Reading mode: Light Dark

Rule of Thirds Series

Go to last post
First up Brian I intend to drop into camera club judge mode and tell you what I really think. Read no further if thin skinned :-)

Pic #1. String of tourists on left obey some sort of leading line rule but would be hopeless without the bright red back on the right to balance it. Maybe so it's on a third on the left, but don't forget that the "rule of thirds" really means the main point of the image at one of the four thirds points just like the camera grid has on the LCD. My take in that situation would be a tighter frame to get just the string of bicycles on the left and forget the back of the guy altogether. Hard to do when moving of course so we have to take what we can and maybe crop later.

Pic #2. Too much boring green mountain in the top, the guide's face should be higher in the frame, on the top right third. In cases like that I seem to either stand up (if safe) or hold the camera up and/or out to the side to get a better view.

Pic #3. Too much blank road. But of course it's what you get when you are on the move. That old guy should have been on the right side to sort of balance the mountain and the overhanging bamboo on the top left. I've been there done that, we need to take the shot and move on even if it's not perfect. It's 99% about memories in this case, just like Lyn and me visiting Vietnam and Thailand, 10,000 images and quite a lot quite nice in memory terms but only maybe 5% satisfy strict "rules".

Pic #4. It's just a snap of a guy in a chair. Maybe cropped to just below the elbow would be better. A lot better would be if he engaged with the photographer and had his eyes looking at the lens. The shiny metal crutches on the left "lead the eye" out of the frame and are distracting.

Pic #5. Fashion parade. Cropping the chairs on the left would help some but still those tables are distracting.

So for me it's not about rules, it's more about cropping sometimes to maybe tidy things up, but also I guess then things may be being pushed into stronger thirds positions. Who knows, I just crop until it looks right.

I find it harder to compose exactly (LCD hard to see on R3/4) when taking the shot so tend to frame a little sloppily to allow future tidy-ups. Better is when I use my DSLR and have to peer though the eyehole.

Lyn is better than me at composing images and generally produces nicer shots, I tend to just grab the shot. But then I often see or try things that Lyn doesn't think of, so together we usually end up with a good collection. Again, mostly memories, not all wonderful shots obeying some particular rule.

Regards............. Guy
 
I appreciate the appraisal, as I find it difficult to identify even if the rule has applied in hindsight, let alone invoking it at the time of capture, which is why I asked did these conform.

Its a long road to the top when you want to photograph, I mean rock and roll.

Brian
 
Ah well

fell for my own rhetoric:

First image - very good shot - high impact of train rushing through past group of people unconcerned going about their business. Slight off-centering gives a rule of thirds positioning of the subject and maximises impact.

Second image - slightly out of focus and over exposed figure in alleyway is arguably the true subject of the image and give it its life. Again off-centre and well framed. Rule of thirds? Well almost.

Third image - strong mother's face leads to child and draws to the hand casually placed (like a child does) on her breast. Arguably the centre of the subject focus hinges around those three items and alludes to the rule of thirds.

Fourth image - the porter in the background looking directly at the camera is again arguably the true subject of a dynamic image and pretty well conforming to the rule of thirds.

Maybe I am wrong and I am happy to be corrected but I sense an unconscious application of the rule of thirds in the images - there is an intuitive eye for composition working here and not a cold blooded application of "rules".

Every photographer see the images differently and I am very glad they do otherwise it would be a dry old subject. (smile)

--
Tom Caldwell
 
Well said - some are hard wired and some will never find the formula.

Others slavishly follow the formula but the lack of some hard wiring can't be solved by rules.

However rules are a good way to start and might just connect the hidden hard-wires for many.

Rules can be safely forgotton once the hard wired instincts kick in (smile)

I suppose that makes sense?

--
Tom Caldwell
 
fotogenetic said:
I like the negative space at the top. I don't like the tight crop.
The negative space is an integral part of the image IMHO.
Click to expand...
That's why we are all different. My first attempt did have exactly that, but the grill/distractions on the left had to go and get the people in a better part of the frame. Then it had a long vertical format to contain the blank space. That looked OK to me, but then I thought, who the heck is doing this crop?, this is the way I'd normally do it. I like tight crops with good content to look at, I rarely use blank space.

Regards.......... Guy
 
I think Rui has "the eye" - I can never fault his work. It is as different from that of Mitch as chalk is from cheese but both styles have their own visual impact and an integrity that cannot be denied.

Open space has its own place in an image. I often crop tightly but see another image in the greater uncropped frame.

What should also be brought to mind is that attention to photography opens up a new way of seeing. The photographer takes images that "nobody else" might notice and pass by without acknowledgment or recollection.

Taking a greater interest in photography has opened my mind to passing photographic opportunities I tend to see things as image possibilities and "not possible" therefore I am now looking at what I might see as a framed image - this does not occupy my conscious thoughts but I find myself being mentally jogged on the arm by my subconscious that what I am seeing would make a good image and how I might capture it to best effect.

I doubt if I am alone here.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
brianj said:
I appreciate the appraisal, as I find it difficult to identify even
if the rule has applied in hindsight, let alone invoking it at the
time of capture, which is why I asked did these conform.

Its a long road to the top when you want to photograph, I mean rock
and roll.
Click to expand...
Trying to think now about how I shoot. There's not only that thirds thing that may apply, there's leading lines, diagonal compositions, avoiding "dividing" the image by some strong lines, edge distractions etc etc.

In the end I seem to take a shot that I like, but later see it could have been better. But often things move too fast so we just have to grab the shot.

For a crummy example of what I get up to, I found this set of three R5 shots taken in Sa Pa northern Vietnam.... (just a grotty screen grab here)



Things were moving so I took three shots to try and get what I wanted. The blank road is partially filled by the nearest woman and the motorbike, not so much filled I should say, but linked by objects to the background sign telling where we are - that's the leading line. (The sign says Sa Pa Market in Vietnamese and English and can be read OK in the original full size shot of course).

Now, which one would you pick to use later?

I reject the left hand one because the basket of oranges is cropped.

Maybe harder to choose between the middle and right one, but the middle one wins for me because of the slightly larger separation between the basket of oranges and the woman. Plus she is mid step in the middle one and looks like walking, the right one caught her in a position that looks like she's standing there.

One problem is that the red motorbike in the right one works better than the white one in the middle shot, but the position of the foreground woman decides it for me to be the middle one.

So there's often more than just some rule to obey, it often gets down to little details and what the subjects may be doing at the time.

Regards............... Guy
 
Tom:

That's for taking the trouble of analysing the pictures. Photographs and paintings can have meaning the same way as poems do, in the sense the the form and contact can interact in a complicated way that can lead to various interpretations by different people. Let me comment on the points that I disagree with you.
Tom Caldwell said:
First image - very good shot - high impact of train rushing through
past group of people unconcerned going about their business. Slight
off-centering gives a rule of thirds positioning of the subject and
maximises impact.
Click to expand...
If you put down a 1/3rd grid that creates nine squares only the top of the woman's head is close to the top horizontal line, but that is destroyed by the strong shape of the roof: there simply is no rule of thirds composition here.
Tom Caldwell said:
Second image - slightly out of focus and over exposed figure in
alleyway is arguably the true subject of the image and give it its
life. Again off-centre and well framed. Rule of thirds? Well
almost.
Click to expand...
The figure is not the true subject of the picture but merely a reference that emphasises the depth of the picture, which, by the way, is taken with the 21mm wide-converter. Putting a rule of thirds construction on this would be completely artificial.
Tom Caldwell said:
Third image - strong mother's face leads to child and draws to the
hand casually placed (like a child does) on her breast. Arguably the
centre of the subject focus hinges around those three items and
alludes to the rule of thirds.
Click to expand...
Again, putting down a 3x3 grid shows that there is no real rule of thirds operating here.
Tom Caldwell said:
Fourth image - the porter in the background looking directly at the
camera is again arguably the true subject of a dynamic image and
pretty well conforming to the rule of thirds.
Click to expand...
No way that the porter is the "true subject", which obviously is the woman on the left, whose left profile at the edge of the frame provides the psychological tension that gives the picture its meaning; and the porter is merely a counterpoint in this.
Tom Caldwell said:
Maybe I am wrong and I am happy to be corrected but I sense an
unconscious application of the rule of thirds in the images - there
is an intuitive eye for composition working here and not a cold
blooded application of "rules".
Click to expand...
I don't think trying to apply the rule of thirds to these pictures is relevant or meaningful. And, as I've stated above, the only conceivable function of the rule of thirds is to sensitise people that the main subject doesn't have to be in the centre of the fram; but that is juts as well accomplished by saying, "don't always put the main subject in the centre of the frame. Beyond that I maintain that the rule of thirds is counterproductive because this "rule" does not really exist except perhaps in the province of photo clubs. There simply is not any serious art analysis based on the rule of thirds.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Its the content that matters more.

I took this one while I was walking to a great fire that broke out in the 11th district of Vienna. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=11th%20district&w=26344495%40N05

As I was passing by and at the moment the man in the window was at a 90° angle to me, I saw the old lady just barely with my peripheral vision. I moved considerably closer (had the Sigma 30/1.4 on the cam- so I had to) - there were ppl to the left of me exchanging gossip with the 2 in the picture, one of them 1/2 a meter of my left shoulder - took it very fast, showed a "thumbs up" and said "Perfect!", then moved on.



This one shows whats very important to me about street photography. There just has to be "a peace of the photographer inside an image." Know what I mean? If not, look at her reaction to my presence.:



To me, her face expression is just priceless. Tells much more about me than about her.

This one was hard to get. This bench is very, very near a Turkish imbiss, so the dog was much happier looking at the gigantic pile of meat rotating on a stick, than posing for a photo. So I prefocused with my Nikkor 28/2.8 (on a Nikon EM) and enden up waving, whistling, and calling the dog, first nicely then vulgarly. He, just like an arrogant super star, wasnt going to make it easy for me. The "show" lasted 2 or 3 minutes. And since this was happening near a larger subway station, many ppl were passing by - some were politely amused, while others were laughing in an "I'm out of my mind and need to see a shrink" kind of way. Kneed down for a relatively lond time, being laughed at so laudely in public space, an urge to strangle the dog was building inside me. Just when my brain was formulating the thought "Thats it! Your dead, pal!" and the appropriate command, he looked into the camera and made this cool expression. I guess, he must have felt what was coming, at least subconsciously. I named the photo "chillin with da fellas."

(How can a dog have those gremlin ears?)



The photo isnt as sharp as it should be, 'cause I photographed the negative with a macro lens on my D40. I dont have any other means of digitalizing my analog work. Sorry.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26344495@N05/
 
mitchall said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agree, the rules must serve expressive purposes (if so), not the inverse.
mitchall said:
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".
Click to expand...
You're making me curios about the book as you mention it several times. So I bought it. Altought I think it will be more appropriate to street shooting, as "a style", than to my formal kind of work.

Also curiosly, I find a reference to Cartier-Bresson, together with Le Corbusier, in the book "Geometry of the Golden Section", by Robert Vincent.

--
Cheers.............. Rui
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruinog/collections/
(sorry, it set my entire stream as private and I'm slowly reorganizing my page)
 
No problem, Guy. And it's very interesting to find new values, impossible for the author.

But the empty square space is one of the elements that I value in this composition, not the couple. I still don't know why I took the shot before they leave the frame. The human presence is very valuable for me, but in architectural environments. Altough I give a great value to it in cases likes these compositions:





And especialy in this one:



Like you, I can't feel confortable photographing strange people in a street. So I really don't care about it, and the "vision" only turns ON when the formal subject pops up!

Anyway, let's see the how the chances play with me today. Another day of teachers fighting in the street. We expect to be more than 100.000 teachers manifestating in Lisbon, altought knowing in advance that the government won't show no respect for us...



--
Cheers.............. Rui
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruinog/collections/
(sorry, it set my entire stream as private and I'm slowly reorganizing my page)
 
mitchall said:
That's for taking the trouble of analysing the pictures. Photographs
and paintings can have meaning the same way as poems do, in the sense
the the form and contact can interact in a complicated way that can
lead to various interpretations by different people. Let me comment
on the points that I disagree with you.
mitchall said:
First image - very good shot - high impact of train rushing through
past group of people unconcerned going about their business. Slight
off-centering gives a rule of thirds positioning of the subject and
maximises impact.
Click to expand...
If you put down a 1/3rd grid that creates nine squares only the top
of the woman's head is close to the top horizontal line, but that is
destroyed by the strong shape of the roof: there simply is no rule of
thirds composition here.
mitchall said:
Second image - slightly out of focus and over exposed figure in
alleyway is arguably the true subject of the image and give it its
life. Again off-centre and well framed. Rule of thirds? Well
almost.
Click to expand...
The figure is not the true subject of the picture but merely a
reference that emphasises the depth of the picture, which, by the
way, is taken with the 21mm wide-converter. Putting a rule of thirds
construction on this would be completely artificial.
mitchall said:
Third image - strong mother's face leads to child and draws to the
hand casually placed (like a child does) on her breast. Arguably the
centre of the subject focus hinges around those three items and
alludes to the rule of thirds.
Click to expand...
Again, putting down a 3x3 grid shows that there is no real rule of
thirds operating here.
mitchall said:
Fourth image - the porter in the background looking directly at the
camera is again arguably the true subject of a dynamic image and
pretty well conforming to the rule of thirds.
Click to expand...
No way that the porter is the "true subject", which obviously is the
woman on the left, whose left profile at the edge of the frame
provides the psychological tension that gives the picture its
meaning; and the porter is merely a counterpoint in this.
mitchall said:
Maybe I am wrong and I am happy to be corrected but I sense an
unconscious application of the rule of thirds in the images - there
is an intuitive eye for composition working here and not a cold
blooded application of "rules".
Click to expand...
I don't think trying to apply the rule of thirds to these pictures is
relevant or meaningful. And, as I've stated above, the only
conceivable function of the rule of thirds is to sensitise people
that the main subject doesn't have to be in the centre of the fram;
but that is juts as well accomplished by saying, "don't always put
the main subject in the centre of the frame. Beyond that I maintain
that the rule of thirds is counterproductive because this "rule" does
not really exist except perhaps in the province of photo clubs. There
simply is not any serious art analysis based on the rule of thirds.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
Click to expand...
Mitch - you are quite right of course - I was trying to hard to read something into these images. My thoughts never were that you were applying rule of thirds but more that the composition was more intuitively directed. Your images have a dynamic that is off centre and therefore have more impact. I don't know of course but the style looks more off the cuff and seize the moment style which hardly allows time to ponderously frame the image - just grab and allow a natural framing to come intuitively.

My own style is not as loose as yours but I do tend to rattle off shots in a scattter-gun way and not sweat too much on getting the composition "just right" - I find that my unconscious brain has become (or was already) "wired for composition". As a result I have been putting a lot more effort into getting my camera settings brain wired up so that I have the camera settings right before I start shooting. This more mechanical function I find a lot less intuitive and I am still working on my skills. At least with digital you can test your settings and experiment a bit as you get instant feedback. I was always to impatient and not thorough enough to record my efforts in film-based 'post-mortems'.

ie: composition is easy if you have an 'eye' but getting the camera set right when you only have seconds to get that image is harder.

--
Tom Caldwell
 
As expected, more teachers appeared than in 8th March. The authorities were forbidden to give a number (unbelievable), the news talk about 120.000 teachers!



(Rossio Train Station)

It was a flood of people during several ours...



(Éden)

Also as expected, nothing changes for the government...

Oh, BTW, low light, without rules ;-)
--
Cheers.............. Rui
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ruinog/collections/
(sorry, it set my entire stream as private and I'm slowly reorganizing my page)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top