Group: Breaking the Rules
Mentor: jmsetzler Students: papagei, theSaj, joezl, rgo, NightShy, Digital Quixote, A1275, ambaker, Bela45, AnNaH, Pano, rikki11, kirsty_mcn, liveforhim330, carlos, superdave_909, toddhead, digitalknight, CeeDeez, xion, TUTE
NON-MEMBERS PLEASE READ, TOO:
1. If you are not an active member of this mentorship group, please feel free to follow this thread. It is not intended to be exclusionary - we hope everyone can learn from it.
2. If you are not an active member of this group but have a question or comment, please send it directly to the moderator by Private Message. The moderator will either answer you directly or post your comment and their response to the thread. Thank you for understanding that we are trying to keep these groups small and on-topic. If this experiment takes off, we plan to start more groups to try to accommodate as many people as we can.
3. Mentors are volunteers with jobs and/or families. They're human too, and may make mistakes on occasion. If you feel the burning need to criticize them, point out a mistake, or point out your own infinitely greater knowledge in they subject they are teaching, please do so in a PM to the mentor, not in this thread.
4. Have fun learning!
P.S. To see updated group information, see my profile.
Breaking rules can be fun, but it should be with purpose. Breaking rules 'in the name of art' without a specific purpose for doing so is generally not a good idea. If you break a rule of photographic composition, you should be able to explain why you did so. You need to know why your photo is better with the rule being broken.
Assignment #1: Motion in the Frame
Traditionally, when you compose a photo with a moving object, such as a car, a person, etc., the general guideline is to provide space within the frame for that subject to move. If you are photographing a car moving from left to right, you would normally leave space on the right side of the frame and compose the car to the left to leave this space for movement. It's traditionally unacceptable for the car to be exiting the frame or to close to the exit point with space behind it dominating the composition.
Your first assignment is to create a/some photos where this rule is broken.
1. Create a photo where the 'room for movement' is not present with your moving subject.
2. Post your photo here for discussion (not before Friday, August 5.)
3. Explain your reasoning for breaking the rule and how it enhances your composition.
4. Do not post existing photos. Shoot new ones :)
Please feel free to ask questions or post comments on this topic here in this thread.
The examples aren't necessarily good examples... they are just examples of where the rule was not followed. It's up to you to determine if they are effective or not.
I went for a pretty simple photo, showing the assignment point.
I decided for a clear background and the subject on his way out of the frame.
I cropped the plane slightly off center as it seems to me it's more dynamic, as if the plane is moving along a diagonal on the frame so to say
Also the plane itself is just a shadow with almost no detail, as it wasn't meant to be a plane pic, but an example of the "motion out of the frame" effect.
Overall, I really like the photograph, thanks John for the inspiration.
I went for a pretty simple photo, showing the assignment point.
This photo does break the rule. How do you feel that breaking the rule in this photo has created something extra or special? This question is #3 on the assignment...
This photo does break the rule. How do you feel that breaking the rule in this photo has created something extra or special? This question is #3 on the assignment...
To me, you get a clear understanding the plane's leaving, soon it will be out of sight, creating a "departure" mood. does it fit?
In this case, the subject from my point of view is the smoke, the texture of the smoke, and the radical maneuver the Blue Angels made close to the ground and traffic. The jets are there only to explain the smoke. They are leaving the fame to make room for the real subject. If they had flown just a bit farther east before turning, I could have gotten all of Mt Rainier in the frame. Too bad!
It is clear that the 'room for movement' is not present in this image of a road cycling critirium. Eventhough it does break the rule of allowing ample space for movement, I think the what it does create is a sense of movement between all three cyclists. Granted that there should have been space in front of the cyclist to the left, compositionally, all three men render a sense of a fast paced race. The pan isn't great but there is crispness in the subjects focus and there is enough blur in the image that it helps convey this movement. If it were one cyclist, the eye tends to move towards the direction of his travel. However, since there are three, I think a balance it achieved.
My two cents. I would appreciate comments regarding this exercise.
Ok, this is a bit lame, but it will illustrate my point...
In leaving the area behind the moving object open, it draws the viewer's eye to it and there should be something to see. In this case, it is the house (I told you it was lame), but a better illustration would be the waterskier. The rooster tail is the actual focus of the image IMO, so the moving object (skier) is at the edge and the water is behind him.
This photo does break the rule. How do you feel that breaking the rule in this photo has created something extra or special? This question is #3 on the assignment...
To me, you get a clear understanding the plane's leaving, soon it will be out of sight, creating a "departure" mood. does it fit?
It fits. I just feel that the concept is weak. There is nothing else in the frame that really creates interest or impact. It is an example of breaking the rule, but in my opinion, the intentional breaking of the rule doesn't add any impact or create something 'special'. This is not an easy subject to shoot for. As I discussed in the assignment, being able to successfully break a rule usually depends on a firm understanding of the rule and why it is used. I will be hitting on some ideas when I comment on one of the other photos that has been posted that will give some more insight into what may be required to create a strong composition by breaking this rule.
I think the rule would dictate that the boat should have the negative space ahead of it rather than behind it. My intention in the picture was to create a different, slightly sadder mood through the combination of lots of very dark negative space and having the boat leaving the picture, moving away from the light.
In this case, the subject from my point of view is the smoke, the texture of the smoke, and the radical maneuver the Blue Angels made close to the ground and traffic. The jets are there only to explain the smoke. They are leaving the fame to make room for the real subject. If they had flown just a bit farther east before turning, I could have gotten all of Mt Rainier in the frame. Too bad!
I think this is an excellent example... best so far actually. The motion is leaving the frame but it's supported by strong subject content behind the source of motion.
The sense of movement is fine and the rule is broken. However, another rule of sorts has been broken also. In good sports action photography, the action is generally not moving away from the camera. Faces need to be visible in the subjects whenever possible. This photo isn't a great example of the rule or of breaking it though. There is rather constant motion throughout the frame rather than just in a portion of it...
The sense of movement is fine and the rule is broken. However, another rule of sorts has been broken also. In good sports action photography, the action is generally not moving away from the camera. Faces need to be visible in the subjects whenever possible. This photo isn't a great example of the rule or of breaking it though. There is rather constant motion throughout the frame rather than just in a portion of it...
I'm a bit confused. Your initial critique mentions that the rule is broken. Is sports photography not a good example then of breaking the rules? I appreciate your insight and comments John :)
I believe (as everyone in the shot is looking left) the purists would like to see the subject (Young lady in the foreground) on the right side of the frame giving her room to move, cropping the young lady in the back right out.
For me there was just too much emotion emitted by the background dancer and even though not the main subject decided I needed to keep her in the shot.
This was almost a full frame shot so I had little room to work with on the top and bottom as far as cropping.
ED: For or against the Thirds Rule it will always play out in a shot, I did this for fun after the I cropped the original...
I believe a trend may be developing with this broken rule. It seems that the good examples of breaking this rule usually include subject interest behind the moving subject.
I am still here...but I realize my understanding of the rules is a bit weak. So I'm kinda biding my time learning and plan to hand my homework in a bit late teach....
;)
(plus I've been real busy, and although I'd done some photography, I haven't focused on breaking the rule. Though I may have intentially done so in some some shots I took this weekend.)
