rules, rules rules ...

[removed account4]

you might always hear "you can't do that" or " you shouldn't do that"
because if you do, you will be breaking rules of composition, golden rules of proportion
using equipment as it wasn't intended, stressing / pushing your film and other materials
so they won't work 'as intended' and dealing with "unknowns"
things that a lot of people might not have had to deal with ( uncharted territory ) ...

===

what are the rules you have broken lately?
used your camera at 1 second without a tri or monopod ?
used iso 3200 film you found in a hot glove compartment?
used the wrong developer, the wrong time, the wrong dilution and had the safelight on without realizing it ?

and what happened?
was it the end of the world as you knew it, and did you care ?


(you don't need to post the image, but if you do, that is fine too ...(unless you didn't survive the catastrophic event) ... )

 

[480sparky]

.........what are the rules you have broken lately?............

None lately, but I've probably 'broken' all of them over the years.

 

[BrianShaw]

Rules are funny things. They are rules for the same reason that stereotypes are stereotypes - there is some truth to them and they are true often enough that they became commonplace thinking. Like stereotypes, however, they are not universally true like the rules of physics so there is the opportunity to break them in a meaningful, useful, enjoyable, and productive way. I'm sure I've broken a photographic rule or two but really don't think too much about them... so can't cite an example. The rules I tend to challenge the most are not chemistry or sensitometry related, but more compositional. The world never ended. The result was either good, mediocre, or unpleasant. But survival happened every time.

 

[frank]

Rules are funny things. They are rules for the same reason that stereotypes are stereotypes - there is some truth to them and they are true often enough that they became commonplace thinking. Like stereotypes, however, they are not universally true like the rules of physics so there is the opportunity to break them in a meaningful, useful, enjoyable, and productive way. I'm sure I've broken a photographic rule or two but really don't think too much about them... so can't cite an example. The rules I tend to challenge the most are not chemistry or sensitometry related, but more compositional. The world never ended. The result was either good, mediocre, or unpleasant. But survival happened every time.

+ 1

 

[darkosaric]

Rule: expose for this, develop for that, and all that zone thing from a guy who photographed the rocks (to quote HCB ).
I don't use lightmeter at all, just guessing the exposure. Works for me, I don't care.

 

[benjiboy]

There's nothing wrong with breaking the "rules", providing you know what they are in the first place.

 

[Jim Jones]

Even the rules of physics are not universal truths; they are our interpretation of what we perceive those universal truths to be. In my 82 years I've seen many of those rules of physics revised. The rules of photography are even less canonical. They may be guidelines to enable someone to be productive with a minimum of training, "f/8 and be there." They may be a synopsis to guide an aspiring photographer through the paths to wisdom. They may merely be drivel dispensed by us wannabee gurus.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

With the coming of electronic "capture" I see many technically excellent photos. Repetitive and boring as a Sunday morning sermon but sharp,properly exposed,composed and great if taking a nap is your goal.

 

[DWThomas]

Rules? -- oh yeah .... I think those rules of composition and the like are derivative. Back when the cave dwellers were scratching drawings on the walls with burnt sticks, they worked toward a visual result that pleased them. As millennia went by, the medium got fancier -- burnt clays and crushed glass ground into oils, etc. It was later that folks with time on their hands (probably academics with grants ) started agonizing over what made the artwork almost everyone agreed was "good" so good. Then they started noting all that stuff about the golden mean and various geometric characteristics and said "ah, here are the rules." Odds are, some of those characteristics in early drawings and paintings were intuitive and actually are entangled with some of the physiology of the eye. But now they are "rules."

I have to assume those rules are some sort of statistical entity -- a peak of the bell curve, if you will -- but that each individual painting, even those accepted as "good" ones, might have varied widely. In short, think about them, but don't be handcuffed by them.

Other rules are more obvious, direct and somewhat Darwinian -- avoiding a lit cigarette in the hand that holds the fuel nozzle when topping up the gas tank, for example!

 

[frank]

Just like "the only constant is change", the only rule is "there are no rules". There are guidelines.

 

[M Stat]

Rules are for morons and other people who can't think for themselves.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

Some of my favorite "rules" broken in the past months...

Shot exposures stopped all the way down to the minimum aperture, f/22, f/32, and even f/45.
Conversely, took many shots on zone-focused folding cameras wide open at f/3.5 and even f/2.9.
Shot Crossbird film that promotes cross processing, but developed it in E6 anyway. Glad I did.
Shot 120 film in 116 and 122 cameras.

 

[removed account4]

There's nothing wrong with breaking the "rules", providing you know what they are in the first place.

hi Ben

what if you didn't know in the first place ?

I'm not tring to make a Buddhist riddle out of this
but why not ...

 

[RobC]

Rules are for breaking.

 

[480sparky]

Without rules, none of us can be rebels.

 

[frank]

hi Ben

what if you didn't know in the first place ?

I'm not tring to make a Buddhist riddle out of this
but why not ...

It's like the difference between informed consent and uninformed consent.

 

[ic-racer]

Photographers make the rules.

 

[benjiboy]

hi Ben

what if you didn't know in the first place ?

I'm not tring to make a Buddhist riddle out of this
but why not ...

I think what you are writing about John are more accurately described as the conventions of photography rather than "rules" they are only guidelines to help the photographer arrange the elements of the picture in the frame and how to light a subject etc. they aren't written in stone and indeed many great photographs ignore them, but even many revered artists like Piccaso if you look at his early works were fine representational draughtsmen before they started experimenting with other none representational art forms before they later pursued other less representational forms of artistic expression.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Rules are guidelines for beginners. As one learns the rules, they learn when they can bend or break them.

Rules like using developer first, stop bath second, hypo third and wash fourth should not be broken since using hypo first can mess up your film and the day.

 

[MattKing]

None lately, but I've probably 'broken' all of them over the years.

There's nothing wrong with breaking the "rules", providing you know what they are in the first place.

Just like "the only constant is change", the only rule is "there are no rules". There are guidelines.

Rules are for morons and other people who can't think for themselves.

Rule are for breaking.

Photographers make the rules.

Do me a favour - please post here when and if you intend to drive the wrong way, in the wrong lane on my local roads:munch:.

Rules have their place - some more than others.

The ones that have evolved organically, as a process of induction, tend to be more useful guidelines than absolute requirements. So if you know what you are doing, you can break them.

I wouldn't recommend breaking the rules against drinking the ingredients in your photo chemicals though - with the possible exception of course of some of the ingredients in John's favourite developer!

 

[RobC]

Do me a favour - please post here when and if you intend to drive the wrong way, in the wrong lane on my local roads

Is that a rule? Please see my earlier response.

And do you know the difference between a rule and a law?

 

[MattKing]

Do me a favour - please post here when and if you intend to drive the wrong way, in the wrong lane on my local roads/QUOTE]

Is that a rule? Please see my earlier response.

And do you know the difference between a rule and a law?

A law is just a rule with attached consequences.

And after nearly a quarter century of practicing law, I do.

 

[Doc W]

what are the rules you have broken lately?
used your camera at 1 second without a tri or monopod ?
used iso 3200 film you found in a hot glove compartment?
used the wrong developer, the wrong time, the wrong dilution and had the safelight on without realizing it ?

and what happened?
was it the end of the world as you knew it, and did you care ?


(you don't need to post the image, but if you do, that is fine too ...(unless you didn't survive the catastrophic event) ... )

I think you are setting up a bit of a straw man. For example, not using film retrieved from extreme heat is not some kind of Great Big Rule. It's just common sense. If you want to use that film for something really important, go right ahead. I won't. Using the wrong developer is not breaking a rule, it's simply a darkroom accident. Shooting at a shutter speed of one second is not going to give you sharp results, if that is what you are after.

If you are trying to say that sometimes unexpected and interesting results can come from an accident, then I agree. But you make photographers sound like a bunch of timid and slavish idiots. Most are not, at least not the ones I know.

 

[RobC]

A law is just a rule with attached consequences.

And after nearly a quarter century of practicing law, I do.

Nobody mentioned laws before I did so why bring traffic laws into the equation. They ain't rules, they are laws.

What are the legal consequences of breaking the rules of composition?

 

[removed account4]

I think you are setting up a bit of a straw man. For example, not using film retrieved from extreme heat is not some kind of Great Big Rule. It's just common sense. If you want to use that film for something really important, go right ahead. I won't. Using the wrong developer is not breaking a rule, it's simply a darkroom accident. Shooting at a shutter speed of one second is not going to give you sharp results, if that is what you are after.

If you are trying to say that sometimes unexpected and interesting results can come from an accident, then I agree. But you make photographers sound like a bunch of timid and slavish idiots. Most are not, at least not the ones I know.

not setting up any sort of straw man, or suggesting anyone is a slavish idiot ..

plenty of people have tunnel vision in life, they measure everything and do everything "by the book" ) the rule book (
yes unexpected and interesting things often times come from not using the rules, conventions ( thanks ben ! ) or "doing what one is told" ...

a lot of folks who have posted to this thread claim they break the rules often, and that is fine by me ...