In my book, this is worth keeping. Ed
--- Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Many years ago, someone told me that brown belts > make better karate > > instructors than black belts because the brown > belts still remember and can > > still describe what they do. For the black belts, > on the other hand, the > > techniques have become instinctive, and the > beginners' details now seem hard > > to explain, since they've been absorbed into > "muscle memory". > > > > The black belts see the bigger picture, the goal > of winning the bout, and > > don't need to think consciously about their > stance, etc. In the same way, > > experienced, skilled, photographers know what > "looks right", and don't need > > to think about beginners' guidelines anymore. > Does anyone else see it this > > way? > > > Pat, > Bob B. makes much the same point in his post about > shooting. It's a valid > point. > > I just think that when you're talking about "rules > of composition," you're > talking about standardized ways of arranging > subject-matter when you shoot a > picture. These rules, being generalized, have to be > broad. Thus they are > things like "the eye must have a way into the > picture, so don't cut off the > foreground," or "place objects one-third from one > border and two-thirds from > the other," and "focus on the front eye" and "don't > cut peoples' heads off" > and "blur out confusing backgrounds" and Lordy, I > don't know what-all. > > The fact is, nobody can possibly name a single "rule > of thumb" a) such that > it will usefully improve pictures in all situations > where it can be applied > and b) such that pictures which do not conform to > the rule will not be > strong or successful or good or whatever positive > word you want to use. > > Furthermore, I personally contend that reflexively > applying any such "rules > of thumb" is just as likely to blind the > photographer to recognizing other > possibilities. > > The last time in even semi-serious photography that > rules of composition > were taken seriously were in the "serious amateur" > journals of the 1930s and > 1940s. "Compositional guidelines" were much beloved > of writers for these > journals and "posing guides" were actually sold for > money. An example I have > in front of me right now, _The American Annual of > Photography 1935_, > published by American Photographic Publishing > Company of Boston, features > nicely-made photographs and a few that retain some > small interest, in some > cases incidentally. Most are pictorialist, stiff, > posed, pretty, hackneyed, > careful, trite, or superficial. Apart from Leonard > Misonne, I don't > immediately notice any names of photographers I know > or that we still look > at today--although sometimes one will indeed come > across a famous name in > one of these old journals. > > For the most part, this vein was mined thoroughly by > the 1950s and most > photographers began to see that far more > photographic possibilities existed > where the standardized approaches were done away > with entirely and a sense > of freedom and discovery were substituted. This > freedom is simply taken for > granted today; no photograph is necessarily > dismissed because it isn't > pretty or posed, standardized in some way, or > explicable in terms of a set > of guidelines. > > I'm not saying it's _wrong_ for anybody to make nice > pretty pictures. My > position is that photography belongs to no one, no > one has the right to tell > others what to do or not do, and, as long as it's > not immoral or destructive > or illegal, anybody can photograph anything they > want to however they > please. If anybody wants to make a list of rules and > figure out eight things > they'll allow themselves to photograph, well, it's > not for me to tell 'em > not to. They can knock themselves out. > > But I most definitely do _not_ think that good > photographers are merely > "unconsciously" or "instinctively" following all of > these rules. Quite the > contrary: I think that the rules themselves are > deleterious to good work, > and that each situation ought to be approached in > any way you can devise or > invent to try to make it new or unique or > interesting or just pleasing to > yourself. The challenge is not to make something > pretty according to a set > of rules; the challenge is to do something that is > somehow distinctive to > your own tastes or concerns and does _not_ look like > eighty thousand > pictures of the same thing already made by others. > > Just my $.02; like I say, I don't own photography > and if somebody wants to > do the exact opposite of what I suggest, they've got > a perfect right. > > --Mike > ===== Albano Garcia "El Pibe Asahi" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
