The quest for the “perfect” photo may undermine your creativity
Can photographic rules get in the way of making great art?
I have been asked to judge countless photography contests since I began teaching photography. From monthly club meetings to regional competitions, judging almost always involves some discussion of the entries with the group. This can be a few comments about the winning images, or a full critique of each photograph.
I have always enjoyed critiques as a constructive way to help photographers understand how effective their images are. Photographers are always trying to convey a story when they present images. The story the artist trying to tell may be obvious to them, but it can be eye-opening to hear how viewers interpret the image.
The hardest part about critiquing art can be finding objective language to describe a completely subjective medium. We all have preferences and personal taste, but I strive to describe photography in terms of technical details and successful story-telling. If your image tells a story I’m not particularly interested in, but it successfully tells the story, it would not be helpful for me to call the image “bad” because I don’t like the subject matter. I can acknowledge the merits of a photograph even though I may not want to hang it on the wall in my home.
In the search for objective language, many of us refer to the “rules” of composition as touch-stones. Comments regarding the application of these rules in service of the artist’s storytelling are generally more helpful than simply saying, “Nice image.”
I have often had to make things up in order to provide a suggestion about a perfectly good image. An image is pretty darn good if requires nit-picking to find an area to improve. When I make comments like, “It might be a better background if you were standing two feet to the right,” that means the photo is effective and I’m trying to come up with something constructive to say.
I worry that we instructors and critics have given some photographers the wrong idea about what a “good” photo is. In trying to find something constructive to say, have we convinced photographers that good art must follow rules?! I feel I should apologize for helping to foster this misunderstanding.
Art is a conversation between an artist and a viewer. As an artist, the photographer captures a moment in order to share the experience of that moment with the viewer. This is true whether shooting street photography, wildlife, landscapes, or studio portraits.
The viewer observes the work and unconsciously filters the image through his/her experience and taste. There is nothing the artist can do about how the viewer reacts to the work. The artist can simply create one side of the conversation based on his/her experience and desired aesthetic. If you present a happy photo and it makes a viewer sad, you might consider this feedback and decide to alter your presentation. You may also ignore the feedback and stand by your art as it is presented. This is the nature of art.
A person who is charged with helping photographers improve their work can not simply like an image and move on. It is our job to figure out WHY the image resonates with us, so that the artist might learn what part of their process is working, and what part might improve. If I make a comment about how to improve an image, the comment refers specifically to that image. It doesn’t mean that every image from now on should be created with that critique in mind. Every image is different. What helps one image may ruin another. There is no set of rules that makes better art.
The reason I worry…
I see comments online that suggest removing all but the main subject in post. “[Name the issue] is distracting,” is a common comment. A stray leaf, tree branch, or any bright area of a photo that is not related to the subject should be removed, lest it detract from the main element. In reality, if a bright spot or leaf in your image ruins the whole photograph, the issue is probably not related to the imperfection.
I heard a photographer comment on a wonderful photo of birds in flight at a camera club contest once. The light was beautiful, the 2 birds were tack sharp, and the image was generally delightful. The commenter said, “wouldn’t this photo be better if there were an odd number of birds?” No. It would be different, and could be at least as good, but an odd number of elements does not necessarily make an image better.
I read a comment on a sports photo recently that suggested the spectators be removed so as not to distract from the sport. Without the spectators, the image would effectively be an athlete on a blank background; taking the image from a captured moment in time, to a sticker of an athlete. I suspect this way of scrutinizing photos is learned behavior, born from too many image critiques that do more harm than good.
Are judging criteria helpful?
I think the answer to this question depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to win awards and accolades within a particular organization, then their rules are important.
There is nothing wrong with checking technical boxes in order to win within a particular system. If there’s a downside to competitive photography, I think it might be that it gives the impression that a photo must follow particular rules in order to be a “good” photo. This is simply not true.
Art that is judged against a set of common rules could potentially lead to a collection of work that is similarly “good,” but not necessarily innovative, personal, or unusual. If you are interested in making art and expressing yourself, then perhaps rules are not where you should be focused.
Rules are really just tools
No photographic “rules” need to be followed in order to make a good photograph. A centered subject can be wonderful… millions of successful images have an even number of subjects… etc… etc…
I believe traditional ideas of composition are just as important to learn as the exposure triangle. Anything you can learn about photography will help you become a better photographer. However, you should not always use any particular compositional rule any more than you should always have an odd number of elements in an image or shoot at f/5.6 or 1/200 sec.
Do you have photos of a loved one or favorite place that are not technically “good,” but make you happy to look at them? I have a photo of my son running through a field near my father’s home when he was 5 years old. The expression of pure joy on his face in the beautiful autumn evening makes my heart sing every time I see it. It is a black and white jpeg image straight out of whatever camera I was using at the time. I LOVE this photograph. Oh, and it is not focused on his face. Thanks to the unreliable focus tracking in early mirrorless cameras, the plane of focus is behind his face, so his eyes are not tack sharp. This is still a wonderful photograph.
I challenge you to take this approach to all of your photography. Seek out the magical light and unique moments that only you can capture. Immerse yourself in your experience, and use your camera to convey your unique experience to anyone who may care to look. THIS is art. Think about what you want to show people MORE than you think about how they might react.
You can’t control how your art is perceived, you can only control how you express yourself.
Use any composition, light, lens, point of view, post-processing, and any other tool you need to present your view of the world. Art is for the artist. Viewers are part of the conversation, but they shouldn’t be the reason for the work.
