The other day my friend, Bill, sent me this article -
5 Rules in Macro Photography and When to Break Them. I have been doing a bit of macro work lately, so he decided to share the article. He sent it to me via Facebook Messenger and, after I read thru it, we had a brief discussion about it. The article, and discussion, lead me to writing this blog post. I have seen countless articles with the same message - "here are the rules, you should always follow them unless you should break them." There is always an exception to the rule and, in photography, there seem to be more exceptions than rules.
To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk. – Edward Weston
This is one of my favorite quotes and I think it is appropriate here. I'm not saying that the "rules" aren't important - they are, to an extent - but I am wondering about
when they should be taught. I have seen many photographs that were technically spectacular and, yet, dull and lifeless. When I say "technically spectacular" I mean they followed the rules. I know, part of the rule is knowing when to break it but do most photographers learn this second part? When do you start to teach them to break the rules? Should we call them something other than "rules"?
The photographs that excite me are photographs that say something in a new manner; not for the sake of being different, but ones that are different because the individual is different and the individual expresses himself. - Harry Callahan
Bill and I came to an agreement that the rules should be taught but later in a photographers development cycle and maybe not be called rules at all. I think if we teach how someone looks at a photograph, how the eyes scan and are drawn to certain things, how the relationship between light and dark works; then the student will simultaneously learn the rules and the exceptions. They will know the "why" which is far more important than the "what", in my opinion anyway. Photography, after all, is art - right? Art is a means of self-expression and who is to tell us how to express ourselves?
I don’t think there’s any such thing as teaching people photography, other than influencing them a little. People have to be their own learners. They have to have a certain talent. – Imogen Cunningham
It's all about capturing a moment in time as witnessed by the photographer. We all see things differently and every scene means something different to us. I have met some photographers who are very much into following rules and the "technical" aspect of photography; their work is nice but can be a bit boring. I had one lament about how lazy and stupid some people were because they didn't know how to read a histogram! I told him that I didn't always consult the histogram when I was out shooting and he became insulting. I ended the conversation when I asked him about consulting the histogram when you shoot film....
So, am I saying that we should throw caution to the wind and not learn the "rules" of composition? No, not really. I just think that maybe we should de-emphasize them or teach them a different way. The word "rule" implies rigidity and we should be emphasizing creativity. I know, there are times when the rules much absolutely be followed, without exception. Sure, there are disciplines within photography where certain rules must be followed but I am talking about those learning the craft; there is plenty of time for specializing.
You don't make a photograph just with a camera. You bring to the act of photography all the pictures you have seen, the books you have read, the music you have heard, the people you have loved. - Ansel Adams
I think this is a good place to end. What do you think about teaching the rules to beginner photographers? Are you a teacher? What is your approach? I would love to hear your thoughts - leave me a comment below.
Until next time, get out, enjoy nature and break a few rules!
