# Beautiful examples of technically terrible images



## Snakeguy101

I hear a lot of people treating certain photography rule as if they are the law. Things like "rule of thirds" "shoot away from the sun" and "avoid motion blur" are good starting points for most photos but I wanted to post a few examples of broken rules so that you may be able to begin to experiment with new techniques that do not follow the traditional cookie cutter molds. 

This image has a terrible exposure and a centered composition and it takes my breath away. 
http://images.nationalgeographic.co.../cache/art-student-williams_61720_990x742.jpg

This image has cropped half the boat and is not showing the subjects face. Also what a terrible angle to photograph someone from... right? Wrong. 
http://images.nationalgeographic.co...10/cache/tour-guide-vietnam_61079_990x742.jpg

Here is one that I took that is not a great photo admittedly but those "distracting foreground elements" (the bubbles in this case) add to the photo more than detract from it. 






Here is one where the people are so blurry they are barely recognizable.
Istanbul Picture

You do not have to like the images that I provided to understand the point. Learn the "rules" to break them.

If you have any more examples either from yourself or that you have found online then please share them.


----------



## rexbobcat

The first one would be more appealing to me if her feet were completely in the picture. It's just that the rest of the photo keeps me interested. That's not to say that the photo could be "better" in my opinion. Also, the exposure is great considering film and digital limitations.

The second one is great composition. Just unorthodox.

 The third follows the rule of third and the bubbles add context.

In the last the blurry people are to help convey the hustle as bustle of the city. 

You chose bad examples to illustrate your point.


----------



## bhop

None of those examples are close to "technically terrible" IMO.  They all show good overall balance and are composed to lead your eyes around the whole image.  The b&w national geo shot being the weakest.. but still.


----------



## Mully

^^^^^^ I agree ...the image of the boat is great ...... I hate all these so called photo rules, I think they are there for those that do not have a clue about what makes a good picture.  The boat picture is an example of what I am talking about .... The image is great and does not need rules


----------



## cgipson1

Mully said:


> ^^^^^^ I agree ...the image of the boat is great ...... I hate all these so called photo rules, I think they are there for those that do not have a clue about what makes a good picture.  The boat picture is an example of what I am talking about .... The image is great and does not need rules



They aren't rules! They are guidelines.... and the thing is, you have to know when and how to bend / break them to do so successfully.

An image like the boat may not follow some rules, but that does not keep it from being well composed. A study in shapes and colors can follow any or no rules. It works, it works!

The Art student...  it would have been better for me if the bottom of the image wasn't clipped... and I would bet the exposure was intentional! And it works... IF it works, and was intentional.. it is NOT terrible, it is art! (and we all have our own ideas of art.. what we like, and what we don't)

The diver shot? I think it has too much dead space to the left.... if it had been shot vertically, it would have much improved it. Yes... the bubbles add context, but the color and exposure is still bad. This is not one that would end up in the NatGeo images.... the others are! IF the foreground bubbles were sharp, and the image was better exposed / focused... maybe.... as it is just too jumbled


----------



## KmH

Snakeguy101 said:


> ... right? Wrong.
> .


Your analysis of the photos is pretty much wrong on all accounts.

The girl (main subject)  isn't centered in the frame, and the high angle used with the boat is an attention grabbing perspective and the photo has strong leading lines.


----------



## Snakeguy101

I was trying to put the images into terms of why someone following the typical rules would not shoot that image. I agree that there are deeper composition concepts that each image follows but the sayings that are being thrown around in today's photography world go against each of the ones that I posted. If you guys have better examples I would love to see them. These were just ones that I could think of off the top of my head.


----------



## amolitor

I think the point is that you can always do an _ex post facto_ analysis of any given image, and get a strong idea of how it works. Then you can riffle through the little binder of "rules of photography" and pick out a couple that are pretty close, and then you can exclaim "See? By following the rules of photography, the photographer has succeeded in creating a great photograph!"

This isn't how it works at all, and performing such _ex post facto_ analysis, and so exclaiming, does not make it so.


----------



## jake337

Snakeguy101 said:


> I was trying to put the images into terms of why someone following the typical rules would not shoot that image. I agree that there are deeper composition concepts that each image follows but the sayings that are being thrown around in today's photography world go against each of the ones that I posted. If you guys have better examples I would love to see them. These were just ones that I could think of off the top of my head.




An image is either well composed or not.  If it happens to follow some "guidelines" based on an individuals perspective, whether it be intentional or not, it is still either a well composed image or it isn't a well composed image.  Whether or not the image maker used "arts design" to create it, naturally create great compositions, or are just lucky is irrelevant.  Elements of arts design are simply tools used to create or describe what is seen.


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> I think the point is that you can always do an _ex post facto_ analysis of any given image, and get a strong idea of how it works. Then you can riffle through the little binder of "rules of photography" and pick out a couple that are pretty close, and then you can exclaim "See? By following the rules of photography, the photographer has succeeded in creating a great photograph!"
> 
> *This isn't how it works at all, and performing such ex post facto analysis, and so exclaiming, does not make it so*.



hmmm.... for once, I agree with you! (Just don't tell anyone! Shhhhh!) :lmao:


----------



## amolitor

Stopped clocks and all, Charlie, it's bound to happen sometimes! Don't let it get to you!


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> Stopped clocks and all, Charlie, it's bound to happen sometimes! Don't let it get to you!



Don't worry, I won't! It probably won't happen again for a really long time, anyway!


----------



## Derrel

There are no "rules" of photography. There *ARE *however, elements and principles of design. The "rules" of photography are mythical...constant reference to "rules" of photography shows a misunderstanding of the subject matter. Using the word "rules" indicates an unfamiliarity with the subject field. 

Many people who blog and write about various subjects appear to be not fully aware of the basic terminology affecting the fields which they are blogging about. The original post in this thread is a good example of writing about a subject from a less-than-learned, less-than-conversant, and less-than-defensible position.

The idea that "rules" exist is a fallacy--a shorthand way of conceptualizing design and composition.


----------



## Pallycow

If you want an example of terrible images and broken "rules", I can link you to my image album when I first started.  lol

or...you can look at any of the beginner threads on here...

or use your own examples

etc..

etc..


----------



## Derrel

Let's look at the second example provided in the original post: http://images.nationalgeographic.co...10/cache/tour-guide-vietnam_61079_990x742.jpg

Now, let's take one of *the absolute MOST-basic web pages* we can find that deals with something that truly does exist: the elements and principles of design.

Elements and principles of design


ELEMENTS of design: line,shape,direction,size,texture,color,value (tone).


PRINCIPLES of Design:balance,gradation,repetition, contrast,harmony,dominance,unity.

Sooooooo....what can we say about the sample photos? HOW were these actual "tools" used? When we discuss say, the outcome of an NFL football game, we don't say things like, "Yeah, the Raiders QB was unable to fill that inside straight, and so the fourth down pass attempt he threw fell incomplete because he didn't understand how to properly grout the tile."


----------



## Mully

ee cummings said it best....  "since feeling is first who pays attention to the syntax of things"


----------



## amolitor

There are days when I feel like understanding how an image works is like understanding how the Raiders Won Yesterday (i.e. pretty straightforward, at least in hind-sight) and there are days when I feel like understanding how an image works is like understanding why the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 48 points yesterday (i.e. you can find some factors, but only fools think they explain "why" in any meaningful way).


----------



## runnah

I can tell if an image is well composed before any other aspect. 

You ever wonder why some modern art features only one colored shape is considred art? Because it is composed well.

Composition is the foundation of all art.

There may be no hard rules, but if there was rule #1 would be composition with a follow up of balance and symmetry.


----------



## skieur

Mully said:


> ^^^^^^ I agree ...the image of the boat is great ...... I hate all these so called photo rules, I think they are there for those that do not have a clue about what makes a good picture.  The boat picture is an example of what I am talking about .... The image is great and does not need rules



Actually the boat follows the rules of composition quite well.

skieur


----------



## skieur

bluehouse said:


> Well said, these pics didn't have technical problem. they are good pics.



Look again at the first one. Notice exposure and focus.


----------



## skieur

bluehouse said:


> Well said, these pics didn't have technical problem. they are good pics.



Try looking at the first shot more carefully.


----------



## skieur

Mully said:


> ee cummings said it best....  "since feeling is first who pays attention to the syntax of things"



To answer his question: those who are sufficiently literate to read.


----------



## rexbobcat

skieur said:


> bluehouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said, these pics didn't have technical problem. they are good pics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look again at the first one. Notice exposure and focus.
Click to expand...


I don't see the problem with exposure.

All I see are the general trade-offs that have to be made given the dynamic range of film and our current digital technology.


----------



## Derrel

Where can I buy a copy of the rulebook for composition? Is it sold at Sports Authority, right next to the Rules of American High School Football? Can I get a copy from the PPA or the ASMP? Is it sold at WPPI? I need my rule book!!!


----------



## rexbobcat

Derrel said:


> Where can I buy a copy of the rulebook for composition? Is it sold at Sports Authority, right next to the Rules of American High School Football? Can I get a copy from the PPA or the ASMP? Is it sold at WPPI? I need my rule book!!!



If you buy that you MUST get the rulebook for proper exposure as well. If you're going to put your blinders on you should go all the way, ya know what I mean?


----------



## Mully

Derrel said:


> Where can I buy a copy of the rulebook for composition? Is it sold at Sports Authority, right next to the Rules of American High School Football? Can I get a copy from the PPA or the ASMP? Is it sold at WPPI? I need my rule book!!!




Derrel ...how have you survived without it....i can't imagine   better call ASMP they will most likely have a copy ...with your name on it LOL


----------



## unpopular

Snakeguy101 said:


> This image has a terrible exposure and a centered composition



FOR FRICKS SAKE.

*PEOPLE

NEED

TO

GET

OVER

THIS
*
Of all the bullshart "rules" in photography, the "never center" rule is the bullest of shartiest.


----------



## jake337

unpopular said:


> Snakeguy101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This image has a terrible exposure and a centered composition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FOR FRICKS SAKE.
> 
> *PEOPLE
> 
> NEED
> 
> TO
> 
> GET
> 
> OVER
> 
> THIS
> *
> Of all the bullshart "rules" in photography, the "never center" rule is the bullest of shartiest.
Click to expand...



Right!

Plus the subject is not centered and has beautiful exposure.


----------



## unpopular

The hilights are blown, but my guess is that the sunlight is the primary light source. If the natural light is what is being documented here, it doesn't make sense to use a flash. I'm also wondering if it's an older image and if so the pictorial influence may have had to do with the photographers choices here.

Even technical priorities aren't set in stone.


----------



## skieur

Derrel said:


> Where can I buy a copy of the rulebook for composition? Is it sold at Sports Authority, right next to the Rules of American High School Football? Can I get a copy from the PPA or the ASMP? Is it sold at WPPI? I need my rule book!!!




Photography Composition Articles Library

Look up also photography schools in Google.

Art Curriculum from your state education department

Associations of Photographic Art

Professional Photography Groups and Rules for Judging Competitions


----------



## jake337

unpopular said:


> The hilights are blown, but my guess is that the sunlight is the primary light source. If the natural light is what is being documented here, it doesn't make sense to use a flash. I'm also wondering if it's an older image and if so the pictorial influence may have had to do with the photographers choices here.
> 
> Even technical priorities aren't set in stone.


 
Those blown highlights bring my eyes right to the subject!


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I buy a copy of the rulebook for composition? Is it sold at Sports Authority, right next to the Rules of American High School Football? Can I get a copy from the PPA or the ASMP? Is it sold at WPPI? I need my rule book!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photography Composition Articles Library
> 
> Look up also photography schools in Google.
> 
> Art Curriculum from your state education department
> 
> Associations of Photographic Art
> 
> Professional Photography Groups and Rules for Judging Competitions
Click to expand...


I swear to god skieur. the amount you DON'T understand about art is pretty amazing.


----------



## BrianV

Winter walk on a beach along the Potomac. Roses washed up on shore, two people had drowned in that spot the previous Summer. A small boy and the yound man that dove in to attempt to rescue him.

Figured the roses were for a Birthday or something similar.

The Shutter on the Nikon S2 froze. Color film, still cannot quite figure out what happened. Like the shutter capped, then bounced. Whatever it did- the resulting image suited my mood.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I buy a copy of the rulebook for composition? Is it sold at Sports Authority, right next to the Rules of American High School Football? Can I get a copy from the PPA or the ASMP? Is it sold at WPPI? I need my rule book!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Photography Composition Articles Library
> 
> Look up also photography schools in Google.
> 
> Art Curriculum from your state education department
> 
> Associations of Photographic Art
> 
> Professional Photography Groups and Rules for Judging Competitions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I swear to god skieur. the amount you DON'T understand about art is pretty amazing.
Click to expand...



Your response is idiotic.  I have more background in art than you do.

skieur


----------



## skieur

bluehouse said:


> Well said, these pics didn't have technical problem. they are good pics.



Put on your glasses.   Irrespective of the cause, the first photo has severely overexposed sections that detract from the main subject.

skieur


----------



## skieur

BrianV said:


> Winter walk on a beach along the Potomac. Roses washed up on shore, two people had drowned in that spot the previous Summer. A small boy and the yound man that dove in to attempt to rescue him.
> 
> Figured the roses were for a Birthday or something similar.
> 
> The Shutter on the Nikon S2 froze. Color film, still cannot quite figure out what happened. Like the shutter capped, then bounced. Whatever it did- the resulting image suited my mood.



It may have suited your mood, but the viewer is the arbitrar of what constitutes a great image.

skieur


----------



## skieur

jake337 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> The hilights are blown, but my guess is that the sunlight is the primary light source. If the natural light is what is being documented here, it doesn't make sense to use a flash. I'm also wondering if it's an older image and if so the pictorial influence may have had to do with the photographers choices here.
> 
> Even technical priorities aren't set in stone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those blown highlights bring my eyes right to the subject!
Click to expand...


Perhaps but they lead to confusion as to what the photographer is trying to communicate to the viewer.

skieur


----------



## amolitor

I think you have established that you think this entire thread is dumb, skieur. Perhaps it's time to move along?


----------



## unpopular

skieur said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photography Composition Articles Library
> 
> Look up also photography schools in Google.
> 
> Art Curriculum from your state education department
> 
> Associations of Photographic Art
> 
> Professional Photography Groups and Rules for Judging Competitions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I swear to god skieur. the amount you DON'T understand about art is pretty amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is idiotic.  I have more background in art than you do.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...



*I can 100% guarantee that you don't.* There's no way to prove it, because you'll just lie about your credentials like you ALWAYS DO. Unfortunately for you, though, nobody believes you, either that or Canadians have an exceedingly low expectation of professional photography and the fine arts, and I doubt very much that is the case since I know a few canadians who are _real_ professional photographers and _real_ professional artists myself.

So maybe we should just let some of your "professional quality" work speak for itself. While you haven't posted a single image in the last two years, those you had posted aren't exactly what one would expect from someone Knighted by the Queen for his photographic excellence!

bleh. You're not who you say you are. You're not the rockstar photographer, living in some lakeside mansion like the Hugh Hefner of photographers. It's BS. My guess, you live with your mom, or in a retirement home. You probably go from forum to forum pretending to be some kind of expert in everything. Admit that you're a friggin charlatan, for god sakes!

Yeah. I'm having a bad night. And yeah, I'm taking it out on you. But for god sakes Skieur, you're not fooling* anyone* with your crap.

So go ahead and report me. I don't care. You fugging putz.


----------



## BrianV

skieur said:


> BrianV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winter walk on a beach along the Potomac. Roses washed up on shore, two people had drowned in that spot the previous Summer. A small boy and the yound man that dove in to attempt to rescue him.
> 
> Figured the roses were for a Birthday or something similar.
> 
> The Shutter on the Nikon S2 froze. Color film, still cannot quite figure out what happened. Like the shutter capped, then bounced. Whatever it did- the resulting image suited my mood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may have suited your mood, but the viewer is the arbitrar of what constitutes a great image.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


I had enough compliments on it when posted years ago. I'm happy with it, as were others.

Whether you in particular like it- no concern of mine.


----------



## rexbobcat

skieur said:
			
		

> Your response is idiotic.  I have more background in art than you do.
> 
> skieur



That's like saying you have more background in being Christian. 

It really, REALLY means absolutely nothing, especially on the Internet, where my d***k is 14 inches long.

And as the old adage goes; those who can't do...teach. And there are some very lousy teachers out there.


----------



## skieur

unpopular said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> I swear to god skieur. the amount you DON'T understand about art is pretty amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your response is idiotic.  I have more background in art than you do.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *I can 100% guarantee that you don't.* There's no way to prove it, because you'll just lie about your credentials like you ALWAYS DO. Unfortunately for you, though, nobody believes you, either that or Canadians have an exceedingly low expectation of professional photography and the fine arts, and I doubt very much that is the case since I know a few canadians who are _real_ professional photographers and _real_ professional artists myself.
> 
> So maybe we should just let some of your "professional quality" work speak for itself. While you haven't posted a single image in the last two years, those you had posted aren't exactly what one would expect from someone Knighted by the Queen for his photographic excellence!
> 
> bleh. You're not who you say you are. You're not the rockstar photographer, living in some lakeside mansion like the Hugh Hefner of photographers. It's BS. My guess, you live with your mom, or in a retirement home. You probably go from forum to forum pretending to be some kind of expert in everything. Admit that you're a friggin charlatan, for god sakes!
> 
> Yeah. I'm having a bad night. And yeah, I'm taking it out on you. But for god sakes Skieur, you're not fooling* anyone* with your crap.
> 
> So go ahead and report me. I don't care. You fugging putz.
Click to expand...


I would call the above: rationalizing and putting a spin on your limitations, by dumping on the other guy. 
What a warped imagination, you have!

By the way, you did NOT mention that your own gallery has ZERO in it!!!

skieur


----------



## unpopular

kinda like that.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

^^^^^^^^^         not gonna ask if you'd hit it


----------



## George Griffeth

The second picture is amazing, it would make a beautiful print. Super artistic.


----------



## chuasam




----------



## Shinnen

Hi snakeguy,
            These are excellent examples of what you're trying to show. I like them all, but in particular the girl in the studio. The blown highlights seem to add a somewhat mystical quality to her.
        This is a good lesson for me to remember. Usually I'm so focused on clarity and composition that I immediately discard what doesn't fit those criteria.
       Thanks for the reminder.
....... john


----------

