Why does the Rule of Thrids work (if it actually does)?

Graystar said:

The Golden Mean occurs often in nature because it turns out that structures built upon the Golden Mean are the most efficient. For example, the pattern of sunflower seeds represents the most efficient way to get the most seeds into the area given. The Golden Mean's progressive nature is also in keeping with evolutionary principles, where nature builds on what's already there.

Click to expand...

Ok, yes, that makes complete sense, but... do you think this actually does?

Graystar said:

So there's a solid scientific reasoning behind the proliferation of the Golden Mean. Because of this, there is a benefit to animals with fully developed eyes to recognize the Golden Mean in shapes. Humans look for the Golden Mean in the faces of others, and shapes that don’t fit the ratio are “wrong”, which could indicate an unhealthy and diseased condition. Just think of a person with down-syndrome. We immediately recognize that something isn’t right with the person. And as Jodi Coston said, models that are perceived as beautiful tend to have facial features that match the Golden Mean.

Click to expand...

Graystar said:

So photographers exploit this built-in system of recognizing the Golden Mean by having proportions of the same ratio in their images. So it’s not crazy...it all makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

I dont know why you havent noticed it yet (maybe because you blindly started believing in that rule of thirds (im not insulting anyone)) but saying that the rule of thirds, or more precisely, the golden ratio works with faces, pictures and bodies because its frequent in a lot of non related phenomena of nature is as crazy as saying that a human heart must beat every 1.618 (φ) seconds to be considered healthy because a nautilus shell grows with a growth rate of φ, or that a perfectly blinking eye blinks every φ second, or what other stupidity comes to your mind?

In conclusion, did that makes sense? Are you going to think so?

--
-----------------------VERS--------------------

sjgcit said:

Deleted1929 said:

• Or could someone tell me of surveys or experiments made on normal people who do not know the rule of thirds ... If most of them preferred the ones with the rule applied, perfect! But if those werent the results... I wouldn't use the rule of thirds, because it would be a myth !

Click to expand...

So even if it works you won't use it because a survey says so ?

That's a bad idea. Throwing the Baby Out With The Bath Water comes to mind.

Click to expand...

No, sjgcit, yours is the bad idea! If the rule of thirds didnt really work most of time, because surveys proved it, then why use something that actually didnt really improve my pictures? It'd only improve the reaction id get from other photographers that believed the same lie! You know something, im kinda starting feel like Charles Darwin... one of the best scientists of the world wasnt believed by the best scientists of his time ... but later he was proved to be right, and the others were just wrong!
--
-----------------------VERS--------------------

piinklady said:

being a newbie my self, i was very kindly emailed this link
i found it very helpful.

http://vimeo.com/11150797

i hope you do too

Click to expand...

Its not useful, im sorry to say... The rule of thirds works on those pictures not because the intersection points are the places were you look first at, but because the interesting parts of the pictures were intentionally placed there! I mean, which is more interesting to see, a single color background such as a or the eyes of the person? Humans do naturally look at the eyes because we tend to recognize peolpe by their faces! And, by the way, that is really proved by science... the rule of thirds hasnt yet.

--
-----------------------VERS--------------------

zackiedawg said:

Movement. That's the key for me with the rule of thirds. For me, all art takes on more interest when it forces eye movement...a scene can be static, but still invite the eye to move across the composition, to search it out, follow leading lines, look for a sense of where the captured movement would go if the scene were to suddenly come to life. I like backgrounds that invite the eye, after being drawn to the subject, to travel back into the depth of the shot and look around, explore, feel and sense the colors, the shapes, and the light. Rule of thirds, by taking the subject off the center, or default, position of the eye, immediately introduces you to the photograph upon first viewing by pulling the eye off center to find the prominent subject, then to explore the spaces off to the opposite thirds, to try to feel or sense the subject's movement, or to journey the eye through the scene as if it were fully dimensional and immersive.

Click to expand...

Hey man, you have given me the greates answer for my question ive never heard... I think youre right, the next time im gonna take pictures, im not going to follow any rule intentionally, but im gonna compose so the viewers eye wil have to move through the entire picture... Thanks man! But that proves the rule of thirds only a little, but its close!

--
-----------------------VERS--------------------

victor93rs said:

I dont know why you havent noticed it yet (maybe because you blindly started believing in that rule of thirds (im not insulting anyone)) but saying that the rule of thirds, or more precisely, the golden ratio works with faces, pictures and bodies because its frequent in a lot of non related phenomena of nature is as crazy as saying that a human heart must beat every 1.618 (φ) seconds to be considered healthy because a nautilus shell grows with a growth rate of φ, or that a perfectly blinking eye blinks every φ second, or what other stupidity comes to your mind?

Click to expand...

So you're saying that symbiotic relationships don’t exist in nature?

Think what you like. Have a nice life.

.

Graystar said:

So you're saying that symbiotic relationships don’t exist in nature?

Click to expand...

Graystar said:

Think what you like. Have a nice life.

Click to expand...

Of course I do... One thing, if you get to think that i only believe in reason, its not the case. Im faith + reason. Im Catholic, I believe in Jesus, I believe that God exists and so on... but im completely rational. But the use of the Golden section in photography because its present in nature isnt justified by reason, its superstition or a myth . None of you still do not know why do you use the rule of thirds, and you still apply it! Is that being rational ?
--
-----------------------VERS--------------------

None of you, except zackiedawg, hasnt given me yet a logic explanation for the rule of thirds... You use the rule of thirds... But do not know if it actually works, if its true or false!
--
-----------------------VERS--------------------

THIS IS A RANT WARNING !!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.

Surveys aren't science. I've spent a lot of time in labs and surveys are used for mopping up messes on the floor in real labs, and occasionally for less glamorous tasks.

You've missed the point anyway.

What's the difference between letting rule of thirds dictate what you do and letting a survey that says something else ?

They're both like painting by numbers.

Use rules to act a basis for creativity and a learning tool. Some of them work sometimes for some people.

So tomorrow someone says their survey proves X. So what, if X was useful for the last hundred years of common sense ? We just stop doing it because someone says so ? Sod that.

And if the survey says X is bad for images, but someone important to you ( or even you yourself ) likes the image, what does that say ?

I'm not going to follow any idiotic survey. I'm not even going to follow a procedure laid down by the best bloody team of scientists this planet ever produced. If people did that Mozart would have copied Bach and Wagner would be a name lost to the history, and no one would have ever made Jazz, which would really annoy me as that would mean no Be Bop, no Charlie Parker and no Duke Ellington. And no Napoleon, no Marx Brothers ( sorry to get nasty ) and no Republican Party ( OK, this I could live with, albeit living in the dark ).

Of course this would make rule of thirds academic because no-one would have invented that, and anyway we wouldn't have any cameras.

Creativity is not copying, or rules or surveys.

There's a difference between using the tools in a technically proficient manner and being a robot.

The next thing you know there'll be a Civil Service Handbook for Making Striking Images.

Sound quite Monty Python ( another thing that doesn't exist in the rule book universe ! ).

--
StephenG

Pentax K100D
Fuji S3 Pro
Fuji S9600

victor93rs said:

Hey man, you have given me the greates answer for my question ive never heard... I think youre right, the next time im gonna take pictures, im not going to follow any rule intentionally, but im gonna compose so the viewers eye wil have to move through the entire picture... Thanks man! But that proves the rule of thirds only a little, but its close!

Click to expand...

That's pretty much how I go about it. I think 'rule' is a bad way to phrase it - suggestion, idea, concept...those would better describe it for me. I believe it is useful to know, and to develop the habit of subconsciously analyzing and using it when it is right for the particular shot. But the more someone consciously thinks about rules when composing, the less successful they are at producing a natural photo. Composition to me is something that can be improved through learning certain techniques and styles, but must still be embedded in the photographer to begin with. A technically correct composition with all 'rules' correctly applied can still be dull or uninteresting...because art is not science. Science can be applied, or coincidentally parallel, but art must remain something inate in the heart and mind of the artist. Photography is art more than it is science...the camera itself is a scientific, technical device, but how it is used and the output it produces is created through artful vision.

I find with the rule of thirds, it can be over-analyzed, and as with anything else, constant pursuit of technical perfection often misses the emotional connection that art can achieve. Often the art of a photograph can be lost in the technical debate over whether the rule of thirds is correctly applied, or the white balance is technically perfect, or the photo has achieved complete noise removal or artifact suppression, or some other technical measurement. Some folks love to pursue those things...and certainly they can be part of the consideration when taking or processing a photo, but I also feel an artist can work with those things, use them as tools, or overlook them when necessary to achieve a particular shot. It's not a popular opinion around many of these forums for sure...everyone wants RAW-corrected white balance based on a proper temperature reading considered 'right', and complete noise-free output, and perfectly applied rule-of-thirds. While many good artists may actually achieve all of those things, they often do so without consciously thinking about them - and will also sometimes not, if the end result delivers the emotion or feeling they wanted from their photograph.

The biggest problem I have with some photographers is how they can get so wrapped up in their own way of doing things, their own equipment they choose to use, their own style of shooting or processing, that they see anyone else's style, equipment, or processing as wrong because it's different than how they do it. When viewed technically or scientifically, there is a wrong and right way to do things. When viewed artistically, there is not. There may be a more universally pleasing or mass-accepted way of doing things, and a less popular way...but none are wrong.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

It works because it's made to be broken. If every good image followed the rule of thirds, the rule of thirds would be boring as heck.

RULE OF THIRDS...rules are made to be broken. Just shoot the way it looks good to you, thats my rule

victor93rs said:

Of course I do... One thing, if you get to think that i only believe in reason, its not the case. Im faith + reason. Im Catholic, I believe in Jesus, I believe that God exists and so on... but im completely rational. But the use of the Golden section in photography because its present in nature isnt justified by reason, its superstition or a myth . None of you still do not know why do you use the rule of thirds, and you still apply it! Is that being rational ?

Click to expand...

This post is reason enough to not bother trying to answer you. Basically, you're going to believe what you're going to believe, whether rational or not, and apparently you're not going to believe what you're not going to believe as well.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

victor93rs said:

Graystar said:

The Golden Mean occurs often in nature because it turns out that structures built upon the Golden Mean are the most efficient. For example, the pattern of sunflower seeds represents the most efficient way to get the most seeds into the area given. The Golden Mean's progressive nature is also in keeping with evolutionary principles, where nature builds on what's already there.

Click to expand...

Ok, yes, that makes complete sense, but... do you think this actually does?

Graystar said:

So there's a solid scientific reasoning behind the proliferation of the Golden Mean. Because of this, there is a benefit to animals with fully developed eyes to recognize the Golden Mean in shapes. Humans look for the Golden Mean in the faces of others, and shapes that don’t fit the ratio are “wrong”, which could indicate an unhealthy and diseased condition. Just think of a person with down-syndrome. We immediately recognize that something isn’t right with the person. And as Jodi Coston said, models that are perceived as beautiful tend to have facial features that match the Golden Mean.

Click to expand...

victor93rs said:

So photographers exploit this built-in system of recognizing the Golden Mean by having proportions of the same ratio in their images. So it’s not crazy...it all makes perfect sense.

Click to expand...

I dont know why you havent noticed it yet (maybe because you blindly started believing in that rule of thirds (im not insulting anyone)) but saying that the rule of thirds, or more precisely, the golden ratio works with faces, pictures and bodies because its frequent in a lot of non related phenomena of nature is as crazy as saying that a human heart must beat every 1.618 (φ) seconds to be considered healthy because a nautilus shell grows with a growth rate of φ, or that a perfectly blinking eye blinks every φ second, or what other stupidity comes to your mind?

In conclusion, did that makes sense? Are you going to think so?

Click to expand...

Carbonite Dreams, did you get a new screen name? Naughty boy.

victor93rs said:

None of you, except zackiedawg, hasnt given me yet a logic explanation for the rule of thirds... You use the rule of thirds... But do not know if it actually works, if its true or false!

Click to expand...

Hmmmm ... after posting about your belief in God, I can't understand why you insist on scientific proof.

Rule of thirds is "stupid easy". I can't explain why it works; don't need to; don't care to (if I thought there was an accessible reason, I'd be curious, but I haven't run across one yet). I imagine some philosopher/scientists have theories on it based on patterns in nature or survival instincts that require recognizing faces or some such thing.

What I know is that pictures with centered subjects look static, usually boring, but occasionally stunning. And pictures with subjects too close to the edge of the frame look off balance (sometimes wonderfully so). And pictures with subjects somewhere in between ... at the thirds lines or at the golden mean lines or at 60/40 or some other position ... usually look better. Not too static, not too tense.

I can't tell you why, but I can tell you that I compose shots that look good to my eye; that they often "obey" the rule of thirds is not intentional, but demonstrates that it's a good guideline. I don't need to know why it works to know it works. I can't tell you why bright parts of an image draw the eye or why red advances and blue recedes, either. But that's no reason to doubt that they do.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

The most popular food on earth is McDonalds. That doesn't mean it's the best. Even many who eat there regularly admit it's not that great. Bottom line - put a big mac next to a nicely cooked filet mignon and the difference will be apparent to all but the most brain dead. Iceberg lettuce = blown out sky, deep green romain lettuce = nicely exposed sky. Cheap hamburger = lack of composition, well cooked, high quality filet = thought and planning. But by itself, that big mac will look pretty good to most people.

I'll say this - I NEVER think about the rule of thirds when I'm shooting.

Yet it turns out that more often than not, my best photos adhere to it to some degree.

I also have great photos that totally don't adhere to it.

But more often than not, the 'rule' works.

NighCkahn said:

Like almost all forums based on one subject, the people who populate those forums generally cater their craft to their own peers rather than the general public.

Show a picture of a model with so-called excellent use of bokeh to a photographer, and the photographer will oooo and aaaah. Show the same photo to the average person, and they'll wonder why the background is blurry.

The general public will also expose for the shadows and blow the sky highlights out completely, but show a properly exposed photograph to the public and it's too dark. The public doesn't care about the sky. They completely ignore it.

The same is true with the rule of thirds. To them, there's absolutely nothing compelling or more interesting when a photograph is off to the side of the subject or on some imaginary point off center, to them it looks like the photographer needs some practice pointing his camera.

Basically what is happening here is a bunch of mental masterbation about what's important in a picture. Photographers get so caught up in the technical aspects that they forget that the general public doesn't want a picture that's not centered, is too dark, and the background is so blurry that the only eye wandering that's going on is that of looking for the visine because they're sick of trying to resolve a broken picture.

If you are trying to impress your photographer peers, then pay attention to the "rules"; but if you are trying to impress the general public, then just concentrate on the background and make a photograph that's all-in-focus and doesn't try to over complicate the simple idea of clicking the shutter release.

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.

puttin said:

RULE OF THIRDS...rules are made to be broken. Just shoot the way it looks good to you, thats my rule

Click to expand...

But WHY does it look good to you?

Sorry - I just had to stir the pot a bit.

I had ask about this rule of third many times. There is no answer to it, the study of the brain is still very primitive. The brain just interprets certain design as attractive, in this case, it’s the rule of third. It follow the classic painter/artist of the pre-photography day.

You don’t need any explanation to convince yourself. Why not just test it out , take a few pictures, one image with the main subject smack in the middle and the other with the subject off the 1/3rd intersection line to see which looks nicer to you.

This recent thread has some pics that show good example apply with the rules of third:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=35538518

The FIRST rule of photography is the rule of THIRDS. The SECOND rule of photography is there are no rules. If the SECOND rule does not apply to the rule of THIRDS, please refer to the FIRST rule.

--
Talk much less, take more pictures.

http://stv.smugmug.com/

Start with the rule of thirds, but if another arrangement looks better, use it. I accepted those two directives early on.

By doing that, I learned something amazing by experience: many images came out dramatically better or worse depending on how I cropped them at the computer.

Next logical step was to pay more attention where I was in relation to the subject when I took a shot. Closer? Further back? From this angle, or the angle over there?

After that, I began to appreciate in a practical way the choice of lens focal length.

If someone just said, pay attention to composition, it probably would not sink in. But given a fairly good rule and freedom to decide when to break it, I learned from experience.

Look, dont forget that photography is an art, yes there are rules, but you shouldnt look at these rules as a black and white case, either use them all the time or ignore them all the time, no.

Rule of thirds work a lot, but sometimes doesnt work at all, the choice is up to you and your artistic creativity. One of the ideas behind the rule of thirds is that when you shoot, you sometimes have more details in one part than the other, so you give the details part more part of your image, if you dont do that your photo will be unbalanced, with a lot of details in one half and a lack of them in the other.

And if you are shooting a river or lake with a lot of reflections, usually the horizon line is not placed in the third, usually in the middle, to give the sense of reflection more, so here it doesnt work.

It all depends on you and how you apply the rules. A fellow "pro" I know makes a lot of money of photography, yet he only applies the rules, never liked his style as it lacked a lot of experimenting and creativity.

As for the survey you were asking about, why dont you do it yourself, go to any part of your town, take same photos or cityskapes using the rule and breaking the rule, see what you like more, or post them on Facebook (not all your friends will know the rule) and see their feedback.