I’ve seen an interesting video from a photographer who got annoyed by all the stupid “rules for photography” stuff that can be found online.

Basically, it’s the “if you’re serious about photography, you’ll use primes, use only the manual mode, compose in thirds, not shoot from standing perspective” and so on. Instead, he argues that most professionals use zooms because they are good and they are also less likely to leave you without a proper lens for the shot; that manual mode is basically relying on camera’s metering with extra steps, and you should use either aperture or shutter priority instead for most cases, and go to manual only if you’re shooting flowing water or astrophotography. Also, that composition is far more complex than the thirds or the golden ratio, and that it’s about the symmetry, weight, lines that go through the frame and so on. It’s not that you first need to learn the rule of the thirds and then learn to break it, it’s that the rule sucks in the first place because it’s simplistic. For instance, central composition is usually derided as boring, but it’s sometimes exactly how you need to compose the shot. For instance, if it’s a portrait and you want your subject to look into the audience and metaphorically make eye contact, central composition is how it’s done. The famous shot of the Afghan girl is the case in point.

Also, if you saw something from a standing perspective and found it striking, then that’s the perspective it needs to be shot from.

I get where he’s coming from. I personally always found it annoying when beginners read a book or a tutorial on photography and then they’re suddenly the resident forum experts on composition, sharpness and everything. The rule of the thirds, in particular, is particularly annoying because it works often enough that it looks like a rule, but it is in fact a very crude approximation for a complex perceptual geometry which includes all kinds of things, like lines going through the frame, weight of certain elements that need to be balanced with other elements, connection between the elements, colour and light, and also the intent of the picture itself. It’s usually said that the placement of the subject on the side-third makes the image dynamic. However, what if you want to portray serenity and calm? What if “dynamic” is actually something you don’t want in that picture? Suddenly, that rule of the thirds doesn’t help. Also, one of the important things is to follow the subject’s eyes with the composition. If you’re taking a portrait, and you want to create negative space in the direction where the subject is looking. However, if the subject is looking into the camera, a central composition might be ideal. So, basically, you need to know what you’re doing and how the image will look on the wall, and not blindly follow some set of rules meant for beginners to get their way around things.

Also, the zooms. I absolutely agree that the wedding photographers and photojournalists prefer them, and that they should, because they are a better tool for the job. Also, I prefer zooms for landscape photography, and most landscape photographers agree. On the other hand, if I’m using a zoom, and I’m constantly at the longest focal length, wide open, then I’m actually using a poor substitute for a prime. If I’m using a 24-105mm f/4 at 105mm f/4, and I’m shooting closeups, what I actually need is a 100mm f/2.8 macro. If I’m constantly using a 16-35mm f/4 zoom at its widest focal length, why not just use a 16mm prime? Primes are better for people who know what they are doing, and for situations where they have things under control – they know what will happen, and what focal length is good for that. You need to have enough experience to formulate your preferences, and even then, your preference can be for a zoom, at least in some situations. So, it’s another thing where it depends. However, when I say “knowing what they are doing”, you need to understand it in context – sometimes not knowing what you’re doing is the whole point of a job. Things change, they can be unpredictable, and by definition you don’t know what you’re doing. If you’re taking pictures of riots, framing can change from wideangle to telephoto in a hurry. If you’re shooting weddings, framing can be an intimate portrait at one moment, and a dynamic wide shot the next. However, if you’re in control, for instance in a studio, or a specific set, or you’re working with a model outside, you by definition know what you’re doing and you can choose a specific lens for the task, that’s going to do that one thing well. So, a choice is not between a zoom and a bag of primes. It’s between a zoom, and a prime that does that one thing you intend to use the zoom for, only better.

As for the perspective; sure, standing perspective is great for shooting cityscapes, or crowds, or people in context, doing people things. However, if you want to take a picture of a child doing child things, better kneel to their perspective and get into their world. If you’re taking a picture of a flower, get into the flower’s world, because from your perspective it will look insignificant. From the flower’s perspective, it’s the centre of the world and it matters.

In 2006, when I transitioned to Canon EF system, one of the reasons for it was the option to use the same lenses and other hardware to shoot film. I bought a used EOS 3 on ebay, and also an EOS 650 on the local used photo gear market, together with the EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens.

I also bought lots of Astia and Velvia and put them in the fridge, for whenever I decide to actually go and shoot film, and an Epson 4990 flatbed film scanner, because I already sold my Minolta Dimage IV to finance the Olympus E1 purchase.

However, as it turned out the 5d was so much better than film, that this turned out to be pointless. I did shoot some film, but my heart wasn’t in it. There was no actual gain. There was no artistic reason to do it. The digital actually gave me more artistic freedom, and it also gave me better shadows, better detail crispness on magnifications, less noise, and higher ISO.

Canon 5d, EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5

The question “would I shoot film again if that were a real option?” was unanswered for me in 2006. I retained all the necessary hardware – two film bodies, film in the fridge, scanner on my desk. However, having this option available and knowing that I didn’t really want to use it answered it for me.

I stopped caring about film, because digital did everything for me. When I bought into the Sony FE system, that question was long answered, and I no longer cared that the new lenses will never be able to work on film. So, that’s my answer to the question “would you shoot film again, if it became a real option for you?”. No, I wouldn’t. It’s just hassle with no benefits. I like the way film looks, but I like digital more. “Oh, how can you say that, the film is organic, it’s physical, it’s not just a computer producing numbers” yada yada. Yeah, sure, and the point of shooting it for me was to scan it and produce a set of numbers on a computer. It’s just that the process of getting there introduced dependency on other people, whole other industries, and was pointlessly messy. I loved photography, and film was how you got it. I suffered through all its quirks because that was what you had to do. That’s no longer the case.

With digital, it doesn’t matter that I live on an island where there are no film labs or photography stores. I don’t have to figure out how to buy film, where to process it, how it will deal with the summer heat, how to scan it. I don’t have to worry that my favourite emulsions went out of production or are about to. My favourite “emulsion” was a digital 35mm sensor ever since the Canon 5d. It did exactly what I wanted. I could shoot deep, juicy dark colours, finally. I could shoot hand-held in the dark woods after rain and get workable exposures. And, finally, I could do every part of photography myself.

What’s my favourite film emulsion? The Sony 35mm sensor from A7RV and A7CR.

A7RV, FE 135mm f/1.8 GM

It’s supposed to be autumn, but apparently it didn’t install all the required security updates so it’s still running summer. 🙂

We’re having business as usual here. You don’t want to know the details. 🙁

Some pictures happened, though.

The weather cooled down and it’s now much more comfortable. Unfortunately, the karmic processing didn’t ease up, and, if anything, got worse.

I think I’m developing a new aspect of my photographic style.

It’s not “everything sharp”. It’s not a close-up detail with blurred background either.

Motive sharp, everything else gone

Everything sharp

Those two used to be my mainstays; now, I’m doing something that’s a detail of the wider scene, sometimes sharp, and sometimes with the planes separated by depth of field or geometry.

Basically, instead of a berry or an insect or a bird isolated by the depth of field, I separate a piece of the scenery. You’d expect me to do it with a longer focal length, but I sometimes do it with an ultrawide, too.

I started doing it more than a year ago, and I’m noticing it just now; I went through my recent photos and they didn’t look like my typical stuff, and I asked myself why.

They still have the same atmosphere like my other stuff, though. It’s just that the technical and compositional aspect seems to have evolved.

I think I developed this technique because I stopped giving a shit about what anyone online would think. You see, it’s actually hard to learn new things if you maintain an online presence, because people like seeing the stuff you’re doing well, and they don’t like seeing the transitional stuff that’s not necessarily good – or, more accurately, it’s bad by necessity, because you’re learning, and when you’re learning you’re not getting everything right. So, you kind of tend to produce more of the stuff you’re good at, in order to avoid criticism, and by doing so you don’t improve. You learn how to insulate yourself against criticism online very quickly; basically, you check your work for things someone might object to, and you post the most polished versions of the stuff that got you the most praise. There were a few years when I tended to do that. It actually improved my technique; I learned how to get perfect sharpness when things needed to be perfectly sharp, and how to get perfect blur when they needed to be blurred out. However, it had a drawback – I stopped taking pictures I felt were good, when I knew people wouldn’t get the point quickly enough. I stopped taking specific atmospheric shots that were not compositionally obvious enough for the online audience. However, at some point, I stopped giving a shit to the point where I am now revisiting those things, the aspects of photography where I never practiced enough to get really good at them because I knew other stuff would be better received.

I also shoot more black&white now, and I tend to include humans and their artefacts in the pictures more, instead of trying to create an impression of untouched nature. It’s not that I never did that before, but I usually avoided it. I now treat humans like bugs or squirrels – they just happen to be there, as parts of the scenery.

It’s not that I abandoned my old forms – I still do “everything sharp, no human presence, pure nature, wide scenery” pictures, as well as my standard closeup portraits of tiny things. It’s just that I also do the things in between.