Photography is an art and there are no rules in art. I used to be in a photo club but I left due to their obsession about rules. Balance is so much more important than all those "rules" combined. I understand that people who are learning photography leaning into rules. But most often people forget to let go of the rules as they progress... This is a great video Nigel; hope that many photo clubs are watching... :-)
Until photography, the art of art was to depict as realistic as possible and the second art of art was in the compositing applied in the storytelling. It's a spectator sport of the OKOP or PLU kind. Our Kind Of People think this is great art. People Like Us think that is bad art, etc. My country has a saying "the best helmsmen are on shore" - people with no knowledge or experience think they know better. The third art of art was in the visibly minimal use of technique. The impressionists still went to study paintings by Rembrandt centuries after that man died to see "how he did it". In pre-Roman-domination Greek antiquity, famous artists have their stories passed on about all this. One famous painter would expose his painting on a low balcony or so and eavesdrop on passers by to hear their comments of the artwork. He would work some or all of the comments into the painting. A famous sculptor was commissioned for a statue of a deity and he created two identical ones according to his own taste. One of these was kept in hiding, the other one surrendered to the community. The dilettante art critics all shed their opinion on what needed to be "improved" and the sculptor did all that. The result was no longer "his" and he felt it was ugly. When they agreed the statue was finished, he brought in his original copy version from hiding. Asked which one was preferred by Town Hall, they chose his original for being much better, on all levels. Creating art as faithful to nature was so important, in that antiquity, that it led to matches between artists to see who created the best "after nature". One example of two painters is that, invisible to each other, one painter had painted fruit and when ready covered the painting with a curtain. He was the first to have to show his painting and opened the curtain. A rooster incidentally present in the place flew up to the painting being fooled in thinking the fruit was real. "See how real this is? Now open your curtain!" he said to the other painter. The answer: the curtain is my painting - I won, because you fooled a rooster but I fooled a human painter. An example of photographic realism was in the work of one sculptor of which people said that he had hidden (the bodies of) real people into his statues. An example of compositing was a sculptor who needed a model for a statue of a (female) deity. Not easy to find a model, he asked Town Hall to have young women parade in the nude for him. He selected several women. One for the legs, another for the booty, etc. The result was divinely beautiful and totally believable as a depiction of a deity with a perfection that no human could approach. Nudity was not the norm, by the way, and because of this "nude" statues got dressed in textile clothes. Everything was polychromed too - no greyscale white marbles. Eyes with hollow pupils or irises now may have had coloured semi-precious stone in those now empty spaces. Since photography, "art" needed to reinvent itself and photography needed to invent its art variant. I would not say that all photography is "art", though. In the same way that not all paintings end up in an art collection or are still on display in 400 years.
Thanks Nigel, I am so glad you said it’s ok to break the rules. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had my work dismissed for putting something in the middle, or not following the rule of thirds, by people who religiously follow the rules. The problem with people who religiously follow rules of third is that, after a while, all their images start to look the same. You showed some really powerful examples of where you’ve broken the rule and the one that always comes to mind - and did when you first showed this image - was at about 3:18, with the tiny little house at the foot of a mountain on the Isle of Skye. With that wonderful light in the mountain, where you placed the house gives an immediate sense of scale and completely preserves a sense of the three dimensional in the two dimensional world of photography. Of all the rules, I find the rule of thirds, or ‘don’t put the subject in the middle’ so stifling, it feels like being made to wear a straight jacket. That said, there are times when the rule of third works, and I will use it. But I probably break the rule more often than not.
I belong to a club. Interesting that every judge brings a subjective eye to judging - one even admitted it. My criteria for my pix - would I frame it and hang it on my wall!
Good discussion Nigel and the only ‘rule’ I follow these days is just go out and enjoy the experience. As you said, sticking rigidly to the photography rules runs the risk of hampering creativity
think it can equally apply to photography such as the experience of being out there with your camera, the experience of taking in the surroundings with your camera, the experience of travelling with your camera etc etc etc@@petermgruhn
Thanks for the rule rundown. I had a photo of brightly colored fall trees at Brookside Gardens near Washington, D.C., that was criticized by a nature photography network as having no subject. I was, the photographers said, supposed to focus on a single tree or on reflections of the trees in a pond, but not include all the colorful trees and reflections. That image sold at an art exhibit by my camera club, and was displayed in the Baltimore airport for two months, not to mention at a juried show at a Hagerstown, Maryland, art gallery. Apparently none of those places, like me, knew what a good photograph is. Thanks for releasing me from the rules.
I was struggling with the need to have a subject - don’t recall where I saw that on CZcams - but thanks for debunking that one. It’s appreciated and somewhat liberating to know that.
I think something overlooked because of how obvious it is could be a rule: focus on the light, not the subject. Like the shot from the Faroe Islands, it’s very bland with a lot of shadow and almost blown out highlights. But after cropping in, it’s full of interesting light.
Lots of great ideas here Nigel. Often times as we develop as a photographer and become involved in camera clubs we hear too much about the rules of photography and find ourselves trying to follow them or be aware of them in the field. Who says these rules are right for every image? It’s nice to see how you have shown us your images that break the rules and how they still really work.
Really helpful video Nigel. I found it useful to have some awareness of the rules when I first started out, but made a conscious effort to try not to get too fixated by them. Trying to tell a story with the image is what resonates most with me
Your statements are so true. A longer time ago, I saw two very impressive exhibitions of masterpieces of landscape painting, one of the Canadian group “Tom Thomson and the group of seven” (for example, “Northern river” by Tom Thomson or “Ilse of Spruce” by Arthur Lismer) and the other exhibition presented Russian painters around Ivan Shishkin (for example, “Mixed forest” or “Winter”). Even after hundred years, seeing the original master pieces is still deeply impressive. At a first glance, the viewer does not see any obvious composition rule. The painters intentionally do not use the stupid rule of thirds nor the golden ratio, there are no obvious leading lines attracting attention, and often the tip of trees is cut off (which in a painting could have been avoided much easier than in photography). The painters also did not chase for sensational light. Analysing these masterpieces for a longer time, it becomes clear that there is always a well thought-out but inconspicuous composition. The subject is important, yet the natural impression to be communicated is more important. It is not true that we have learned something new which was not known at this former time, seeing the original master paintings is still deeply impressive. In fact, a modern photo meeting many composition rules but not having a clear subject and not transporting a message or a story is very poor and over-photoshopping does not solve that. The longer the viewer's gaze stays in the picture without getting bored, the better the picture is.
Very good subject to lift up Nigel. When you start to take images it's very easy to listen to all the rules but later when you got moore experience you can create images moore freely.
I agree 100%. I have entered competitions many times and have found the judging process a bit frustrating as they don't consider artistic thinking as much as they do the technical rules. They often critique the very things I do for artistic reasons and it gets me. lol
very interesting vidio Nigel, but very true, I think you clearly demonstrate from your images that rules are to be broken, I also think that when we go out on a shoot is to take images that we like for ourselves and not to try and please others, keep up the great work you do.
Another great video thank you Nigel. With all best wishes for Christmas and I hope that you and those you love have a happy and healthy new year. Terry
Great message here that ultimately comes down to: break the rules based on how you want to frame the focal point. Break the rules only when you understand what the rules are designed to accomplish. You also bring up a good point at around 7:13, where cropping a single image can have many more within it through cropping, where each one can stand on its own with its own set of ways it breaks (or follows) the "rules". This is why I love photography. Learning how to use the camera is one thing, but nurturing a creative eye is a whole other discipline.
The rules of artistic composition are really just guidelines. But like any rules you should only break them when you understand them. For beginners, they add structure and offer a "safety blanket" that ensures a reasonable composition. Still, the most special images are those that knowingly break one of the rules (and usually only one!) The other thing is you don't need to follow all of the rules in every shot, if you have a strong leading line you don't need to use the thirds rule (which, in turn, is really just an approximation of the golden ratio!) But if you are working on a commission and struggling to get your quota against a deadline, throwing something together with the rules can get you out of a hole! Sometimes you don't have the time or opportunity to wait for perfect light etc.
Very well done, Nigel. Excellent examples to back up your points. I especially agree with your last one. Not every photo needs a subject. As you noted, the feel/mood counts too and in abstracts there usually isn't a subject. My camera club often gives lower marks for these types of images because they say they don't know where to look. I tell them to look at the whole thing!
Great workshop Nigel, as always! Really appreciate the thought and care you put into this discussion. These types of talks help keep me focused when going out. Cheers!
+1,000 !! I agree completely. Visual "rules" are the result of what visually works. They didn't pre-exist imagery, they were recognized in good imagery and codified from there. As a result, rules can't create good work. They will indirectly play a part but they're a result, not a cause. Rules can no more create a good image than the thermometer on an oven can create a cake. But they both can (and will) reflect success. It comes down to balance, form / shape, color, tone, etc., etc. and that relies on the good judgement of the artist / photographer. Great video.
Another rule broken with the skiers is that usual advice says have space in front of the direction of travel. As the skiers photo shows breaking rules can work really well
Thanks for this great video, I have immediately sent the link to my colleague, a hobyy photographer like me, but more obsessed with rules. I hope he will watch your video as he asked me about breaking rules some time back and I tried to answer him, but your explanation is much clearer 🙂
I agree, indeed, it’s good to have guidelines, but then it’s great to break from those guidelines. Every photo opportunity is unique, as is each creation of a composition. I’m a bit of a maverick anyways, when it comes to certain rules. Fantastic video as ever. Many thanks Nigel.
Great presentation about rules and breaking them. I think its good for guidance especially for those learning. Your comments about camera clubs spot on. If submitting to camera clubs choose differently. Excellent points about tension and layers. Thanks for the examples always helpful. And remember go out to take photos, have fun and remember to bring an 🍎. Happy holidays Nigel.
I enjoyed the video as usual Nigel. There were some really good tips and advice. I must admit i don't use the rule of thirds very often as I think that when you see a shot you take it and crop it if you have to. Looking forward to the next one.
Rules are guidelines, and it is absolutely fine to ignore them provided the overall composition works, but they are are an excellent starting point for many photographers.
Nigel, yet another video where you are really speaking to me. Having a degree in Art History, rules & conventions were drilled into me, right up to the point I discovered American Modernism & that was it, all bets off, break the rules. The rules are wonderful in the right place & time, but as you say in this video, they aren't the be all or end all. Also, I have this conundrum, you drop these videos late Sunday night here in New Zealand. If I watch them then I can't sleep as I alway want to get out & try something, but if I wait till Monday morning, something always gets in the way, Either way, thanks once again for a wonderful suite of videos this year, so many scream to me, so thanks so very much. To you & your whanau, have a merry Xmas & can't wait to see what you'll get up to in the New Year (a trip to New Zealand?). Cheers
Did James let you have that photo because it was one of his rejects? No telegraph poles, no 'phone boxes, no bins, and taken on a tripod! It was great to meet you on The Roaches last Friday. Thanks again for all of your guidance and information on CZcams over the years. Regards, Roger
One of the best videos and examples Ive seen about the subject. Really great one, Nigel! Learning when to break these rules is an important skill that needs honing 😁
One of your best videos in a while, thank you! I like the more grounded and pragmatic approach. Especially the section about the (non) rule of thirds was really eye opening, as I personally tend to use this rule, especially when there is little time.
As someone once said to me, think of them as "suggestions" rather than rules. And when you know and master the "rules" you then know when you can break them (and still make the composition work). Obviously though I think there are some "rules" that should be followed, but mostly when it comes to post processing, such as don't cut off at joints when cropping photos of people.
Great examples of when breaking the rules works. However, rules are useful for beginners to get comfortable with composition, but once one becomes more experienced, then one will know when to break the rules. So one must know when to follow the rules and when to break them.
Thank you. When we first learn photography we learn rules and we don’t have context for them so we don’t know when they apply and when they don’t. We are painting with light in photography and painting by numbers will never make a work fine art.
I've always felt that all these rules should be treated as no more than guidelines to assist in taking better pictures. Not to be followed or broken but to be aware of.
Thanks for what you do, Nigel. Off to Madeira in a little over a week to see what magic I can find… and I’m a novice so I’m bound to break some rules because I don’t know them all!
Interesting debate. I think the key element is the photographer's intent. 'Rules' are merely guides to help with composition that create an initial platform from which to compose an image. I thought it was interesting that the images you showed (eg in your section on the 'rule of thirds') depicted rules other than the rule you were seeking to debunk (eg leading lines and diagonals), which demonstrates that the 'rules' overlap and can conflict. Consequently, you can 'break' one rule but end up following another! One can read into an image factors that may not form part of the photographer's intent and ultimately, therefore, I think composition needs to be driven by an emotional response to scene. That is the 'rule' I follow more than any other!
Great tips! After a judge said he didn't like my picture because it was too green and he didn't like green I abandoned camera clubs.. Picture in question was a gorilla on a grass field 😂
For me, one of the most difficult habits to break was thinking that, if there was a tree involved, I absolutely had to show the entire tree. Of course that led to massive amounts of sky and that problem where, if I included one tree in its entirety, that resulted in another cut off tree which bothered me.
Photograph what you intend to be the point of an image, the juxtaposition of elements, or the relationship between intellectual or emotional ideas, but saying don’t follow the rules creates its own rule.
For me Rule of third is not a rule but more like a guide to balance the image easier. The important thing is to balance or emphasize the subject, RoT is just a help tool, you can use it or not
Hi Nigel …really interesting content so thank you. I’ve just made two photo books through Saal and like you I’m so pleased with their service and product. On the minus side I’m so confused with their discount structure. There are so many different types of discount and some don’t apply when you are mixing and matching. For example I signed up to their newsletter and received a 5% discount then when I ordered my books I couldn’t use it. Advise them to make it easier for us please and reduce the confusion. Thanks for your excellent channel and season greetings to you and your family.
There were mountain of knowledge and experience gathered throughout the centuries in art and decades in photography and this information is summarized for teaching and transfer of knowledge to help the readers/viewers to understand their impacts in the right situations. But, through improper teaching or discussion, they become the RULES of photography that can instantly leveling up one's skill in a few minutes on Social Media. Thus, blame the messenger! Furthermore, the rules aren't exactly rules but simply using the English word. Also, they aren't universal and not to apply as many as possible without an understanding of why. As well, people may be talking about 'artistic license' or not knowing he/she had followed some other rules that haven't heard about, instead of not following/breaking any rules.
I personally never liked them referred to as 'Rules'... they're more like guidelines really. The more you understand the guidelines, the more you understand where and when you can color outside the lines and make it work for you.
Weellllll, I guess three trees, instead of being an “embrace,” would be a “menage a trees.” So maybe the camera club judges are right, three is more fun than two. I really liked the tip of cropping off/in to create more drama and attention.
Great photos to develop a "photographer eye", but not so good information for beginner photographers. All those "breaking the rules" are just different composition techniques: 1/3, golden ration, diagonal and center compositions. Good advice here - do not fear to cut image - you can create really interesting scenes with cropping or just by changing ratio from 4:3 to 16:9. TL,DR: advice for beginners - DO learns composition techniques (not only rule of thirds), experiment with cropping.
Well done Nigel 👏 Only, the rule of odds? Says the guy sitting in front of three lights and three bookshelves? 😉 as usually, the exception defines the rule…
I think the "rules" are important for those starting out in photography because they help condense the busy world around us into a pleasing image. As one grows in their skill set, they learn to treat the "rules" more as guidelines or suggestions and learn to work around them. On the flip side, I think the phrase "photos should tell a story" is confusing to beginners. They might see a tree and create a nice composition around it, but do not see any related story.
Maybe for a next video ... The seascape about 8:58 and the variant after it, illustrate perspective as a compositional tool. These shots are taken from a high point overlooking that sea and the height of the waves is dramatically clear in this dramatic light. The height gives access to this view, but if not cropped, the camera was tilted down and this compresses the notion of height a bit in the 2D rendering of a 3D world. This old school photographer would have used a camera or lens with shift, to keep the camera level but shift the lens down for the crop, thus retaining the ideal perspective (camera angle and point of view). With a 45.4MP digital camera, I would still have held the camera level, put a wider angle lens on it and cropped off some of the top in post. This kind of image does not suffer from as bit of crop and when more pixels are needed, e.g. for print, I upsample the image with Topaz Gigapixel AI (up to 32,000 on the long image side). The point is, relative to the video's subject, that rotating the camera up/down for a certain composition has big impact on a subtle level.
Today there are too many "Experts" especially on CZcams, who all have their own Channels or Rules or, interpretation of rules. It's got to the point now where there are very few "Experts" that I follow. I look at photographs, and if I like them I might comment. If I don't like them I don't comment. Why not? Well someone liked it enough to share it. The world would be a very boring place if we all follow the same rules, If we were all alike.
I have never really been able to understand the rule of thirds - for me it is 'just' a simplification of the "golden ratio" rule, which gives a much more 'friendly' picture to look at.
this is very strange, because you can put it anywhere. even where this is not the case. When an artist creates an image, he doesn't think about thirds or sections, he thinks about plot and story.
Too many rules in life, photography should mean freedom to express yourself, I think balanced images above any other “rules” make more pleasing images but I’m even willing to ignore that at times. Adhering to rules can be constraining, especially when conditions are changing rapidly, capturing mood and light are more important to me 🤔
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (and women)". The rules have a sound basis from human psychology but are not laws cast in stone.
I noticed you rarely or never dodge and burn which I believe every image should have some. I D & B every image to create some more depth especially landscape but also every portrait, Just my opinion!!!!
Nigel's only rule: don't forget your apple 🍎
That is the only rule!!!
@@NigelDanson It just can't get any better with an apple. Wishing you happy holidays.
Photography is an art and there are no rules in art. I used to be in a photo club but I left due to their obsession about rules. Balance is so much more important than all those "rules" combined. I understand that people who are learning photography leaning into rules. But most often people forget to let go of the rules as they progress... This is a great video Nigel; hope that many photo clubs are watching... :-)
Until photography, the art of art was to depict as realistic as possible and the second art of art was in the compositing applied in the storytelling.
It's a spectator sport of the OKOP or PLU kind. Our Kind Of People think this is great art. People Like Us think that is bad art, etc. My country has a saying "the best helmsmen are on shore" - people with no knowledge or experience think they know better.
The third art of art was in the visibly minimal use of technique. The impressionists still went to study paintings by Rembrandt centuries after that man died to see "how he did it".
In pre-Roman-domination Greek antiquity, famous artists have their stories passed on about all this. One famous painter would expose his painting on a low balcony or so and eavesdrop on passers by to hear their comments of the artwork. He would work some or all of the comments into the painting. A famous sculptor was commissioned for a statue of a deity and he created two identical ones according to his own taste. One of these was kept in hiding, the other one surrendered to the community. The dilettante art critics all shed their opinion on what needed to be "improved" and the sculptor did all that. The result was no longer "his" and he felt it was ugly. When they agreed the statue was finished, he brought in his original copy version from hiding. Asked which one was preferred by Town Hall, they chose his original for being much better, on all levels.
Creating art as faithful to nature was so important, in that antiquity, that it led to matches between artists to see who created the best "after nature". One example of two painters is that, invisible to each other, one painter had painted fruit and when ready covered the painting with a curtain. He was the first to have to show his painting and opened the curtain. A rooster incidentally present in the place flew up to the painting being fooled in thinking the fruit was real. "See how real this is? Now open your curtain!" he said to the other painter. The answer: the curtain is my painting - I won, because you fooled a rooster but I fooled a human painter.
An example of photographic realism was in the work of one sculptor of which people said that he had hidden (the bodies of) real people into his statues.
An example of compositing was a sculptor who needed a model for a statue of a (female) deity. Not easy to find a model, he asked Town Hall to have young women parade in the nude for him. He selected several women. One for the legs, another for the booty, etc. The result was divinely beautiful and totally believable as a depiction of a deity with a perfection that no human could approach. Nudity was not the norm, by the way, and because of this "nude" statues got dressed in textile clothes. Everything was polychromed too - no greyscale white marbles. Eyes with hollow pupils or irises now may have had coloured semi-precious stone in those now empty spaces.
Since photography, "art" needed to reinvent itself and photography needed to invent its art variant.
I would not say that all photography is "art", though. In the same way that not all paintings end up in an art collection or are still on display in 400 years.
I think you'll find that many of these "Rules" came from the world of art.
@@paulburwood8231 - precisely and maybe that is why there are so many ugly paintings?
Thanks Nigel, I am so glad you said it’s ok to break the rules. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had my work dismissed for putting something in the middle, or not following the rule of thirds, by people who religiously follow the rules. The problem with people who religiously follow rules of third is that, after a while, all their images start to look the same. You showed some really powerful examples of where you’ve broken the rule and the one that always comes to mind - and did when you first showed this image - was at about 3:18, with the tiny little house at the foot of a mountain on the Isle of Skye. With that wonderful light in the mountain, where you placed the house gives an immediate sense of scale and completely preserves a sense of the three dimensional in the two dimensional world of photography. Of all the rules, I find the rule of thirds, or ‘don’t put the subject in the middle’ so stifling, it feels like being made to wear a straight jacket.
That said, there are times when the rule of third works, and I will use it. But I probably break the rule more often than not.
I belong to a club. Interesting that every judge brings a subjective eye to judging - one even admitted it. My criteria for my pix - would I frame it and hang it on my wall!
Nigel, it is so helpful to hear your perspective on rules. Thank you! You are a great teacher/mentor. I’m learning so much from your videos.
Good discussion Nigel and the only ‘rule’ I follow these days is just go out and enjoy the experience. As you said, sticking rigidly to the photography rules runs the risk of hampering creativity
think it can equally apply to photography such as the experience of being out there with your camera, the experience of taking in the surroundings with your camera, the experience of travelling with your camera etc etc etc@@petermgruhn
Aaah, I'm so jealous of that skiing photo! That is an incredible shot!
Thanks for the rule rundown. I had a photo of brightly colored fall trees at Brookside Gardens near Washington, D.C., that was criticized by a nature photography network as having no subject. I was, the photographers said, supposed to focus on a single tree or on reflections of the trees in a pond, but not include all the colorful trees and reflections. That image sold at an art exhibit by my camera club, and was displayed in the Baltimore airport for two months, not to mention at a juried show at a Hagerstown, Maryland, art gallery. Apparently none of those places, like me, knew what a good photograph is. Thanks for releasing me from the rules.
An excellent video that all photographers should watch and learn from. Thanks Nigel, keep up the good work in 2024.
I was struggling with the need to have a subject - don’t recall where I saw that on CZcams - but thanks for debunking that one. It’s appreciated and somewhat liberating to know that.
I think something overlooked because of how obvious it is could be a rule: focus on the light, not the subject. Like the shot from the Faroe Islands, it’s very bland with a lot of shadow and almost blown out highlights. But after cropping in, it’s full of interesting light.
This might be one of my favourite videos from this year! ☝️
Lots of great ideas here Nigel. Often times as we develop as a photographer and become involved in camera clubs we hear too much about the rules of photography and find ourselves trying to follow them or be aware of them in the field. Who says these rules are right for every image? It’s nice to see how you have shown us your images that break the rules and how they still really work.
Really helpful video Nigel. I found it useful to have some awareness of the rules when I first started out, but made a conscious effort to try not to get too fixated by them. Trying to tell a story with the image is what resonates most with me
Awesome video Nigel. Your advice to aim for "simplicity, mood and telling a story" is really great. Thank you!
Your statements are so true. A longer time ago, I saw two very impressive exhibitions of masterpieces of landscape painting, one of the Canadian group “Tom Thomson and the group of seven” (for example, “Northern river” by Tom Thomson or “Ilse of Spruce” by Arthur Lismer) and the other exhibition presented Russian painters around Ivan Shishkin (for example, “Mixed forest” or “Winter”). Even after hundred years, seeing the original master pieces is still deeply impressive. At a first glance, the viewer does not see any obvious composition rule. The painters intentionally do not use the stupid rule of thirds nor the golden ratio, there are no obvious leading lines attracting attention, and often the tip of trees is cut off (which in a painting could have been avoided much easier than in photography). The painters also did not chase for sensational light. Analysing these masterpieces for a longer time, it becomes clear that there is always a well thought-out but inconspicuous composition. The subject is important, yet the natural impression to be communicated is more important. It is not true that we have learned something new which was not known at this former time, seeing the original master paintings is still deeply impressive. In fact, a modern photo meeting many composition rules but not having a clear subject and not transporting a message or a story is very poor and over-photoshopping does not solve that. The longer the viewer's gaze stays in the picture without getting bored, the better the picture is.
Very good subject to lift up Nigel. When you start to take images it's very easy to listen to all the rules but later when you got moore experience you can create images moore freely.
I agree 100%. I have entered competitions many times and have found the judging process a bit frustrating as they don't consider artistic thinking as much as they do the technical rules. They often critique the very things I do for artistic reasons and it gets me. lol
very interesting vidio Nigel, but very true, I think you clearly demonstrate from your images that rules are to be broken, I also think that when we go out on a shoot is to take images that we like for ourselves and not to try and please others, keep up the great work you do.
Great video Nigel. Thank you for explaining how "rule breaking" can be a good thing. I very much enjoyed the video. Merry Christmas!
Great video, Nigel. Appreciate your viewpoint. Thanks.
Another great video thank you Nigel. With all best wishes for Christmas and I hope that you and those you love have a happy and healthy new year. Terry
Great message here that ultimately comes down to: break the rules based on how you want to frame the focal point.
Break the rules only when you understand what the rules are designed to accomplish. You also bring up a good point at around 7:13, where cropping a single image can have many more within it through cropping, where each one can stand on its own with its own set of ways it breaks (or follows) the "rules". This is why I love photography. Learning how to use the camera is one thing, but nurturing a creative eye is a whole other discipline.
The rules of artistic composition are really just guidelines. But like any rules you should only break them when you understand them. For beginners, they add structure and offer a "safety blanket" that ensures a reasonable composition. Still, the most special images are those that knowingly break one of the rules (and usually only one!) The other thing is you don't need to follow all of the rules in every shot, if you have a strong leading line you don't need to use the thirds rule (which, in turn, is really just an approximation of the golden ratio!)
But if you are working on a commission and struggling to get your quota against a deadline, throwing something together with the rules can get you out of a hole! Sometimes you don't have the time or opportunity to wait for perfect light etc.
Very well done, Nigel. Excellent examples to back up your points. I especially agree with your last one. Not every photo needs a subject. As you noted, the feel/mood counts too and in abstracts there usually isn't a subject. My camera club often gives lower marks for these types of images because they say they don't know where to look. I tell them to look at the whole thing!
Thanks Again Nigel! I appreciate the tips and I'm looking forward to getting your book The Spirit of Luskentyre!
Thank you for this video! I especially appreciate freedom to break the horizon on the thirds!
Excellent video, Nigel. Thank you.
Great workshop Nigel, as always! Really appreciate the thought and care you put into this discussion. These types of talks help keep me focused when going out. Cheers!
Glad you enjoyed it
Excellent video. Super tips to keep in mind and utilize. Thanks so much.
+1,000 !! I agree completely. Visual "rules" are the result of what visually works. They didn't pre-exist imagery, they were recognized in good imagery and codified from there. As a result, rules can't create good work. They will indirectly play a part but they're a result, not a cause. Rules can no more create a good image than the thermometer on an oven can create a cake. But they both can (and will) reflect success. It comes down to balance, form / shape, color, tone, etc., etc. and that relies on the good judgement of the artist / photographer.
Great video.
Another rule broken with the skiers is that usual advice says have space in front of the direction of travel. As the skiers photo shows breaking rules can work really well
Very nice discussion and images, Nigel.
Thanks for this great video, I have immediately sent the link to my colleague, a hobyy photographer like me, but more obsessed with rules. I hope he will watch your video as he asked me about breaking rules some time back and I tried to answer him, but your explanation is much clearer 🙂
I agree, indeed, it’s good to have guidelines, but then it’s great to break from those guidelines. Every photo opportunity is unique, as is each creation of a composition. I’m a bit of a maverick anyways, when it comes to certain rules.
Fantastic video as ever. Many thanks Nigel.
Great presentation about rules and breaking them. I think its good for guidance especially for those learning. Your comments about camera clubs spot on. If submitting to camera clubs choose differently. Excellent points about tension and layers. Thanks for the examples always helpful. And remember go out to take photos, have fun and remember to bring an 🍎. Happy holidays Nigel.
Been taking images and reading photo books for decades...first time I've ever heard of the rule of odds.
Wonderfully done Nigel.
I enjoyed the video as usual Nigel.
There were some really good tips and advice.
I must admit i don't use the rule of thirds very often as I think that when you see a shot you take it and crop it if you have to.
Looking forward to the next one.
Rules are guidelines, and it is absolutely fine to ignore them provided the overall composition works, but they are are an excellent starting point for many photographers.
Nigel, yet another video where you are really speaking to me. Having a degree in Art History, rules & conventions were drilled into me, right up to the point I discovered American Modernism & that was it, all bets off, break the rules. The rules are wonderful in the right place & time, but as you say in this video, they aren't the be all or end all.
Also, I have this conundrum, you drop these videos late Sunday night here in New Zealand. If I watch them then I can't sleep as I alway want to get out & try something, but if I wait till Monday morning, something always gets in the way,
Either way, thanks once again for a wonderful suite of videos this year, so many scream to me, so thanks so very much. To you & your whanau, have a merry Xmas & can't wait to see what you'll get up to in the New Year (a trip to New Zealand?). Cheers
Always such good help! Thank you
One of your best videos. More like this please.
Did James let you have that photo because it was one of his rejects? No telegraph poles, no 'phone boxes, no bins, and taken on a tripod! It was great to meet you on The Roaches last Friday. Thanks again for all of your guidance and information on CZcams over the years. Regards, Roger
One of the best videos and examples Ive seen about the subject. Really great one, Nigel! Learning when to break these rules is an important skill that needs honing 😁
Glad it was helpful!
One of your best videos in a while, thank you! I like the more grounded and pragmatic approach. Especially the section about the (non) rule of thirds was really eye opening, as I personally tend to use this rule, especially when there is little time.
Awesome, thank you!
As someone once said to me, think of them as "suggestions" rather than rules. And when you know and master the "rules" you then know when you can break them (and still make the composition work). Obviously though I think there are some "rules" that should be followed, but mostly when it comes to post processing, such as don't cut off at joints when cropping photos of people.
Great topic, excellent examples and comments.
Great examples of when breaking the rules works.
However, rules are useful for beginners to get comfortable with composition, but once one becomes more experienced, then one will know when to break the rules.
So one must know when to follow the rules and when to break them.
A really nice topic, thanks!
I agree Nigel, ive always broke the rules, if it looks good to me I capture it , camera clubs hate the fact I do this that’s why I’d never join one
This was a good video!
Thank you.
Thank you. When we first learn photography we learn rules and we don’t have context for them so we don’t know when they apply and when they don’t.
We are painting with light in photography and painting by numbers will never make a work fine art.
'Rules' are a good guide but definitely not always right I find. Sometimes it's good to break rules.
'Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men' is the old navy maxim
Excellent points.
I've always felt that all these rules should be treated as no more than guidelines to assist in taking better pictures. Not to be followed or broken but to be aware of.
Thanks. Very useful.
Thanks for what you do, Nigel. Off to Madeira in a little over a week to see what magic I can find… and I’m a novice so I’m bound to break some rules because I don’t know them all!
Interesting debate. I think the key element is the photographer's intent. 'Rules' are merely guides to help with composition that create an initial platform from which to compose an image. I thought it was interesting that the images you showed (eg in your section on the 'rule of thirds') depicted rules other than the rule you were seeking to debunk (eg leading lines and diagonals), which demonstrates that the 'rules' overlap and can conflict. Consequently, you can 'break' one rule but end up following another! One can read into an image factors that may not form part of the photographer's intent and ultimately, therefore, I think composition needs to be driven by an emotional response to scene. That is the 'rule' I follow more than any other!
Great tips!
After a judge said he didn't like my picture because it was too green and he didn't like green I abandoned camera clubs..
Picture in question was a gorilla on a grass field 😂
For me, one of the most difficult habits to break was thinking that, if there was a tree involved, I absolutely had to show the entire tree. Of course that led to massive amounts of sky and that problem where, if I included one tree in its entirety, that resulted in another cut off tree which bothered me.
Thank you for the video
I think the rules should be refined as suggestions. Newbies need a place to start, but they also need to learn to not camp out at the starting line.
Rules are there to be broken, I don't even think about them when taking a photo, if the composition looks good I'll take the shot.
Photograph what you intend to be the point of an image, the juxtaposition of elements, or the relationship between intellectual or emotional ideas, but saying don’t follow the rules creates its own rule.
For me Rule of third is not a rule but more like a guide to balance the image easier. The important thing is to balance or emphasize the subject, RoT is just a help tool, you can use it or not
As an American friend used to say - 'The rules are just guidelines' 🙂
Hi Nigel …really interesting content so thank you. I’ve just made two photo books through Saal and like you I’m so pleased with their service and product. On the minus side I’m so confused with their discount structure. There are so many different types of discount and some don’t apply when you are mixing and matching. For example I signed up to their newsletter and received a 5% discount then when I ordered my books I couldn’t use it. Advise them to make it easier for us please and reduce the confusion. Thanks for your excellent channel and season greetings to you and your family.
There were mountain of knowledge and experience gathered throughout the centuries in art and decades in photography and this information is summarized for teaching and transfer of knowledge to help the readers/viewers to understand their impacts in the right situations.
But, through improper teaching or discussion, they become the RULES of photography that can instantly leveling up one's skill in a few minutes on Social Media. Thus, blame the messenger! Furthermore, the rules aren't exactly rules but simply using the English word. Also, they aren't universal and not to apply as many as possible without an understanding of why.
As well, people may be talking about 'artistic license' or not knowing he/she had followed some other rules that haven't heard about, instead of not following/breaking any rules.
I personally never liked them referred to as 'Rules'... they're more like guidelines really. The more you understand the guidelines, the more you understand where and when you can color outside the lines and make it work for you.
Weellllll, I guess three trees, instead of being an “embrace,” would be a “menage a trees.”
So maybe the camera club judges are right, three is more fun than two.
I really liked the tip of cropping off/in to create more drama and attention.
Great photos to develop a "photographer eye", but not so good information for beginner photographers.
All those "breaking the rules" are just different composition techniques: 1/3, golden ration, diagonal and center compositions.
Good advice here - do not fear to cut image - you can create really interesting scenes with cropping or just by changing ratio from 4:3 to 16:9.
TL,DR: advice for beginners - DO learns composition techniques (not only rule of thirds), experiment with cropping.
Thank you
Well done Nigel 👏
Only, the rule of odds? Says the guy sitting in front of three lights and three bookshelves? 😉 as usually, the exception defines the rule…
I think the "rules" are important for those starting out in photography because they help condense the busy world around us into a pleasing image. As one grows in their skill set, they learn to treat the "rules" more as guidelines or suggestions and learn to work around them. On the flip side, I think the phrase "photos should tell a story" is confusing to beginners. They might see a tree and create a nice composition around it, but do not see any related story.
Maybe for a next video ... The seascape about 8:58 and the variant after it, illustrate perspective as a compositional tool. These shots are taken from a high point overlooking that sea and the height of the waves is dramatically clear in this dramatic light. The height gives access to this view, but if not cropped, the camera was tilted down and this compresses the notion of height a bit in the 2D rendering of a 3D world. This old school photographer would have used a camera or lens with shift, to keep the camera level but shift the lens down for the crop, thus retaining the ideal perspective (camera angle and point of view). With a 45.4MP digital camera, I would still have held the camera level, put a wider angle lens on it and cropped off some of the top in post. This kind of image does not suffer from as bit of crop and when more pixels are needed, e.g. for print, I upsample the image with Topaz Gigapixel AI (up to 32,000 on the long image side).
The point is, relative to the video's subject, that rotating the camera up/down for a certain composition has big impact on a subtle level.
Breaking rules is called artistic license and artists have always pushed beyond the rules they began with.
Today there are too many "Experts" especially on CZcams, who all have their own Channels or Rules or, interpretation of rules. It's got to the point now where there are very few "Experts" that I follow. I look at photographs, and if I like them I might comment. If I don't like them I don't comment. Why not? Well someone liked it enough to share it.
The world would be a very boring place if we all follow the same rules, If we were all alike.
The number one rule I learned when I started photography was to break all the rules.
Don't worry about the Rule of Odds (sitting in front of three shelves and three lightbulbs) 😊
It sounds strange to me that rule of thirds was related to driving the eyes. For me it impacts more balance than direction.
Love debunking “rules”, properly considered.
Hi, do you have your editing workflow video? Thank you
Great but why do you change title and cover? Thanks
Rule of odds : Three light behind you :D
"Learn the rules like a pro so that you can break them like an artist." - Pablo Picasso
I have never really been able to understand the rule of thirds - for me it is 'just' a simplification of the "golden ratio" rule, which gives a much more 'friendly' picture to look at.
i always see newbs on reddit giving bad advice about rule of thirds! like if your photo doesn't use rule of thirds it it will be a bad photo
this is very strange, because you can put it anywhere. even where this is not the case. When an artist creates an image, he doesn't think about thirds or sections, he thinks about plot and story.
Too many rules in life, photography should mean freedom to express yourself, I think balanced images above any other “rules” make more pleasing images but I’m even willing to ignore that at times. Adhering to rules can be constraining, especially when conditions are changing rapidly, capturing mood and light are more important to me 🤔
My two rules for photography: 1. Use fully charged battery 2. turn camera on
What percentage of your photos do you name?
1%
rule of odds, behind you there are 03 lamps and 03 wall niches.
ha ha
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men (and women)". The rules have a sound basis from human psychology but are not laws cast in stone.
The only "RULES" you really need is the Exposure Triangle...it's the foundation of all photography.
I noticed you rarely or never dodge and burn which I believe every image should have some. I D & B every image to create some more depth especially landscape but also every portrait, Just my opinion!!!!
I almost always dodge and burn
Rules are for fools, If you can't find composition use the rules.
why you never speak about budget to make this photos, time, trip and proffit you make out of this