Ode to Assymetry

I once heard a photo contest judge say that images of symmetric subjects MUST be completely symmetric.  This makes a lot of sense - when the subject of your image is a building facade or the interior of a church, the primary subject is not so much the building, but the lines and the symmetry therein.  Thus, if the vanishing point is not in the middle or there is an imbalance within the composition, these flaws become obvious as the symmetry of the entire image falls apart.   Of course, that only applies to subjects which are completely symmetric.  Photos which highlight an asymmetry within the subject can be very compelling - think a house one window shade drawn or a person disrupting what would otherwise be a highly symmetric scene.

Architectural details don't require symmetry

I have found capturing such perfect symmetry in building facades to be more challenging than I'd anticipated.  I can position myself such that all edges and corners seem square and the center of the scene appears to be at the center of my frame, yet when I post-process the image, I find that the edges aren't square or I can't get the subject centered without an imbalance on the sides.

Having been only partially successful at capturing architecture, I have come to the subject with some trepidation.  In part, this has led to my focus (ha! photography pun!) on architectural details for which symmetry isn't necessarily important.

A recent visit to Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles was therefore a bit of a revelation. Not only does this Frank Gehry building not have a symmetric facade, it hardly has any straight lines! Without the pressure of trying to accurately position myself to within a couple inches, I found that I could shoot much more freely.  I also brought only my 10mm-20mm lens to force myself to learn how to use it, and it ended up being perfect for the subject.  Any longer lens and I think I'd have been frustrated by the narrower field of view.