
Misty mountains.


BambersImages Cream of the Crop ![]() 9,573 posts Likes: 4214 Joined Sep 2010 Location: UK More info | Apr 28, 2016 08:57 | #6376
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BambersImages Cream of the Crop ![]() 9,573 posts Likes: 4214 Joined Sep 2010 Location: UK More info | Apr 28, 2016 08:58 | #6377
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Apr 28, 2016 09:51 | #6378 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
cubatahavana I still don't see it ![]() More info | Apr 28, 2016 10:01 | #6379 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. My Flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info Post edited over 4 years ago by airfrogusmc. | Apr 28, 2016 10:22 | #6380 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?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
OhLook insufferably pedantic. I can live with that. ![]() 20,704 posts Gallery: 77 photos Best ofs: 2 Likes: 8776 Joined Dec 2012 Location: California: SF Bay Area More info | Apr 28, 2016 11:21 | #6381 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. PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Apr 28, 2016 11:31 | #6382 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Alveric Goldmember ![]() More info Post edited over 4 years ago by Alveric. (2 edits in all) | Apr 28, 2016 11:48 | #6383 ![]() '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'?) 'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
LOG IN TO REPLY |
OhLook insufferably pedantic. I can live with that. ![]() 20,704 posts Gallery: 77 photos Best ofs: 2 Likes: 8776 Joined Dec 2012 Location: California: SF Bay Area More info | Apr 28, 2016 12:00 | #6384 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. PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | Comments welcome
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info Post edited over 4 years ago by airfrogusmc. (2 edits in all) | Apr 28, 2016 12:03 | #6385 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Xyclopx Goldmember More info | Apr 28, 2016 12:43 | #6386 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... Dean Chiang
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Apr 28, 2016 13:06 | #6387 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Xyclopx Goldmember More info | Apr 28, 2016 13:15 | #6388 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. Dean Chiang
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Apr 28, 2016 13:26 | #6389 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BigAl007 Cream of the Crop ![]() 8,051 posts Gallery: 547 photos Best ofs: 1 Likes: 1643 Joined Dec 2010 Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK. More info | Apr 28, 2016 18:17 | #6390 |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is AvaDavidson 853 guests, 292 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |