Breaking rule of odds : Even

[Tejal]

That premise is wrong for me. The role of the secondary subject is to make the primary subject dominant. In most cases and certainly in this case, you wouldn't want to make them equally important. Even if you did, you would probably find that impossible to do. The posture and overall size of the man on the viewer's left renders him the primary subject and there is nothing you will be able to do to make the secondary subject equally important.

I prefer the first interpretation of the scene because it emphasizes the respective roles of the primary and secondary subjects. In the second interpretation, the scene is rendered more static for me because the placement of the two people essentially divides the image into equal thirds and, thus, attempts to place equal importance on the primary and secondary subjects when by definition they aren't equally important.

Thanks Mike... I understood what you tried to convey. I am now a bit more clear about the concept.

[Tejal]

Mark,

I think you nailed it: The concept of primary and secondary subjects isn't limited to compositional aspects of the scene; the distinction between the two can be made by any number of characteristics including the possibilities you so well described. In fact, one would very often change the composition to enhance the roles being played by the primary and secondary subjects. You might (or might not) use a different composition to display the role of primary subject that is primary because of the look on the face than when composing to display the gorgeous light falling on the hedge that makes it the primary subject. All of that is really up to whatever creative processes you use to make an effective photo.

(y)

[Tejal]

Very nice images Tejal, Both work for me. That said, I have to think there must be a lot of very nice images passed by because of "the rules say"

P.S great conversation on what works.

Thanks Mark

[Manfred M]

If we have to manipulate a thought process to justify the effectiveness of a rule, there just might be something ineffective about that rule in the first place.

Out of context, I would say you've written about English spelling and grammar.

[Tejal]

I had never heard the "rule of odds" before I joined this site. It is one of those rules that has never made any sense to me and still does not.

It's all about composition and I have many, many images of pairs that work out well. When I asked about why this image works I got a number of answers ranging from my having left space for a third person on the right, the two girls are are sitting so close together that they appear as one to all kinds of other "garbage" answers.





I do think there is a role for the "rules of composition" as one starts in photography, but as one improves ones skills, it becomes apparent that the rules act more as a constraint than something actually helps create a good image. I still remember going through a book of the best pictures by one of the "best of class" photographers to analyze his use of rules and found that in over 50% of the images I looked at he had broken rules I had been taught were not to be broken. Now that I ignore most of the "rules" when shooting and working my images; which is a nice way of saying I am no longer letting the rules constrain my photography, I find I am producing superior images.

To quote Ansel Adams - "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs".

Thanks Manfred. Very nice thing you mentioned about photography ......no rule for good photography. I have something similar of your image, which I have posted above. Kindly give your input for that too. Thanks.

[Tejal]

Sorry about hijacking your thread, Tejal. I forgot to comment on your images.

The first one doesn't do much for me. It's the classical case of "what's the subject" and my eyes bounce between the two figures. It records a couple of men using tripods to take pictures. It does not work for me.

The second image on the other hand is all about the boat, and the men standing on it are really just part of the boat, so the fact that there are two people in the shot is largely irrelevant. They do add context and colour to the boat, which to my eyes is the subject. I also like the contrast between the warm tones of the boat (the colours of the men on the boat add to that). I think this contrasts nicely with the hazy cool colours of the water and the background hills.

There is no question in my mind that this is the stronger of the two images. The only part I am not totally sold on is the cloud of black smoke. I suspect that a different crop and no smoke would be an even stronger shot.

No hijacking Manfred =D. I really wanted something like this on this subject matter and I thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone's comments. Good learning always from such discussions .

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred. Very nice thing you mentioned about photography ......no rule for good photography. I have something similar of your image, which I have posted above. Kindly give your input for that too. Thanks.

I tend to shoot a bit tighter than you do, Tejal. Another quote for you from the great photojournalist, Robert Capa; "if your images aren't good enough, you're not close enough".

First of all, I like both of your latest postings.

1. Women in the farmyard - a very nice shot and the cows and stalls certainly add the context of where the shot was taken. If I were shooting, I'd be in a bit closer and at a minimum I'd get rid of the bright roofline on the left. It pulls the viewer's eyes away from the subject. I'd probably also try to reduce the amount of building on the right; again it is quite bright and distracting. I'd probably end up with something along these lines.




2. Mother and child - For the second shot; I like the asymmetry and unobtrusive background. I'd straighten the shot slightly, get rid of the "ghost" of the building or electrical pylons in the background and get in a lot closer. I might also consider using a vertical, rather than horizontal format, as I'm not completely convinced that all that negative space on the right buys you much.

[Mike Buckley]

I also prefer the last two photos by a wide measure. Rather than crop the first one to eliminate the bright roof on the left, I would probably darken and/or desaturate it so that helpful information about the environment would remain in the photo without being a distraction.

If either the mother or child was looking to the viewer's right, the negative space in that area would play a more effective role in telling the story. Lacking that, I probably would try using a square crop or an 8 x 10 vertical aspect ratio that allows for positioning the two people off-center while limiting the unhelpful, large amount of the negative space. Unlike Manfred, I wouldn't crop as tightly in a vertical format as he did, which is unusual for me because I'm a fan of tight crops. Like Manfred, I would also eliminate the two tall things in the distance.

[Dave Humphries]

I do like Mark's post with its great example of how content could affect viewer's perceptions of what is the primary subject..


Regarding Tejal's primary point of the thread; for the 'even number of subjects is bad' "rule", the examples in this thread do not work for me because I believe the two (or four, etc.) 'things' need to be identical - that is identical in shape, form, texture, colour, size.

Think of a shot of two (same colour) chess pieces.
Or in landscape terms; perhaps a row of four identically trimmed trees that are shot from far enough away that we cannot detect the detail differences in their branch structure.

Images where the pairs are not identical just allow our brains to look for and (too easily) find differences - differences that we then use to mentally attribute one of them as the main subject and one as secondary.

Hope that assists the discussion, Dave

[Mike Buckley]

Dave, your post reminds me that I think I first heard about the rule about using odd numbers from you. I still don't buy it even when using identical items as subjects.

Admittedly, the second photo shown below could be argued as having only one subject, not four.

[Dave Humphries]

Mike, I think I'd also exclude all three of your examples on the grounds that as they exceed the edge of frame (and aren't lined up in a simple row), so they don't represent exactly what I had in mind.

You see, you're just too artistic to fall foul of the rule even when dealing with 'evens'

[Mike Buckley]

So, Dave, perhaps we need to see the precise criteria of the rule. It seems to be a rule that is so restricting that it would apply to so few photos that the rule itself is an exception.

[Tejal]

I tend to shoot a bit tighter than you do, Tejal. Another quote for you from the great photojournalist, Robert Capa; "if your images aren't good enough, you're not close enough".

First of all, I like both of your latest postings.

1. Women in the farmyard - a very nice shot and the cows and stalls certainly add the context of where the shot was taken. If I were shooting, I'd be in a bit closer and at a minimum I'd get rid of the bright roofline on the left. It pulls the viewer's eyes away from the subject. I'd probably also try to reduce the amount of building on the right; again it is quite bright and distracting. I'd probably end up with something along these lines.




2. Mother and child - For the second shot; I like the asymmetry and unobtrusive background. I'd straighten the shot slightly, get rid of the "ghost" of the building or electrical pylons in the background and get in a lot closer. I might also consider using a vertical, rather than horizontal format, as I'm not completely convinced that all that negative space on the right buys you much.

Thanks Manfred !! Basic but quite useful information you shared with us. I will try to re process the pics once again considering your inputs.

[Tejal]

I also prefer the last two photos by a wide measure. Rather than crop the first one to eliminate the bright roof on the left, I would probably darken and/or desaturate it so that helpful information about the environment would remain in the photo without being a distraction.

If either the mother or child was looking to the viewer's right, the negative space in that area would play a more effective role in telling the story. Lacking that, I probably would try using a square crop or an 8 x 10 vertical aspect ratio that allows for positioning the two people off-center while limiting the unhelpful, large amount of the negative space. Unlike Manfred, I wouldn't crop as tightly in a vertical format as he did, which is unusual for me because I'm a fan of tight crops. Like Manfred, I would also eliminate the two tall things in the distance.

Thanks Mike, I will try to tone down the background and will change the crop as well. It will surely give a better look to the picture. Thanks for your valuable suggestions .

[Tejal]

I do like Mark's post with its great example of how content could affect viewer's perceptions of what is the primary subject..


Regarding Tejal's primary point of the thread; for the 'even number of subjects is bad' "rule", the examples in this thread do not work for me because I believe the two (or four, etc.) 'things' need to be identical - that is identical in shape, form, texture, colour, size.

Think of a shot of two (same colour) chess pieces.
Or in landscape terms; perhaps a row of four identically trimmed trees that are shot from far enough away that we cannot detect the detail differences in their branch structure.

Images where the pairs are not identical just allow our brains to look for and (too easily) find differences - differences that we then use to mentally attribute one of them as the main subject and one as secondary.

Hope that assists the discussion, Dave

Thanks for your valuable feedback .

[Rebel]

I had never heard the "rule of odds" before I joined this site. It is one of those rules that has never made any sense to me and still does not.

It's all about composition and I have many, many images of pairs that work out well. When I asked about why this image works I got a number of answers ranging from my having left space for a third person on the right, the two girls are are sitting so close together that they appear as one to all kinds of other "garbage" answers.





I do think there is a role for the "rules of composition" as one starts in photography, but as one improves ones skills, it becomes apparent that the rules act more as a constraint than something actually helps create a good image. I still remember going through a book of the best pictures by one of the "best of class" photographers to analyze his use of rules and found that in over 50% of the images I looked at he had broken rules I had been taught were not to be broken. Now that I ignore most of the "rules" when shooting and working my images; which is a nice way of saying I am no longer letting the rules constrain my photography, I find I am producing superior images.

To quote Ansel Adams - "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs".

Great post!