Rules

The idea of rules in any visual art form suggests a paradox. Rules facilitate precision, which is a trait exclusive to science; it is so often imprecision, imbalance and imperfection that make art what it ultimately needs to be - unique.

Why, then, are there so many rules taught to aspiring photographers? The rule of thirds. Lighting ratios. Catch-light and hair-light rules. One could argue that theoretically, if every rule were followed to a T, every photography would eventually look the same.

It seems obvious enough that these rules are more like guidelines, frequently referencing common theories of geometric aesthetics and visual psycho-suggestion. In that case, how should a photographer know when to follow them, and when to break them?

The answer is not as convoluted as one might anticipate. Before we attempt to discover it, let us examine some of the more common ‘rules’ known to photographers.

The rule of thirds

The rule of thirds is based on the theory that the eyes are the centre of attention in any portrait, and composition is most pleasing when the space on one side of the eyes is twice the space on the other side. In simple terms, if you draw an even ‘tic-tac-toe’ pattern on the frame, dividing it into nine equal parts, the eyes should be intersected by one of the horizontal lines, and ideally, the nose (or centre of the face) should be intersected by one of the vertical lines.

The idea works quite well, and, if ever a photographer were to be stumped finding a frame, the rule of thirds would be the obvious fallback choice. The rule fails when the photographer wants to portray a message contradicting the parameters of the rule; for example, when the portrait focuses on the subject’s lips or another part of their face, or when the portrait needs to feel obscure or imbalanced.

Dealing with multiple subjects, the rule of thirds can be even more precarious. With two subjects side by side, should both sets of eyes be positioned precisely on the two upper thirds, forming a rather boring straight line of four eyes along the top of the frame? Perhaps, perhaps not. Depending on the style of the portrait, it may be more appropriate, for example, to position one subject’s eyes level with the top of the other’s head. Even in this case, it could still be framed to be thirds-compliant.

The catch light rule

Many veteran photographers insist that portraits must have a well-defined catch-light. A catch-light is the “spark in the eyes” caused by the bright white reflection of the main light source.

When lighting a subject from the front or side with a soft-box or umbrella, catch lights are fairly natural and unavoidable - no worries. There are, however, many lighting techniques where catch lights are not so clear-cut. Some examples are soft window light (or oversized softboxes), and low-key backlighting. Some softboxes, such as those used to light wedding gowns, can be so large that their catchlights equal the size of the subject's iris (coloured part of the eye).

Common sense suggests using the effect the technique has on the image as a factor in determining its importance. Typically, that effect is energizing and livening up the subject. As with the previous example of the thirds rule, whilst it is usually desirable to achieve such an effect with a portrait, every once in a while, it isn't.

The modern age of digital cameras and Photoshop allow us to cheat a lot with this rule. We can digitally enhance or create keylights, just as we can reduce or eliminate them, depending on the creative needs of our work.

Hair lighting

This one is more of a common practice than a commonly taught rule. It is also commonly confused with backlighting. Hair lighting is typically done using a honeycomb grid from above and behind the subject, and serves the singular purpose of enhancing the appearance of a subject's hair. Back lighting, on the other hand, is simply any light source behind the subject, and typically highlights edges, such as the edge of a face in a profile.

Hair lighting is something most commercial portrait photographers will not do without. Like backlighting, it performs the important function of separating the subject from the background, and adds vibrance to the subject's hair. In the majority of cases, it is always a good idea to use it, although once again, it's far from essential.

The reality is most portraits are targeted to salability. After all, we need to make money, right? Our subjects want to look good in their portraits, and any form of flattery goes a long way. There are, however, plenty of clients who are equally interested in the artistic merit of their portraits as they are in their own vanity, and they are not too hard to pick. Therefore, it pays to consider their taste and weigh visual flattery against visual communication.

Learn them, break them.

Many of my art-school-grad friends tell me the first thing they're taught in their courses is that first you learn the rules, and next you break them. Superficially this is just something witty lecturers say to justify their shaky, nonconformist lifestyles. There is also plenty of truth in it. In more rational (and less witty) terms, it means first they want you to understand what you're doing, creatively and technically. Learn all the tricks and techniques, and then, once you can follow a text book, the next step is learning when and when not to apply those techniques.

There's nothing more boring than a three-point, perfectly lit rigid photo that looks like every school photo we ever sat through as kids. But equally unattractive is a pointlessly overexposed, 45-degree monstrosity with no consideration paid to composition or posing. It's the right balance of technical and creative photography that ultimately gives the best results.