"WHAT NOT TO DO" - thoughts in photography

I feel I have a very long way to go as a photographer and am nowhere near where I want to be, but I do feel I have accumulated enough experience to start discussing some larger ideas in depth.

A question I often ask myself is, "Why do snap shots look so bad?". And the flip side would be, "Why do professionals images look good?"

I sort of think that photography on a foundational level has more to do with avoiding the bad than on seizing the good.

I think snap shots are rich with heart, good intentions, can have candid moments captured, nice locations, etc. But for some reason they often look like a hobo ate a piece of lustre paper and this is what came out of his ass.

My idea is that there are a ton of strict "WHAT NOT TO DO" rules in photography, and if enough are amassed on a single image, the image becomes more or less a failure. Perhaps the number of 'things to avoid' is higher than in other visual mediums. Photography closely mimics human perception and when we tend to stray from that, it tends to unsettle the viewer. An example would be a crooked horizon line. If I tip my head from side to side, the horizon line remains relatively "level" in my field of vision. If I look at an image of a skewed lake horizon, I tend to think the photographer is mentally challanged. Maybe because of this closeness to perception we make fewer allowances, than with other mediums. Also we are probably exposed to hundreds to thousands of highly polished, still images every day and from that the bar is raised on what to expect from any image presented to us.

Here are a few random things to avoid in photography (in general):

•skewed horizon in landscape photograpy
•don't cut off subject at the limbs
•don't use a bare on camera flash. It doesn't mimic anything in nature.
•reflections in eye glasses
•centering your subject
•dark eye sockets
•busy in focus backgrounds for portraiture
•side lighting for people with skin problems
•shooting everything from standing eye level
•subjects square to the camera
•no catch lights
•keystoning in architectural photography
•lighting overweight subjects with broad lighting
•having subjects shadow fall on wall behind them
•things behind subject that look like they are sprouting from subject

plus a thousand more for each type of photography: people, landscape, architecture, still lifes/objects, etc. And of course these things can be broken to amazing effect. But I am putting forth as things that get people in trouble a lot of the time.

So when I am about to take a shot, I am at a point where I am running through a very large list of things to avoid, because I feel even the smallest thing will severely degrade my image. It is an organic process, after I think I have eliminated the 'no-no's' I will then shift to improving the image and from there will go back to looking for potential mistakes.

So again, I am thinking that good photography on a foundational level might have more to do with avoiding a long list of mistakes than with things you should do. And that a very small number of mistakes can destroy an image bursting at the seams with good elements, since I believe photography holds a high bar due to its close ties to human perception and our daily saturation of professional images.

Thoughts?

how is a level horizon something you should avoid?

It all boils down to composition and lighting. It's good to have guidelines but stick too close to them and your photography becomes stagnant. For every valid "rule" that exists, there's an equally valid reason to break it.

jimmeh wrote in post #9403782
how is a level horizon something you should avoid?

Thanks for pointing that out. Nice contribution.

I agree and disagree. There is a structure to photography as there is to architecture. Every building works within a set of parameters of things that can work and things that don't work. But you can get from those parameters the Taj Mahal or a trailer home. Every art has principles that guide it.

My idea is that to get your photography to an aesthecially acceptable level has more to do with heeding the potential mistakes than on seizing the positives. The reason I believe this is that your image could be nearly flawless but if you f-up in a few small areas, it is ruined.

cdifoto wrote in post #9403785
It all boils down to composition and lighting. It's good to have guidelines but stick too close to them and your photography becomes stagnant.

"Aesthetically acceptable"?

kkamin wrote in post #9403800
The reason I believe this is that your image could be nearly flawless but if you f-up in a few small areas, it is ruined.

Nitpicking only ruins it for the nitpicker. You can take any photo and rip it to shreds if you really really want to. Flawed in the eyes of one person does not equal ruined in the eyes of everyone.

cdifoto wrote in post #9403807
Nitpicking only ruins it for the nitpicker. You can take any photo and rip it to shreds if you really really want to.

How would you teach photography? Just do it? Are there any deep ideas running through the medium of image making?

kkamin wrote in post #9403812
How would you teach photography? Just do it? Are there any deep ideas running through the medium of image making?

I wouldn't teach it by starting off with a long list of "don't ever do this", that's for sure.

Personally, I think the only thing teachable about photography is the technical side. Exposure (ISO, shutter speed, aperture), lens selection, focus, focal length, etc.

For the aesthetic, you have to know what you want to say. Once you know have the technical down, and figure out what you want to say, execution is easy. How can you teach that?

You're living up to your quote. Good job.

Instead of making a list of "avoids", perhaps we should make a list of "if you do this, this is what happens" instead.

Don't tell someone to never shoot with broad lighting. Tell them what happens when they do.

Don't tell someone to never shoot with direct on-camera flash. Tell them what happens when they do.

Don't tell someone to always keep their camera level in a landscape. Tell them what happens when they don't.

Be sure to give the positives along with the negatives, because there are benefits to doing everything, just as there are drawbacks. No direct on-camera flash you say? Hmmm. I need fill-flash and I can balance it with the sun. It's also portable and fast. Do it right and it looks great. Don't do it at all and you have raccoon eyes....and no catch lights!

Instead of thinking about it, do more of it.

cdifoto wrote in post #9403815
I wouldn't teach it by starting off with a long list of "don't ever do this", that's for sure.

Personally, I think the only thing teachable about photography is the technical side. Exposure (ISO, shutter speed, aperture), lens selection, focus, focal length, etc.

For the aesthetic, you have to know what you want to say. Once you know have the technical down, and figure out what you want to say, execution is easy. How can you teach that?

What is art school for? What is college for, for the creative fields?

So, if I want to be a writer, all I hope hope for someone to teach me is the English language, sentence syntax and how to use Microsoft Word? The rest is figuring out what I want to say and that is up to me? I would think most people who go to good colleges appreciate studying the creatively 'how' and 'why' of art making. And from that self-conscious type of creativity are able to grow.

And you are also saying that if you were able to shadow a series of world class photographers you could learn nothing from them other than what f-stop and shutter speed they used?

I don't think execution is easy just because you have the technical side down and know what to say. I would think the best photographers in the world still struggle with the clarity of their intent. There are countless factors at work that work together, against each other or something gray in between that affects how a photograph is perceived.

This is where the over-thinking comes into it.

No you cannot teach a writer how to be a writer. There are many many English literature graduates who cannot write to save their life. Just as there are many photography degree holders who cannot take a photo to save their life. There are also many GREAT writers who do not have a degree, just as there are many great photographers who do not have a degree.

What would I learn from shadowing a photographer? Quite a bit. How to interact with people, how to talk to people, how to get people to open up to me and feel comfortable with me and my camera. Would I learn how to make a statement by shadowing? No. I probably wouldn't learn the exposure triangle either because they'd hope I was past that and certainly wouldn't want to stop what they're doing to teach me what I can learn in a small book.

Photographers struggle with the clarity of their intent because they haven't gotten their intent clearly sorted in their own mind yet, or they aren't quite sure how to achieve it technically (the latter can be solved easily, the former not so much). They certainly aren't wracking their brain over avoiding keystoning or raccoon eyes.

cdifoto wrote in post #9403839
Instead of making a list of "avoids", perhaps we should make a list of "if you do this, this is what happens" instead.

Don't tell someone to never shoot with broad lighting. Tell them what happens when they do.

Don't tell someone to never shoot with direct on-camera flash. Tell them what happens when they do.

Don't tell someone to always keep their camera level in a landscape. Tell them what happens when they don't.

Be sure to give the positives along with the negatives, because there are benefits to doing everything, just as there are drawbacks. No direct on-camera flash you say? Hmmm. I need fill-flash and I can balance it with the sun. It's also portable and fast. Do it right and it looks great. Don't do it at all and you have raccoon eyes....and no catch lights!

I'm not prescribing a syllabus for teaching photography. I'm trying to deconstruct of what separates 'snap shot' type photography from good photography. It is interesting to me because snap shot photography often contains many nice elements but I feel after a few visual violations, the image remains relegated to a 'snap shot' status. Much like a drop of ink in a glass of water will darken the entire glass slightly. You can have 15 great things working for a photograph and then 3 common mistakes and end up with a photograph that doesn't quite work. This is my main point. I feel the severity of the "things to avoid" is much, much stronger than "good elements" within a photograph.