{"id":6387,"date":"2026-09-30T10:40:44","date_gmt":"2026-09-30T09:40:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/?p=6387"},"modified":"2026-09-30T10:56:20","modified_gmt":"2026-09-30T09:56:20","slug":"rules-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/rules-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

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\u2019s not that you first need to learn the rule of the thirds and then learn to break it, it\u2019s that the rule sucks in the first place because it\u2019s simplistic. For instance, central composition is usually derided as boring, but it\u2019s sometimes exactly how you need to compose the shot. For instance, if it\u2019s a portrait and you want your subject to look into the audience and metaphorically make eye contact, central composition is how it\u2019s done. The famous shot of the Afghan girl is the case in point.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Also, if you saw something from a standing perspective and found it striking, then that\u2019s the perspective it needs to be shot from.<\/p>\n

I get where he\u2019s coming from. I personally always found it annoying when beginners read a book or a tutorial on photography and then they\u2019re 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\u2019s 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 \u201cdynamic\u201d is actually something you don\u2019t want in that picture? Suddenly, that rule of the thirds doesn\u2019t help. Also, one of the important things is to follow the subject\u2019s eyes with the composition. If you\u2019re 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\u2019re 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.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

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\u2019m using a zoom, and I\u2019m constantly at the longest focal length, wide open, then I\u2019m actually using a poor substitute for a prime. If I\u2019m using a 24-105mm f\/4 at 105mm f\/4, and I\u2019m shooting closeups, what I actually need is a 100mm f\/2.8 macro. If I\u2019m 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 \u2013 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\u2019s another thing where it depends. However, when I say \u201cknowing what they are doing\u201d, you need to understand it in context \u2013 sometimes not knowing what you\u2019re doing is the whole point of a job. Things change, they can be unpredictable, and by definition you don\u2019t know what you\u2019re doing. If you\u2019re taking pictures of riots, framing can change from wideangle to telephoto in a hurry. If you\u2019re shooting weddings, framing can be an intimate portrait at one moment, and a dynamic wide shot the next. However, if you\u2019re in control, for instance in a studio, or a specific set, or you\u2019re working with a model outside, you by definition know what you\u2019re doing and you can choose a specific lens for the task, that\u2019s going to do that one thing well. So, a choice is not between a zoom and a bag of primes. It\u2019s between a zoom, and a prime that does that one thing you intend to use the zoom for, only better.<\/p>\n

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\u2019re taking a picture of a flower, get into the flower\u2019s world, because from your perspective it will look insignificant. From the flower\u2019s perspective, it\u2019s the centre of the world and it matters.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-photo"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6387","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6387"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6387\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6389,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6387\/revisions\/6389"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6387"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6387"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.danijel.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6387"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}