The Diagonal Method ?

Theres also one that a lot of 35mm format photographers use, its the rule of 4/5ths. They concluded that the rule of thirds worked well for 4X5 & 8X10 but wasn't the best for composing FF 35mm format photographs. It moves the sweet spot out farther from the center. I like what Ansel Adams had to say about the whole thing.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
Ansel Adams

airfrogusmc wrote in post #9865550
"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
Ansel Adams

Amen, brother!

Yeah, but... it's amazing how often good photographs follow the rules. Coincidence?

Yeah but its even more amazing that a good deal of the great photographs break the rules.

Yeah, but... it's amazing how often good photographs follow the rules. Coincidence?

All photographic "rules" are broken by good photographers. But then, a good photographer knows when to break the rules.

And as for old Ansel, if you have his eye, feel free to shoot as he did.

I don't have his eye.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #9866017
Yeah, but... it's amazing how often good photographs follow the rules. Coincidence?

And many great ones didn't follow the rules. If everyone is shooting with the same rules a lot of the photographs start looking the same. Nothing creative or great about safe images that all look similar.

I dunno; I don't think anyone follows "rule of thirds" slavishly, do they? Do people really enable the grid and then put stuff at the crosspoints? I just kind of make sure that stuff looks right and has some dynamic, and if it is unbalanced it is for a reason. If you do that first, then enable the grid, you'll notice that you're usually sort of close to whatever rules have been postulated, be they thirds, diagonal, or golden.

I still remember being taught how to write a research paper, in 9th grade (1969). We were taught how to write an outline, we were taught how to write an introductory paragraph that outlined the theme, we were taught how to organize the following paragraphs so that they supported the theme, and we were taught how to summarize and conclude the paper. And that was good; it gave our work continuity, it kept our ideas from being strewn all over the page without any unity of purpose. On the other hand, there is no room for creativity within that structure; there is no personal style nor personal expression permitted within that framework.

The simple guides exist as primers for students, not as rules for mature writers and photographers. As a writer and photographer, I want to make my work interesting and expressive. I'm not an artist, I'm not a professional, but I'm trying to communicate when I write and when I shoot, and even on an ephemeral scale I take pride in crafting what I do. And in crafting what I do, I don't forget the rules... but I don't devote myself to them either. I trust that I've learned them, and I trust that I know what I'm doing when I don't follow them.

Mosca wrote in post #9867668
I dunno; I don't think anyone follows "rule of thirds" slavishly, do they? Do people really enable the grid and then put stuff at the crosspoints? I just kind of make sure that stuff looks right and has some dynamic, and if it is unbalanced it is for a reason. If you do that first, then enable the grid, you'll notice that you're usually sort of close to whatever rules have been postulated, be they thirds, diagonal, or golden.

I still remember being taught how to write a research paper, in 9th grade (1969). We were taught how to write an outline, we were taught how to write an introductory paragraph that outlined the theme, we were taught how to organize the following paragraphs so that they supported the theme, and we were taught how to summarize and conclude the paper. And that was good; it gave our work continuity, it kept our ideas from being strewn all over the page without any unity of purpose. On the other hand, there is no room for creativity within that structure; there is no personal style nor personal expression permitted within that framework.

The simple guides exist as primers for students, not as rules for mature writers and photographers. As a writer and photographer, I want to make my work interesting and expressive. I'm not an artist, I'm not a professional, but I'm trying to communicate when I write and when I shoot, and even on an ephemeral scale I take pride in crafting what I do. And in crafting what I do, I don't forget the rules... but I don't devote myself to them either. I trust that I've learned them, and I trust that I know what I'm doing when I don't follow them.

Very nicely put.

I did formal writing, governmental and legal, where adherence to the rules was de rigueur.

I also wrote for normal publication, where creativity was important.

Having learned the rules well, I knew when to break them.

The problems arise when people fail to learn the rules in the first place. This applies to writing, photography, or any other venture.

In short, you can't become good at your craft if you don't learn its discipline first.

My point isn't that most people blindly follow "the rules". My point is that a great number of successful shots (maybe most, who knows)... even those taken by people NOT consciously following "the rules"... still end up following "the rules". To some degree or another.

20droger wrote in post #9867741
Very nicely put.

I did formal writing, governmental and legal, where adherence to the rules was de rigueur.

I also wrote for normal publication, where creativity was important.

Having learned the rules well, I knew when to break them.

The problems arise when people fail to learn the rules in the first place. This applies to writing, photography, or any other venture.

In short, you can't become good at your craft if you don't learn its discipline first.

QFT.

In any craft, trade or profession people tend to follow a method. Normally they have found through personal experience or through tuition, that that method works (whether it is report writing, woodwork, photography etc). That is not to say that method suits all circumstances but it is only after knowing why the "method" is followed that the person can break away from it in a knowledgeable way.

Often when a composition doesnt follow the "rules", you actually find on analysis that they are actually using another compositional rule (ie not using rule of thirds but framing centrally for a symetrical object.

I think the "diagonal method" as described looks like someone has thought of an idea and then picked images that fit it no matter how loosely.

Rules are for technicians as an artist you need to trust your sense of esthetics ...You must feel the force Luke

photoguy6405 wrote in post #9867831
My point isn't that most people blindly follow "the rules". My point is that a great number of successful shots (maybe most, who knows)... even those taken by people NOT consciously following "the rules"... still end up following "the rules". To some degree or another.

I agree. Rules were formed by looking at good photos and extrapolating from them, not the other way around. Common aspects are codified and explained as shorthand to acolytes, who then used them to learn. Once learned, they can be referred to, but they should not be objects of devotion.

3Dart wrote in post #9868009
Rules are for technicians as an artist you need to trust your sense of esthetics ...You must feel the force Luke

And when one completely ignores the rules of English, one winds up with a sentence (?) like the above, which is, shall we say, not an artistic masterpiece.