Breaking the Rules (Part One)

Bob Marcotte (a Fresno, California, commercial photographer) and I have exchanged a number of emails recently. Bob has given me some great ideas for things to write about. For me, one of the hardest things about maintaining this blog has been coming up with those ideas. I've found the writing part way easier than the idea part.

The question, "When is it OK to break the rules?" is one that periodically shows up on a lot of photo forums and elsewhere, like in one of Bob's emails. To be sure, there's no hard and fast answer to this. There are no exact rules that govern breaking the rules with the possible exception of this: If you're going to break the rules, break them creatively, effectively, and successfully.

I know that wasn't very helpful for those looking for more specific guidelines for rule-breaking. Photographic rule-breaking is *very* subjective. I regularly see images--those that break the rules, that is--that seemingly violate a myriad of photographic rules effectively and successfully. I can't always put my finger on the reason I think an example of rule-breaking works well. In fact, it's often easier to explain why an image that breaks the rules doesn't work so well.

Before I get into this, let me begin with the following admonition: Breaking the (so-called) tried-and-true rules of photography begins with knowledge and understanding of those rules. Sure, we can all find examples of rules being accidentally broken to great effect. But I think you'll find that learning and studying the rules that "govern" the artistic and technical aspects of photography will make you better prepared--and give you a far better shot at--breaking those rules creatively, effectively, and successfully.

Subjectivity is fickle and personal. For instance, I have a personal peeve when it comes to the dread Amputated Arm Syndrome. Images that exemplify AAS rarely, if ever, work well for me. That's not to say I don't, on occasion, photographically amputate and arm. I do. But I'm always on the lookout to avoid doing so. I should note there are times when many photographers (on forums) indicate great admiration for photos that are AAS impaired. As I said, AAS is a personal peeve of mine and not necessarily everyone else's. I should also note this: The hotter the model and the more skin she's flashing, the less most shooters will complain about AAS. And here's another note to note: ABS, or Amputated Breast Syndrome, is another matter entirely. Often, these same photographers (who are okay with AAS) will not be happy when a photographic mastectomy is performed on a totally hot model and a beautiful breast is inexplicably lopped off!

There are lots of elements to rule-breaking that come into play when rules are effectively broken. There are also some rules, IMO, that rarely work when broken. Here are a couple of examples:

Cropping at Joints: This almost never works. It is, as the Brits are fond of saying, "Bad form." There may be good examples of this rule being creatively, effectively, and successfully broken. I just don't remember ever seeing one.

Rule of Thirds: This isn't so much a rule that is broken as much as a rule that is neglected. In other words, this rule should be employed more often by more of you in more of your images. I frequently see images that would really "sing" with the therapeutic application of Rule of Thirds (RoT) composition. Interestingly, RoT is a very easy rule to employ. Why so many photographers neglect to do so is beyond me. Want to shoot consistently forgettable images? Well then, simply frame or crop your subjects dead center in the frame and do so consistently. You'll be surprised (or not) how often a compositionally center-framed model will yield forgettable results. Here's a note to those of your who are engineers as well as photo-hobbyists (since so many photo-hobbyists seem to be engineers by trade): RoT is not something that needs to be precisely and perfectly employed. Put away your cyber-rulers and protractors when processing. When you apply RoT to your images, things don't need to fit, perfectly, into those RoT-ish spaces. Unlike the Pythagorean theorem, the mathematical science of RoT is not a geometrically exact science.

I'll write more about rule-breaking in upcoming updates.

The pretty girl at the top is Jamie from a recent shoot. Some might say a rule was broken in this image: The rule about shooting up a model's nose. This is one of those subjective rules. (As are nearly all of them.) If a model has prominent nostrils, you might want to avoid shooting from low angles that seem to probe her sinus cavities. Personally, I don't think Jamie has prominent nostril flare... but maybe that's just me? Plus, it's a three-quarter shot (instead of a head shot) so I think the image gets away with breaking the Nostril Rule although I'm fairly sure there are those who would disagree. Is there a rule about models teething on their bras? Hmmm. I'm not sure.