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.
Well, that's also a "beginner rule" similar to the rule of thirds.
I think rules are important for beginners because they set you into initial frame of not making completely lousy photos like photographing child from above or putting everything into center.
Basically, it sets you on a certain path while you are trying to figure everything out – which can take a shit ton of time.
So, in a sense "learn rules first so you can learn how and when to break them" is actually a description of a process. You start out, you don't know shit, you are taking billion sunset pictures and they all mostly suck, you try close up, mostly everything sucks, and so on … so you have rules to guide you – so that here and there you get a really good photo and you don't give up and as you go on, you learn gear, you learn exposure, you learn focus – basically, you remove tons of uncertainties and unknowns and then suddenly, you take a picture, composing some road into rule of thirds, but because you don't have to think about tons of stuff you had to think before, you suddenly realise – wait a minute, central composition will transfer much more of the feeling this road and scene gives me than the thirds – and so, there you are, "breaking a rule" … but exactly following the rules allowed you to reach that point.
And it is mostly the same whatever you do. Follow the rules as beginner, learn shit, and then "brake" rules – but it's not really braking anything, it's reaching moment where you can focus on composition instead of hundreds of other things.
I remember when I started playing soccer as a kid – there were tons or rules and we were actually punished for breaking them, even when we accidently broke them for the right reason – but we as kids did not understand the context nor the difference between right and wrong reasons – so we got punished whenever we broke rules.
With time, you get physically fit, you learn technic, you learn movement, you learn how your position works, you learn how opponent position works and why your position even exists and then suddenly you notice a pattern in opponent's game, you understand context and you brake a rule with purpose, understanding what you did and why and coach says – good job – perhaps for the same thing I was punished before.
And when you think about it backwards, as a coach, how the hell do you get 11 ADHD-like kids to behave even remotely coherent without tons of rules 😀
You need rules to get "into game" early and then rules give you time and opportunity to learn while in the mean time you don't suck utterly and completely (which would probably just push one to realise it's not for him and give up), and once you reach certain level of knowledge and understanding you can "brake" rules – meaning, you start to understand why the rules were there in the first place.
Sure, I guess. The rules are good if you want to conceptualise why something worked, and also why something doesn't anywhere near as good on a photo as it appeared in life, and you thought you had it. But what I'm saying is that those rules aren't actually describing it correctly; they are useful for getting started, but when people start pontificating on the forums, it gets old very quickly.