"Rule" of 3rds

Darren M · Sep 29, 2007

With all due respect to Jens, I don't find those shots appealing in the least. Starting off, the light is just not good enough for a memorable landscape photo. of course sometimes you have to make do with what you have in front of you. However, even the water is shot at completely the wrong shutter speed IMO. Either it needs to be longer to really create a blur, or it needs to be much shorter to create something we don't see every day. I am not sure it could be shot fast enough in this case though. As they are, I have to say that these shots are nothing more than an uncomfortable compromise for me. Again, no offense to Jens; he posts lots of good shots, but citing those as good examples falls miles short in my not so humble opinion.

Just to look at it in another way; if you were to go to 7-11 and buy a disposable film camera, then shoot the falls, I think the resultant look to the water would be much the same. Shouldn't we be setting the bar considerably higher?

Again, no offense to Jens and I have a pretty good feeling that he is more than up to a little criticism.

--

http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
http://dailysomeone.blogspot.com

Photos or pixels. Make sure you are looking at the right thing.
Have camera, will travel

John Bean (UK) · Sep 29, 2007

Darren M said:
With all due respect to Jens, I don't find those shots appealing in
the least. Starting off, the light is just not good enough for a
memorable landscape photo. of course sometimes you have to make do
with what you have in front of you. However, even the water is shot
at completely the wrong shutter speed IMO. Either it needs to be
longer to really create a blur, or it needs to be much shorter to
create something we don't see every day.

I don't agree Darren. The long exposures of water are hackneyed and to be honest I find them unappealing. I too prefer to use a shutter speed just slow enough to convey the dynamics of the water flow without losing all the detail, and moving water is often under dense tree cover giving little opportunity for ideal "landscape" lighting. Here's a fairly recent example of mine:

Olympus E-1 + 35/3.5 macro, 1/6 @ f/10, ISO100

It's fairly obvious from the exposure details that I chose the shutter speed deliberately - I didn't want it any slower (or faster) even though I could easily have made it so.

Tastes differ... fortunately.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 39:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/201701188/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

Darren M · Sep 29, 2007

I like yours John, but I have to say that it is quite different than the one Jens posted. Yours has a shutter speed/water movement that looks like you chose it. As I mentioned earlier, Jens's looks like the speed a disposable film camera would choose. Quite a difference. Nowhere did I say you need ultra long exposures, just the "right" exposure.

--

http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
http://dailysomeone.blogspot.com

Photos or pixels. Make sure you are looking at the right thing.
Have camera, will travel

John Bean (UK) · Sep 29, 2007

Darren M said:
Nowhere did I say you need ultra long exposures, just the "right"
exposure.

Ok, I misread. I thoroughly dislike those "misty" long exposures of moving water, although I accept that they do sell well, presumably because joe public can't duplicate the look with his disposible camera so thinks it's some sort of magic. Beads for the natives... or something like that.

All I can say is thank goodness I don't often have to shoot to match someone else's (bad) taste.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 39:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/201701188/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

JensR · Sep 29, 2007

Hi Darren!

Darren M said:
With all due respect to Jens, I don't find those shots appealing in
the least. Starting off, the light is just not good enough for a
memorable landscape photo. of course sometimes you have to make do
with what you have in front of you.

I agree. That's why I posted these two shots, as I was replying to the poster (leopold) before me. I was hiking, as always without tripod. For the first shot it was raining and I was running out of hand-holdable shutter speeds during most of the hike through the rain forest.
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=0703

For the second shot (which is a big hit with every non-photo-savvy person so far whom I've shown it) I was stuck with midday sun through a patchy canopy.
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=0321

The IR shots with their higher contrast might be more to your liking. But they all show an exposure duration that is between "stopping action" and "smoothing". I like it, because it leaves the structure intact but still creates the impression of movement.

Darren M said:
However, even the water is shot
at completely the wrong shutter speed IMO. Either it needs to be
longer to really create a blur, or it needs to be much shorter to
create something we don't see every day.

Like this from my earlier trip?
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=p3173847
or this?
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=p3267715_mediu

However, I'll freely admit that John's shot is better than my waterfall shots
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/searchnz.php?searchterm=waterfall
but not mainly because of his choice of shutter speed. At least for me.

Darren M said:
I am not sure it could be shot fast enough in this case though.

Not really. Also, with very fast shutter, waterfalls can appear as if they carry very little water - especially if they are.

Darren M said:
Again, no offense to Jens; he posts lots of good shots, but
citing those as good examples falls miles short in my not so humble
opinion.

"not so humble", soso.

I cited them as examples of shots when conditions are less than ideal. Oh, and because I like them. =) If I wanted, I always could add a bit of directional blur.

As you probably have seen now, if you followed the links, these shots are part of my NZ gallery, not my general one - for a reason.

Darren M said:
Just to look at it in another way; if you were to go to 7-11 and buy
a disposable film camera, then shoot the falls, I think the resultant
look to the water would be much the same.

Huh? If you mean that it might choose the same shutter speed - likely correct. But mentioning "disposable camera" sounds like a an unsharp, poorly focused shot. And I can't really see that in this shot, so I am a bit surprised about your choice of words.

Darren M said:
Again, no offense to Jens and I have a pretty good feeling that he is
more than up to a little criticism.

Sure, I just don't agree with some of it =)

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.JensRoesner.de

Larry Winters · Sep 29, 2007

Hello JensR:

JensR said:
For the second shot (which is a big hit with every non-photo-savvy person so far whom I've shown it) I was stuck with midday sun through a patchy canopy.

What is non-photo savvy anyway?...Not going by the book or the so called norm...

Even if you don't like your own shots I find them more appealing and REAL than leopolds...I guess that makes me non photo savvy...Most actual buyers, including mine who I guess are non photo savvy as well prefer the natural looking waterfalls like yours..They all say the milk falls look fake and they rarely buy them...They are more of a novelty to them...It's only the photo geeks who have their heads buried in photo magazines that insist a waterfall must look creamy...All it shows is that this guy knows how to use a ND filter, bulb exposure and a tripod...BFD!!!

LW

JensR said:
JensR said:

With all due respect to Jens, I don't find those shots appealing in
the least. Starting off, the light is just not good enough for a
memorable landscape photo. of course sometimes you have to make do
with what you have in front of you.

Click to expand...

I agree. That's why I posted these two shots, as I was replying to
the poster (leopold) before me. I was hiking, as always without
tripod. For the first shot it was raining and I was running out of
hand-holdable shutter speeds during most of the hike through the rain
forest.
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=0703

For the second shot (which is a big hit with every non-photo-savvy
person so far whom I've shown it) I was stuck with midday sun through
a patchy canopy.
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=0321
The IR shots with their higher contrast might be more to your liking.
But they all show an exposure duration that is between "stopping
action" and "smoothing". I like it, because it leaves the structure
intact but still creates the impression of movement.

JensR said:

However, even the water is shot
at completely the wrong shutter speed IMO. Either it needs to be
longer to really create a blur, or it needs to be much shorter to
create something we don't see every day.

Click to expand...

Like this from my earlier trip?
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=p3173847
or this?
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/mapindex.php?filename=p3267715_mediu

However, I'll freely admit that John's shot is better than my
waterfall shots
http://www.jr-worldwi.de/nzpics/searchnz.php?searchterm=waterfall
but not mainly because of his choice of shutter speed. At least for me.

JensR said:

I am not sure it could be shot fast enough in this case though.

Click to expand...

Not really. Also, with very fast shutter, waterfalls can appear as if
they carry very little water - especially if they are.

JensR said:

Again, no offense to Jens; he posts lots of good shots, but
citing those as good examples falls miles short in my not so humble
opinion.

Click to expand...

"not so humble", soso.
I cited them as examples of shots when conditions are less than
ideal. Oh, and because I like them. =) If I wanted, I always could
add a bit of directional blur. As you probably have seen now, if
you followed the links, these shots are part of my NZ gallery, not my
general one - for a reason.

JensR said:

Just to look at it in another way; if you were to go to 7-11 and buy
a disposable film camera, then shoot the falls, I think the resultant
look to the water would be much the same.

Click to expand...

Huh? If you mean that it might choose the same shutter speed - likely
correct. But mentioning "disposable camera" sounds like a an unsharp,
poorly focused shot. And I can't really see that in this shot, so I
am a bit surprised about your choice of words.

JensR said:

Again, no offense to Jens and I have a pretty good feeling that he is
more than up to a little criticism.

Click to expand...

Sure, I just don't agree with some of it =)

Cheers
Jens

--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom
rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.JensRoesner.de

Larry Winters · Sep 29, 2007

Hello John:

John Bean (UK) said:
The long exposures of water are hackneyed and to be honest I find them unappealing.

And so do the vast majority of money spending clients...

Yours however is a very nice compromise and the ground level approach is quite appealing...

LW

John Bean (UK) said:
Darren M said:

With all due respect to Jens, I don't find those shots appealing in
the least. Starting off, the light is just not good enough for a
memorable landscape photo. of course sometimes you have to make do
with what you have in front of you. However, even the water is shot
at completely the wrong shutter speed IMO. Either it needs to be
longer to really create a blur, or it needs to be much shorter to
create something we don't see every day.

Click to expand...

I don't agree Darren. The long exposures of water are hackneyed and
to be honest I find them unappealing. I too prefer to use a shutter
speed just slow enough to convey the dynamics of the water flow
without losing all the detail, and moving water is often under dense
tree cover giving little opportunity for ideal "landscape" lighting.
Here's a fairly recent example of mine:

Olympus E-1 + 35/3.5 macro, 1/6 @ f/10, ISO100

It's fairly obvious from the exposure details that I chose the
shutter speed deliberately - I didn't want it any slower (or faster)
even though I could easily have made it so.

Tastes differ... fortunately.

--
John Bean [BST/GMT+1] ('British Stupid Time')

PAW 2007 Week 39:
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/2321711/3/201701188/Large

Index page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (30 July 2007):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/3247039

JensR · Sep 30, 2007

Hi Larry!

Larry Winters said:
What is non-photo savvy anyway?...Not going by the book or the so
called norm...

Good question

And I certainly didn't want to imply that someone who likes it has no concept of photography!

Larry Winters said:
Even if you don't like your own shots

Well, I do like them. Seems I have to work on my meta-messages... But they aren't perfect. I am aware of the problems: The first would have been better with more light and the second would have been better in different light, like 4 hours earlier or later.

But If I had waited, I would not have gotten some other great (or so I think) shots on my trip.

Larry Winters said:
I find them more appealing and REAL than leopolds...

Thanks. I'm really happy you like 'em

)

Larry Winters said:
I guess that makes me non photo savvy...

Nonono. All women I know are human beings, but not all human beings I know are women

Larry Winters said:
Most
actual buyers, including mine who I guess are non photo savvy as well
prefer the natural looking waterfalls like yours..

Really? I would not have thought! Interesting!

Larry Winters said:
They all say the milk falls look fake and they rarely buy them...
They are more of a
novelty to them...It's only the photo geeks who have their heads
buried in photo magazines that insist a waterfall must look
creamy...All it shows is that this guy knows how to use a ND filter,
bulb exposure and a tripod...BFD!!!

LOL, that made my day =)

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.JensRoesner.de

richardplondon · Sep 30, 2007

Darren M said:
The whole point though is that I think it would be very rare to find
a photo that works, yet does not follow some sort of perceptual rule.
Our bodies are just hardwired that way. It might not be the ROT, but
it will be some rule for sure.

IMO - the rule follows us. Or, the rule classifies visual effects. We discover something visually powerful in one image, then another, and eventually might codify it into a "rule" so we can identify it more easily next time.

Explicit compositional rules should be buried in the "back of the mind" if we are not to work in a formulaic manner, which can be very thin beer creatively. Discovering things in the viewfinder that work intuitively, and "locking" onto them due to a previously raised visual awareness of (say, amongst others) thirds divisions, is closer to the mark IMO.

RP

Search

"Rule" of 3rds

Darren M

Senior Member

John Bean (UK)

Forum Pro

Darren M

Senior Member

John Bean (UK)

Forum Pro

JensR

Forum Pro

Larry Winters

Senior Member

Larry Winters

Senior Member

JensR

Forum Pro

richardplondon

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts