-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rule of Thirds Series
- Thread starter brianj
- Start date
TonyGamble
Senior Member
Brian,
I thought the Rule of Thirds was supposed to apply in both dimensions.
Your examples show the rule as it relates to vertical, but not horizontal.
Try some shots with it applying in both dimensions at the same time and we'll tell you which are the more pleasing.
Kind regards,
Tony
I thought the Rule of Thirds was supposed to apply in both dimensions.
Your examples show the rule as it relates to vertical, but not horizontal.
Try some shots with it applying in both dimensions at the same time and we'll tell you which are the more pleasing.
Kind regards,
Tony
Yes that should have the maximum effect.
Here's one hot off the press, I just finished taking it when you responded.
Let there be Light
Maybe it also follows the theme of minimumalistic
Brian
fotogenetic
Senior Member
A photo from HCB demonstrating its use:
Read more here if you're interested:
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
mitchall
Senior Member
The rule of thirds is surely one of the most useless, and perhaps harmful formulas, for good composition. Indeed, there are no formulas for composition: it's whatever "looks right" in a particular picture. The trouble, also, is that composition is not something that can really be taught, although the sense of it can be enhanced by education. In my last undergraduate year I took a course called "Design in the Visual Arts" for which the final exam consisted of two slides of abstract paintings — one very good and the other exacrable — that were projected side by side, with the question being, "which is the better painting and why?"
Some months later I had dinner with the professor who told me that he had been teaching this course and giving the same exam for fifteen years; and year after year, with great consistency, 80-85% if the students chose the obviously bad painting because, according to the professor, the feeling for form, and, by extension, for art is hard wired in human beings; and in a minority at that. Moreover, the bad painting had all the elements of design — such as red comes forward while recedes that he had been teaching — so that the students could write eloquently about the element of design that he had taught, all of which were present in the bad painting.
Eggleston said, "I'm at war with the obvious" which is a good tenet to keep in mind, and more useful than twaddle like the rule of thirds. Here are some GRD2 pictures without any consideration for the rule of thirds:
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Some months later I had dinner with the professor who told me that he had been teaching this course and giving the same exam for fifteen years; and year after year, with great consistency, 80-85% if the students chose the obviously bad painting because, according to the professor, the feeling for form, and, by extension, for art is hard wired in human beings; and in a minority at that. Moreover, the bad painting had all the elements of design — such as red comes forward while recedes that he had been teaching — so that the students could write eloquently about the element of design that he had taught, all of which were present in the bad painting.
Eggleston said, "I'm at war with the obvious" which is a good tenet to keep in mind, and more useful than twaddle like the rule of thirds. Here are some GRD2 pictures without any consideration for the rule of thirds:
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Mitch
What you say is quite true - a good image is a good image because it pleases whether rules are kept or broken. Your story is quite apt.
I could argue that in every one of your images except perhaps the last the focal point or subject of the image is true to the rule of thirds - maybe you don't see it that way - but I can attribute a rule of thirds to those images whether you have done it consciously or unconsciously.
Slavish devotion to "rules" is not good but perhaps these rules start the subconscious working on "good-design" - I know that this rule in particular helped me quite a lot when I was in the process of getting my act together. Now I generally think "is it a good picture" and only when my mind says "no" then I fall back on re-framing to see if the rule of thirds would make it look better - often the answer is still "no" as no rule is going to make it any better. However I often take the picture anyway as documenting something is often an end in itself.
I also find myself taking odd subjects and getting odd looks from those that know me and everyone else in the vicinity. "Why are you taking a picture of that?" is the usual comment. In reality what I am doing is practicing with my limitless "free" supply of digital recording media. I need to practice enough so that my camera settings will be quick and intuitive and I can end up with a higher proportion of "winners". Occasionally this will give me an unintended almost accidental gem. I am sure that you know what I mean.
Brian is a great photographer and has a good eye I am sure that his rule of thirds is no more than a challenge to see what can be produced using this rule. They might not all be good of course as using a rule maketh not a great photograph all by itself.
--
Tom Caldwell
What you say is quite true - a good image is a good image because it pleases whether rules are kept or broken. Your story is quite apt.
I could argue that in every one of your images except perhaps the last the focal point or subject of the image is true to the rule of thirds - maybe you don't see it that way - but I can attribute a rule of thirds to those images whether you have done it consciously or unconsciously.
Slavish devotion to "rules" is not good but perhaps these rules start the subconscious working on "good-design" - I know that this rule in particular helped me quite a lot when I was in the process of getting my act together. Now I generally think "is it a good picture" and only when my mind says "no" then I fall back on re-framing to see if the rule of thirds would make it look better - often the answer is still "no" as no rule is going to make it any better. However I often take the picture anyway as documenting something is often an end in itself.
I also find myself taking odd subjects and getting odd looks from those that know me and everyone else in the vicinity. "Why are you taking a picture of that?" is the usual comment. In reality what I am doing is practicing with my limitless "free" supply of digital recording media. I need to practice enough so that my camera settings will be quick and intuitive and I can end up with a higher proportion of "winners". Occasionally this will give me an unintended almost accidental gem. I am sure that you know what I mean.
Brian is a great photographer and has a good eye I am sure that his rule of thirds is no more than a challenge to see what can be produced using this rule. They might not all be good of course as using a rule maketh not a great photograph all by itself.
--
Tom Caldwell
Well spotted Tom, this thread has alreasy invoked thought on the matter, although I would not call myself a great photographer by any means, but I do enjoy it.
Brian
It is all very subjective and for many photograhpers, not overly blessed with creative talent (count me in this group!), using the 1/3rd rule is a good place to start. It didn't seem to hurt rennaisance artists too much.
Your photo's, excellent by the way, do not in my view really demonstrate your counter 1/3rd thoughts. In the train photo, I would be tempted to crop out the right hand 1/4 which does not add much. My eye/brain is doing that anyway which gives me a 1/3rd focal point.
In another photo with wooden huts I am drawn to the woman, and where is she? Top left 1/3rd. Finally the portrait uses OOF to the right of the woman's face which arguably has the same effect as cropping the right hand 1/4 - if it were a painting, you could not have created this effect. So as it stands, I ignore the right hand bit and it becomes a pseudo 1/3rd composition.
You can't win??
Nick
Your photo's, excellent by the way, do not in my view really demonstrate your counter 1/3rd thoughts. In the train photo, I would be tempted to crop out the right hand 1/4 which does not add much. My eye/brain is doing that anyway which gives me a 1/3rd focal point.
In another photo with wooden huts I am drawn to the woman, and where is she? Top left 1/3rd. Finally the portrait uses OOF to the right of the woman's face which arguably has the same effect as cropping the right hand 1/4 - if it were a painting, you could not have created this effect. So as it stands, I ignore the right hand bit and it becomes a pseudo 1/3rd composition.
You can't win??
Nick
mitchall
Senior Member
The reason I reacted to the rule of thirds is precisely this: if one photographs with the rule of thirds is mind, or it's cousin, the golden mean, the results are likely to be dull and uninspired. Better to forget about such rules and instead read the book that Cartier-Bresson recommended as background to photographic shooting, "Zen in the Art in Archery".
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
mitchall
Senior Member
No, I cannot agree to what you say:
--in the train photo I haven't cropped out the right 1/4th and feel that doing so would completely ruin the composition
--in the wooden hut photo the woman simply is not in the top left 1/3rd
--in the woman with baby portrait there is no OOF, as the other woman's back is in focus
So it seems to me that you've applied a 1/3rd rule to something that doesn't exist in all three cases. And this is another problem with such rules: people try to juggle things that aren't there to support preconceived ideas of rules.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Fair enough, but my eye is doing that anyway and I think it is a great shot either way.
You are strickly correct, but my eye concentrates on the interesting information - the huts and the woman, not the sky.
Yes, technicallly I was wrong. My point really was that the womans back is not important, although I can see she maybe sets the scene - which is busy with mum holding child, rather than just a straight portrait. Ok, I am persuaded to your view on this one.
Yes, I may be somewhat conditioned after years of using the 1/3rd rule (in some cases) but I do not agree with you that is does not exist in any of your shots. I would argue that if some(not all) shots are not already cropped within the 1/3rd perspective then there is a propensity for the eye/brain to instantly do this and ignore the other bits.
I guess this why everyone has a different view as to what makes good photo's and good art.
Nick
mitchall
Senior Member
Nick:
Thanks and I'm glad you like the wooden hut shot. The trouble that I have with what you say about cropping out the right 1/4th of shots "because that's where the eye goes anyway" is that it's the whole composition, including the right 1/4th from which your eye is drawn away, is that it's precisely that 1/4th that you want to cut that creates the dynamics of the composition and leads your eyes to the left — cropping this would create a very static composition which in my view would be uninteresting and not very good. And, since the application of the rule depends on this amputation, it's completely artificial and not applicable.
Brian:
Sorry t come into your thread in such a spirited way, but I thought that this create a more interesting discussion than talking about which $400 bag to get for the GRD2 or to speculate once again what Ricoh should or should not do.
—Mitch/Bangkok
Thanks and I'm glad you like the wooden hut shot. The trouble that I have with what you say about cropping out the right 1/4th of shots "because that's where the eye goes anyway" is that it's the whole composition, including the right 1/4th from which your eye is drawn away, is that it's precisely that 1/4th that you want to cut that creates the dynamics of the composition and leads your eyes to the left — cropping this would create a very static composition which in my view would be uninteresting and not very good. And, since the application of the rule depends on this amputation, it's completely artificial and not applicable.
Brian:
Sorry t come into your thread in such a spirited way, but I thought that this create a more interesting discussion than talking about which $400 bag to get for the GRD2 or to speculate once again what Ricoh should or should not do.
—Mitch/Bangkok
TonyGamble
Senior Member
Brian,
That lamp picture, with the full rule, is far better than it would have been if you had simply centred it at the top.
And Mitch, you are not proving that the rule does not work by arguing that your shots are well composed. You may think they are but.....
Sorry if that sounds brutal but most of us are here to learn rather than swank. And if you don't want critiscism then let us know now and we'll keep quiet about your images.
Kind regards,
Tony
That lamp picture, with the full rule, is far better than it would have been if you had simply centred it at the top.
And Mitch, you are not proving that the rule does not work by arguing that your shots are well composed. You may think they are but.....
Sorry if that sounds brutal but most of us are here to learn rather than swank. And if you don't want critiscism then let us know now and we'll keep quiet about your images.
Kind regards,
Tony
mitchall
Senior Member
Huh? I never said that my shots were well composed, but merely said that they did not use the rule of thirds. And I never wrote anything here that indicated that I didn't want criticism.
And as for, "most of us are here to learn rather than swank", WTF does that mean? I never wrote anything in terms personal criticism — I merely criticised the rule of thirds, which I think is truly destructive for people trying to learn to take good pictures.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
TonyGamble
Senior Member
Mitch,
You make your point and we understand you.
Goodbye. I'm leaving this thread.
Tony
You make your point and we understand you.
Goodbye. I'm leaving this thread.
Tony
sphexx
Leading Member
fotogenetic
Senior Member
I disagree on your point that the rule of thirds is "destructive" for people learning to take "good pictures".
Beginners CAN get better pictures using that rule, not necessarily because the rule itself is effective, but in the fact that it forces them to at least think about their composition. As they get better, their instincts can then take over and they know when to apply the rule and when not to.
I believe that good photos do not come about by a disregard to design principles, but rather by such an understanding of the principles that they become subconscious.
But I agree that there are many other principles which may better elicit physiological response from a viewer. Contrast, texture, leading lines, etc. Ultimately, it's all about controlling where the eye focuses and what it sees at that point and the collection of points.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
Beginners CAN get better pictures using that rule, not necessarily because the rule itself is effective, but in the fact that it forces them to at least think about their composition. As they get better, their instincts can then take over and they know when to apply the rule and when not to.
I believe that good photos do not come about by a disregard to design principles, but rather by such an understanding of the principles that they become subconscious.
But I agree that there are many other principles which may better elicit physiological response from a viewer. Contrast, texture, leading lines, etc. Ultimately, it's all about controlling where the eye focuses and what it sees at that point and the collection of points.
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
I have a very strong sense of deja vu here -- I have heard Mitch arguing against this for some time -- with me trying to suggest that there is some validity.
Perhaps some of the disagreements concern the content -- and the origin of the golden section/rule of thirds. For example, one often sees portraits where the person is at the side of the picture, and looking outwards. These are more than a representation, there is a [political] message as well -- here something about isolation, outsiderness etc.
Consider this:
yes, it's a poor scan of a poor print of our house 20 odd years ago. What is interesting is the 'thirds' along which the 'windows' are arranged -- you can't see the basement windows, but there are two real windows, and a recess on the right where there never was a window.
But...the outer two windows on the top floor and the middle window on the middle floor are fakes. They never were windows which were blocked up, they are there purely for the symmetry. Would this side of the house look better without them? There are similar 'tricks' on the front and rear sides.
This rule of thirds makes a symmetrical statement -- an architectural one -- but this need not be relevant to other statements. A useful rule perhaps, but like all rules it can be broken when the message requires it.
--
Bertie
The very difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little time.
Perhaps some of the disagreements concern the content -- and the origin of the golden section/rule of thirds. For example, one often sees portraits where the person is at the side of the picture, and looking outwards. These are more than a representation, there is a [political] message as well -- here something about isolation, outsiderness etc.
Consider this:
yes, it's a poor scan of a poor print of our house 20 odd years ago. What is interesting is the 'thirds' along which the 'windows' are arranged -- you can't see the basement windows, but there are two real windows, and a recess on the right where there never was a window.
But...the outer two windows on the top floor and the middle window on the middle floor are fakes. They never were windows which were blocked up, they are there purely for the symmetry. Would this side of the house look better without them? There are similar 'tricks' on the front and rear sides.
This rule of thirds makes a symmetrical statement -- an architectural one -- but this need not be relevant to other statements. A useful rule perhaps, but like all rules it can be broken when the message requires it.
--
Bertie
The very difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little time.
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
When I briefly indulged (maybe 6 years) in camera clubs here in Oz we had monthly competitions and maybe a range of a few dozen visiting judges to offer comments and judge "winners". I say winners in " " because if the next judge saw the same set then the results would be a little different.
Those judges all saw things in their own way with their own preferences to what appeals to them. Just like us.
From listening to all their comments and starting with a "rules" sheet that one of the judges provided, I kept expanding on that. There are heaps of rules to follow for different reasons, but in the end you can break the lot and end up with a winning image. The boring text only list is here and comprises all that I heard from those few dozen judges.... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/composition-01.html
For me I now tend to frame sloppy and that allows room to zoom and pan in an "active" looking slide show (if I ever get around to making it) but more importantly room to crop to get things looking right to me for a print.
A few things that surface when you forget the rules and just do your own thing.
If the main subject is striking enough or a newsworthy item, then composition does not matter that much. The impact gets it over the line.
Balance left to right, or corner to corner does seem to matter, unless there's a good reason for a big blank area in a shot.
Bright bits at edges do matter, and I tend to crop bright edge bits out or maybe dull them down a bit. The old saying is that "it draws the eye out of the image" but I just say now that it looks crappy.
A good way to learn is to stick solely to horizontal format (just like TV cameramen and movie cinematographers do) and try and make that always horizontal shot work properly. You soon see yourself sticking faces in horizontal portraits on the thirds line and facing into the image, anything else starts to look lousy. Closely examine movies and decent quality TV shows and watch how they compose things and think why it may look good to you.
To get into the Mitch argument, I see Mitch's images as mostly impact shots and to some extent as collecting faces. In the circumstances having "nice composition" may improve things a little but if the face is strong enough then that's all you really see. You don't tend to worry about "the bright bits at the edges" or "the rule of thirds" or "golden mean" etc the strong face and the possibly gritty surrounds are all the shot needs to get to you.
As for golden mean and thirds etc, here's more reading for those who haven't a clue about what we are talking about. http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/ and is a bunch of articles from different people so is a spread of ideas.
My take is that for slow contemplative work and maybe boring subjects, composition is vital to make it worth looking at. If the subject is very interesting then the need for perfect composition falls away but does look just a bit better if you do manage decent composition.
Regards............. Guy
Those judges all saw things in their own way with their own preferences to what appeals to them. Just like us.
From listening to all their comments and starting with a "rules" sheet that one of the judges provided, I kept expanding on that. There are heaps of rules to follow for different reasons, but in the end you can break the lot and end up with a winning image. The boring text only list is here and comprises all that I heard from those few dozen judges.... http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/composition-01.html
For me I now tend to frame sloppy and that allows room to zoom and pan in an "active" looking slide show (if I ever get around to making it) but more importantly room to crop to get things looking right to me for a print.
A few things that surface when you forget the rules and just do your own thing.
If the main subject is striking enough or a newsworthy item, then composition does not matter that much. The impact gets it over the line.
Balance left to right, or corner to corner does seem to matter, unless there's a good reason for a big blank area in a shot.
Bright bits at edges do matter, and I tend to crop bright edge bits out or maybe dull them down a bit. The old saying is that "it draws the eye out of the image" but I just say now that it looks crappy.
A good way to learn is to stick solely to horizontal format (just like TV cameramen and movie cinematographers do) and try and make that always horizontal shot work properly. You soon see yourself sticking faces in horizontal portraits on the thirds line and facing into the image, anything else starts to look lousy. Closely examine movies and decent quality TV shows and watch how they compose things and think why it may look good to you.
To get into the Mitch argument, I see Mitch's images as mostly impact shots and to some extent as collecting faces. In the circumstances having "nice composition" may improve things a little but if the face is strong enough then that's all you really see. You don't tend to worry about "the bright bits at the edges" or "the rule of thirds" or "golden mean" etc the strong face and the possibly gritty surrounds are all the shot needs to get to you.
As for golden mean and thirds etc, here's more reading for those who haven't a clue about what we are talking about. http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/ and is a bunch of articles from different people so is a spread of ideas.
My take is that for slow contemplative work and maybe boring subjects, composition is vital to make it worth looking at. If the subject is very interesting then the need for perfect composition falls away but does look just a bit better if you do manage decent composition.
Regards............. Guy
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum