Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
did you know you can use developed but unexposed slide film to filter infrared ? Im waiting to get some out of date slide film back from the lab to try.
No actually I'm out of order. I shouldn't have said what I did. Simon; I'm sorry.
I am wrong, in suggesting that Simon in any way lacks talent, simply because of my limited view of his work. That's very rude and arrogant of me to question and dismiss his opinions merely because of my own ideas about photography. It is a wonderful and fascinatingly diverse art-form, and I am wrong in trying to discredit his opinions simply because the differ to my own. In that regard, I am in fact a hypocrite.
I am however passionate about photography, and can really relate to the excitement that B+W developing and printing can create in those who find it interesting. I must, by the same token, accept and understand that others may not share this same excitement. All forms of photographic practice and process are surely equally valid and important.
I apologise for causing unnecessary conflict here, and for upsetting anyone. My comments about the STW Photography Award are well out of line, and I had no right to make them. I concede that they are extremely disrespectful to STW, those who voted, and especially to those who have won it. Indeed, in this context, they have proved themselves to have contributed something I haven't.
I shan't make any further comment on here, and apologise also to Hairychested for ruining his thread.
X
maybe somebody should post a pic of a sunset or perhaps a badly exposed muddy looking B&W landscape to get things back on track?
or maybe something really arty like a bit of a bike in colour but the background B&W, i really love those.
Fred, stop it, be yourself.
Simon, stop it, be yourself.
Somebody, please post a B&W photo here, mine aren't on the PC.
Not a sunset or landscape, I couldn't even get the ruddy bike in the picture. But it's a picture, and it's B&W but it's digital...
[url= http://simoncarter.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v16/p1002603700-3.jp g" target="_blank">http://simoncarter.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v16/p1002603700-3.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
😉
Here you go guys. Do your worst... 😈
Complete cheat in the context because it a wholly digital image, taken on a Ricoh GX100 and processed in Photoshop CS3 with SilverEfex Pro.
However, let's pretend it was taken on 50ASA B&W film with a red filter. Comments/criticism welcome.
[url= http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4106/5051216035_a77216b00f_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuartie_c/5051216035/ ]277/365[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stuartie_c/ ]stuartie_c[/url], on Flickr
The gate & vegetation in the bottom right piss me off but I can't get a better crop without removing important detail.
My scanner is a bit crap, makes things really grainy and contrasty.
[img] 
[/img]
I've got better pics with this camera/lens than the 7D and Tamron lens I use for work 😆 Think this 50mm lens is way better than the Tamron.
well, you're stood on the wrong side of the sign for starters 🙂
The view on the "right" side is just trees Steve.
I could flip it horizontally but I prefer it the "wrong" way round.
Mr Barnes, what on Earth are you trying to achieve? Ruin my post or get upset?
does one have to have a goal when posting ? I don't think anyone is upset or anything ruined. I thought it interesting that people should elevate nostalgia to an aim in itself, and to that extent it seems to me they're stepping aside from pragmatic photography into a mystical backwater. The fact that this evokes personal invective suggests they have no cogent counterargument 🙁
Although elfin emailed me personally, I think his "apology" is so over the top it may not be entirely sincere - but I don't think any apology is necessary - if you can't take criticism, you shouldn't hand it out.
I think Fred was a bit upset...
I actually agree with you Barnes but you are being, as always, a right tool on these photography threads.
but you are being, as always, a right tool on these photography threads.
so the retrograde lovein should have been left undisturbed ? Well, I almost agree, but finally I think they strayed too far into and had to be taken to task 🙂
Good to see people on here are still into mono.
I did a few years night school doing photography,then my HNC in the subject & I prefer mono to colour,it's all subjective though.
What I got to love was printing,I had no experience of printing until I went to college and it was a revelation for me to see what a proper hand print looks like.I got right into fibre based printing & lith printing.
Reading through the posts it seems a few other people are into the printing side of photography,thing is I never really got into colour printing even though I had to do it as part of the course.
Sadly these days I just shoot in digital & convert in PS,I still think in mono.
I also shoot slide film,love the look of velvia on a lightbox..
Where are you all getting your prints done?
Well, I almost agree, but finally I think they strayed too far into and had to be taken to task
Yeah ok, but a one-post dig is ok.. the incessent needling is a bit much.. gets on people's tits.
I walked through Dublin this afternoon. Ugly, pretentious little town trying a bit too hard to be a city. Nothing eyecatching save some stunning legs, bottoms and upstairs, nowt really. Until I noticed a few old townhouses that were dirty and neglected. Perfection! Eureka! B&W photo material. Only... WTF was my Olympus?!
My main gripe with digital photography is this: without any proper lessons or training all the digi photos I've taken were sharp from nil to eternity. They always look like postcards, picturesque, pretty, nice, boring. No soul.
I suppose it's like bikes - whatever you like.
.. the incessent needling is a bit much.. gets on people's tits.
oh, so I'm supposed to accept personal slights without comment ?
My main gripe with digital photography is this: without any proper lessons or training all the digi photos I've taken were sharp from nil to eternity. They always look like postcards, picturesque, pretty, nice, boring. No soul.
that has nothing to do with their digitalness, and what you get out depends on what you put in. Both digital and chemical photography have no inherent soul, they're just physical processes, meaning is added by the photographer.
Hairy:
[img] http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc94/Dl4All/album5/PhotoshopElements-7-Dummies-2009.jp g" target="_blank">http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc94/Dl4All/album5/PhotoshopElements-7-Dummies-2009.jp g"/> &t=1[/img]
Thanks, it weirdly doesn't appeal to me. I reckon digital photography is the future as it's so convenient and quick but I prefer writing letters to emails when it comes to important stuff.
. I reckon digital photography is the future as it's so convenient and quick but I prefer writing letters to emails when it comes to important stuff.
the Luddite message revisited. Shouldn't you be carving your messages/images into a rock for real impact ?
answers on a postcard/carrier pigeon please...
Hairy's latest picture:
[img] 
[/img]
molgrips, how the hell did you manage to get hold of my latest? There is a leak in the cave somewhere 😀
I was chasing my dog around central France and it fell into a hole, so I followed it.
Darn canine!
My Nan had a B&W pic of herself with her stockings down!
If we cannot get on here, I am going to post it, you have been warned!
😉
Loads of such at the Museum of Pornography in Amsterdam (it was a school trip, honest!).
I accidentally took a nearly B and W photo 🙁
[url= http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2010/23oct/DSC_0427.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.bogtrotters.org/rides/2010/23oct/DSC_0427.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
My main gripe with digital photography is this: without any proper lessons or training all the digi photos I've taken were sharp from nil to eternity.
Not sure I follow? Isn't that is more down to the lens and aperture, rather than the medium?
On a full-frame DSLR you will get just as shallow a depth of field as you would on a film SLR.
And DoF on an APS-C it isn't [i]that[/I] much different.
Hairychested's complain seems to be that digital photography makes it too easy to take acceptable (but apparently "soulless") photos without any training. In my book it's good thing if people can take sharp, well exposed pictures without delving into photography, and if one wants more it also provides an easy means of experimentation to improve one's results and possibly exercise creativity if one has the ability 🙂
And riding down a hill with 10" of travel at both ends is better than on a hardtail or a short-travel bike, right? Off to McDonalds, why bother with cooking proper meals when you can stuff yourself fully more easily?
And riding down a hill with 10" of travel at both ends is better than on a hardtail or a short-travel bike, right?
ah, right, an extremely revealing analogy, as my choice of bike is exactly the latter, because I'm willing to accept more difficult (and fun) downhilling for the easier climbing my hardtail affords, but the difference is that riding is done for itself, whereas I see photography as a means to the end of making pictures!
My main gripe with digital photography is this: without any proper lessons or training all the digi photos I've taken were sharp from nil to eternity. They always look like postcards, picturesque, pretty, nice, boring. No soul.
How does the use of a digital camera make it easier to take 'good' photographs. Or are these a different beast to pictures with 'soul'?
Surely it only makes it easier, cheaper and faster to practice.
Have a look at Ansel Adams, founder of Group f64 (the name being the clue). Whose works were essentially created in the darkroom, the Photoshop of the last century, not the camera.
Or is soul only imbued when a film is pushed to it's breaking point to focus attention on the grain?
Whose works were essentially created in the darkroom, the Photoshop of the last century, not the camera.
quite, which is why the "I aim to do everything in the camera" schtick is so fatuous. Apart from anything else, no camera I've ever come across has a format of the same shape as 4x5, 8x10 paper etc, so cropping is inherent to film use, as well as dodging/burning and paper grade selection or even mask overlays for contrast control...
Picked this little gem up on ebay for a tenner, works very well and is great to use - the mag is also a good read for all things B&W.
And riding down a hill with 10" of travel at both ends is better than on a hardtail or a short-travel bike, right?
Reasonable analogy. Both are brilliant, but die-hard nostalgics are likely to rubbish one for the other for no real reason other than romanticism and/or the rejection of things new.
Off to McDonalds, why bother with cooking proper meals when you can stuff yourself fully more easily?
Bad analogy. McDonalds is manifestly inferior to proper cooking for loads of clearly measurable reasons. That's not the case with digital vs film.
And riding down a hill with 10" of travel at both ends is better than on a hardtail or a short-travel bike, right? Off to McDonalds, why bother with cooking proper meals when you can stuff yourself fully more easily?
I don't get this at all. Are you saying that a great photograph is worth less if it was easy to take?
Are you actually objecting to digital, it sounds more like its modern photography aids that you dislike (auto-exposure, auto-focus, light meter)?
If I switch these features off will my photos have more soul?
no camera I've ever come across has a format of the same shape as 4x5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_format
personally I have digital as well as film cameras
I tend to take both with me places
I see them as having different purposes, digital for snaps, film for hobby
I develop my own films and prints, or get the digital pics printed
I don't use photoshop (I spend too much time in fromt of a PC as it is), I don't dodge and burn (lack of practice)
I enjoy using both badly, I don't see the issue. The only people who get uptight about either format are taking themselves too seriously 😉
I've joined this kinda late so haven't read all posts but as photography is my job i'll throw in my thoughts.
As a commercial photographer for the last 15 years I learnt on film and have progressed to digital. There was a time that clients wouldn't entertain the prospect of their work being produced digitally. However as the tech developed over the years the quality cannot be disputed. Using something like a Phase one digital back on a 4x5 camera you can rival what you would achieve on 4x5 film.
I'm not saying it is equal, there is a resolution and quality about film that raw digital doesn't have but thats where Photoshop comes in. Commercially speaking digital wins hands down. Fast turn around for the client, quick approval process etc.
The problem lies in the photographer. Shooting digital can make you lazy in some respects. But it will never make a bad photographer look good. Shooting digitally demands the same level of skill as film. If you don't understand photography and lighting, photoshop can only go so far in covering your mistakes.
On a personal note I still shoot film as well as digital when I am doing my own little projects. It depends on what I want to achieve. And there is something really special about using large format in the field.
I do get a bit fed up with people who snub digital photography and the digital process (Photoshop). I find it ignorant. I am all for getting everything right in camera but the wet darkroom is still an important part of photography. The digital darkroom is just as important and it is a skill that has to be learnt like any other.
I think the most important part of photography is that, what ever form you choose it is there to be enjoyed.
Actually medium and large format is one area where film still rules the roost.
Making a 4"x5" digital sensor is a pretty tall order.
yes, at a price 🙂
For large format you would be looking at 5x7 and larger....just imagine the file size for an 8x10, never mind the size of the digital back required!!!
@ GrahamS a 4x5 sensor would be amazing! Not going to happen in the near future though.
Well so far as for medium format goes a Phase one P65 is a full format 645 sensor. We use them in the studio everyday and the quality really is something else. Looking at a scanned in 645 shot from a Mamiya and a shot from the Phase one I would be surprised if you could tell the difference.
But like I said a Phase one P65 on a 4x5 with a good lens will produce such a good image it rivals that of 4x5 film. Until the sensor is actually 4x5 film will be better.
I use an OM2 and can dictate the details of my photographs. My FinePix theoretically allows that too but there's so much faffing with switches and buttons it puts me off. I don't expect anybody else to agree with my viewpoint though.
I dislike easy ways, I like making my life harder, I like being asked to suffer by my choices. To me digital is too easy to achieve ok results, just like riding in Hyde Park on a 5. Too convenient for my liking.
For large format you would be looking at 5x7 and larger....just imagine the file size for an 8x10, never mind the size of the digital back required!!!
but the large format lenses don't match the pixel pitch of current sensors. so if you had a sensor that big it would out resolve the lens, you would be capturing diffraction.
and the file size would be too big for all but the fastest computers.
To me digital is too easy to achieve ok results
but isn't that an invitation to do better ? Yes, you might have to find out what those buttons and switches do, but the results might be worth it 🙂
Good point MrSmith...lenses are a restriction.
I found this on luminous-landscape which is interesting.......
Do sensors outresolve lenses? It depends on the lens you use, the properties of the light, the aperture and the format. Small format sensors may have surpassed the limit, this is, in most cases they are lens-limited in terms of resolution. It is easier to correct aberrations for a smaller light circle though, so you can approach diffraction-limited resolutions for lower f-numbers. The signal-to-noise ratio, however, imposes an inflexible limit to the effective resolution of the whole system, mostly due to photon shot noise.
Sensors for larger formats are approaching the diffraction limit of real lenses, and it is more difficult to get high levels of aberration suppression for them. The point is that you cannot fully exploit the resolution potential of high-resolution sensors with regular mass-produced lenses, particularly for larger formats.
You cannot compare the limits of two different photographic systems looking at a print because the variables that determine the subjective perception come into play. Different systems can provide comparable results on paper under certain conditions (the circle of confusion reasoning explains how that is possible), but the limit of a system must be evaluated considering the pixel as the minimum circle of confusion.
Good point MrSmith...lenses are a restriction.
in more ways than one, as the format gets bigger, either the lenses have to get bigger or the exposures longer...
I use an OM2 and can dictate the details of my photographs. My FinePix theoretically allows that too but there's so much faffing with switches and buttons it puts me off.
But my point is that the controls on digital cameras don't [I]have[/I] to be used y'know.
You [i]can[/I] choose to take pictures fully manual in exactly the same way as an OM2 if you want to.
You don't [i]have[/I] to make things easy for yourself.
You can even flog your bare back with nettle and thorns between shots if it is still to easy 😀
You don't have to make things easy for yourself.
1) buy a light meter
2) tape over the LCD
3) set camera to manual
4) post memory card to yourself to simulate developing delay
sorted.
in more ways than one, as the format gets bigger, either the lenses have to get bigger or the exposures longer...
?? the angle of view will change for a given focal length as the film format gets bigger (40mm being a 70° angle of view for 6x6/ 25mm for the same angle on 35mm)
or if you mean pysically bigger then physical size is irrelevant, a 150mm lens for a 5x4 is tiny.
either you don't know what you are trying to say or i don't understand what you are saying.
or if you mean pysically bigger then physical size is irrelevant, a 150mm lens for a 5x4 is tiny.
at the cost of a small aperture. The light passed by a lens depends on its relative aperture, so if you double the focal length, you have to double its diameter to maintain the same sensor illumination, which makes it 4 times heavier.
SFB, you're walking in circles. Besides, you're unable and unwilling to accept the fact that somebody has a different opinion.
SFB, you're walking in circles. Besides, you're unable and unwilling to accept the fact that somebody has a different opinion.
ya think? If we all thought the same there'd be no scope for argument. However, I can question your opinions and you can question mine
Shooting digital can make you lazy in some respects.
How so (honest question)?
And why is digitical photography easier than film? My old film SLR had the same P/A/S/M modes that I use on my DSLR. You could under or over expose in the exact same way, and get very similar results.
Digital is vastly more CONVENIENT and helps you learn to take photos very quickly, because you have instant review, but is it really easier? I don't think so.
My DSLR has more features (spot metering, action modes etc) than my SLR did but that's because it's 15 years down the line I suspect and my SLR was super bottom of the range.
at the cost of a small aperture. The light passed by a lens depends on its relative aperture, so if you double the focal length, you have to double its diameter to maintain the same sensor illumination, which makes it 4 times heavier.
well there are no 'fast' large format lens's (f4.5-5.6 being wide open)
it will not necessarily be 4x heavier, it depends on construction/elements, not having to allow for a mirror means the lenses are usually very simple 2-4 elements with no aspherics or anything fancy you get in 35mm lenses
well there are no 'fast' large format lens's (f4.5-5.6 being wide open)
hence "either heavier or longer exposures" 🙂
, not having to allow for a mirror means the lenses are usually very simple 2-4 elements with no aspherics or anything fancy you get in 35mm lenses
that sounds to me like not trying very hard to correct lens aberrations 🙁
that sounds to me like not trying very hard to correct lens aberrations
not a big problem because often any aberrations (fringing etc) aren't resolved. resolving power is lower as the film format is bigger so the line pair resolution isn't so critical.which is why pre digital 5x4 lenses look like mush on a digital back. large format lenses are very diffraction limited though something lens designers still haven't got sorted today.
resolving power is lower as the film format is bigger so the line pair resolution isn't so critical.which is why pre digital 5x4 lenses look like mush on a digital back.
isn't that what I said ? Effectively, the benefit of the larger format is partly wasted by poorer quality lenses, as better ones would be too expensive 🙁
I happily use both film and digital. Digital is much more convenient, and I use it for the vast majority of my photos, but I hugely value film too.
I bought an old Hasselblad for about £300 on eBay a couple of years ago, and several 35mm rangefinders for rather more. The Hasselblad gives me medium format quality - by which I mean the wonderful depth of field characteristics more than resolving power - at a price I can afford. And the rangefinders give me the equivalent of full frame digital quality at both a vastly lower price and a fraction of the size - I'd much rather carry my Minolta CLE around all day than a D3S, even if I could afford the latter.
On top of all that is the discipline film requires of me. Yes, of course I could tape over the light meter and set my D300 to manual, but I don't. I love the simplicity of my film cameras, and because I take more time over my photos, and I don't carry anough film with me to take hundreds of photos in a day, I slow down. This forces me to think, and think again, and work on my composition and lighting and exposure, and I take better photos as a result. This may not work for others, who may have the discipline to apply this approach with a digital camera, but I don't and it works for me. It's pretty hopeless for taking pictures of my kids running around, and the DSLR excels at that, but sometimes it's just what I want...
I prefer the instant feedback/tweakability of digital (raw etc) but I do think it makes things a bit easier as you can salvage shots which were underexposed, not white balanced etc. I also think it makes you a bit too snap-happy which makes you think less about the shot. I use my film camera less as I only want to be getting pictures that are actually any good developed.
Film slrs are usually smaller as well which makes them easy to carry around 🙂
Like many others above, I shoot film and digital, but treat them as almost entirely separate entities.
Anything I'm shooting for money (professionally) is done digitally; weddings, portraits, commercial work.... I shoot film for fun - all B&W and process and print at home.
I would absolutely love to shoot a whole wedding on B&W film using my F4s cameras - it would justify me having them (along with a big pile of FMs, FM2ns and F90s). The cost, time-wise would be large though, considering it generally takes me perhaps an hour to produce one fibre-based wet print. An album made from such prints would surely be a beautiful thing though.... Any takers?!
Also love IR film - still got a large stockpile of HIE in the freezer which I'm almost scared to use, given the price they seem to be fetching on ebay - £30 a film anyone!!
Would love to have a permanent darkroom setup - right now it's the spare room with trays and enlarger on the floor. Long sessions leave me with super-stiff knees for a few days 🙁
considering it generally takes me perhaps an hour to produce one fibre-based wet print
yeah, I used to be shocked at how unproductive I'd be 🙁
. This forces me to think, and think again, and work on my composition and lighting and exposure, and I take better photos as a result. This may not work for others, who may have the discipline to apply this approach with a digital camera
I think it depends a lot on your disposition. Usually I find that when I'm taking photos I'm so wrapped up in the subject that it's hard to spare any attention to mundane things like camera settings, and I'm given to think that even composition is an externality, not part of the scene, and I'll often shoot a bunch and then spend ages on the computer trying to decide which works better at leisure...
I agree, and perhaps as well as disposition it's down to the type of photography one does. I can absolutely see how if one is primarily interested in [i]content[/i] then it is the subject that matters above all else - that is certainly the case when I'm taking photos of my kids or other people. But I also like to take more abstract or minimalistic photos, and for these I find that things like composition, selective sharpness, and exposure matter far more to me than the subject - for recent examples of this see my pics on [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/modalshift/ ]Flickr[/url].
This is why I use different cameras for different types of photos - I can of course take snaps with my Leica and poncy shots with my Nikon - but I find it much easier to use them the other way around. As long as I am lucky enough to be able to indulge my hobby in this way I'll continue to do so.
Anyway, it's good to see this kind of debate - I'm now thinking of digging out an old paint tin as a pinhole camera and making up my own paper using [url= http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/liquid-emulsion/the-liquid-emulsion-process ]liquid light[/url] .... 🙂
This is a great thread, picked up an F4 in perfect condition the other week for a bargain price, it will get some B&W film through it soon.
The sheet film for the 4x5 cameras is waiting in the fridge...
that make a good thread - "What trailer for my camera?"
For those reading the thread and thinking about having a go at B&W its well worth having a go digital or film.
Here's my pitch for digital - most of the sky shots are taken from a moving car or train where only about one shot in 30 is usable, and otherwise it's proof that you can take pleasant photos without any creative input beyond deciding when to press the button 🙂
[url= http://9x1yqg.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pjIfaoPmd842D2KZ2DMQhn-h8dEw8xO7DDhoHbPC2lWiz0HERNOJij56INLoxoCGLQJhcRPUq1mdaXXIs9H1PhrpIIB2eJkJz/byway.jp g" target="_blank">
http://cid-d46042c38e27299d.photos.live.com/play.aspx/Cave%20walk%2024%20Oct%202010
Here's my pitch for digital
Sorry, but if I were trying to extol the virtues of the format, I'd come up with better sky shots than those. Perhaps 30 clicks weren't enough? Ironically, (aside the complete absence of any attempt at composition), it's the digital noise that ruins them...
Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!
Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!
Because: Simon.
Oh yeah, I just remembered having to select different kinds of film for different colour response depending on the subject matter. Hehe...
Barnes, where is that? Shot #13 has what looks like a brilliant bit of trail coming through the bracken about 2/3 of the way to the right.
in answer to the OP question.
Yep, my SLR is a Canon A1, and I only use a 50mm lens.
For fun shots, I just use my compact (leica)
Great selection of photos Simon, and several that conform to compositional guidlines (shock horror!). Nary a gnat's chuff of noise either and anyone that's looking at noise in those pics is missing the point.
Digital advocate here. I like the old stuff as collectables, but see no reason to use out-dated tech when better is available.
and several that conform to compositional guidlines
only by accident 🙂 I put considerable effort into forgetting that stuff when I'm snapping and post processing!
Barnes, where is that? Shot #13 has what looks like a brilliant bit of trail coming through the bracken about 2/3 of the way to the right.
yes, I thought that too. I think it's the BW from Lining Crag down Grasmere Common
Ironically, (aside the complete absence of any attempt at composition), it's the digital noise that ruins them...
yay! Composition free as intended! The set is just what I saw at the weekend, and Sunday happened to be one of the clearest days I've ever seen in The Lakes.
Why am I looking at colour digital photos on a thread about B&W film images?!
one of them did come out monochrome 🙂 Oh, and the OPs reasons for using film seem to be based on ignorance and prejudice rather than format advantages...
Film will let you do some specific things on a budget (wide angles, shallow dof) that you need serious digital kit to achieve. However I think the way forward is to shoot in colour, get good negative scans and go digital in Photoshop or similar, it gives you far more flexibility with filters etc. Yes the intangible magic doesn't happen, but it's easy to simulate.
I'll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablilities justify it.
Yes the intangible magic doesn't happen
possibly due to it being imaginary ?
several that conform to compositional guidlines (shock horror!)
It is perhaps a little bit telling simon that despite your determination to avoid "rules" about composition or exposure, your most successful pictures are those that abide by those rules, even if by accident.
I'll be plumping for a DSLR as soon as I think my ablilities justify it.
Then I'd say get one now and let your abilities grow into it. It won't make you a magically better photographer but it will help you to see what you are doing.
you're most successful pictures are those that abide by those rules, even if by accident.
well, if you don't mind me saying so, you [b]would[/b] say that as you'd reject the others automatically, making it self-fulfilling :o)
Beauty exists in the world without any concept of composition