There’s an interesting discussion on NPN at the moment regarding the rules of photography. The discussion starter makes a point for not following the rules and provides an example (which, by the way, just strengthens the case for the rules). The people who have responded say pretty much what I think about the issue as well. The rules were not created randomly out of nothing, but they came out based on existing imagery which was aesthetically pleasing. When I take pictures, I’m not thinking about this ”rule of thirds” grid and putting elements in the 3rd intersections just because the rule says I should. I put the elements there because the image just simply works better that way! And then I can as easily put the rules aside when I think that I can create a stronger image by not following them.Look at the reindeer and snow drift images in my previous entry. The horizon in the reindeer image is not in the lower 3rd, but more like the lower 6th to emphasise the big blue sky. But I did follow the rules in that the reindeers are walking into the image, not out of it. If there was this much space behind the reindeer as opposed to in front of them, it would be dead space and the image trash. The snow drift image on the other hand is all about the rules – imagine the grid on top of the image and you’ll find all the elements in a 3rd.

But then, there are those people whose artistic eye prefers non-conformity and they create images which break the rules on purpose. Personally, I don’t like that style, it’s too chaotic for me. Each to their own.

I’m not claiming following the rules automatically produce masterpieces (if it did, we could indeed build a camera that takes the picture – without the person operating it). But I do know for sure that my images are better now than in the early days when I didn’t know about the rules!