The women seem to enjoying themselves as well.
Tree In Head A.Leibovitz
-
A
- Thread starter Rrrgcy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Ilford 4x6 Post Card Paper
- Started by Rick A
-
Want to Buy WTB Olympus MotorDrive 2 with Control Pack and Charger
- Started by nbagno
-
Want to Buy WTB - Canon 110ED
- Started by cptrios
-
Sold NIKON D800 (read)
- Started by Acere
-
Want to Buy WTB Konica Hexar RF
- Started by axestrata
Forum statistics
- Status
MattKing
Moderator
Sorry, Matt, but how does that relate to the pole-in-head issue?
I do not consider this example falls into the pole come out of the head, because the pole is obviously further past the woman.
If nothing else, it helps punctuate the point that there is suficient context that makes the light pole not much of an issue.
MattKing
Moderator
In both images - the original image that brought rise to this thread and in your image - the vertical line is both long and dominating. It strongly directs attention into the head in front of it.
By substantially shortening the vertical line you decrease both its prominence and how it seems to "split in two" the head in front of it.
In addition, by making the image appear more strongly bottom weighted and horizontal, the viewer's attention to the head that is apparently "split" is reduced, in favour of the stronger angled left-to-right lines.
Ms. Leibovitz and her editor/art director didn't have quite the same options available to her, but one can see some of the same reduced effect if one does something similar to her image:
Imagine what even the tiniest amount of photoshopping could have done for that image... eliminated the need for this thread. 
Yeees, I see what you mean, but by removing context I think it makes the problem worse. If you know it the seam in a back cloth, it is less intrusive. If it looks like an alien antenna, it’s quite unsettling. Same for my lamp post: if you can see that it is a lamp post in the mid-distance, it’s somehow ok.
MattKing
Moderator
All of which highlights why the "rule" is better seen as a caution - the viewers' reactions will vary with the viewer.
I actually like the effect of the vertical line in the original crop of the Leibovitz image. It is just that one needs to combine it with those incredibly slim jeans on an incredibly slim and beautiful model with presence to make it work!
I just removed that pole seamlessly in less than a minute with generative fill, but if @snusmumriken is in the darkroom it would take a heroic effort.Imagine what even the tiniest amount of photoshopping could have done for that image... eliminated the need for this thread.
Finally! This thread is (mostly) based on one bizarre premise, i.e., that there are rules in photography. As if Henry Cartier-Moses came down Mount Leica one day with the ten commandments of photography. ("Thou shall make all your moments decisive.")
I'm still looking for these tablets. I've yet to read a comment written by or uttered by a serious photographer throughout the history of photography saying that there are strict rules to be followed—not Atget, not Lange, not Parks, not Cartier-Bression, not Parr, not Adams nor the other Adams, not Winogrand, not Eggleston, not Bourke-White, not Marks, not Evans, not Friedlander, not Shore, not Gardin, not Leiter, not Killip, not Arbus, not Avedon, not McCullin, not... well, anybody. And I've yet to read a serious book about photography that states that there are rules to be followed. Well, safe for these "you-can-also-be-a-great-photographer"-type books or YouTube videos destined to basic amateurs—not telling them, of course, that these "great" photos will look like thousands of "great" photos that everybody who's bought the book and devotely followed the "rule of thirds" will make.
There are no rules in photography. No generic ones. There are only the rules that photographers make for themselves. Henry Cartier-Bresson had his own rules, which are different from those of Saul Leiter, which are different from those of Winogrand, which are different from those of Walker Evans, which are different from those of Minor White, which are different from those of Stephen Shore.
These personal rules can at times simply be general reminders, such as Tony Ray-Jones often quoted list:
But what "having rules" means is also, and most importantly, that the photographer has developed a set of guidelines—and they can be quite intuitive—in order to achieve what is visually coherent for him or her. And again, what is visually coherent for Cartier-Bresson has nothing to do with what is visually coherent for Robert Frank.
And the great difficulty of photography is making what is visually coherent to you visually coherent to others. What makes a photograph uninteresting is as mysterious as what makes a photograph interesting, and neither have to do with rules.
Now, to come back to the "object coming out of head" matter, it is indeed a caution, or a recommendation. There are times when it doesn't matter, there are times when it's distracting (to various degrees), and there are times when it is frankly awkward, the Kent State photo by John Paul Filo being the most famous example.
MattKing
Moderator
The "positive" rules - which should be read as recommendations - are worthwhile to learn.
Because they distill shared experience.
Rule of thirds, leading lines, s-curves, etc. - they all represent observations of things that often work well.
Emphasis on "often".
So if you are trying to accomplish something particular, you can often employ them to assist in constructing your narrative.
Because they distill shared experience.
Rule of thirds, leading lines, s-curves, etc. - they all represent observations of things that often work well.
Emphasis on "often".
So if you are trying to accomplish something particular, you can often employ them to assist in constructing your narrative.
I think there is a difference between intentionally following a rule and taking a good photograph that happens to conform to a "rule" you may or may not have been aware of. As I mentioned above, each photographer looks for what is visually coherent to them. Sometimes that coincides with the "rule". Many times it doesn't.
In photography we each translate the world in our own, personal, visual language. We're not looking for "what works" for all, but for what makes sense to us, hoping that it will also to others.
Of course, there is always Aperture's Photo No-Nos: Meditations on What Not to Photograph.
But it's not very dominating in the actual original colour image. It's easy to ignore.
That was discussed at length elsewhere.
The only rules in photography are the rules you adopt. Other people may have other rules - you don't necessarily know them. You can't expect to be understood in any practice, however, without entering into the discourse of that practice - and that can be analogous to "following rules". Or it can be understood as "breaking rules" in the instance of someone who habitually seemingly defies the edicts of those who "know" (yet produces worthwhile results). This is not just true of photography - it's true in every distinct range of human activity.
This is an excellent example of what I mentioned, i.e., that there are no generic, universal rule but photographers make their own according to what they find important—from a large array of matter—and what they find visually coherent. Here's Aperture's description (emphasis mine):
At turns humorous and absurd, heartfelt and searching, Photo No-Nos is for photographers of all levels wishing to avoid easy metaphors and to sharpen their visual communication skills. Photographers often have unwritten lists of subjects they tell themselves not to shoot—things that are cliché, exploitative, derivative, sometimes even arbitrary. Photo No-Nos features ideas, stories, and anecdotes from many of the world’s most talented photographers and photography professionals, along with an encyclopedic list of more than a thousand taboo subjects compiled from and with pictures by contributors. Not a strict guide, but a series of meditations on “bad” pictures, Photo No-Nos covers a wide range of topics, from sunsets and roses to issues of colonialism, stereotypes, and social responsibility. At a time when societies are reckoning with what and how to communicate through media and who has the right to do so, this book is a timely and thoughtful resource on what photographers consider to be off-limits, and how they have contended with their own self-imposed rules without being paralyzed by them.
I remember that thread. It was interesting because it spoke of how the ethical considerations—i.e., journalistic—were in conflict with the aesthetic considerations.
That said, haven't seen any ethical issues discussed in this thread—how could there be? It's a fashion shoot, you can do what you want
—, and the aesthetic consideration seems to have become reduced to a "rule" to be followed (or not).
I know this has been said elsewhere, perhaps earlier in this thread, but it bears repeating… The mistake lies in taking analysis of how great photos work, and turning it into ‘rules’ in the hope that it will make your own photos great. Such behaviour is for sheep.
However, we all absorb examples subconsciously, and they influence what we do. Maybe there are also universal truths about how images work, rooted in our physiology. It takes an effort, or stubborn individuality, to escape such norms. And when you do, the eye-catching effect quickly vanishes if the trick is repeated.
However, we all absorb examples subconsciously, and they influence what we do. Maybe there are also universal truths about how images work, rooted in our physiology. It takes an effort, or stubborn individuality, to escape such norms. And when you do, the eye-catching effect quickly vanishes if the trick is repeated.
To my mind, those “rules” are characteristics or principles that can be used to help explain/describe why some pictures are good, or better than others. Shared wisdom. Does anybody know who started using the term, “rules” in that context? Probably the composition police. LOL
Our brains process information in a certain way. Some of it is pleasing; some of it isn't. The "rules" reflect what the brain finds pleasing—most of the time. One rule, generally accepted but not often stated, is that the subject should be in focus. Out of focus shots annoy us. So the "rule" is focus your camera. Of course, there are times when you want objects out of focus, or when it relates to depth of field, you only want certain parts in focus. So you ignore the rule or modify it. But focused shots looks better generally. Out of focus shots are rejected by most people.
It's similar with music. There are rules there too. If you play discordant chords, our brain rejects them. Most of us know these "rules" intuitively even if we have no concept of music theory or can't even read music or play an instrument. It doesn't sound right if the rules are violated. The same with photography, painting, etc. Certain arrangements are more pleasing, others are less pleasing. That's all the rules are, describing our innate preferences.
It's similar with music. There are rules there too. If you play discordant chords, our brain rejects them. Most of us know these "rules" intuitively even if we have no concept of music theory or can't even read music or play an instrument. It doesn't sound right if the rules are violated. The same with photography, painting, etc. Certain arrangements are more pleasing, others are less pleasing. That's all the rules are, describing our innate preferences.
If they were called preferences rather than rules, we wouldn't be arguing about them so much. We artists aren't rule followers. No one tells us what to do.
Yes, but why would we frame doing what we want (deliberately composing an image, e.g. with the subject in focus, if that's what we want) as "following rules"? It is a little backwards. I guess the obvious answer is that for many if us amateurs, we're not actually visually aware enough to be fully deliberate in composing, so heuristics are useful to arrive at a picture that pleases even when we're not fully aware of and deliberate with all elements.
Don't forget the many many camera and photography magazines that had articles that promised to tell you in short order how to make your photos better.
An updated version can be found by doing a google search. Take Better Photos
Tips, guidelines, principles turn into rules pretty easily.
An updated version can be found by doing a google search. Take Better Photos
Tips, guidelines, principles turn into rules pretty easily.
No rule broken here...only perhaps trying to extend the rule too far. The gal on the right is obviously the light of the life of the other...
So break the imposed rule. No biggie...
Three problems with that.
(1) They're always devised after the fact, and often from an average of occurences—"I've seen x number of good photos that are set up in such a way therefore it must be a rule that good photos should be set up in such a way." It's a logical fallacy that's defined by the latin phrase Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
(2) They fail to explain why there are also a great number of good to excellent to great photos that do not follow the so-called rule.
The logical fallacy that comes with the second problem is very interesting but more insidious, in that after inventing a non-existing rule it's existence is justified by the idea that great masters also know when to break the rule, hence their "genius" and "originality".
(3) In the history of many arts, rules, as I said, are devised after the fact. They are indeed seen by followers as characteristics or principles that describe why the works of the original creator (or creators) are good, and therefore how to reproduce them. What happens, on the contrary, is that those who follow these characteristics or principles produce works that are generic, banal, cliché, and certainly not better than others. Think of the tons of immensely boring symphonies produced in the early 19th-century that followed the "rules" of Beethovenian sonata form, or the saccharine evanescence of all the paintings that wished to copy the "rules" of impressionism after Monet.
What helps describe why some pictures are better than others is precisely what falls beyond characteristics and principles.
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |