'Test review of D200' by Ken Rockwell

ian lincoln wrote:

There are certain composition "rules" (remember that rules are made to be
broken!). Some that come to my mind a
1) The rule of thirds-- draw lines dividing the picture in thirds, both
horizontally and vertically. Put the subject on one of those lines or at
the intersection of two of those lines.
2) The eye is drawn from dark areas to light areas-- Make the subject
lighter than the surrounding areas. (My photography teacher encouraged
routinely burning in the edges of a print)
3) The eye is drawn from cool colors (blues) to warm colors (reds)-- the
subject should be a warmer color than the surrounding areas.

Probably the first rule is the most important, at least when shooting the
photo. The second rule can be done in the darkroom, and the third rule is
usually beyond your control except in a posed situation. The second and
third rule can also be handled somewhat by framing and/or matting.

Your lesson for today is to look at as many "masterpieces", both paintings
and photographs, and see how many times the above rules were ignored; and
second, to see if the "masterpiece" would be better had the rules been
followed!


--
Ken Hart



My 2nd teacher commented on some 'professional' photographers work. He
pointed out a list of errors and said 'if a student had done that he would
be marked down, cos the photog is a celeb himself now he is a rule breaking
genius. The 2nd photog took up teaching cos freelancing was such a
unreliable form of income. My careers officer said' photography is the bane
of my existence, wouldn't you like to go into management? The sad truth
is that most wanna be photographers only get as far as boots or snappy snaps
or working in retail outlets. Then they come back to me in 2 or 3 years
saying they still haven't advanced. One of the committee members of my club
works as an accountant for a sports photo outlet. Another frustrated
amateur. The best example of 'its who you know not what you know' is julia
margaret cameron. Terrible technique, fingerprints on plates etc but all
her sitters were famous people.



Of course it couldn't have had anything to do with her being one of
Talbot's contemporaries AND a woman in WAY pre-women's lib times.

Hell, she predates the women's suffarage movement. When she was a
photographer EVERYBODY, including Daguerre were amateurs.

Oh, and being a member of Victorian Britian's "upper class" probably
wouldn't have anything to do with it either.

no_name wrote:
wrote:

Your photo teacher is a ****ing moron, as are most of them, ESPECIALLY
the ones with a 'fine art' background.

The geometric structure of a photo is a way of analysing the
composition AFTER it has been taken.

Good photographers analyse the composition before taking the picture.
REALLY good photographers analyse the composition before the tripod goes
into the car for the drive to the location.

Really good photographers compose instinctively, instantaneously, and
without a thought to 'rules', in fact, without 'thinking' at all.
Invariably, however, good compositions tend to follow certain patterns
which to goons and morons look like 'rules'. They are nothing of the
sort.

"no_name" wrote in message
om...
wrote:

So, again it will come down to what one has invested in glass. Same as
with film bodies in the high end. Not really enough differance to matter
as long as you don't have to dump your favorite lenses. Hell, all most
of
us need is a K-1000 if you get down to it but other featurs are very
nice
at times. But, if you can't take an interesting picuture with a simple
camera then maybe we should do gardening.

Or continue to learn and practice until we can make an interesting
picture...
That's like saying you can't buy a Leica M until you've graduated dentist
school. If any camera company sold only to competant shooters, they might as
well close their doors. Or how many are kept afloat by Christmas? If I had
what I paid for cameras I just didn't like, I can't imagine how much I'd
have, and I have no idea why I bought them in the first place.
Bob Hickey

I used to teach a photo class for fun, while not working on my own
projects or assignments, and my philosophy is actually quite different.
Yes, the technical aspects of photography are important. In fact, when
I learned photography, I learned that stuff first before studying
composition and sort of learning the "rules" by osmosis. You look at
enough photos and paintings and, if you're really paying attention, you
can't help but pick up a compositional principle or two.

However, my approach is to first teach the basics of composition and
attention to lighting before touching on technical matters. You know
why? Because that's primarily what separates an amateur from a
professional: good photographers see light and know how to fill a
frame, and I want my students to start thinking in these terms, before
concepts like f/stops and ISO and shutter speed and guide number, etc.,
confuse and bore the hell out of them.

People want to learn how to take better photographs. The quickest way
to this path is not jabbering about technical stuff. They'll fall
asleep. Hell, I shoot 80% of the time in aperature-priority. Modern
cameras have made knowing the technical aspects of photography almost
moot. Don't get me wrong--you do have to learn this eventually--but I
don't think that's the most efficient way to become good. I say learn
to understand light, composition and focus correctly before you start.

As for composition, I think it's important to start with principles
like "fill the frame" and "rule of thirds" and leading lines, etc...
And, as always, to remind the student that these are the first rules
you're going to break when you start understanding the principles and
developing your own style. This is what I think of as learning to crawl
before walking and running, not learning technique before vision,
because they are apples and oranges.