Common photography mistakes

[cняis]

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/02/common-photographic-mistakes-by-beginners-amateurs-and-pros-and-how-to-avoid-them/ an interesting read I thought 

[DubFan]

Yeah, interesting read.
Some good points for beginners, amateurs and pros.


Cheers

[Ridg]

Interesting read, I'd say these are the most common on here;

The missing subject. If it’s not obvious at a glance what is the subject of your image – i.e. what the photo is actually about – then you should probably ask yourself why you took the picture in the first place. If the answer was ‘because of the X’, and the X is not obvious, then you need to try again. The subject in a photo should stand out – by contrast, by color, by light, by motion, or by focus. In exceptional cases it’s possible to make it stand out by not having it, but this is very, very rare and requires perfect use of contextual information to allow the viewer to make inferences about what should complete the scene.

Incorrect use of depth of field. Too little, and the picture becomes about the bokeh – most of the images shot with the old Leica 50/1.0 Noctilux are like this – I can never understand why people gush over a picture of a boring fence or pile of bricks just because it exhibits swirly bokeh; to me it says nothing more than ‘I rely on my gear to create a style for me because I have no imagination!’ It is, of course, a tool – used well, it can enhance an image. Used poorly, well, you’re just another camera collector who takes pictures of fences. Notice I haven’t said anything about too much depth of field – you can always compose to use this to your advantage, because any secondary element of context helps to tell the story. However, the converse is also true – there’s no context in an abstract wall of blur. Conclusion: I’m beginning to think there’s a just right amount of bokeh for every scene – or at least a range; just enough blur to help you focus on the primary subject, not too much to remove all the context.

Center-only composition. Few images work well with the subject dead-center or nearly there; the more dynamic images always have a bit of space before or after – I like to think of it as the anticipation or the aftermath. All cameras these days have more than one focusing point. I hear they even let you pick which one!

[Organisys]

I'll let you into a secret....there are not 'Rules'

[DubFan]

I'll let you into a secret....there are not 'Rules'

Did you mean:
"There are no rules" or "These are not rules" ?

There are rules regarding technical side of photography. There are also the "rules" like the rule of thirds. But rules can be broken and a photo still works.
It's down to the viewer as to whether they like a photo or not. If you're entering a photo into a competition, the judges will use certain criteria to determine the winner, and that list of mistakes will certainly be part of what they'll look for.

That list is just a list of mistakes to avoid, but if you believe that by breaking a "rule" (like not shooting into the sun for example) it will make your photo better, then that's up to you.

[Organisys]

There are no rules.

....and I agree with you.

Photography is an art form....what's good and bad is subjective. 

[Ridg]

There are no rules.

....and I agree with you.

Photography is an art form....what's good and bad is subjective. 

true to a point, but there are underlying mechanics to how the human eye, how the brain processes images and what we as a group in general find pleasing to look at; from this you can create a set of guides as to what makes a good image and what separates it from a bad image.

Whilst art is subjective, if you were to take two images, one using the guide / tips in the link posted and one that doesn't 9 times in 10 then one following the guide is going to be a better photo that the other.