Breaking the rules, which one?
June 16, 2016
•
2 Comments
You probably heard the saying "rules are meant to be broken". The question is which one or two do you break? Can you break all the rules? And who defined the rules? I would like to look at it from another angle, you follow the intention behind the rules. Why are they there in the first place? I supposed when one sees a great piece of work, the admirer tends to "analyse" or study why the image or painting is so great and a conclusion is drawn. Based on the collection of these conclusions or critiques, some "rules" are formed, as these rules weren't there, to begin with when the artists created their work. Then came along someone else introduced another perspective which does not follow the predecessors, thus the rules are broken. Having said that, there is still some fundamental structure that holds things together. These images were taken using my film camera Canon AE-1, it does not have the capability to spot metering. That means when I took the pictures, I have to ignore the light meter reading from the camera and took a risk of an educated guess to set the exposure. Yes, I did not follow the "rules" given by the camera light meter, technically breaking the rules.
Any thoughts?
Keywords:
Canon AE-1,
Melbourne,
Melbourne city,
Metro stations,
film photography,
street photography
Comments
Jackson(non-registered)
Interesting way of putting it Ben. I like photos taken at train stations especially when they are composed well. I see this was taken at night.
What shutter speeds were you using? I quite like the effect between the dark and the light from the platform. Ps. testing out your comment section :) Jack.
No comments posted.
Loading...
|