no problem, that is precisely why I started the thread. I knew my images were pretty ordinary in the one thirds regard. I'm learning a lot so far.
Brian
-
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
Brian
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
Don't get hung up on the thirds rule, there are plenty of other rules out there that can be obeyed or ignored as well.
One idea is to take a wide angle general all-encompassing shot of a scene that may look interesting to you, and then let others loose on cropping it to make it better, or to isolate the real image that attracted your eye, but didn't realise really what was important.
Harking back to my camera club years often those visiting judges would indeed take someone's print and then proceed to blank out much of it (using other prints) to show where the real picture was. Very educational.
In fact when I started in the camera club (never any previous club or competition experience, but maybe 40 years at that time of taking photos) I did pretty well in the print competitions. Later I moved to the slide competitions (yes, back in those old film days) and did not do as well. I later worked out that it was the framing of my shots that mattered and made the difference.
The prints I could reveal just what I wanted by always cutting custom cardboard mats, the slides were too awkward and fiddly to crop so never bothered. It was the careful crop that mattered, getting things in the right place in the frame, removing bright bits at the edges and so on. Easy to at print time, difficult or sometimes impossible at image taking time.
Don't get too hung upon rules but use cropping a lot to examine your image and see what can be eliminated to make it simpler and better.
Here's how some sensible rules seem to work.....
My wife's shots with her Casio V8 as seen in thumbnails from Picasa3.
Left hand shot = figures too small, boat too small, unbalanced blank water on right, bright sandy dirt distracting on bottom left, anglers too near centre.
Right hand shot = better, figures and boat bigger, bland water "filled", balance now between anglers and boat, anglers now on left bottom third and of course facing into the scene of interest and the boat on right top third. Added is the fishing rod leading the eye to the boat, but that wasn't necessary, just a person or two sitting at that position would have worked as well.
My wife is talking to me as I write this..... quote.... "in the beginning not knowing much, I had to work hard to obey the rules and get things in the right place and get more shots that worked. Over time it becomes second nature and I don't think about it any more. I compose in the LCD and zoom and move about until it looks right."
It did help that when Lyn was learning that we were in the camera clubs and getting plenty of feedback from those judges and also seeing lots of other peoples' work to see how other people looked at things, and sometimes the same things if we were on a group outing.
Join a camera club for not more than 5 years to learn about those rules. Hey Brian as an aside, I sold 3 print display stands to Mt Gravatt club the other day. Visit them to see my stands in action. Any camera club welcomes visitors, just check if it's a competition night or lecture night. I think Redlands club also has 2 stands.
For Queensland clubs look into http://www.psq.org.au/ and be warned that clubs do vary a lot, some are just a bunch of grey haired guys arguing over which camera is best. Some clubs actually enjoy taking photos and have great outings. Luckily in Sydney I landed in one of the latter and had a great time. There was absolutely none of the common Nikon vs Canon rivalry nonsense, it was all about the results.
Regards.......... Guy
mitchall
Senior Member
fotogenic, Bertie, Guy:
The discussion is getting more interesting. As fotogenic says the rule of thirds can get people to think about composition, but really no more than "don't always put the subject in the middle"; and what I mean about it being destructive ot harmful is that, when people believe this rule, they'll photograph in a rather boring way with composition that can become too balanced, static and formulaic, with the pictured being "rescued" only by the interest of the subject, in the sense that Guy writes. But I disagree with Guy on the point that, if there is enough interest in the subject, the composition is less important. In the picture of the woman at the left of the edge of the frame, instead of traditionally into the centre of the picture, the composition works because precisely because this rule is flouted — or more accurately because this rule doesn't really exist — and the composition, which becomes more dynamic, supports the psychological content and tension of the picture.
This really is the argument about form versus content, and I have always felt that the two miust go to together, with the form, the underlying design of the picture, being the more fundamental factor: you can have the best idea for the content for a pictures, but if you photograph it with a strong underlying form or design you cannot make a compelling photograph. An example, a friend said he wanted to photograph two signs next to each other on Patpong, Bangkok's sex-for-sale street, one for a bar called "Super Pussy" and the other for a VD clinic. But for this picture to work, the concept, the irony of the two signs, needs a graphic impact to work: it needs a strong composition; otherwise it falls flat. There is an interesting discussion of these issues in a long thread on the Leica Users Forum:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/29339-form-content-emotion-sean-reid-s.html
On Berrtie's house example, in a house of traditional design we simply are used to seeing this symmetry, but I could easily conceive that a modern house with asymmetrical windows in the maner he describes could work well. Or think about the design of Frank Gehry for the Guggenheim Museum in Barcelona — no tule of thirds there!
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
The discussion is getting more interesting. As fotogenic says the rule of thirds can get people to think about composition, but really no more than "don't always put the subject in the middle"; and what I mean about it being destructive ot harmful is that, when people believe this rule, they'll photograph in a rather boring way with composition that can become too balanced, static and formulaic, with the pictured being "rescued" only by the interest of the subject, in the sense that Guy writes. But I disagree with Guy on the point that, if there is enough interest in the subject, the composition is less important. In the picture of the woman at the left of the edge of the frame, instead of traditionally into the centre of the picture, the composition works because precisely because this rule is flouted — or more accurately because this rule doesn't really exist — and the composition, which becomes more dynamic, supports the psychological content and tension of the picture.
This really is the argument about form versus content, and I have always felt that the two miust go to together, with the form, the underlying design of the picture, being the more fundamental factor: you can have the best idea for the content for a pictures, but if you photograph it with a strong underlying form or design you cannot make a compelling photograph. An example, a friend said he wanted to photograph two signs next to each other on Patpong, Bangkok's sex-for-sale street, one for a bar called "Super Pussy" and the other for a VD clinic. But for this picture to work, the concept, the irony of the two signs, needs a graphic impact to work: it needs a strong composition; otherwise it falls flat. There is an interesting discussion of these issues in a long thread on the Leica Users Forum:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-forum/29339-form-content-emotion-sean-reid-s.html
On Berrtie's house example, in a house of traditional design we simply are used to seeing this symmetry, but I could easily conceive that a modern house with asymmetrical windows in the maner he describes could work well. Or think about the design of Frank Gehry for the Guggenheim Museum in Barcelona — no tule of thirds there!
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Quite so, but the house exterior as a whole is symmetrical -- internally it isn't; if you were to blank off the 'false' windows it simply wouldn't look 'right' -- it would look very odd. And the windows themselves show exact symmetrical design. Yet if you take an asymmetrical building, then you don't expect symmetrical windows, though for such designs to 'work' I suspect there are 'symmetries' of design that aren't immediately obvious, though we are probably sub-consciously aware of them when we think the building a 'success' -- and there are plenty of asymmetrical modern buildings that look very peculiar.
Staying off pictures for another moment, I have always felt that the Leica M3 was a 'classic' of design; but I also think that the M8 isn't -- the M8 is too thick, and out of 'proportion'.
The rule of thirds/golden section seems to be essentially a formula used when designing something meant to be beautiful, attractive or pleasing to us [or at least us in the Western tradition]; so if the message in the photo isn't meant to be pleasing etc, then it would be appropriate not just to ignore the rule, but to actively avoid it in composition. And -- dare I say it -- frames, spaces, lines, diagonals and so on are all constructs imposed on a picture and used when analysing it -- and, to a greater or lesser extent -- culturally influenced.
--
Bertie
The very difficult we do immediately, the impossible takes a little time.
mitchall
Senior Member
Yes, used when analysing it but not necessarily when making the picture...
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
- 1, please forgive me for copying the link to here, it just makes it easier than slewing up and down the thread.....
Yes, that one works. It's a strong face looking directly out of the frame (at what?) that makes the tension. The "rules" seem to be satisfied by the fact that the three characters behind form a leading line up to the main face (just years of listening to camera club judges leaking through here). If it had been a blank street behind or other people too far back then it would not be so hot.
Not my own style of course but I appreciate what I see from you Mitch, it's always interesting.
Regards................. Guy
fotogenetic
Senior Member
I agree that form and content go hand in hand. For this reason, to me, the term "gestalt" expresses better what you call "form".
"Gestalt is perceptually primary, defining the parts of which it was composed, rather than being a secondary quality that emerges from those parts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology
Thus, if the overall gestalt is weak, it weakens what would otherwise be strong content, as in your Super Pussy example.
:
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
Crossbar Aloha
Active member
Sorry I cannot keep quiet on this thread as Mitchell provokes my too-long response.
I think to say that following such and such compositional rule is 'truly' destructive is an extreme and misleading statement made here for provocative effect. To take photographs with no knowledge of these rules may be as futile as blindly following the rules. Boring photos can be arrived through following rules and just as easily arrived at by not following them - in equal measure.
Firstly, what is useful about following compositional rules (I say rules of thumb) is that they can help people to get results - to quickly improve their relationship with photography and that is not neccessarily a bad thing and certainly not something to be sniffed at. It may be all some people need or want as the heart of what they do (with their photography) lies outside of making 'photo art'.
Secondly, I think that to explore compositional rules through one's work is to begin to understand what such accepted rules are, how they work and how they influence the way we see. This has to be good and not destructive. Armed with such knowledge the individual can then choose to obey or break with the canon - throw the rules out and/or invent their own – go with the crowd or go it alone. (At the risk of being a bore - if you don't know the rules how can you break them?. The idea of the purely instinctive genius who has never studied any rules is a romantic myth.)
I think to make an memorable image and one that captures the mind and the eye is a matter of fine judgement, knowledge, instinct and sensitivity to form (i have never acheived it) but I suspect that there are some aspects of our love for the well-composed form that are hard-wired into our brains whilst there are others that are learned. We cannot deny them. Maybe we can't always identify the rules being used in the good photographs but I think we instinctively know when there are none in the others.
I think lastly that just maybe what Mitchell is saying is beware – because the over-composed (over-designed) photo is the photo that is dead from the neck down. Over-worked. All form and no soul. I say - keep a keen eye open to the accidental within your desire to organise.
I think to say that following such and such compositional rule is 'truly' destructive is an extreme and misleading statement made here for provocative effect. To take photographs with no knowledge of these rules may be as futile as blindly following the rules. Boring photos can be arrived through following rules and just as easily arrived at by not following them - in equal measure.
Firstly, what is useful about following compositional rules (I say rules of thumb) is that they can help people to get results - to quickly improve their relationship with photography and that is not neccessarily a bad thing and certainly not something to be sniffed at. It may be all some people need or want as the heart of what they do (with their photography) lies outside of making 'photo art'.
Secondly, I think that to explore compositional rules through one's work is to begin to understand what such accepted rules are, how they work and how they influence the way we see. This has to be good and not destructive. Armed with such knowledge the individual can then choose to obey or break with the canon - throw the rules out and/or invent their own – go with the crowd or go it alone. (At the risk of being a bore - if you don't know the rules how can you break them?. The idea of the purely instinctive genius who has never studied any rules is a romantic myth.)
I think to make an memorable image and one that captures the mind and the eye is a matter of fine judgement, knowledge, instinct and sensitivity to form (i have never acheived it) but I suspect that there are some aspects of our love for the well-composed form that are hard-wired into our brains whilst there are others that are learned. We cannot deny them. Maybe we can't always identify the rules being used in the good photographs but I think we instinctively know when there are none in the others.
I think lastly that just maybe what Mitchell is saying is beware – because the over-composed (over-designed) photo is the photo that is dead from the neck down. Over-worked. All form and no soul. I say - keep a keen eye open to the accidental within your desire to organise.
mitchall
Senior Member
I dunno, "Gestalt" in German means merely "form". In English it has the connotation of a more underlyng, basic and inherent form. I'm happy with either, although gestalt sounds more artsy.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
mitchall
Senior Member
This is a good statement and one that I support fully. And reading "Zen in the Art of Archery" by Herrigel will give you a good sense of this.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
mitchall
Senior Member
Thanks, Guy. Also blocking out the figure on the right by a heavy burning is intentional and also part of the composition and a way to lead the eye to the left side of the frame. Interesting thread.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
More rules than you ever thought you needed.....
On that photoinf.com site is a Navy book that trains photographers to do the right thing, it's public domain so no worries about copying it etc.
http://photoinf.com/General/NAVY/Photographic_composition_Balance.htm
One good quote down the page a bit is.....
"Good or correct composition is impossible to define precisely. There are no hard-and-fast rules to follow that ensure good composition in every photograph. There are only the principles and elements that provide a means of achieving pleasing composition when applied properly. Some of these principles and elements are as follows: .... [goes on to list items and explain them]"
It's an old book and B/W examples are there but it has a lot of sound advice that applies to any photo era. It's designed to train a photographer to be competent to do all round work that arises, probably war zone to formal Admiral portraits.
Despite all those chances to learn it always happens that some people just don't listen or pick up on what's needed, others do. I saw it all the time in camera clubs, a newbie would come in and get his favourite images shot to pieces by the judges. Some would learn and get noticeably better month by month, others would keep presenting the same old sort of stuff and wonder why they never picked up any prizes. It takes all types to make a world.
Regards..... Guy
On that photoinf.com site is a Navy book that trains photographers to do the right thing, it's public domain so no worries about copying it etc.
http://photoinf.com/General/NAVY/Photographic_composition_Balance.htm
One good quote down the page a bit is.....
"Good or correct composition is impossible to define precisely. There are no hard-and-fast rules to follow that ensure good composition in every photograph. There are only the principles and elements that provide a means of achieving pleasing composition when applied properly. Some of these principles and elements are as follows: .... [goes on to list items and explain them]"
It's an old book and B/W examples are there but it has a lot of sound advice that applies to any photo era. It's designed to train a photographer to be competent to do all round work that arises, probably war zone to formal Admiral portraits.
Despite all those chances to learn it always happens that some people just don't listen or pick up on what's needed, others do. I saw it all the time in camera clubs, a newbie would come in and get his favourite images shot to pieces by the judges. Some would learn and get noticeably better month by month, others would keep presenting the same old sort of stuff and wonder why they never picked up any prizes. It takes all types to make a world.
Regards..... Guy
ruinog
Senior Member
This is one of my favorite topics with students. What are the best rules, wathever is the subject, painting, architecture, photography, literature, etc, etc...
I generaly sell them the rule of thirds, just as a starter. To make them realise that the centered composition (the one that comes from childhood) is not an universal one. This makes them think about it, which is a good thing for a human ;-)
After that, I start playing with the rules, making them think about the relation between form and content. Yes, I agree with Mitchall, there must be a relation, if not, it might became an empty piece of work. But, even so, there might be something more (or less) in this equation. Intencionality.
This one is empty, of anything. The rule of thirds has a role here, to help creating empty spaces, which wouldn't be possible with a centered composition:
Quite uninteresting, hein? But I wanted it that way, it's all flat, quiet, (boring?)... but, somehow, I can feel the moment and the balance that it made me feel with all that "silence".
The same rule makes this composition more dinamic. Or I made a composition more dinamic and found the rule after? I don't care about that, neither if someone finds the rule to justify themself to like or dislike the image.
But I can assure you that it was the "interaction" with the object that made me compose in that way, not the respect for the rules. So what, am I going to compose differentely just to be "in" or "out"?
This one is the "golden" one, when I found myself, a kind of enlightment. You're free to find rules and connections in there. But there's no emotional content. It's a graphical object, only:
So it's only form, and I'm very confortable with that. It's my intention, and my style, mainly.
Someone refered the golden mean, there's always this reference. But this is an endless topic. Here's a very dull composition, based on the most basic golden rectangle where the longest side has the lenght of the square diagonal:
Here I'm sorry to have lost the moment when the couple would be in the first third instead of centered. It wouldn't be less "dull", but it would be more balanced because of the triangulation...
I could spend the night showing examples but, the conclusion, for me, is:
We can find whatever rule we want in any "object". It's a human thing, to find lines, strong points (golden one's), and start decoding the organizative underlines. The rule of thirds is just one of the most popular (maybe that's why we have this "wonderful" feature in camera's lcds), as well as the golden mean.
BTW, which "golden mean" do you mean? There are many golden sequences and geometries, from the Fibonacci sequence (or geometrical one's), the divine triangle (inside the pentagon), to the spiral (triangular, square, pentagonal, etc), to so many variations in rectangle proportions, that it's so easy to find one anywhere.
It's all over in Nature. Terefore I've had to ask myself the question about our genetic code. There must be something there that makes us organize things the same way over and over...
Believe it or not, take two similar objects with some differences in proportions. The one you'll choose will have some rule waiting to be find ;-)
Sorry by the lecture, but I've come back from school and it's very difficult to stop :-(
edit: Man, I took so long writing this that I lost lot's of good post in this thread. Yes, a very interesting one!
--
Cheers.............. Rui
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruinog/collections/
(sorry, it set my entire stream as private and I'm slowly reorganizing my page)
I generaly sell them the rule of thirds, just as a starter. To make them realise that the centered composition (the one that comes from childhood) is not an universal one. This makes them think about it, which is a good thing for a human ;-)
After that, I start playing with the rules, making them think about the relation between form and content. Yes, I agree with Mitchall, there must be a relation, if not, it might became an empty piece of work. But, even so, there might be something more (or less) in this equation. Intencionality.
This one is empty, of anything. The rule of thirds has a role here, to help creating empty spaces, which wouldn't be possible with a centered composition:
Quite uninteresting, hein? But I wanted it that way, it's all flat, quiet, (boring?)... but, somehow, I can feel the moment and the balance that it made me feel with all that "silence".
The same rule makes this composition more dinamic. Or I made a composition more dinamic and found the rule after? I don't care about that, neither if someone finds the rule to justify themself to like or dislike the image.
But I can assure you that it was the "interaction" with the object that made me compose in that way, not the respect for the rules. So what, am I going to compose differentely just to be "in" or "out"?
This one is the "golden" one, when I found myself, a kind of enlightment. You're free to find rules and connections in there. But there's no emotional content. It's a graphical object, only:
So it's only form, and I'm very confortable with that. It's my intention, and my style, mainly.
Someone refered the golden mean, there's always this reference. But this is an endless topic. Here's a very dull composition, based on the most basic golden rectangle where the longest side has the lenght of the square diagonal:
Here I'm sorry to have lost the moment when the couple would be in the first third instead of centered. It wouldn't be less "dull", but it would be more balanced because of the triangulation...
I could spend the night showing examples but, the conclusion, for me, is:
We can find whatever rule we want in any "object". It's a human thing, to find lines, strong points (golden one's), and start decoding the organizative underlines. The rule of thirds is just one of the most popular (maybe that's why we have this "wonderful" feature in camera's lcds), as well as the golden mean.
BTW, which "golden mean" do you mean? There are many golden sequences and geometries, from the Fibonacci sequence (or geometrical one's), the divine triangle (inside the pentagon), to the spiral (triangular, square, pentagonal, etc), to so many variations in rectangle proportions, that it's so easy to find one anywhere.
It's all over in Nature. Terefore I've had to ask myself the question about our genetic code. There must be something there that makes us organize things the same way over and over...
Believe it or not, take two similar objects with some differences in proportions. The one you'll choose will have some rule waiting to be find ;-)
Sorry by the lecture, but I've come back from school and it's very difficult to stop :-(
edit: Man, I took so long writing this that I lost lot's of good post in this thread. Yes, a very interesting one!
--
Cheers.............. Rui
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruinog/collections/
(sorry, it set my entire stream as private and I'm slowly reorganizing my page)
fotogenetic
Senior Member
Great post and striking photos, all due to thoughtful composition. I always enjoy your photographs. The one with the elderly couple especially.
One thing I noticed is that your photos rarely have people in them. Now that I think is where the genius of Henri Cartier Bresson lies. His photographs capture the same striking composition as yours, but within an even smaller point in time-space. He is able to find the perfect moments in time-space where the golden mean is fulfilled, but within the hustle and bustle of moving, living objects.
Here are a couple I found:
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
One thing I noticed is that your photos rarely have people in them. Now that I think is where the genius of Henri Cartier Bresson lies. His photographs capture the same striking composition as yours, but within an even smaller point in time-space. He is able to find the perfect moments in time-space where the golden mean is fulfilled, but within the hustle and bustle of moving, living objects.
Here are a couple I found:
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogenetic/
Guy Parsons
Forum Pro
Forgive me Rui, I seem to have the "fiddle with image" gene....
Here's your shot and how my eye would automatically crop it. Does that satisfy some rule? I just like the way it looks in the new crop.
Regards......... Guy
Here's your shot and how my eye would automatically crop it. Does that satisfy some rule? I just like the way it looks in the new crop.
Regards......... Guy
Thanks Mitch - I should really look at the book you have suggested. The great CB was an inspired photographer but perhaps (dare I say it) even better at self-promotion.
I have built up a library of photography books and I include some of his amongst it.
I must admit that his work is great but he is far from my favourite - there are others perhaps less well recognised that have also produced exceptional work.
--
Tom Caldwell
I have built up a library of photography books and I include some of his amongst it.
I must admit that his work is great but he is far from my favourite - there are others perhaps less well recognised that have also produced exceptional work.
--
Tom Caldwell
I really think that this subject is a good one to discuss in a forthright but civilised way - and it is working well.
My further two cowrie shells is that the artist has the right to decide on his or her own presentation. Others might comment on these presentations in the spirit of helpfulness but in the end it is the photographer who sees the image and decides how to present it.
I did see rule of thirds in most of Mitch's examples but did not elaborate how this passed through my mind - if it helps I can comment further but I am in no way suggesting that Mitch or anyone else has got it wrong.
Briefly my thought were that the focal point of the subject in most of Mitch's images conforms to the basic 2/3 rule.
Regrettably in my own images the subject is often slap bang in the middle where I have focussed and cropping is necessary to bring some interest back. (2/3 or no).
--
Tom Caldwell
My further two cowrie shells is that the artist has the right to decide on his or her own presentation. Others might comment on these presentations in the spirit of helpfulness but in the end it is the photographer who sees the image and decides how to present it.
I did see rule of thirds in most of Mitch's examples but did not elaborate how this passed through my mind - if it helps I can comment further but I am in no way suggesting that Mitch or anyone else has got it wrong.
Briefly my thought were that the focal point of the subject in most of Mitch's images conforms to the basic 2/3 rule.
Regrettably in my own images the subject is often slap bang in the middle where I have focussed and cropping is necessary to bring some interest back. (2/3 or no).
--
Tom Caldwell
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum