[hoanpham]

Just strike in my mind - how often do we have to compose the image differently to please others?

If I sell the images, I compose them generally and please the client's eyes. Does it mean that photographers follow a mainstream by following composing rules that are generally accepted? How difficult is it for a photographer who wants to develop his/her own style by deviate from mainstream? Is it a kind of boring if we all end with the same? What make your image different from millions of others?

I appreciate if you can post the link of similar threads.

[philbaum]

Just strike in my mind - how often do we have to compose the image differently to please others?

If I sell the images, I compose them generally and please the client's eyes. Does it mean that photographers follow a mainstream by following composing rules that are generally accepted?....

Humans are generally social animals. The professional photographers, that i know, are all out there selling their products to some customer or others, e.g. wedding photos to the bridge and groom, graduation photos to parents, fine art photos to gallery customers or museum curators, wilderness photos to non profit organizations like Land Trust preservationists, , etc.

Amateurs are probably the most free to try out new ideas, in an odd way. Yet many amateurs enter contests at photo clubs, or juried shows, or are trying to please spouses or relatives or friends, etc.

I don't think too many of us worry about following composition rules slavishly, but we do work hard to produce images that are attractive to the customers and/or audience that are important to us individually. Does that cause images to all look the same - nope. The most attractive images are usually original or very creative or very well done.

Why do you ask?

[hoanpham]

Why do you ask?

Well, I m just moving deeper into landscape and abstract after a long time doing portraits and weddings. Composition is important to all kind of photography work, but I think it is more important to abstract or landscape. As experiments, I do try to compose differently from the majority acceptance.

I guess it is a combination of many areas where composition is one of them, like selecting subject, DOF, bokeh, techniques in general, that helps to tell a message - also 'what message'.

Most of the best posted images on the web are very well done, but few are creative. Given that someone can reproduce the 'well done' part, so how do you boost the creative part to make the image stand out?

[RioRico]

...how do you boost the creative part to make the image stand out?

How2 Boost Creativity: 1) LSD; 2) Zen meditation; 3) Plagiarism.
How2 Master Art: 4) Study; 5) Practice; 6) Practice; 7) Goto (4).

I'll suggest wandering through bookstores and libraries and torrent sites looking for books on drawing and painting landscapes. After studying every publication you can about landscape and abstract imagery, throw them out. Or is that too Zen?

OK then, think of incremental movement: Try to re-create an image you admire, but with variations. Or deconstruct some Kodak Moments, thinking about 1) what's in them and 2) what you can replace / augment / subvert. IE, build / comment upon existing work.

Or since you're familiar with portrait shooting, turn your landscape / abstract subjects into portraits. Bring out their personas. Conversely, shoot portrait sessions as if they were abstractions / landscapes. Bring out their thingness. Look for other areas to cross-fertilize.

Write a manifesto or three. Develop artistic-social-political-religious theories that rationalize your art. Use these theories to develop a signature style re: angles, exposures, tonality, subjects, meaning. If necessary, hire a ghost-writer.

[hoanpham]

4) Study; 5) Practice; 6) Practice; 7) Goto (4)...
... Look for other areas to cross-fertilize.

+1. I do study, but definitely need 5) and 6). Haven't try 1) 2) or 3) but also willing to give a shot when I m stuck :-)

[Ash]

Avoid (1) if you can - it'll make you think you've created good art when you really haven't.

But back to the original Q: it always begins at creating results in order to please clients, and then with reputation, clientele and skill/creativity you can later (sometimes much later) create results for yourself that attract clients to buy your work. A world of difference between the two and kind of like a spectrum of business achievement in one sense - certainly not the only way, though.

[TaoMaas]

The world didn't start with a set of compositional rules, then set out to create art that fit those rules. We started with NO rules. Then, we observed works of art which connected with the greatest number of people and developed a set of "rules" based upon common traits among those works. That's why so many pictures tend to look alike...they're sharing a set of guidelines. There's nothing that says there can't be a new aesthetic. Knock yourself out...try different things! Just be aware that it's a bit like trying to change the common perception of physical beauty in human faces. Not everyone is going to buy into your vision right away.

[RioRico]

Not everyone is going to buy into your vision right away.

I'm reminded of: "Art consists of making something out of nothing, AND SELLING IT." --F.Zappa

I'm also reminded of a study from some years back, looking at what people like in paintings. What is liked: Distant mountains, blue sky with clouds, forests, a flowing river, recognizable people, animals. So of course some smartasses churned out a number of sardonic pictures containing just those elements (in bizarre contexts) and nothing more -- the deconstruction of art. And they sold!

So, if commercial viability is desired, stick to formulae. If artistic reputation is desired, deconstruct the formulae. If creativity is desired, twist everything a bit. Audiences may not be ready for too much creativity. That's why formulaic entertainments make money, and avant-garde works get flushed.