We’ve written before about rule breaking in photography, and how
that’s generally a good thing as long as the viewer knows it’s intentional. I was looking at a few photographs recently where there were obvious things that I thought were wrong, but I wasn’t quite sure if it photographer meant it.
It got me thinking if it’s harder to work out the intention with toy
photography than with other genres.
Toy photography is what I’d call a “starter” genre. Give a child a
camera and there’s a high likelihood that they’ll take some bad photos of toys. Adults new to cameras are probably more likely to take bad travel photos or family portraits, because that’s a popular grown-up excuse to buy a fancy camera.
Given the skew towards younger photographers when it comes to toy photography, does this change the balance of good vs. bad photos? (I’m making a generalisation here that younger, and less experienced photographers take worse photos than older, more experienced photographers, which is not always the case).
If the balance is skewed towards bad photos then we have to be a bit careful when breaking the photographic rules. If our viewers are used to seeing bad toy photographs, the probability is that they will assume our carefully orchestrated compositional anarchy may just be “another bad toy photograph”!
I’m not sure if my assumptions are true, it probably needs some scientific method applied to a bunch of photographs from different genres. Still, I thought it was an interesting question.
To end on a solution rather than an open ended question, I replied to
Kristina’s post with my thoughts: know the popular rules, only break
one at a time, and try to make the rest of the elements in your photos as good as you can.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.