Bad Site
(K=979) - Comment Date 9/27/2004
|
There is one rule: There are no rules.
|
|
|
|
Rajnish Duara
(K=1142) - Comment Date 9/27/2004
|
Art is not science. Art is a different philosophy. Photography is an art form. Science when goes to the limits becomes philosophy. U can go through S. Hawking's "A brief history of time". Anything that pleases the idea, strucks a cord in your heart, or activates some grey cells in your brain is a good art form. It can be anything from surrealistic abstracts to simple nature photography, from banal to esoteric, it includes all. So don't set any rules, don't think of rules. So plain enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Richard Dakin
(K=12915) - Comment Date 9/27/2004
|
One needs the conventional(rules in this case) as a backdrop. How else can one become revolutionary or avant garde, without something to be compared to. Unfortunately bad technique is often explained away as avant garde thinking... ie. "My images are not out of focus, I use a blurred technique because I shun the rules of photography. I am an artiste!" I actually heard a locally acclaimed photographer say this.
|
|
|
|
Mark Beltran
(K=32612) - Comment Date 9/27/2004
|
No rules, just periods we go through. Remember Group F/64? What about the fuzzy period before Edward Weston and Ansel Adams?
Rajnish is right about art; it's not a science.
|
|
|
|
Gerard Calona
(K=234) - Comment Date 9/30/2004
|
I often wonder if some of the avante garde stuff isn't a way of avoiding the skills needed to produce something meaningful. The old saw that a monkey with a box brownie could have produced that is brought to mind. Then there is a certain arrogance aamong some of these "Artistes" that we Phillistines are so ignorant and unartistic. I will agree that certain techniques, open aperture to blur backgrounds, and other methods of emphasising a point are valid, but the type of photography that is so much artistic nonsense leaves me cold and I pity the poor people who bid homage to the Emperors clothes.
|
|
|
|
Nate Davis
(K=192) - Comment Date 9/30/2004
|
In many ways, I don't think the most important think is rendering the subject 'best'. Were we to strictly follow such a guideline, black and white would be out. Black and white renders a subject poorly, in fact, by taking an entire dimension from its reality. But it is still effective.
So, the 'subject's importance' is not dependent on (necessarily) the qualities of the subject itself- though it must depend on SOME quality, whether it be color, shape, flow, form, whatever.
More and more, I've thought of art (especially photography) as the ability to look at something...differently. We've all seen the pyramids, and we've all been stunned by them. Postcards capture that particular 'eye'. But the need that art serves, is the need for something beyond the normal eye. A basic example following the same paradigm: the pyramids toned monochrome.
Of course, a blurry, badly exposed image doesn't necessarily get the effect, and I certainly don't wish to defend bad photography. At the same time, we have many good examples of good art that came from breaking rules.
In short, I think it's better to be able to look past the rendering of the subject, to be able to look at the art that's in front of us, taking into consideration its abstractions as part of the piece. If, after taking in all considerations, it's still lifeless- well, then, it's lifeless.
|
|
|
|
Harvey Guikema
(K=313) - Comment Date 10/1/2004
|
Are there bad photographs? Is the only rule is that the image has to please the viewer? No image will please all viewers. One must play to the audience, no matter your phliosophy. The question is what are we trying to achieve with the image. Did I achieve it? If art was easy, we would all do it, and it would not be "special" !
|
|
|
|
Nate Davis
(K=192) - Comment Date 10/1/2004
|
True enough. However, technique is not the only aspect of art that can be 'difficult'. Sometimes, even that which is simple to capture must be noticed, found, grasped...such a creative force in vision can still be found, technically difficult or no, and at times, is more difficult than the technical dimension.
However, I've also held that technical virtuosity can be very freeing. But, like you said, it's all about what you want to achieve with the image, and with your art.
Which still doesn't help the fact that we have to preach to the choir.
|
|
|
|
Tegwin Deacon
(K=224) - Comment Date 10/2/2004
|
rules are there so that people who are learning have a solid grounding to start from. personally i find rules get on my nerves, and hate being told that i have strayed.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 10/2/2004
|
Some things just work and others don't.
What works for you may not be what works for others but some things seem to work for most people.
Those things are often mistakenly called "rules" or "laws" when in fact they're no more than guidelines.
|
|
|
|
Adam E. J. Squier
(K=9803) - Comment Date 10/4/2004
|
As in most (all?) other disciplines, in order to grow, one must learn the basics. Otherwise the foundation on which you're basing your work may not hold up. (Hey, this is the Philosophy forum -- heh heh).
In other words, it's better to follow the rules until you've mastered them and then branch out and do your own thing. This is why people study in school rather than just going out and seeing what works.
This is not to say that everyone must learn the basic rules, just that you'll grow much more quickly. You'll also know when and (more importantly) why you're breaking the rules. Think of the basics as fertilizer (and many folks obviously do). ;-)
|
|
|
|
Scott McFadden
(K=5663) - Comment Date 10/5/2004
|
Rules can be good but consider following them all and youll wind up in the nuthouse or dead.
If you ask me rules are mans most unique art.
not to say I like every artwork but I learn to respect most rules aka artworks (From now rules are going to be refered to as artworks).
artworks can be very simple and straightforward saying that this must be straight and even while at the same time reffering to the cases where the same is considered inappropriate.
Each time I am given an artwork I learn to first asess accept or decline then reasess the art as I become aware of the ramifications of each.
this reasessment will continue endlessly.
Of course if your told something often enough you will believe it. Thus the rule of habit is born.
Why is a badly focussed image bad consider the argument between Lewis Carrol and Margret Cameron as they discussed the diffrences in style and perception of each others portraits.
whom ended with more noteriety as an established photographer may be relivant depending on how you've interpreted this artwork.
Its always good to know the rules even if your not going to follow them.
Best of luck
|
|
|
|
Kelli Evans
(K=356) - Comment Date 10/5/2004
|
There is more to art than technical knowledge. If art were defined as being solely something that is aesthetically pleasing, then every postcard and poster, family portrait, and well lit picture of your cat could be considered art. In my opinion, what differentiates art from aesthetics is the intent and purpose- the philosophy and thought process behind the work. That may not have been true at the inception of photography, but I feel it has become more important in the wake of so much copying of the masters. At the opposite end of the spectrum of course, is so much crap being passed off as art due to the "artist's" ability to talk the talk- or have an agent do it for them.
|
|
|
|
Julie O'Donnell
(K=291) - Comment Date 10/7/2004
|
I think you inadvertantly hit the nail on the head when you used the word 'conventions', which is, I think, all that rules are. Think about how the rules have changed over time, through the different styles. A style could be construed as just the application of a different set of rules, couln't it?
I think the general feeling that has already shown through in this thread is that the rules are there to help us as beginners, to produce something that is 'correctly' exposed (I dont think there is such a thing as good or bad exposure) ie most reflective of reality, and also to produce something which is sharp. Then, you can start to bend the rules to produce something more personal. Fair enough, you might not know how to do things 'correctly' and stumble upon a pleasing photograph, but really it depends on what you are looking for. If you want to convey a message through a picture then a happy accident isn't something that you've put much effort into producing is it? It might give you something nice to look at but if you're looking for more meaning in your work, it has to be much more considered, and purposefully applied.
I suppose, though, it all depends on that old thing about how you judge what is 'good' or 'bad' in art. As humans I think we use rules to try and quantify everything, I don't think we are comfortable as a society just accepting that people have a wide range of tastes and we have to try and say "No, this is better than that because more people think so!/x plus y equals z!" But I won't get started on all that mediocrity rules stuff right now... it's too early!
|
|
|
|
Andew Gondokusumo
(K=833) - Comment Date 11/25/2004
|
NO rules. You can convey any meaning through art.
|
|
|
|
Pico diGoliardi
(K=540) - Comment Date 11/26/2004
|
Rather than answering your question, it would be good to know where you found your impression of rules. A socratic dialog would be good, but we do not have that here so I will guess: I hear such laments from students who have experienced discussions of art history and criticism, and just did not understand that intellectual discourse requires narrowing the scope of a subject in order to make sense, using words, of what the artist was saying within his realm. (Realm is a technical term here.)
A similar source is found under the auspices of a 'professional organization' where there are rules which define their endeavor which is by denfinition, exclusionary. One can same the same for almost any special interest group.
Then there are the photographers who work by feel and when pressed to make words of their work, they might make pure asses of themselves trying to sound sophisticated when it is not neccessary.
So, perhaps your lament is about scope, the messiness of being outside a realm for worse or better.
|
|
|
|
Mohammad Porooshani
(K=20765) - Comment Date 11/27/2004
|
I think the philosophy of photography is one of oldest wish of human kind. When for the first time, humans fly by aeroplanes, they knew what they do. they were Flying, one of oldest wishes.
But sometimes human forget that The Time is the most uncontrollable thing in the world.
I think, when for the first time man takes a photo, he didn't know what he did. He just wanted to do more. But with photography, we capture the time, the most uncotrollable thing in the world!
But if we like to capture all the time, we have to take photos so much! So we decided to take the Time that has it cost. And the Art of Photography revealed.
|
|
|
|
michelle k.
(K=16270) - Comment Date 11/30/2004
|
|
|
|
|
José Azevedo
(K=9845) - Comment Date 12/1/2004
|
As a mean for expression, I think one should choose the besta way that expresses his emotions according to his feelings, taste, etc. It's a personal choice. Should blurred techniques fit, fine. Out of focus subjects can be made more interesting should you want to add mistery, for example.
Each one creates and develops his own techniques based on his experience and experimentations with photography. By the way, nice motion blurred images are not that easy to produce.
One thing is for sure - you can only change what you know and understand. That's why some education on traditional photography (rule of thirds, look for sharpness, "right exposure", etc...) is important.
Well, those are my two cents.
Regards to all.
|
|
|
|
Mohammad Porooshani
(K=20765) - Comment Date 12/2/2004
|
Yes i'm in agree with jose and I want to say another example: Maybe you would like to drive a car very normal or maybe you would like to drive in a race, it's not important, first you must know How to Drive. and that's the rule of driving.
And you must know something to help you taking acceptable photos even for yourself.
Instead of learning it by doing so many times, you can ask it from another person, ....
All of this, is the Rule Of Photograhy that you must learn, the rest are "up to you" things.
Regards,
Mohammad Porooshani
|
|
|
|
Mohammad Porooshani
(K=20765) - Comment Date 12/3/2004
|
Maybe some day, the one who gave us our eues, tell us, what's the rule of looking, then we will decide: the rule of photography,
till then, help yourself!
|
|
|
|
Justin Roberts
(K=382) - Comment Date 12/4/2004
|
As a newbie I hope you'l excuse my interuption here but having just read through this thread there is one point that I would like to pick up on.
Is photography art or science? It's both. Let us take two extremes of the use to which photography is put, firstly think about recording the failure of turbine blades in developing a jet engine. As an example of using photography it is fairly scientific. The lighting and position will be predefined and will have been set out using scientific principles to ensure the most useful infomation is recorded.
Now consider a seascape where the photographer has preconceived ideas of the sort of image he wishes to create and employs all his skills and knowledge in setting the camera and choosing the precise moment of shutter release. Is this not art?
However the scientist in the engineering lab has had to choose just how much light to use and just what position to set the component. Therefore he has employed a very small element of 'art' in creating the picture. At the other extreme the artist has had to calculate exposure and aperture according to scientific rules, therefore has he not employed a little 'science' in his photography?
So what may be concluded from this? If anything it is the realisation that no image is completey devoid of art or science. There is in each image we create a differeing amount of each, it is a scale, art one end and science the other. We place images upon that scale in our own mind and each of us will place the same image in a different position. We cannot assay the quantity of each element only decide where a picture lies in relation to another. It is relative.
A field of endevour which seeks to employ both art and science is a craft and that precisely is what photography is.
Justin.
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 2/21/2006
|
I think it would wise to use rules but also it would be better to experience without it!
|
|
|
|
Ann Nida
(K=45248) - Comment Date 2/22/2006
|
Are there rules? Oh dear - no doubt I've broken all of them. Oh well the photography police haven't given me any tickets yet so I guess I've got away with it until now. :)
|
|
|
|
Rashed Abdulla
(K=163889) - Comment Date 3/1/2006
|
why should we call Educations Rules and Orders _ if some one means that photography is a snap shooting, well this is not right and it will never be so _ there are elements of study and techniques which should be learnt by serious photographers to master their work, for example a person who do not Know in simple terms what’s the relationship between the shutter and the F Stop, then he know nothing about his camera and how would his image looks like.
The same thing applies with painters, the give of painting is from God and the schools but the Educations of painting come from the Schools. The Painter need to know the Elements concerning his tools of painting and how to control them. It is not Rules and Order neither it is ignorance and go and shoot.
|
|
|
|
Mark Peterson
(K=3452) - Comment Date 3/17/2006
|
I think they are more like guidelines. You can use them or not, but you won't get in trouble if you don't use them.
|
|
|
|
Paul Spencer
(K=117) - Comment Date 3/19/2006
|
I think the rules are quite important for any photographer. They get you started with a disciplined approach. As skill increases the rules tend to ne broken more often. But now all rules in evry photo. As was pointed out in the begining of this thread a long time ago, most of the best photgraphers are following most of the rules most of the time.
Where do the rules come from? THey have developed around the basic human concepts of what makes an attractive and interesting image to our mind. Although we all have diferent tastes there are certain fundamental concepts that we are subconsciously bound to.
They rules can be broken, but it should be done on a conscious level. Aware of what we are doing and why. This is the power of creativity. Not just some random "I'll do it my way" approach".
Whether it's art or science is irrelevant in my opinion. I agree with Justin, it is both.But what matters is that it is the human mind which interprets the data and asseses it as accptable or not, interesting or not, exciting, provokative or whatever.
Why do you think most people will find the same images relaxing, stunning, disturbing or whatever. Because we all operate on a basic system of judgement and values which only varies slightly in the majority of humans. Those who depart dramaticaly from it are lunatics or geniuses, sometimes a bit of both.
If you think yuo don't need or follow the rules you must be either genius or lunatic. In reality I bet most of you follow the rules a lot more than you would care to admit. It's done subconsciously, we can't help it.
Even in breaking the rules we are relying on them for if the rules weren't there breaking them would have no signifcant effect on the viewer of our images. And yet it is exactly that effect that makes breaking the rules such a powerful way of creating a striking image. Or if carelessly done creating a chatic mess.
|
|
|
|
Photo Veritas
(K=59) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
Photo Veritas is a collective of photographers who follow a set of rules in our work. We feel that the truth of a moment takes precedence over aesthetic consideration. While no photograph can ever be totally truthful, our collective feels that the rules we adhere to inspire us to seek photographic truth without the constraints we have felt in the past.
We were inspired by the Dogme 95 movement in the cinema, which sought to encourage filmmakers to seek other avenues besides the slick Hollywood system that values gloss over substance.
Obviously are rules are not for everyone nor are they the final word in how to approach the photographic arts, but for some they have formed a foundation that has evolved how they look at the world through photography.
|
|
|
|
Helen Bach
(K=2331) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
Could you tell us your rules?
Thanks,
Helen
|
|
|
|
Photo Veritas
(K=59) - Comment Date 4/18/2006
|
Please bear in mind that this is our first effort to codify and publish our rules on the internet, and at this point, they are still in evolution and the list is still incomplete.
We warmly welcome you to interface with us here:
http://photoveritas.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
stefan streefkerk
(K=113) - Comment Date 4/19/2006
|
Surely art has a couple of standards wich it should follow by (composition, shape, light etc.). But when it comes to creativity there is only one rule: the rule(s) you set yourself.
|
|
|
|
Photo Veritas
(K=59) - Comment Date 4/20/2006
|
Unless you are part of a consortium who chooses to follow a set of rules.
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 4/23/2006
|
which is why group efforts almost always lack creativity.
|
|
|
|
Kambiz K
(K=37420) - Comment Date 5/12/2006
|
I think the only rule would be your feelings if you comfortable with your image before and after.
I guess photography (at least for me) give a kind of SATISFACTION! feeling.
It is matter to feel rather than follow any kind of rules.
You have to let yourself go and melt into subject and be ONE with it no matter what.
|
|
|
|
