The Rule of Thirds is just plain . . . silly?

I've always thought that the old compositional "rule of thirds" was just silly - in that you can't (in my humble opinion) impose hard fast rules on an art form like photography. Seems like Thom Hogan agrees with me - well, he doesn't say it's a "silly" rule, but I do like what he says on this topic - here's the quote:

"I saw shots with the subject dead center that were great." Of course you did. You didn't really believe that the Rule of Thirds is a rule, did you? Rule of Thirds (and most other things you learn from others in Composition 101) is a crutch that doesn't get you very far. Subjects and what you want to express with them tell you how to compose, not rules that are inflexible. If you want a better idea than Rule of Thirds, think Balance. Sometimes a slightly offset subject like Rule of Thirds produces is balanced, sometimes it isn't . . . "
Here's the link:
http://www.bythom.com/you.htm
Thoughts?
Brian
--

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality
through not dying. (Woody Allen)

It's pretty easy to tell if a picture is good just by looking at it. No need to apply rules and stuff to complicate it. Just look.

is people who think it's a hard and fast rule.

Just like the 'rule' of handholdability: shutter speed = 1/focal length, and people who take it so seriously that they have to account for crop factor.

CoolHandLu said:

I've always thought that the old compositional "rule of thirds" was just silly - in that you can't (in my humble opinion) impose hard fast rules on an art form like photography. Seems like Thom Hogan agrees with me - well, he doesn't say it's a "silly" rule, but I do like what he says on this topic - here's the quote:

"I saw shots with the subject dead center that were great." Of course you did. You didn't really believe that the Rule of Thirds is a rule, did you? Rule of Thirds (and most other things you learn from others in Composition 101) is a crutch that doesn't get you very far. Subjects and what you want to express with them tell you how to compose, not rules that are inflexible. If you want a better idea than Rule of Thirds, think Balance. Sometimes a slightly offset subject like Rule of Thirds produces is balanced, sometimes it isn't . . . "
Here's the link:
http://www.bythom.com/you.htm
Thoughts?
Brian
--

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality
through not dying. (Woody Allen)

Click to expand...

--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.

CoolHandLu said:

I've always thought that the old compositional "rule of thirds" was just silly - in that you can't (in my humble opinion) impose hard fast rules on an art form like photography. Seems like Thom Hogan agrees with me - well, he doesn't say it's a "silly" rule, but I do like what he says on this topic - here's the quote:

"I saw shots with the subject dead center that were great." Of course you did. You didn't really believe that the Rule of Thirds is a rule, did you? Rule of Thirds (and most other things you learn from others in Composition 101) is a crutch that doesn't get you very far. Subjects and what you want to express with them tell you how to compose, not rules that are inflexible. If you want a better idea than Rule of Thirds, think Balance. Sometimes a slightly offset subject like Rule of Thirds produces is balanced, sometimes it isn't . . . "
Here's the link:
http://www.bythom.com/you.htm
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

It's no more or less valid than the "1/FL rule" -- it's just a guideline. This guideline most likely achieved it's "status" when certain photographers who wrote books noticed that they often seemed to be composing at or near the thirds.

But to say you "always" or "have to" follow the "rule of thirds" -- well, I don't know anyone who thinks that. But for those that like to always place the subject smack in the middle of the photo everytime, well, perhaps it's something they might consider.

The Rule of thirds is just a thought of where to place a subject in the picture. A bit over hyped in my opinion. It works in some cases but can make other pictures look off center. It is more a matter of choice as when to use it. Ansonn

iMac said:

is people who think it's a hard and fast rule.

Just like the 'rule' of handholdability: shutter speed = 1/focal length, and people who take it so seriously that they have to account for crop factor.

Click to expand...

At risk of ridicule from you, the 1/FL rule is actually a pretty good rule. Nobody likes blurry photos, do they? I mean a composition is one thing that is open for personal artistic taste, but motion blur and camera shake universally ruins photos. And yes you should apply the crop factor.

Anyway, different topic, sorry.

Where the rule of thirds helped me a lot to take better pictures was in opening my mind to the thought of where subjects and focus points can be placed in a picture that isn't centralized to get something that isn't a straight-on, subject-in-middle shot. I don't always follow it, but I definitely take more interesting photos now because at some point along the way someone taught me that and now I think more about the composition of a photo when I set up a shot and less about getting as much of the subject in as much of the frame as possible.

To some extent I still use it as a starting point, then work from there. Kind of like letting autofocus do its thing, then tweaking the focus manually to get exactly the focus I want. It's just another trick in the arsenal, and having more of those is never a bad thing. Just don't enslave yourself to them.
--
Genius is born--not paid. Oscar Wilde

I don't believe it should be called the 'rule' of 3rds, it is only true part of the time. It would be better named 'there are other alternatives than just the center'.

When I first learned it I applied it to my pics and I believed I was taking better pics. What I got from it was to look for different compositions by panning my lense left/right up/down rather than just taking a pic of what I initially thought would look good.

cancausecancer said:

I don't believe it should be called the 'rule' of 3rds, it is only true part of the time. It would be better named 'there are other alternatives than just the center'.

When I first learned it I applied it to my pics and I believed I was taking better pics. What I got from it was to look for different compositions by panning my lense left/right up/down rather than just taking a pic of what I initially thought would look good.

Click to expand...

You said much better than I did, I think.

Perhaps it should be called, "The Tool of Thirds". A useful tool every now and then, but by no means mandatory. It definitely makes for a nice learning step or exercise in training your mind to think about different ways to compose the same photo.
--
Genius is born--not paid. Oscar Wilde

CoolHandLu:

Heavens no. Some people, myself included, love rules/regulations/ordinances/laws; as this is what gives structure/direction to our lives. In fact, with me, the more rules/regulations/laws the better. :|
--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

As Captain Barbossa says, "They're really just guide lines." The trick is knowing when to use'em and when to follow'em.

...by no means.

Ignorant people who need a rule because they feel that will makes them feel safer, are.

And believe me they can live with a small part of the "rule", as a matter of fact, they feel much safer and find it easier because they like the minimum effort approach.

A subject, let's say a ball in the middle of any frame, let's say a carpet, follows the rule.

Generally speaking, you will find that the golden section (2/3ds rule is a minor part of it) stands everywhere, and yes it has to do with balance, harmony and pure maths.

Your statement is correct. I have never been told to follow a certain rule of composition when taking a picture. Its a rule that is only there for some situations.
--
Markos B
http://markosphoto.com

Exactly, and this should pretty much be built into ones shooting style/ability to see and shoot creatively with no conscious effort even needed, for the most part.

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

AlexanderVC said:

As Captain Barbossa says, "They're really just guide lines." The trick is knowing when to use'em and when to follow'em.

Click to expand...

tkbslc said:

iMac said:

is people who think it's a hard and fast rule.

Just like the 'rule' of handholdability: shutter speed = 1/focal length, and people who take it so seriously that they have to account for crop factor.

Click to expand...

At risk of ridicule from you, the 1/FL rule is actually a pretty good rule. Nobody likes blurry photos, do they? I mean a composition is one thing that is open for personal artistic taste, but motion blur and camera shake universally ruins photos. And yes you should apply the crop factor.

Click to expand...

But it's not a rule - it's a guideline. A very general guideline. A guideline with enough margin of error that crop factor - at least with DSLR's - is irrelevant. Everybody is different, every shot is different. And it also fails to take in mass - case in point a 70-200 F2.8 is easier to hand hold than a 70-200 F4 - because the F2.8 has more mass, thus more inertia, and thus takes more energy to shake it.

CoolHandLu said:

I've always thought that the old compositional "rule of thirds" was just silly - in that you can't (in my humble opinion) impose hard fast rules on an art form like photography. Seems like Thom Hogan agrees with me - well, he doesn't say it's a "silly" rule, but I do like what he says on this topic - here's the quote:

"I saw shots with the subject dead center that were great." Of course you did. You didn't really believe that the Rule of Thirds is a rule, did you? Rule of Thirds (and most other things you learn from others in Composition 101) is a crutch that doesn't get you very far. Subjects and what you want to express with them tell you how to compose, not rules that are inflexible. If you want a better idea than Rule of Thirds, think Balance. Sometimes a slightly offset subject like Rule of Thirds produces is balanced, sometimes it isn't . . . "
Here's the link:
http://www.bythom.com/you.htm
Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Take a step back and look at when guidlines like the rule of thirds are typically introduced to people! Everyone should agree it's during ones introduction to photography when they are just at the beginning stages of learning to better use a camera. My money says 90% of those just getting started will improve their photo quality greatly once exposed to the rule of thirds! Once the basic's are set in place creativity has to step up if you want to take it to the next level and being creative means breaking the rules...

You even bring up "Composition 101" so why the need to hash over the the basics once you grasp them? The basics are not silly they are starting points...
--
Dennis

Only if so if you see that as a RULE as in applying it in a rigid manner. As is, the " rule of third " is never a rule so to speak, it was and still is a guideline to composition and framing deeply based in classic art and aesthetics.

The Rule of third itself just say that it can be applied to form a balanced scene and composition , it never say that it must be strictly fellowed nro that it is the only one.

Is it too antagonistic to see that people see such technique and guiode meaning to help to be a hurdle simply because they instead of utilizing the help and tool, got so restricted by the RULE so to speak. This is not Video game where you fellow the guide and push this , then push that ...

--

• Franka -

Rule of thirds, like aesthetics, Ho Hum
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

and the strict adherence of fools.

People who know me in person, know that I love photography. I've got great equipment and I have for years. So all my people know me as the photographer guy. Most of the advice I dispense is about what camera to buy; but occasionally someone begins to take the art of photography more seriously and they ask me about what books I might recommend, etc.

My response is to never join a place like this, never read a book, never do any research for places that have tutorials such as Luminous Landscape. Then I make them a basic guide about aperture, shutter speed, the importance of learning manual mode, and understanding white balance. I tell them about the filters that I have and some of the most basic uses of them. Then I tell them that the only book they need to read is their owner's manual. The result is that almost all of them return with photographs that they would never have taken if they learned all the so called rules that would have simply made them just another clone among the masses. And instead, I get to see true creativity from their work. I mean really interesting things that I've never even considered, because I took the wrong approach and became a clone myself just like all of you. Some of their work is just stunning and awe-inspiring. I'd post some of it here, but I don't want their work to be cloned by you, the masses. Instead, I'll cherish it, knowing that it is truly unique because it is free of all the "rules".