Breaking the Photography Rules Part 6 - Shooting Out of Focus

Focus is pretty crucial to a decent photograph, so the suggestion to shoot out of focus might seem a bit odd. There are certain times, though, where it can be interesting to play around with and produce some nice results. Just stick the lens on manual focus and play around with the focus ring until you find a level of blur that's pleasing to you. I find it works best with night-scenes (produces coloured bokeh), flowers (look a bit impressionistic), but also some other scenes too (eg. snow falling on trees). The results are usually more art than photographs and whether you like it or not is subjective, but it can give a creative angle to an old view. Here's a few examples from my work.

Pont Alexandre III, Paris, France

Vieux Lyon, France

Snow falling in London

Tulips

 

Daffodils

Another way in which you can break the rules with focus (but not having everything out of focus), is by focusing on something that's not the usual subject of a picture. A good example of this is to focus on something other than the eyes in a portrait; this works especially well with dogs. I like to try this when photographing my own dog, Henry, as well as others; I particularly like macro shots of dogs' noses with the nose the only thing in focus, as their noses have such incredible detail.

Henry's nose

Red's Nose

See also:    Part 1 - Go Out in the Midday Sun
                Part 2 - Ignore the Thirds Rule of Composition
                Part 3 - Turn it Upside-Down!
                Part 4 - Shooting Landscapes in Portrait Orientation
                Part 5 - Playing with the Zoom

Breaking the Photography Rules Part 5 - Playing with the Zoom

A basic rule in photography is to get an image in focus and sharp (or at least the desired part of it), keeping the camera and lens static while the photo is being taken. Occasionally, though, I try to ignore this rule and experiment with moving the camera &/or lens while shooting. I wrote an earlier blog about panning, where you pan the camera in order to freeze a moving object (against a seemingly moving background). It's also fun to experiment with moving the zoom lens itself, but keeping the camera still, when photographing a static object; the results can be quite eye-popping!

Firstly you'll obviously need a zoom lens in order to do this. Exposure length needs to be long enough to be able to physically move the lens. The shots I took below (at night) were at 0.8 or 0.6 seconds respectively; if you're shooting during the day you'll need an ND filter to reduce the light and allow you to expose for longer. You'll need to focus on the subject first (using back-button focusing is helpful), then press the shutter and then move the lens - either in or out - quickly but smoothly (the smoother the better). It takes practise and the shots might look jerky or strange. Whether you like the result will be a matter of taste and the effect won't work with many subjects. These two images were my favourite ones of Rome's Colisseum, where I tried out this technique a couple of years ago.

I was using a wide-angle (10-22mm) lens on my old Canon 400D and shot at f/4, ISO 400. I did have to do a little cloning on the first image to remove an ugly light trail that just didn't look right in the shot - this is a hazard of the method. The Colisseum is an often-photographed building and photographs can sometimes look a bit dull, like the one below. I think the magnificent structure lends itself to being zoomed, given all those wonderful arches!

I haven't done much playing around with the zoom like this - but writing this has reminded me how much fun it can be, so it's something I'm going to set myself to do over the next week! I'll be on the look-out for scenes/buildings with which it might work.

Coming Soon - Breaking the Photography Rules Part 6 - Shoot Out of Focus

See also: Part 1 - Go Out in the Midday Sun
                Part 2 - Ignore the Thirds Rule of Composition
                Part 3 - Turn it Upside-Down!
                Part 4 - Shooting Landscapes in Portrait Orientation
                Part 6 - Shooting Out of Focus

Please visit my website - www.sophiecarrphotography.com

Breaking the Photography Rules Part 4 - Shooting Landscapes in Portrait Orientation (& Vice Versa)

Landscape orientation is called that for a reason; most photographs of landscapes are shot in the landscape format, as this is the best way to fit in a wide sweeping view of a landscape, usually with a swathe of sky above. Sometimes, though, shooting landscapes in portrait orientation (ie. vertically) works very well. It can be used to provide interesting layering where the landscape changes, where there's something interesting in the foregound, it can highlight unusual features and patterns, it can provide room for a feature such as a river to flow towards you and it can allow you to include more of the sky. Sometimes it can just help with better composition overall, where a landscape orientation just doesn't do it.

Here's a few of my own examples of where I think the portrait orientation really works:

 

Similarly, portrait orientation is called that for a reason too. Most photographs you see of people are taken in portrait mode, with the head showing as well as a small amount of the neck, chest and shoulders. Sometimes, though, I think that portraits of people (and dogs) look great in landscape orientation (ie. horizontal). It can give the person somewhere to look, it can show depth, it can accentuate the features (especially the eyes if you get in closer), it can include a bit of atmosphere in the background and it can work if a bit more of the body is shown. Here's a few examples:

 

 





See also: Part 1 - Go Out in the Midday Sun
                Part 2 - Ignore the Thirds Rule of Composition
                Part 3 - Turn it Upside-Down! 
                Part 5 - Playing with the Zoom
                Part 6 - Shooting Out of Focus

Breaking the Photography Rules Part 3 - Turn it Upside-Down!

I used to work in Canary Wharf and for about 15 months I'd walk the four miles from Parsons Green to Westminster, before getting on a tube to complete my journey. The walk was mainly along the river (Thames), which I got to know and love, seeing it throughout the seasons, before sunrise and in bright sunshine as the year progressed. It was an unusually dry year, which meant that I often had my camera out (sadly only usually a point-and-shoot - if only I'd had my DSLR with me on a few more occasions...). I saw beautiful pink skies, dense fog, fantastic clouds and a few of the same people at the same spot each day. When I left the job I was sad to leave my daily river walks behind.

Anyway, one of my favourite things along the walk was seeing Battersea Power Station, standing proud (if a little shakily) on the opposite bank of the river, between the Victoria Rail Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge. I've always loved the building, since first seeing it on Pink Floyd's Animals album (accompanied by a pink flying pig). Walking along the river you get lots of different views of it - just the towers emerging behind Albert Bridge, then the whole body comes into view, and then once past the Victoria Rail Bridge it is there in its full glory. At one point it is directly opposite, squared on, with the four towers stacked symmetrically in front of you. And then it's back to the side view, with the morning sun lighting up the towers and the rather ugly new-build behind.

Occasionally the water is completely still and mirror-like. During my 15 months it only happened on a handful of occasions, but when it did - and when the river taxi or police patrol boat hadn't just gone past - the structure was almost perfectly reflected. The magnificent building was visible twice - once upright, and once upside-down in the water! First of all I used to capture the whole scene - Battersea Power Station plus reflection, but then it struck me - if I photographed just the reflection and turned the camera (or photo) upside-down I could get a very cool, kind of impressionistic version of the building. It happened so rarely that I only managed to photograph it a couple of times during that time, but I'm very glad I had my camera with me. If there was a little wave it added to the impressionist look. One occasion I remember vividly was taking the walk on my first day back after a holiday (often a depressing time), but the day was stunning and the reflections were beautifully clear.

Since those days a few years back I've looked for similar opportunities with other buildings or landscapes reflected in mirror-like water; I've seen a few, but none matches the Battersea Power Station reflection for me.

 
There probably isn't a photography rule saying "don't turn your camera (or photo) upside-down" but I don't think I've ever seen it suggested in a photography magazine or book. So, my advice is have a go - zoom in on the reflection and move yourself or your camera to look at it from a different perspective and the results might be quite interesting! And also look over some old photos with reflections - if they're portrait orientation and the reflection fills the bottom half, try rotating the photo 180° and cropping the reflection to see how it looks.

See also: Part 1 - Go Out in the Midday Sun
                Part 2 - Ignore the Thirds Rule of Composition
                Part 4 - Shooting Landscapes in Portrait Orientation 
                Part 5 - Playing with the Zoom  
                Part 6 - Shooting Out of Focus

Breaking the Photography Rules Part 2: Ignore the Thirds Rule of Composition

Another rule in photography that I like to break from time to time is the thirds one. Read anything about composition in photography and you'll soon come across this rule - if you (mentally) super-impose a grid of horizontal and vertical lines, splitting the photo into thirds, then the points of interest should be where those lines cross or along those lines; this tends to be the most pleasing to the eye. The horizon in a landscape photograph should roughly coincide with one of the two horizontal lines (generally the top one if the landscape is more interesting and the bottom one if the sky is more interesting). Here's an example where the points of interest are on the intersections of the lines (it's a self-portrait of me in Iceland):

This works in most areas of photography, not just in landscapes. Here's another example using a photo of a friend's son, who is placed slightly to the right of the shot:

Usually I follow this rule and now it's not generally something I consciously consider when composing a shot. I like to break the rules from time to time, though, ignoring the lines and intersections, placing the horizon in the middle of the shot, or right at the top, or with the subject bang in the middle, and so on. Considering a few other photography tips can help to make up for the alternative subject placement, eg. leading lines, interesting depth of field, etc.. Obviously it's not going to work in some cases - the rules are there for a reason!

Here's a few of my images where I've broken the thirds rule, and why I think that they still work, compositionally.

This is the Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia's Altiplano. The horizon is much higher than the top third line, and there's nothing distinctive along the third lines or intersections. Ignoring the third rule can work well with repeated patterns and if there's strong perspective that leads you into the shot:

Here's another example of patterns, where the thirds rule is less important. This can work for many close-up or macro shots, where the detail is what catches the eye. This is part of my cowrie shell collection:

Sometimes including more sky can add atmosphere to an image, although this can be quite subjective. This is a shot of icebergs on Jökulsárlón Beach in South-East Iceland. Although there's a huge amount of sky and the horizon is right across the middle, the detail is still around the lower horizontal line, so it's only half breaking the rules:

Reflections in water are a great example of where a horizon placed bang in the middle adds drama to the composition. Refections make striking images because of the symmetry around the middle. This shot was taken in Kulusuk in South-East Greenland:

Here's another symmetrical reflection shot, taken along the canals near Bruges in Belgium (on a point-and-shoot camera) - there is nothing distinctive along the thirds lines or intersections, but it still makes a dramatic shot, with the eye drawn towards the centre point (it does have leading lines and diagonals, which are also suggested in composition for a successful shot):

A portrait can work well if the subject is placed right in the centre of the shot and is looking directly up at the camera, with the rest of the body out of focus (with a shallow depth of field). This is a picture of a friend's dog, who barely touches the thirds lines:

Another reason to break the horizon rule is if you are shooting for a book or magazine cover, where some room is needed for a title across the top. A horizon level between the top third and half way line usually provides enough room. While it might not make a great photo on its own, with the text overlaid it could be the perfect composition for a magazine cover. (Tip: it's worth shooting a variety of shots of the same scene - with normal composition (using the thirds rule), leaving some room for text, trying different orientations, etc..)

See also Breaking the Rules Part 1 - Go Out in the Midday Sun
                                              Part 3 - Turn it Upside-Down! 
                                              Part 4 - Shooting Landscapes in Portrait Orientation 
                                              Part 5 - Playing with the Zoom
                                              Part 6 - Shooting Out of Focus