When is breaking the rules a good thing? Some rules, I love. Rules help us all drive on the correct side of the road. It doesn’t matter whether the country you live in requires you drive on the left or the right. As long as we all conform, it works out well. But, in photography, following the rules leads to a different kind of conformity. If there is too much order, everyone’s images start to look the same. When it comes to artistic creativity, playing it safe leads to mediocrity.

Don’t get me wrong. There are times in photography when it makes sense to follow the rules. For example, when you’re just starting out and don’t know what else to do. Even if you are an experienced photographer there will be days when you fall back on compositional rules because you can’t think of what else to do.

Rules can be especially helpful for those beginning in nude photography. It is difficult enough to tackle figure photography, let along without some structure for composition. In my other writings, I explain plenty of rules aimed at helping novices with composition and armatures such as the rule of thirds, the golden mean, diagonals, and so on.

Safety is the Enemy of Creativity

But rules often discourage experimentation. If you never stray outside of the lines, you will never know what other artistic creations are waiting to be invented. Experimentation, by its nature, leads to a mix of successes and failures. At some point you need to take of the training wheels even if it means you are going to fall a few times.

Just about every time I see a rule printed somewhere, it is accompanied by a statement that the rule is “just a suggestion,” “rules were meant to be broken,” or something similar. Nobody intends for these photographic rules to be set in stone. However, photographers who fall into the habit of following the rules too rigidly can fail to make the transition into creative work.

If you’re afraid to be wrong, you’ll never take the risks that are involved with being creative.

So why are so many photographers afraid to ever be wrong? Aside from a general social discouragement from experimentation, photographers are burdened by a particular habit of performance through rote.

Photography is based in math and science. In these disciplines there is only one right answer to any particular problem. When it comes to exposure, many people will tell you there is only one correct value for any given scene. This is not strictly true, as even in exposure there is some room for creativity. However, photographers often fall into the trap of thinking there’s only one best answer to every photographic decision. This is why compositional rules are so popular. They attempt to simplify for us what is right and what is wrong.

Beware especially of rules that are meant for portraiture. In portraiture, the goal is to flatter a subject who is typically not a model but rather the client. These rules are helpful to the portrait studio whose task it is to generate results with a certain level of predictability. When photographing models, on the other hand, your collaborator generally does not need help in hiding flaws in her appearance.

Experimentation should be the rule. If you’re following a rule of composition, you’re probably not pushing your creativity.

Photographic rules will never teach you how to express your personal point of view. All rules do is help you conform to preconceived notion of what your photographs look like. My suggestion is that you take risks – big risks. You should suffer large failures, dust yourself off, and try again. When you do create something outstanding, it will have been worth it.

I recently asked a number of my colleagues to choose one of my images as a stand out. They chose the photo above, despite the fact that it violates the following rules:

• The subject is centered, violating compositional armatures such as the rule of thirds and the golden mean.
• The legs are cropped close to the knees, whereas they are “supposed” to be cropped at mid-thigh or mid calf.
• Shoulders are nearly straight-on (some advocate 45-degrees as the “correct” angle to the camera.)
• Flat lighting: The image lacks directional contrast that is preferred in most figure work.
• Nose breaks the cheek line: A head turned sideways but not in complete profile is often considered unflattering
• Backs of hands: Many photographers caution that the backs of women’s hands can be unsightly. They do recommend an open, sideways hand.
• Orientation: A standing figure is normally photographed in portrait orientation, not landscape.

Depth and illusion are two of the larger considerations in photographic composition. Photographs are two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional ideas. Our eyes are stereoscopic, giving us the perception of
depth in our three-dimensional world. Photography is monocular vision that produces a two-dimensional
image. You need to rely on shadow and perspective to create the illusion of depth.

The illusion of a 3D world in a 2D photo

Visual effects create a connection between the elements of composition and our understanding of what is happening in the image. Although a photograph is two-dimensional and static, it can convey meaning that translates to height, width, depth, and time. In other words, a two-dimensional image conveys four dimensions of information through visual effects.

The space of a visual presentation is defined by the furthest and the closest points that we can see in that scene.
A photograph against a plain background can be confined to the model herself. Compare that to a vast landscape where we can see elements that are very close, as well as the horizon. An interior environment can define the space of an image by showing the floor, walls, and ceiling. Where you fit your subject into that three-dimensional space is a crucial element of composition. A subject close to the camera will typically appear larger.

The angle of the body and reflections give us clues to the 3D space

A balanced composition has masses that are distributed across the image. Most nude compositions are simple, having just one mass. (Visual mass is the magnitude to which a form or shape attracts the viewer’s eye.) The relative sizes and placement of various masses within a composition are what
determine if it is balanced.

Imagine your image as being balanced on a pivot point, like a seesaw, and ask yourself which side is
heavier. If both sides are equally weighted, you have balance. An image does not need to be symmetrical to be balanced, nor do the elements need to be spaced equally from the center. A sense of balance is somewhat will vary from person to person. But, it is not difficult to reach consensus on the balance of most compositions.

Three Kinds of Balance Summarized

• Formal balance: Symmetrical photographs work best when the balance of the symmetry of the subject itself is the strongest, most interesting factor about it. (See image #1)
• Informal balance: The most common kind of balance; the composition is balanced between left and right halves by elements of equal visual weight.
• Radical balance: The line of equilibrium is far from the center. (Image #2)

1. Being close to symmetrical is an easy way to make an image balanced.

2. Balanced images can still have a sense of tension.

The use of lines is an effective in adding structure to an image. Lines appear between areas of light and dark, especially at the edge of the subject seen against the background and in the limbs. Lines can be definite, such as the edge of the body, or implicit, such as the imaginary line between two distinct points of interest.

There are many kinds of lines, and keeping them straight can be a task. But once you learn to recognize them, they become another tool for building composition.

Here are a few kinds of lines

• Diagonal and Oblique
• Leading Lines (a.k.a. Lines of Force)
• Irregular Lines (interconnected segments of various line types)
• Parallel vs. Perpendicular
• Curved vs. Straight
• Horizontal and Vertical

Lines within a visual presentation form relationships with one another. When formed by arms and legs, lines can be parallel or perpendicular. Lines form relationships with the picture frame (the edges of the photograph). They can be horizontal, vertical, or diagonal.

The edge of the body, ribbon, and contours of the muscle are all lines.

To most people, diagonal and oblique mean the same thing. For compositional purposes, though,  diagonal can mean a line that runs between opposite corners of a shape (such as the image frame). Oblique can describe a line that intersects the middle of another line, instead of the corner of a shape.

Oblique lines draw the eye more than horizontal or diagonal lines. This is because lines that are parallel to the picture frame are more static that those that slope against it. The image below contains several oblique lines.

Oblique Lines

More about lines

The use of lines is an effective way to add structure to an image. Lines are apparent in the distinction between light and dark, especially at the edge of the subject seen against the background and in the limbs.

Strong lines are powerful compositional elements that suggest to the viewer where they will look. A dominant line that draws our eye, such as a distinct horizon or roadway, is at times called a line of force, guiding line, or leading line.

In the image below, the lines of perspective converge on the model. Notice how the lines align with the lines of the body. The lower edge of the back railing lines up with the model’s arm and the upper edge lines up with her elbow. The edges of the slab on which she is lying line up with the interior lines of her figure.

More about lines

If you’ve read Internet forums about composition, you’ve undoubtedly seen advice “not to cut off the model’s arms or legs,” or “if you crop a limb, do it between the joints.” You’ve probably also seen in major magazines stunning examples of photos that blatantly violate these so-called rules. And you probably have stumbled upon at least one discussion that asks why these rules exist if so many successful photos obviously disobey them. If you look to works of master artists such as Michelangelo or Degas you will see they sometimes framed their figures with limbs, hands, or feet cut off. Did the master artists goof? No, they just knew how to break the rules and make a successful composition. When done properly, it can make the composition more distinct and interesting.

The reason these rules exist is that they provide a structured framework for creating well-balanced images. If you’ve read my other posts pertaining to “rules of composition,” you know I’m not a fan of static, safe images. Read more

Here is my list of priorities in building a nude image. These are specific to me and vary widely based on individual photographers. However, there are many photographers with a similar background to mine that follow this general hierarchy of steps for building an image. I have a parent who is an artist, a sibling who is a university art professor, and I have an art degree where I studied more than just photography. I grew up overseas and have been to museums in dozens of countries. Since my exposure to art, from childhood through college has been mainly non-photographic art, it has influenced my thinking on building an image.

#1: Composition. Any image is perceived by viewers as an abstract composition first. Before you can process what an image is (context) you see how it is composed. We’re hard-wired to do this and it’s not just my opinion. Without a solid composition, the viewer’s attention will go elsewhere quickly. Quick test: convert your image to black and white and reduce it to about 200 pixels wide, if it’s a strong composition it will still look interesting.

#2. Context (mood): What is the image about? Context tells you what the mood of the image is, not necessarily a story (context is the what not the how). The mood is not always beauty. Sometimes an image can be intentionally jarring to communicate the context.

#3. Beauty. Context and content can feed into beauty, but do not have to. Beauty can be flattering to the subject in traditional ways, but is more about intriguing the viewer — sometimes with an unusual approach. Don’t underestimate the power of beauty; my mediocre shots of extremely beautiful models win more appreciation that the most meticulous shot of a just slightly beautiful model. Capitalize on the innate beauty of your subject; don’t try to put her in the role of something she’s not.

#4. Illustration. I’m not talking about pen and ink here, but story telling through images. This is not essential to a good nude photo, but most good nudes tell some sort of story. Not surprisingly, the story is often somewhat ambiguous and thus open to interpretation.

#5. Technical aspects. A favorite Ansel Adams quote goes “Nothing is worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.” I’m not saying that technique isn’t important. It is very important, but it comes after good form. A poorly executed image can be distracting and sabotage a good concept.

Just following the above doesn’t make an image successful. Nor am I recommending anyone could use this as a recipe for success. This is food for thought; an insight into my process.

If you’re a fan of nude photography, you’re probably familiar with the technical aspects: focus, light, depth of field, and so on. In the four years getting my art degree, technique was something infrequently discussed in the realm of painting and drawing, and was also a minority topic in photography. Never did we discuss in depth what kind of chisels Michelangelo used, or whether Edward Hopper preferred natural or synthetic brush bristles and how technique affected the way we interpreted their resulting artwork. After art school I found it refreshing to hear more discussion of technique. Many years have passed since my undergraduate degree, and outside of art school it seems that technique is the most discussed photography topic, and in some circles technique seems to be the only topic.

In this article I will discuss some of the other ways to look at photography, beyond aspects of technique. This article is about interpreting photography. Not just what technique was used to create the photograph, but the role that you as the viewer play in interpreting the image. Read more