What are the ‘Rules of Photography’? What is composition and how do the ‘Rules’ apply?
Before I attempt to take on these mammoth questions, I am going to tell you what this article is not: it is not a history lesson about art and Greece. It is not about how composition can be turned into a mathematical equation. It is not just about the ‘Rule of Thirds’. It is not about every conceivable compositional idea. The questions will not be fully answered. Yet, if you open your mind you will enjoy the ride!
Part 1: A study I made with thousands of photographers and their perceptions of what the ‘Rules of Photography’ are and how they do and do not apply to composition.
Part 2: A Beckstead-Style, contemporary look into how to apply cool, simple compositional ideas to your framing without sinking in a quagmire of complex concepts and mathematical rules.
Read on because this is going to be fun!!
What are the ‘Rules of Photography’? Part I
They are shouted from the mountain top, used like a whip on Internet forums to keep new photographers inline, written in compositional articles without explanation or meaning, used like a sword to dissect compositions using non constructive critique and let’s just say, used like a slogan to market a non existing product.
I put “What Are the Rules” question to thousands photographers on pro-forums and network sites. Generally only those who felt they had an opinion on the subject posted responses. Thousands did not contribute because there wasn’t anything to say or add to the discussion. The question was an abstract one and I did not expect a full and complete answer. I did not get one. Yet I learned more about the way photographers perceive this question then I learned new and useful rules.
Here are some of the prevailing statements, thoughts and ideas I took away from this exercise:
- Only those who knew the rules could break them successfully.
- Most photographers don’t know how to express in words what these rules are.
- There wasn’t as many ‘Rules’ as everyone thought there was.
- Rules were meant to be more like ‘guidelines’ or ‘suggestions’ or ‘concepts’ than rules.
- Rules were meant to create aesthetically pleasing composition for the viewer.
- Rules were more of a hindrance to artistic creativity.
- Rules are not to be consulted and applied until after the image is taken.
- Often when you are breaking one rule successfully you are following many others.
- The best way to study rules is to go to the source: as far back as the ancient Greek art.
- Rules are less about fact and more about the psychology of ‘seeing and viewing’.
I am not applying a right or wrong to any of these 10 statements. They were the dominant perceptions I got back from others. In fact, I personally disagree/agree with some of them and I strongly disagree with a few. I would like to tackle these concepts one by one. By doing so, I am not answering them with facts. Take these ideas or disregard them as you would the ‘Rules’ when creating your compositions. Let’s start!
1. Only those who knew the rules could break them successfully.
Oh man, talk about the most quoted statement I have ever heard used about the ‘Rules’! This is shouted-from-the-mountaintops by well-meaning photographers looking to get ‘in’ on the conversation. Some even admit that they thought this was a very true statement yet they did not know many rules besides the ‘Rule of Thirds’. This statement is sometimes used to belittle a photographer that seems to arrive at great compositions by unfair means: instinctively, with little or no training and new to the business. I know many photographers who instinctively have learned how to break many rules successfully without knowing what these rules are. By studying more rule-breaking photography genres, such as fashion and more contemporary sources, one can instinctively use these concepts over and over without knowing how or why. I have done this. I know it works for many photographers.
Yet, knowing many of the rules is power, to quote a photographer friend:
“For the rest of us, learning those rules, and especially WHY those rules tend to work and why breaking them usually does NOT work—is power. It gives us the power to create what we want—intentionally, not accidentally.
That power INCLUDES knowing when breaking the rule will give us something unexpected by the viewer, a dissonance, if you will, that can be used to good effect.” Ray Prevost- www.prevostphoto.com
2. Most photographers don’t know how to express in words what these rules are.
One of my photographer fiends told me that he felt he had a strong compositional instinct yet when asked ‘how’ he composed, felt strange that he could not express in words how he created such great imagery. Some photographers think that when you can shoot great instinctive compositions, you have arrived at level where there is no need to express it in words. Just knowing these concepts instinctively, without being able to express them to others, is only part of the equation of understanding. I would also imply that the more you can vocalize or write down concepts and rules in your own communication with others, the stronger your understanding of these concepts will reflect in your imagery. By going deeper into the composition ideas, the better understanding you have to strip out or reject concepts and rules that do not tell the story you want to tell: aka ‘Breaking the Rules’ effectively.
3. There weren”t as many ‘Rules’ as everyone thought there was.
Well I think this sentiment comes from the fact that most do not know many rules to begin with. In fact most photographers I have met and talked with have not been in business for more than 5 years. Most like me have no formal training. Many, like me, have not even apprenticed with more established photographer studios. The deeper I dive into compositional concepts the more ‘Rules’ I find. There are rules in every kind of photography. There is a great set of rules and concepts that apply to posing a human body, rules on how light plays on a subject, concepts on the use of color and tone and many, many more! It should not feel overwhelming. It should be a fantastic challenge to find new ideas to apply to your compositions. This should be a lifelong study and you will never find an end to studying new and exciting imagery ideas. That is what keeps us fresh and creative!
4. Rules were meant to be more like ‘guidelines’ or ‘suggestions’ or ‘concepts’ than rules.
This is so true!!
I would like to make a suggestion that the Rules of Photography are just ‘suggestions’.
Well-meaning suggestions to help us (anyone who clicks a shutter) compose a more powerful image.
I would like to make another suggestion: let’s modify the phrase ‘Rules of Photography’ to ‘Concepts of Composition’.
“The so-called rules of photographic composition are, in my opinion, invalid, irrelevant and immaterial” – Ansel Adams
Like Ansel, I feel the phrase ‘Rules of Photography’ is antiquated and overused with no ‘bite’ or strength behind it. Art, photography and creativity are about change. Words and phrases evolve. Rules seem made to be broken. Concepts don’t have to be ‘broken’; you except or reject concepts on each image, each framing and each shoot. The more concepts you know, the better equipped you are to utilize them to create more dramatic and effective compositions.
5. Rules were meant to create aesthetically pleasing composition for the viewer.
I would submit that as a whole, this is true. Yet imagery is also meant to create change. To move people to action. To shape mood. To create tension. To create an emotional response. Sometimes imagery is not meant to be pleasing, yet still the composition can be powerful. Breaking some ‘rules’ can create a viewer experience that is less pleasing and more dramatic and powerful.
“I think the rules are used to define what is naturally pleasing and powerful. We can then use these rules to teach those of us that weren’t born with the skills…..and hope that after practicing the rules, these impressions are burned into our senses. But I think if you use the rules religiously when composing your shot, you will never reach your full potential. It must come naturally, instinctively, and passionately to create your best work.” Julie Hoskin – www.dynamicstills.com
6. Rules were more of a hindrance to artistic creativity.
This I only agree with if you see rules as a fact instead of a suggestion. It is very easy to say that rules will stifle your creative soul when you really don’t know enough about them. It is all in your perception. When you say that rules are a hindrance, you create your own personal wall to learning new and exciting concepts to include in your compositions. The creation of rules was generally meant to be well meaning, and for the execution of stronger imagery. Taken with that meaning in mind, it should be in your lifelong professional interest to learn more about what can make your compositions more powerful.
“Rules are great at “constructing” art, but there is an innocence and purity when you remove the “logical” aspect of art and just “create”. In many cases, I wonder how many masters of art actually constructed a painting based on rules rather than relying on their innate sense of aesthetics? My gut tells me……wait for it…..not many. Yet some nut educator studied countless pieces of art from the masters, found and noted several similarities and made them “rules”. -Craig Stodola – www.craigjohn.com
7. Rules are not to be consulted and applied until after the image is taken.
I could not have said it any better than David Tucker:
“As much as I’m interested in learning about rules of composition, seeing what the effect of certain compositional choices are on a SPECIFIC image has proved to be a better way of learning for me than learning general rules that could be applied to any image.
Somehow I tend to shy away from categorizing these discoveries into rules that could apply across the board. Maybe I’m afraid if I start bringing these rules with me on the shoot, I would miss the excitement of discovery in the process. I have a fear of applying rules to a scene, rather than letting the scene generate it’s own composition. Maybe it’s a bit of semantics here, hard to say.
I also believe each image can exist as a whole little world with it’s own set of rules which may or may not apply in other contexts. There are so many different levels a picture functions on, it is too limiting to reduce it to mathematics, or other carefully defined parameters. Of course I’m not advocating dismissing mathematics, just underscoring it’s place as I see it, i.e. leaving it at home to enjoy with a bottle of wine.
The rules somehow have to be absorbed into the intuitive level, otherwise they can easily get stale and predictable. If they stay in the thinking part of your mind, they may slow your reactions to a point where your miss the magic of discovery. Again, I’m not advocating dismissing rules, or not learning about them.
I admire Henri Cartier Bresson because he simultaneously has a deep love for composition, form, and balance, and at the same time he is a total anarchist when it comes to bringing the rules along with him on the photo shoot. It’s precisely that kind of paradoxical equation that seems to birth amazing creations.
Here’s one of his quotes:
“To take photographs means to recognize – simultaneously and within a fraction of a second – both the fact itself and the rigorous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one’s head, one’s eye and one’s heart on the same axis.” -Henri Cartier Bresson
-David Tucker – www.dtuckerphoto.com
“Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.” -Edward Weston
8. Often when you are breaking one rule successfully you are following many others.
I used this image to illustrate that two rules were broken and was reminded by others that many were included and followed. I broke rules by using others to enhance and strengthen the rules I broke. This shot is breaking 2 rules: don’t put your subject in the center (Rule of Thirds) and don’t put your horizon line in the center of the image. When I look back at other images I feel are ‘rule-breaking’‘Rule of thirds’ without supportive compositional elements is done consistently by the average person snapping a shot. More understanding of composition by the professional creates demand and payment for services for great photographic art. and successful, I find this to be true every time: I included supportive concepts to enhance the concepts I purposely left out. Breaking a rule like the
(see image above)
Bob had something to say about this image of mine and my statement that it broke some rules:
“However, David, other rules and guidelines are being used. For example, there’s a strong use of leading lines pulling the eye directly into the subject.
You also, though possibly unknowingly, made use of one of the “Gestalt Laws of Perceptual Organization.” The Law of Closure states: “Elements roughly arranged together are seen to complete an outline shape. The mind seeks completeness.” Notice the circle around the subject (actually multiple circles with the subject as the hub)? These circles concentrate attention on the subject.There’s also a bilateral symmetry in the image. The boat is centered, balanced. While you placed the horizon (hilltops) in the center of the frame (more balance), the surface of the water is a bit lower.
So in fact I believe you applied a number of principles and rules in this image. It would be impossible to apply every rule or principle in a single image. There are too many of them.” -Bob Decker – www.rddeckerphotography.com
9. The best way to study rules is to go to the source: as far back as the ancient Greek art.
Some of the debates I had with other photographers about ‘the rules’ lead to their steadfast belief that the best way to study rules is to go to the source: as far back as the ancient Greek art. In fact they used this as charging sword against all contemporary articles and teachers of composition. As a contemporary teacher and writer of compositional concepts, I must protest. When I go back and study ancient compositional concepts and rules I feel like I am wading through deep mud in search of small islands to stand. In fact, searching through contemporary articles on composition feels much the same to me. I enjoy the search and challenge of finding the little diamonds I can apply to my own style and shooting, but it all can feel so overwhelming. Yet I do find more diamonds in today’s writing. Why? Because ancient compositional concepts seem steeped in mathematics. I know many photographers, including myself who find plodding through technical and mathematical explanations of composition a tad boring and unhelpful. More contemporary articles seem targeted for full understanding by the greatest amount of photographers compared to many older writings designed for the analytical mind.
In the second part of this article I would like to demystify and explain in a more contemporary style what composition means to me and how it applies to making dramatic imagery that can make you money.
10. Rules are less about fact and more about the psychology of ‘seeing and viewing’.
The arrangement of elements within the compositional frame illicit different responses in different people. We have all quoted and have heard that ‘art is subjective’. Subjective in the idea that art seems hard to compare and we are all wired to interpret an image a little differently. Yet there are ways to guide the viewer’s eye through a pathway of lines, shapes, points, frames, light and a myriad of other elements that is universal to all humans regardless of couture. Western cultures read from left to right and top to bottom. Some Eastern cultures read from different starting points which influences where in the composition of an image the viewer starts. Yet a very strong leading line will pull in most viewers and start them on the story-path no matter where the viewer is from or how they learned to see or read. The objective principles of design (Rules) exist independently of personal compositional perception. These principles try to explain why certain ways of organizing elements within a frame can illicit predicable results. It may seem like I am arguing the point of ‘rules’ being more like fact. Yet great compositions often create unpredictable emotional responses. One of the stronger concepts of composition is the intent of the photographer and what they wanted to convey. Mood, tension, harmony / disharmony, perception and other emotional elements can trump organization and principles of design in the psychology of ‘seeing and viewing’ an image.
Personally I think a balance of design and emotional intent often creates the most powerful compositions.
Bill has a good argument that the Rules are more like facts:
“I don’t view these guidelines as “rules” so much as facts. Rules are typically stated in “always do this” and “never do that” terms. Facts are stated more as “This approach elicits that reaction.” Cause and effect.
When I was starting into graphic design I struggled with trying to incorporate all of the rules all of the time to make a “perfect” piece. The piece that was “pleasing”. Eventually I started trying, instead, to accomplish specific appeal, or elicit a specific response. The more I did, the more I found that these “rules” are simply tools in a toolkit to use as appropriate according to my message. So, then, message becomes the important thing. What am I trying to say?
I no longer strive for a “pleasing” image. I’m not even sure what that means any more. Success, for me, is about getting the viewer response I’m after, about communicating a specific mood or thought or feeling through the image.
So, for example, rather than using gridline focusing screens to accomplish the “perfect positioning”, this Rule of Thirds begins to translate in my mind into a subset of facts: centering a subject tends to feel static and comfortable… simply placing a subject off-center can feel unbalanced, adding visual tension… counterbalancing the off-center subject creates a kind of dynamic balance that energizes an image yet keeping it comfortable to the subconscious mind… etc. Now, if the message of my image is enhanced by a static balance, centering the subject is probably a better choice. If I want it to feel unsettled, I may need use extreme off-centering and perhaps be careful not to counterbalance the subject.
And so to my way of thinking, the so-called rules has nothing to do with being “true” to, “breaking” or “ignoring” them. It simply has to do with using only those facts or tools that apply. I look at the work of those I admire, dead or alive (and some of whom have already contributed to this thread) and try to understand which tools (aka “rules”) they applied and how they applied them to accomplish the primary goal of communicating a message effectively”.
-Bill Laurence Bell – www.BellPhotoArt.com/blog
So there you have it! One of the interesting ideas that I received from the exercise was this: most photographers honestly will say that if they knew more about the ‘rules’, they would certainly benefit from the knowledge. I think some, if not all of these ‘rules’ can be taken with an attitude of exploration that is something other than one of: how do I break them and ignore them, why do they exist and why do I need them, who cares and they stifle my creativity and that they are useless. You could take them for what they possibly are: fun ideas to play with and explore when time allows. I would like to suggest that learning these rules will not stifle your creativity. They may even renew your curiosity in exploring other concepts in framing a more dramatic and fascinating image. I hope these rules will capture your imagination instead of depress you! By treating these rules as concepts instead of fact, you may find you will enjoy the ride!
I believe this to be true: creating great, instinctive art is powerful. Knowing many rules and how to break them successfully is very powerful. Knowing how to articulate these concepts is extremely powerful. Powerful imagery and style creates demand. Demand is money and prestige. For me, money and prestige gives me a better lifestyle. My lifestyle brings me happiness and those I am closest too! Also creative freedom to shoot the way I want, regardless of the ‘Rules of Photography’.
Side note:
The egocentric word never!
When I hear some photographer spouting the word never, I run into the direction of the never and see for myself why the photographer had the audacity to use the word to force their ego and photography ‘rule’ onto others. I find the direction ofthe never often leads to more powerful imagery than the direction of the always. The challenge (and I love a good challenge!) is to find ways to change the rule of never into the concept of sometimes. It does not always work (that idea you had to go against the rules or do something someone else said to never do), in fact, it fails more often than not, and therefore it is a risk to try. Yet if you develop a healthy love for risk and an appreciation for losing (as it teaches us to get up and win), the rewards are much greater when you pull out a diamond in a difficult situation. That is when the power and drama comes in. That is when others perk up and listen to what you have to convey. Because when you always play in the field of the always, that is where everyone else is at. How are you going to stylistically be different if you are playing in the same field?
At the same time I travel down the road to investigate the way to successfully break the rule of never, I take a side-glance at how the ‘rule’ was defined and incorporate what I want to improve my photography compositions when I need to play it safe: and I do, at times need to play it safe! I have created a brand where I have to ‘play it safe’ much less often (and get paid) than you may feel you have too.
Never is a word I do not use!
PS:
Yesterday at my workshop I remembered Ray Prevost telling me about the Adobe Lightroom overlays you can apply to an image to illustrate rule ideas like: Rule of Thirds and Golden Spiral. One of the student’s images fit the Spiral so well I had to put the overlay on top just to show it to her. Everyone seemed to enjoy the concept of a spiral composition and how it was possible to incorporate this idea even while you were framing your shot: piecing your elements together and eliminating unwanted elements and chaos to create a spiral flow for the viewer to follow.
I say this because it renewed my interest in ancient Greek compositional concepts and mathematics…
heaven forbid!!
But wait!! Hold the phone!! Mike continues the debate and perceptions on the ‘Rules’.
“Rules such as The Golden Mean merely address the issue of spatial arrangements, while masquerading as help with composition, itself. Mere structure shouldn’t be confused with holistic composition.
These “rules” are discussing something like “spatial design”, not “composition”, because they are strictly addressing placement of subjects, and addressing this from a strictly graphical perspective. “Composition” is something much richer and much more fluid. Composition is about creation of meaning through all kinds of thoughtful employment of all aspects of a picture in juxtaposition with each other.
The art of photography is not fundamentally about the pleasing spatial arrangement of objects within a two dimensional space; it’s about communication. To specially weight the importance of the pleasing spatial arrangement of the primary subject within the frame, toward graphical “strikingness” (or such), is to myopically focus on one small aspect out of many, which, when viewed in isolation, becomes an irrelevant distraction.
These rules are problematic in their lack of context – lack of context of the actual scene around the subjects at the moment of the picture’s creation, lack of context of the photographer’s creative intent and/or the viewer’s interpretive intent.
I don’t approach picture creation from the direction of spatial arrangement for a graphically striking structure. That’s merely visual design, not art. In practice, the two are likely to be in opposition to each other: a primary concern with design will usually stifle most traces of art; a primary concern with artistic expression will involve every aspect of your picture, and thereby override and subsume design for its own sake. “Designing” photographic compositions will usually lead to frigid photographs, or perhaps even sterile ones.
I am just concerned that aspiring, talented photographers, who take these ideas seriously as methods of composition will find that these notions could lead them astray and hamper their artistry; and I’m concerned that those who seek to understand and appreciate fine photography will find that ascribing weight to these notions in their deconstruction and analysis of pictures will, at best, be a distraction, and will perhaps impede their understanding and appreciation.”
-Mike Spinak – www.mikespinak.com
Really what I loved about writing this article was the challenge of arranging abstract concepts into something I hope is a little more understandable to most photographers. I did say this question “What are the Rules of Photography” would not be fully answered. I knew the concepts would be debatable all the way through. This is also a draft. This article will be an evolution and constantly tweaked as I dive deeper into my own quest for understanding more powerful compositions.
Rules or no Rules, you got to admit, the art of touching the shutter is one heck of a lot of fun!
Discuss this article with David Beckstead in the DWF PRO Art Forum right here. Not a member? Grab a free trial!
Back Home
2 Comments at "Beckstead on the Rules of Composition"
Great article! I actually agree with some of the points you mentioned!
We all shoot for different reasons. For some people, the joy of photography is the technical stuff, for others it’s capturing that precise moment or the pure beauty of what they see in front of them…and for others the love of photography is seeing how much they can adhere to the “rules” they learned in Composition 101.
Different strokes for different folks.
It is a challenge to say the least and I gotta hand it to the non-rule-benders, I admire their perseverance. It is a challenge to follow these rules just as it’s a challenge to set up the “perfect” lighting and “perfect” pose.
Yet the general photography public accepts criticism of their lighting and posing according to the “rules” but shuns critique on composition. hmmmmmmm….interesting.
[...] David Beckstead [...]
Comment Now!