Photography is blessed and cursed with both science and art. We always hear that we should keep them or tear them down, but there’s so much more to it.
One of the big mistakes we make in photography is accepting that rules exist. That notion is old, perhaps rooted in the rule of thirds. I have a photography book first published by Kodak in 1920 called “How to Make Great Photos”; mine is the 1948 revision. On page 70 it says this:
The horizon in the landscape is never divided into two equal parts. It’s best to leave it a third from the top or bottom.
It’s meaningless. Not all, but it’s the word “never” that I question. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with using image division by thirds as a technique, but any overriding rule that says composition should or shouldn’t be ridiculous.
The Pythagorean theorem is a rule because, for a two-way straight triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is always equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides. That is a universal truth. The notion that we have to divide a picture into thirds is zero.
This is the fundamental difference between science and art. Science is built on theories and rules, while art is purely subjective. Photography is a unique blend of both science and art. So finding a balance between those two opposing components is essential for good photography.
Perhaps we should technically rename this component to the Part Three Tool, a device in our component toolbox that we can call and use as appropriate. We can add that to the golden ratio tool, armature tool, visual weight tool, depth of field tool, etc.
It’s an equally silly notion that we must use any of these composition tools in our photography. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t use them. For example, balancing a large subject on one side of the frame with many smaller objects with more individual visual weight on the right works, but sometimes we may want to lose balance in the image. Or we can ignore Cartier-Bresson’s decisive moment or Adams’ tonal device, but that doesn’t mean we can’t use them if we want to.
Is there a single idea in photography that cannot be used or ignored? Finding your unique style is often the result of discovering different ways of capturing your subject than others do. This means that abandoning certain conventions or always using them is up to you.
There is an important difference between discarding an aggregator and being ignorant of it. If one doesn’t know about any of the tools, we can’t choose to use or ignore them, and your image will be worse because of that.
How we choose to use or ignore tools depends a lot on our photography purposes. The largest number of images are taken for mass appeal, often on social media. Therefore, it is assumed that most photographers shoot for that purpose. Sadly, the majority of a photographer’s audience isn’t as keen on understanding the finer nuances of composition. They want a good picture, nothing outstanding and nothing more. As a result, many photographers will shoot to achieve beautiful, impeccable images.
That spills over into a lot of professional photography. The photos were taken with a wide audience. Therefore, skilled professional photographers will strive to create images that their clients want. Those are always the pictures that have mass appeal because they are so easy to like. That inevitably means using the tools of design. The camera is well suited to this because it creates utilitarian art; most images taken for commercial purposes tell a direct story with little room for ambiguity or artistic expression.
For example, when I shoot a wedding, the couple expects the image to meet a series of standards that most wedding photographers would adhere to, which means using composition tools. Meanwhile, wearing my creative photographer’s hat and shooting only for myself, I was able to push boundaries and standards. I could include some of these creatively styled images in my bridal collection, and they often express their joy with them, but I wouldn’t shoot the entire wedding like that. One of the reasons I don’t want to do a lot of wedding photography is that too much photography can be like a sausage machine. A handful of weddings each year helps me stay enthusiastic about them and enjoy the work.
Photographic artists have more freedom of control over what they create when not working with a brief. As well as what my friend describes as “arty-farty” photos, I also take technically accurate photos. This is just for my enjoyment. They fit within the limits of what is generally accepted as “good” photography.
There is no right or wrong here. If you like images that fit in a diagonal layout, divide the image into thirds, or have leading lines that link to the yellow section, that’s great. Whether you prefer silky smooth seas from long exposures, capturing water with a fast shutter with each drop clearly defined, or somewhere in between, it’s your choice and no one has the right to go up. punish you for that. Decide what you enjoy and work to achieve the tools to achieve those results. If you decide you like something different after a few months, that’s also perfectly fine.
There is a rule that I think should be enforced and is always ignored by too many photographers; Think about how our photos look. It’s not just about deciding on a particular subject or genre, it’s about finding and putting our characters in the picture. It is a difficult thing for a beginner to achieve at first. Only after taking about 100,000 photos, analyzing them, and figuring out what we like and don’t like about what we do can we develop our own style and recognize them in other people’s photos. . Then adopting or ignoring those tools will come naturally and be like riding a bicycle. You won’t even think about them.
