POST YOUR BEST B&W SHOTS!

cubatahavana wrote in post #17987925
I agree with this, but I have to say that for when you are starting in photography, the rules are good guides. Once you control them, once you know them, once you are familiar with them, is easier to avoid them and create a very good photograph as the one mentioned above.

I would STRONGLY disagree. I think things like the RoTs does a lot of damage.

When someone learns a rule like that they then tend to only look for images that fit into that rule. Dismissing all the other possibilities. When they view images, they dismiss everything that falls outside that rule. And then as Weston was getting at if everyone follows those same rules , then everything starts looking the same and there is no freshness of vision. Just take a look around all the forums. Everyone is obsessed with these stupid rules. Even to the point of getting screens with the RoTs etched in them. Then take a look around and take in the sea of sameness. There are so few photographers whose work I can look at and tell who took the image without seeing avatar or signature. 5 or 6 maybe. I think it was Ernst Haas that said he would rather take what the masses would consider crappy photos that look like his photos than make pretty pictures that look like everyone else's.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17988090
I would STRONGLY disagree. I think things like the RoTs does a lot of damage.

When someone learns a rule like that they then tend to only look for images that fit into that rule. Dismissing all the other possibilities. When they view images, they dismiss everything that falls outside that rule. And then as Weston was getting at if everyone follows those same rules , then everything starts looking the same and there is no freshness of vision. Just take a look around all the forums. Everyone is obsessed with these stupid rules. Even to the point of getting screens with the RoTs etched in them. Then take a look around and take in the sea of sameness. There are so few photographers whose work I can look at and tell who took the image without seeing avatar or signature. 5 or 6 maybe. I think it was Ernst Haas that said he would rather take what the masses would consider crappy photos that look like his photos than make pretty pictures that look like everyone else's.

Everybody has their own different opinion. That's what makes photography great. I am in no position to give any great insight, as I am only starting in this world and I am a hobbyist only. Far away from the skills or experience that a lot of members of POTN have. I can say, though, that the rules have helped me in my composition in many cases. In some other cases I just felt that there was no need for them. I have good photographs belonging to both arguments, as well as photographs that are not that good on both sides.

It is always good to have a healthy discussion!

cubatahavana wrote in post #17988101
Everybody has their own different opinion. That's what makes photography great. I am in no position to give any great insight, as I am only starting in this world and I am a hobbyist only. Far away from the skills or experience that a lot of members of POTN have. I can say, though, that the rules have helped me in my composition in many cases. In some other cases I just felt that there was no need for them. I have good photographs belonging to both arguments, as well as photographs that are not that good on both sides.

It is always good to have a healthy discussion!

I would say those rules have only taught you to see and make images that are like everyone else's. How many really good photos have you missed by dismissing them because they didn't follow the rule?

As Weston pointed out Composition should become part of a personal way of seeing.
Michals said that by not learning the rules he was free.
Newman pointed out that you have to compose by the seat of your pants.

There are no rules and leaning some stupid rule will only inhibit your creativity and make it harder to find your vision.

I refer back to post #6388 for more and these are opinions by some of the greatest photographers to pick up a camera. They are a lot more articulate and way more credible than I am. But they all are right. If you want to make photographs like everyone else just keep following the rules that everyone else is following. If you want to push your work to the next level... well you get the point.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17988090
I would STRONGLY disagree. I think things like the RoTs does a lot of damage.

When someone learns a rule like that they then tend to only look for images that fit into that rule. Dismissing all the other possibilities. When they view images, they dismiss everything that falls outside that rule.

Far be it from me to disagree with you, but I will anyway. What can happen is that hearing about the RoTs gets a person to start thinking about ratios at all. At the very beginning, I mean moving out of "boring family snapshot" mode, one abandons the idea of putting the subject in the exact center every time. Then one can experiment with different proportions. As an example, I found that having a main accent 4/9 of the way over from one side is often good.

OhLook wrote in post #17988185
Far be it from me to disagree with you, but I will anyway. What can happen is that hearing about the RoTs gets a person to start thinking about ratios at all. At the very beginning, I mean moving out of "boring family snapshot" mode, one abandons the idea of putting the subject in the exact center every time. Then one can experiment with different proportions. As an example, I found that having a main accent 4/9 of the way over from one side is often good.

But again that gets a person only seeing and then only taking images that only fit into that rule and when judging other photographs they are also dismissing those that don't fit that rule. And then what do the photographers I mentioned know about all? I say have NO preconceived idea when shooting. No rule at all and just respond to the what you are seeing.

'There are no rules' is akin to saying 'I never take bad photos'. If anyone else finds the angles, composition, and blurriness awkward, poor, and unsightly, it's because they don't appreciate my unique vision, they're not 'enlightened', but perpetually 'enslaved' by restrictive and homogenising rules and hopelessly ignorant of the arcana that glorifies photographic flaws. (Hmm, did I really say 'flaws'?)

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17988194

OhLook wrote in post #17988185
Far be it from me to disagree with you, but I will anyway. What can happen is that hearing about the RoTs gets a person to start thinking about ratios at all. At the very beginning, I mean moving out of "boring family snapshot" mode, one abandons the idea of putting the subject in the exact center every time. Then one can experiment with different proportions. As an example, I found that having a main accent 4/9 of the way over from one side is often good.

But again that gets a person only seeing and then only taking images that only fit into that rule and when judging other photographs they are also dismissing those that don't fit that rule. And then what do the photographers I mentioned know about all? I say have NO preconceived idea when shooting. No rule at all and just respond to the what you are seeing.

The learning process, as I understand it, is more bottom-up than that. It includes analyzing photos you like, including your own, and identifying what makes them likable. There's no single thing that makes them likable every time. Sometimes symmetry is good, sometimes it's bad. The same for blur versus sharpness. People in a frame might face each other or not, depending.

Alveric wrote in post #17988216
'There are no rules' is akin to saying 'I never take bad photos'. If anyone else finds the angles, composition, and blurriness awkward, poor, and unsightly, it's because they don't appreciate my unique vision, they're not 'enlightened', but perpetually 'enslaved' by rules and hopelessly ignorant of the arcana that glorifies photographic flaws. (Hmm, did I really say 'flaws'?)

Thats is crazy analogy. The problem is the rules will get someone taking photographs just like everyone else thus making them part of the herd and in creative endeavors the herd is absolutely the worst place to be.

Yeah what did Adams, Weston, Brandt, Newman, Winograd, Maisel (did ya watch the video?) know about photography? Photographic flaws to who? If you are talking about technical issues those are easier to judge but even those can be subjective. But someone putting their way of seeing on others well heres what Adams said about it.
"No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit." Ansel Adams

I find this so funny and so true when talking about forum experts.
http://theonlinephotog​rapher.blogspot.com …graphers-on-internet.html

And part two
http://theonlinephotog​rapher.typepad.com …the-internet-part-ii.html

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17988090
I would STRONGLY disagree. I think things like the RoTs does a lot of damage.

When someone learns a rule like that they then tend to only look for images that fit into that rule. Dismissing all the other possibilities. When they view images, they dismiss everything that falls outside that rule. And then as Weston was getting at if everyone follows those same rules , then everything starts looking the same and there is no freshness of vision. Just take a look around all the forums. Everyone is obsessed with these stupid rules. Even to the point of getting screens with the RoTs etched in them. Then take a look around and take in the sea of sameness. There are so few photographers whose work I can look at and tell who took the image without seeing avatar or signature. 5 or 6 maybe. I think it was Ernst Haas that said he would rather take what the masses would consider crappy photos that look like his photos than make pretty pictures that look like everyone else's.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17988194
But again that gets a person only seeing and then only taking images that only fit into that rule and when judging other photographs they are also dismissing those that don't fit that rule. And then what do the photographers I mentioned know about all? I say have NO preconceived idea when shooting. No rule at all and just respond to the what you are seeing.

firstly, just gonna say i respect you a lot, so i ain't saying this as a knock...

BUT, of all people to make these remarks, i do think that i find some hypocrisy in them. your shots follow rules more strictly than most any other posting in this thread. i can instantly tell which shots are yours, with almost 90% accuracy. that is, i see the picture before i see the name, and i go, oh it's airfrog's.

you may not think that rules should govern photography, but they definitely govern your own.

perhaps this is more of a disagreement of what the word "rule" means to us. but to me, it means that someone wrote a guide to producing good photographs, to be followed as a strong guideline. i don't see it like a computer program, which is followed exactly 100% as is. even god himself broke various rules in his 10 commandments. but surely you have your own rules that you follow?

Xyclopx wrote in post #17988277
firstly, just gonna say i respect you a lot, so i ain't saying this as a knock...

BUT, of all people to make these remarks, i do think that i find some hypocrisy in them. your shots follow rules more strictly than most any other posting in this thread. i can instantly tell which shots are yours, with almost 90% accuracy. that is, i see the picture before i see the name, and i go, oh it's airfrog's.

you may not think that rules should govern photography, but they definitely govern your own.

perhaps this is more of a disagreement of what the word "rule" means to us. but to me, it means that someone wrote a guide to producing good photographs, to be followed as a strong guideline. i don't see it like a computer program, which is followed exactly 100% as is. even god himself broke various rules in his 10 commandments. but surely you have your own rules that you follow?

I follow my vision which is not rules thats why you recognize my work. Just like you can recognize the great photographers work who I also agree with in the post where I quoted them on the rules. People that follow rules are all making compositions the same way. Different subjects but the image structure is the virtually the same following say the RoTs not their own vision. That contributes to a a sea of sameness.

Did you read the words I posted or watch the video? I agree with what Maisel says and what the greats all said about rules. And Weston said in one of those quotes that so called composition becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing. And he also said that when subject matter is forced into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following the rules of composition can only lead to tedious repetition of pictorial cliches. I agree.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #17988292
I follow my vision which is not rules thats why you recognize my work. Just like you can recognize the great photographers work who I also agree with in the post where I quoted them on the rules. People that follow rules are all making compositions the same way. Different subjects but the image structure is the virtually the same following say the RoTs not their own vision. That contributes to a a sea of sameness.

Did you read the words I posted or watch the video? I agree with what Maisel says and what the greats all said about rules. And Weston said in one of those quotes that so called composition becomes a personal thing, to be developed along with technique, as a personal way of seeing. And he also said that when subject matter is forced into preconceived patterns, there can be no freshness of vision. Following the rules of composition can only lead to tedious repetition of pictorial cliches. I agree.

okay, well, yeah, i read what you wrote, especially what i quoted, but no i didn't watch the videos cause i'm at work.

so, i think this is really what gets people hung up as i suspected--the usage of the loaded word "rule". and there's then the difference of popular rules vs an individual's own rules. so let's avoid using that word for this discussion.

what i get from what you wrote is that you want to see "freshness of vision" and not "tedious repetition of pictorial cliches" right? so, in respect to this, do you think that over time your vision has become fresher and less repetitious?

Xyclopx wrote in post #17988298
okay, well, yeah, i read what you wrote, especially what i quoted, but no i didn't watch the videos cause i'm at work.

so, i think this is really what gets people hung up as i suspected--the usage of the loaded word "rule". and there's then the difference of popular rules vs an individual's own rules. so let's avoid using that word for this discussion.

what i get from what you wrote is that you want to see "freshness of vision" and not "tedious repetition of pictorial cliches" right? so, in respect to this, do you think that over time your vision has become fresher and less repetitious?

Yes FRESHNESS. And I really don't think about it. I do like to play with the edges of the frame a lot more than I did years ago. I think the entire frame is there to use to help you share an thought or an idea. If I see something that excites me I push the shutter. Sometimes it works. I like Winogrands response to why he shot so much and his response was art is not a product of industrial efficiency. Bresson said something like you have to milk a lot of cows just to get a little cheese.

And Maisel talks about RoTs in the video. The video is less than 3 minutes and a good watch.