Artist at work (7 images)

[Manfred M]

Matt - these new versions are definitely better. I'm starting to wonder if you need the blurring at all.

[bnnrcn]

Thanks Manfred Actually my question was about the general rules of photography like 1/3 rule. We don't have to follow it all the time but we always keep it in mind.

I'm not someone that pays a lot of attention to the "rules of photography" or whether something is "technically correct" or not. My acid test is always, "does the image work"? Once I establish whether it works or not, I try to figure out why it does or does not work.

In general, I find that most images need to be "believable" for them to work. We humans are excellent filters at looking at an image and figuring out if we what we see makes sense or not. To me this is one of the acid tests and if it fails this one, there is no use going on to the next step to determine the artistic merit of an image.

[Rebel]

Thanks Manfred Actually my question was about the general rules of photography like 1/3 rule. We don't have to follow it all the time but we always keep it in mind.

I think the rule of thirds is followed because it does genuinely make most images compositions better.

Not in all cases mind.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred Actually my question was about the general rules of photography like 1/3 rule. We don't have to follow it all the time but we always keep it in mind.

Binnur - This is one of the subjects that was definitely covered during the composition course I took at the local community college last year. The professor, who had been teaching the course for over 20 years, told us that about 80% of the images that he sees incorporate the rule of thirds, rather than one of the other rules of composition.

When we got into discussing the so called "rule", the standard definition of dividing the image was given about dividing the image into horizontal and vertical thirds and paying special attention to the intersections of those lines. This quickly moved to that things don't have to be placed "exactly" on the thirds as being close could actually result in a stronger composition.

By the time we had finished the discussion, the "rule of thirds" seemed more about placing the subject / centre of attention asymmetrically in the image, rather than symmetrically (although sometimes a symmetrical placement was a far stronger approach than an asymmetrical one).

I think the prof summed things up well when he said, "the rules of composition work well, except in places where they don't". The bottom line is that slavishly following the rules of composition is not necessarily going to give you a good image, while breaking them might give you a great one.

[Sergio M.]

I like the series.

You noted in your OP "She was very happy with the images", and later after making some changes "I'm pretty happy with them now". I'd say that is a plus-plus, Matt.

Sergio

[Rebel]

I like the series.

You noted in your OP "She was very happy with the images", and later after making some changes "I'm pretty happy with them now". I'd say that is a plus-plus, Matt.

Sergio

Thanks Sergio

[Kaye Leggett]

I'm late to this one and didn't see the orignal images - apologies.

I would have presented them in a different order. It appears that your artist is working on the same work throughout your shoot and so I would prefer to see your images in an order which compliments the process your artist also went through - they wouold 'flow better then as a set rather than a random set of the same person which is a bit what they are now. It really looks to me that no 1 should be no 7 and vice versa with no 3 coming after 6. Not sure where to put no 2 in the sequence.

[Rebel]

I'm late to this one and didn't see the orignal images - apologies.

I would have presented them in a different order. It appears that your artist is working on the same work throughout your shoot and so I would prefer to see your images in an order which compliments the process your artist also went through - they wouold 'flow better then as a set rather than a random set of the same person which is a bit what they are now. It really looks to me that no 1 should be no 7 and vice versa with no 3 coming after 6. Not sure where to put no 2 in the sequence.

Fair point Kaye, I didn't even think of that to be honest. I just updated them randomly!

[IzzieK]

Now with the edits done, I prefer #4, 5 and 6 better...