's just my opinion.

 

[MattKing]

I agree that it is not a good idea to base your valuation of your own work on the opinions of others.

I think, however, that the interraction between the photographer, the photograph and the viewer can itself be a source of value.

It is difficult to draw parallels with the performing arts, but I always find it very interesting when the successful recording artists or film stars talk about the extra satisfaction they get when they perform live, in concert, or in a play.

IMHO the photograph can be a focal point of the communication between the artist and the "arted" (good phrase that) and the entire process can be rewarding.

My wife and I just got back from a weekend on Galiano Island in BC. On the Saturday, we went to the Saturday market and came upon a photographer selling some of her work, and some work of her friends. There was a lot of interesting stuff. I bought a nice photograph taken a few years ago by one of her friends in Toronto - an interesting colour shot (Hassleblad with a 40mm lens I would guess) of a small motel office, at night.

My wife was immediately attracted to a photograph that the photographer had taken in Spain - three middle-aged to elderly woman standing close to each other and conversing intently, in the midst of a fairly barren and quite empty brick courtyard. The image is strong, and I like it, but it has particular resonance for my wife, because it reminded her strongly of her mother and two aunts (all of whom have now passed away). We had a wonderful conversation with the photographer - my wife's reaction to some of the elements in the photograph was similar to some (but not all) of the thoughts of the photographer.

I bring this example up, because the dialogue between ourselves, the photographer and, dare I say it, the photograph, had a value all its own, which I think enhanced the value of the art itself.

Matt

 

[DBP]

Wow, y'all were busy today on this thread. I couldn't get through all of it frankly, but do have a few thoughts.

A few years ago I attended a lecture by a well known nature photographer. The lecture consisted of a color slide show with accompanying comments. As each slide was displayed on the screen, he would explain what the location meant to him personally and how he felt when he was there. At no point did he discuss composition, lens choice, lighting, timing, or anything else that might help one take a better photo. It was one of the most staggering displays of narcissism I have ever seen, and I live within sight of the U. S. Capitol. So if that is what is being missed by APUG, then hallelujah.

On the other hand, while I have occasionally seen discussions of lighting or how to obtain a particular look, I have yet to see one on composition. And I am sure there are members who have tricks to share on how to visualize the photo. I have one simple one that I would like to pass on, but one thing that I noticed in looking at the forum structure is that it is unclear where one would even post a comment or question about composition.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ah - point of disagreement there, see thread on Haikus

All fair points on poetry, you point to a solid tradition. I had 'free verse' more in mind, i.e. modern poetry since the twentieth century. Of course you can analyze it, and of course it is built on structures - even when supposedly without structure. I didn't say otherwise, I was comparing it to prose story-telling, and finding it less rooted in literary conventions. It is also, often, to do with "the moment" in the way a photograph is.

I think the hard thing with free verse vs. traditional prose is that the more recent form has not been visible enough yet so that people can discern patterns in it. Surprisingly, if you are a lit student (like me) and you spent too much of your time at poetry readings, you become sick of it because they all have the same leitmotifs (disjointed syntax, images of emptiness), the same words (bones, dust, articulations), and the same prosody (meant to be read in a neurotic tone).

Classical poetics surely didn't spring exclusively out of the mind of a master designer. People try stuff, it works for some reason, and then they rationalize it, and pass it on to the next kid, etc. But after millenias of evolution, it stabilizes into specific, and recognizable patterns. It would be an essentialist fallacy to claim that prose (or poetry) is by definition more structured than poetry (or prose).

The initial creation of a photograph IS a matter of seconds - that is, if you wish to ignore the hours of setting up that can be involved. However, in my experience anyway, producing the final print you are happy with can take endless amounts of time. My comparison of photography and poetry-writing is based on personal experience, and I can say, that I find the two very comparable, both in terms of conceit, of 'capturing' the moment or moments, and of darfting and re-drafting. I have also written short stories, and I find that very different. However, I'm not altogether sure of the value of going too deeply into comparing writing and photography.

I agree here, but I would add a nuance: despite all the implicit decisions that are taken by the photographer before picture-taking, there is a moment at which the whole picture is set into place in terms of composition. Tones, contrast, I agree, are a matter of further, slower work. But composition in particular, the relative placement of visual elements to each other, that is frozen very quickly. What I mean is thus that the composition of a realistic picture can be left to chance in photography, if one wishes so. With painting, unless you are working from a photo, you never have the same relationship to chance, in a realistic context.

As far as I know, no-one on this thread has denied the value of "rules" or conventions. I certainly haven't. If I am an "intuitionist" (I don't mind being called one) I have my feet firmly on the ground.

Cate

Oh I wasn't pouncing on you; rather rambling in general. But reading back the thread, I would say that many people are distrustful of design. You said yourself that rules are meant to be broken. What I want to clarify is that you can't get away from these rules, even if you must break them.

To apply proper composition to a photography, I think one should look to sports as a better practice than analytical geometry. If you are an athlete, you have embodied in yourself patterns of behaviour, reflexes, the geometry of a jump, or the hydrodynamics of water. All of these are principles, explainable and perfectable by science. But when you are in a swimming competition, you don't analyze the water like a scientist. You act in guidance with the principles your body has learned, yet stay alert to any disruption that would require you to break the rules.

Ole was right to point that whenever he tried APPLYING the rules of composition his pictures dissatisfied him, whereas when he let himself work unburdened, they were better. Here goes the inevitable dictum: "Chance favors the prepared mind," and Moonlight, Hernandez. The rules one absorbs have to travel to a lower level of cognitive processing, closer to reflexes than the active mind to be effective. But they're still there, regardless of what they are.

With science, I tend to believe that there should be a coherent, rather unified set of basic principles; with art my belief is that one strives towards coherent principles, but the domain as a whole is not unified around them.

The pluralism of esthetic rules/principles/whatever should be something to be relished, and not a source of conflicts. I don't there one should find "The Rules" of photography, but I am always curious to hear what other guiding principles people follow, and learn a lot from it.