pictures that break composition rules

[jp]

That's good Randy.

A common rule for the masses is to keep the sun behind you. I think it's a pretty nice composition item. It works for painting but people don't do it much in photography (aside from reactionary sunset photos) for reasons of dynamic range or technical simplicity.

img945 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickrimg948 by Jason Philbrook, on Flickr
and in smaller format: https://www.flickr.com/photos/13759696@N02/19127907892/

I had someone get after me once for posting a square format photo in a square format flickr group that was a couple pixels shy of being square. I laughed and ignored them.

[Toyon]

Pretty callous stuff.

Here is something I did on comp. (Most is not LF)

nsfw

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/...-with-the-ear/

[SergeiR]

Most of pictures here do not break actual rules of composition, apart from Randy's and DrTang's

Most of cited things aren't more than "general wisdom" (e.g head cropping and center stuff). Its pretty darn hard to actually break composition rules and still have something that is even remotely memorable as image.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Along with the "rule of thirds", I was instructed to have my subject facing "into the picture", not out of the picture...I just liked this more.

Me, too. And it takes some class to dress so well for a gun fight.



Looking off-camera, arm cut off, all kinds of errors.

[jp]

Me, too. And it takes some class to dress so well for a gun fight.



Looking off-camera, arm cut off, all kinds of errors.

It's like "Christina's World" with a gleaming motorcycle, so that's cool. (The real Christina is also faced wrong for a portrait)

[Peter Yeti]

How many "rules" do I have to break in order to qualify?

I think Sergei is right, most of these things are guidelines from experience and common sense how images are preceived. It's hard to ignore them entirely and still get a good picture. On the other hand, rules are for the weak, incapable of seeing or feeling what works and what doesn't. What counts in the end is only the impact an image has on the viewer, not the rules it obeys or breaks.

Peter

[Jac@stafford.net]

It's like "Christina's World" ... (The real Christina is also faced wrong for a portrait)

Christina was blind, so the stress of knowing that, and that she was facing home, listening to the breeze in the field, the plants moving against the wind and themselves make that painting just perfect for me. Profound ambivalence, looking inward in bright daylight. It is one of the most important illustrations I've enjoyed.

Best,
JS

[RSalles]

A portrait from the back without the portrayed person's face does qualify?

_MG_7506-Pes_2015_WEB by Renato Salles, no Flickr

Cheers,

Renato

[Alan Klein]

Me, too. And it takes some class to dress so well for a gun fight.



Looking off-camera, arm cut off, all kinds of errors.

Although she's looking out of the frame, you succeeded in creating a very balanced picture. The barn balances against the weight of the girl and fills in what would otherwise be a very negative area. The bike is in the middle and the power pole also balances it all out. It's all pretty static. Actually, if you left the barn out, you;d have even more tension added to the girl looking out of the picture. The "rules" often provide for a more aesthetic picture because the 'rules" just reflect what our brains find attractive in the first place. It's like saying that the rule for a tasty meal is to added sugar or salt. The rule only reflects what our palettes already find tasty. However, if your picture is trying to say something different, let's say you're aiming for tension, then breaking the rules of aesthetics is a good move. It comes down to what you re trying to say with the picture and what it's purpose is.

[Wayne]

Broken rule: Monkeys should never compose self-portraits