Rule of Odds

If you want your photographs to look like everyone else's then everyone should use the same rules and shoot the same thing. If you want to take your work to the next level make photographs that look like your photographs. Make your own rules. Compose the way your see without the constraints of all these rules. I think it was Ernst Haas that said (and I am paraphrasing)I would rather make crappy photographs that look my photographs than make pretty pictures that look like everyone else's pretty pictures.

Here's a good piece by Eric Kim. Not a big fan of Kim but Manos is one of the greats. Read what Manos has to say about using the using the frame, seek complexity, every square inch counts, etc.
http://erickimphotogra​phy.com …aught-street-photography/

A great photographer once told me either everything in the frame is supporting your visual statement and if those elements aren't helping it, then those elements are hurting it.

Allen

Best advice I received from a professor: "Don't take a photo of the dumpster, take a photo of what is in the dumpster."

It took me a while to understand I was far to timid and shy to get close to the subject that was most interesting. I have taken that advice all the way through, especially street photography. Get close, get personal, get slightly uncomfortable.

The only true rule of photography....Do not turn the lights on in the Dark Room, unless you are the last to leave.

iAMB wrote in post #18501784
The only true rule of photography....Do not turn the lights on in the Dark Room, unless you are the last to leave.

Ha ha..

I guess I find some of the 'rules' helpful ... not because I am always going to follow them but because they are useful reminders (for me, at least) about the things that I should be thinking about in trying to make a better photograph.

But it would probably be better to turn this into a set of questions:

1) what is the main subject of this image?
2) how can I draw the viewers attention towards this ... through how the subject is lit and exposed? ... through the use of colour or selective focus/DOF? ... through the use of other elements of the image (framing, leading lines, juxtaposition, reflection, etc., etc.)? ... through selection of point and field of view?
3) are there important secondary subjects in the image that I want to keep within the frame?
4) are there potential distractions that I want to keep out of the frame or de-emphasise?
5) is there some overall organisation of the different elements that is more pleasing to my eye?
6) is there any potential to surprise the viewer or make some small visual 'joke'?

For me this is a lot to think about and more than I can handle most of the time ... because, most of the time, I am trying to grab 'nice pictures' fairly opportunistically without much control over the shooting conditions. When I am taking these 'snaps made with an expensive camera', something like the 'rule of thirds' (alternatively, where do I want to put my subject in the frame), is helpful alongside all the other things that are using up my limited available processing power like: find a clean background; get camera-subject-background distances reasonable; avoid amputating too many important body parts; use good enough exposure settings to get desired DOF and sharp subject; check if the sun is coming into the frame; focus accurately and hold the camera steady; what about white balance?, etc., etc.

A more experienced, better trained or more naturally talented photographer might find a lot of this relatively straightforward and more-or-less instinctive. I still find it hard work ... but I am improving and I enjoy the process ... and the proportion of my output that I find personally quite pleasing is slowly increasing.

DaviSto wrote in post #18501830
I guess I find some of the 'rules' helpful ... not because I am always going to follow them but because they are useful reminders (for me, at least) about the things that I should be thinking about in trying to make a better photograph.

But it would probably be better to turn this into a set of questions:

1) what is the main subject of this image?
2) how can I draw the viewers attention towards this ... through how the subject is lit and exposed? ... through the use of colour or selective focus/DOF? ... through the use of other elements of the image (framing, leading lines, juxtaposition, reflection, etc., etc.)? ... through selection of point and field of view?
3) are there important secondary subjects in the image that I want to keep within the frame?
4) are there potential distractions that I want to keep out of the frame or de-emphasise?
5) is there some overall organisation of the different elements that is more pleasing to my eye?
6) is there any potential to surprise the viewer or make some small visual 'joke'?

For me this is a lot to think about and more than I can handle most of the time ... because, most of the time, I am trying to grab 'nice pictures' fairly opportunistically without much control over the shooting conditions. When I am taking these 'snaps made with an expensive camera', something like the 'rule of thirds' (alternatively, where do I want to put my subject in the frame), is helpful alongside all the other things that are using up my limited available processing power like: find a clean background; get camera-subject-background distances reasonable; avoid amputating too many important body parts; use good enough exposure settings to get desired DOF and sharp subject; check if the sun is coming into the frame; focus accurately and hold the camera steady; what about white balance?, etc., etc.

A more experienced, better trained or more naturally talented photographer might find a lot of this relatively straightforward and more-or-less instinctive. I still find it hard work ... but I am improving and I enjoy the process ... and the proportion of my output that I find personally quite pleasing is slowly increasing.

I agree with your thinking here. For me too, there is usually too much going on when shooting to do precise composing. So, I shoot now and ask questions later. In post, the more complicated stuff can be addressed.

There can be exceptions, for instance when doing still lifes or table-top photography. But most of the time, it's grab what you can while applying some quick thinking in the moment, and address the rest of the issues later on the computer (by reframing/reworking/et​c, or often, culling).

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18501767
If you want your photographs to look like everyone else's then everyone should use the same rules and shoot the same thing. If you want to take your work to the next level make photographs that look like your photographs. Make your own rules.

It is my firm belief that in order to break the rules, you first have to know them. These rules are not just "invented" to limit artists, but they have been guiding principles in the world of art for a very long time. So, learn them before you start breaking them. And when breaking them, know why you are doing it. Because if you're breaking the rules for no other reason than to break the rules (because you want to be different), your work will never be authentic and truthful. Something we can see every day with people who know nothing of photography or art in general and who think they are making "art" by doing the weirdest things.

DaviSto wrote in post #18501830
I guess I find some of the 'rules' helpful . . .

But it would probably be better to turn this into a set of questions:

1) what is the main subject of this image?

Isn't it sometimes the whole scene? For example:

Photo from OhLook's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (866066)

Be careful the advice you listen to on a forum. If you want to make photographs like everyone else makes then rock on with the same rules everyone else is following and listen to the masses for advice. Remember opinions are like elbows everybody has'em. Read what Manos had to say about influence and also hear what Maisel said on the video I posted about where to draw inspiration from. It's some of the best advice you can get from those that have the opinions that should matter.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18501855
It is my firm belief that in order to break the rules, you first have to know them. These rules are not just "invented" to limit artists, but they have been guiding principles in the world of art for a very long time. So, learn them before you start breaking them. And when breaking them, know why you are doing it. Because if you're breaking the rules for no other reason than to break the rules (because you want to be different), your work will never be authentic and truthful. Something we can see every day with people who know nothing of photography or art in general and who think they are making "art" by doing the weirdest things.

BTW no one said to break rules just to break rules but what like what those quotes I posted say there are no rules to break. So if you are from the rules then you are the rules and thus your thinking is that there are rules to break. There aren't rule to break. Like Brandt said photograph is not a sport. There are no rules. Again if you want to make photographs like everyone else then follow the rules. You want to find your own way off seeing listen to those that did find just that.

Also love the quotes by Weston, Michals, Klein, Adams and Winogrand.

My advice like Maisel and Manos is learn form the greats, not from forum experts.

Some complex compositions

go down to American Color 2 and click.
https://pro.magnumphot​os.com …_10_VForm&ERID=​24KL53ZOQY

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18501855
It is my firm belief that in order to break the rules, you first have to know them. These rules are not just "invented" to limit artists, but they have been guiding principles in the world of art for a very long time. So, learn them before you start breaking them. And when breaking them, know why you are doing it. Because if you're breaking the rules for no other reason than to break the rules (because you want to be different), your work will never be authentic and truthful. Something we can see every day with people who know nothing of photography or art in general and who think they are making "art" by doing the weirdest things.

Learning the rules with the purpose of breaking them seems like strange logic to me.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18501864
BTW no one said to break rules just to break rules but what like what those quotes I posted say there are no rules to break. So if you are from the rules then you are the rules and thus your thinking is that there are rules to break. There aren't rule to break. Like Brandt said photograph is not a sport. There are no rules. Again if you want to make photographs like everyone else then follow the rules. You want to find your own way off seeing listen to those that did find just that.

Also love the quotes by Weston, Michals, Klein, Adams and Winogrand.

My advice like Maisel and Manos is learn form the greats, not from forum experts.

Allen, to say there are no rules to break is silly. And to say that you are "from the rules" or not is even sillier. The guiding principles of what is pleasing to the eye in a work of art have been in place for a very long time. They're not arbitrary rules or guidelines just invented for the hell of it. The Golden Mean e.g. is something that is visible in nature around us. Which might be why we find it pleasing to the eye when we see it in a work of art. The Rule of Thirds is a kind of simplification of it. And again, you can ignore these guiding principles or you can break them, that goes without saying. But anybody wanting to be an artist needs to know those principles. Somebody like Bresson e.g. knew them very well and used them in his photography, as I'm sure you know.

Archibald wrote in post #18501871

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18501855
It is my firm belief that in order to break the rules, you first have to know them. These rules are not just "invented" to limit artists, but they have been guiding principles in the world of art for a very long time. So, learn them before you start breaking them. And when breaking them, know why you are doing it. Because if you're breaking the rules for no other reason than to break the rules (because you want to be different), your work will never be authentic and truthful. Something we can see every day with people who know nothing of photography or art in general and who think they are making "art" by doing the weirdest things.

Learning the rules with the purpose of breaking them seems like strange logic to me.

No, you don't understand. You don't learn the rules in order to break them. You learn them in order to follow them. Anybody who is serious about being an artist needs to know what came before him. He's not isolated, but part of a ongoing movement. It's like in that old saying: dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants. So you learn and develop and then maybe, if you're any good, you might grow out of the need for the rules and develop your own rules, your own handwriting.

OhLook wrote in post #18501857
Isn't it sometimes the whole scene? For example:

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by OhLook originally in forum: Urban Life & Travel

These three women had just left the train. I don't think the image is about any one of them particularly. They all contribute, especially by being so far apart. You might say the "subject" is dispersion. In photos that also rely on relations between elements but in a different way, the subject might be juxtaposition.

Closer to the main topic, would having an even number of human figures in the photo make it worse?

I agree. The subject can be a scene ... an arrangement of parts ... rather than one particular thing. It might be something quite abstract like the natural geometry of the space between a group of tall buildings (there is a quite stunning example of this somewhere on POTN).

I think my first question makes terrific sense in the case of the photograph you posted (I'll say it myself because nobody else will be so kind ). The subject is not the three figures but the relationship between them. Three works well. Four I could see working, too. So I'm not sure the rule of odds matters here ... although the triangular pattern makes an attractive shape, I don't think a pentagon would be better than a rectangle. If there were a lot of people in the frame, this framing would only work if there were clear patterns of collective movement.

OhLook wrote in post #18501857
Isn't it sometimes the whole scene? For example:

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by OhLook originally in forum: Urban Life & Travel

These three women had just left the train. I don't think the image is about any one of them particularly. They all contribute, especially by being so far apart. You might say the "subject" is dispersion. In photos that also rely on relations between elements but in a different way, the subject might be juxtaposition.

Closer to the main topic, would having an even number of human figures in the photo make it worse?

Thanks for an opportunity to play.

I see the subject of the image as "parallelograms versus a triangle" and would thus eliminate the light post as a distraction and crop the bottom 20% or so.

Changing the number of women would ruin my beautiful triangle. <G>

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #18501898
The Golden Mean e.g. is something that is visible in nature around us. Which might be why we find it pleasing to the eye when we see it in a work of art. The Rule of Thirds is a kind of simplification of it.

These sound like cultism to me.

There is just no logical reason I can think of that particular numbers should have such significance in art.

I saw a web page some time ago that equivocated about the rule of thirds. They presented examples, and one of those examples suggested the photo would have been more effective at a bit less than a ratio of 3, say 2.8. Silliness.