Petteri's Composition Class 1: The Rule of Thirds

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

The Rule of Thirds is very simple in principle: you mentally divide the area of the picture into thirds, with two vertical and two horizontal lines, and compose your picture around the nine areas and four intersections.

The simplest variant is to put your subject near one of the four intersections. Like this:

However, this isn't all. For example, the RoT gives a good rule of thumb for where to put the horizon on a landscape. For example:

Of course, the horizon could just as well have been on the top line; this time, though, I thought the sky was more interesting than the water, so I put it where it is.

Yet another idea is to compose the picture around the regions delimited by the lines, not by the lines or the intersections:

I find that often just thinking about the picture in terms of the rule of thirds improves things. It can also be used very effectively in combination with other "rules," and sometimes consciously breaking it leads to very interesting pictures too. However, if no obvious way of composing the picture suggests itself, the Rule of Thirds is usually a good way to go -- and almost always better than the non-composition of just putting the subject splat in the middle of the picture.

Finally, here's the assignment:

1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and not some other compositional idea.

Have fun,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

arnold2002 · Jan 6, 2003

Petteri
Thanks for volunteering to do this.

I've just bought a 7HI and am keen learn more about the artistic side to photography. Unfortunately I'm flat out with work and study for the next 6 months so will only get a limited opportunity to take photographs and especially to do the time consuming stuff like uploading. However, will definitely be printing your posts and compiling a mini manual for reference when I do get the opportunity.
Regards
Arnold.

Marcel de Boer · Jan 6, 2003

Hi Petteri!

Thanks for starting these classes... It might make me start to use composition techniques consciously.. Unfortunately my D7 is in warranty repair (should be back in a few weeks), so I can't follow the class (film takes way too much time to develop and scan at the moment...)

Gtnx
Marcel

Jack D. · Jan 6, 2003

Marcel de Boer said:
Hi Petteri!

Thanks for starting these classes... It might make me start to use
composition techniques consciously.. Unfortunately my D7 is in
warranty repair (should be back in a few weeks), so I can't follow
the class (film takes way too much time to develop and scan at the
moment...)

Gtnx
Marcel

.....but i'm ready with my 7i.
thanx petteri for the great idea.
jack

Vinay Pai · Jan 6, 2003

Thanks prof

I have me 7Hi in hand and ready to shoot. Amazingly, it couldn't have come at a better time.... I've still got 2 weeks to go before the spring semester starts (I'm a grad student) so I've all the time in the world right now

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

Vinay Pai said:
Thanks prof

I have me 7Hi in hand and ready to shoot. Amazingly, it couldn't
have come at a better time.... I've still got 2 weeks to go before
the spring semester starts (I'm a grad student) so I've all the
time in the world right now

All right, folks. Have at it, then. I'm looking forward to the pics!

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Vinay Pai · Jan 6, 2003

OK... here are two shots I found digging thru my files. In the first I did NOT apply the rule effectively:

This picture would have been better if I'd included more in the direction the subject is looking

This picture has the head in the exact same spot, but is a lot better because the subject is looking at the camera.

PeterY · Jan 6, 2003

Great idea Petteri!! Thanks for your time. And here is my picture. I used the RoT because that is the only rule I know

Can't wait to learn more composition rules.

Ok, I thought the main subject of this picture was the bridge and the rock so I place them near the "intersection" I was trying to get the bridge to line up with the upper line as well. How would you have improved this? Thanks. Peter

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

PeterY said:
Great idea Petteri!! Thanks for your time. And here is my
picture. I used the RoT because that is the only rule I know
Can't wait to learn more composition rules.
Ok, I thought the main subject of this picture was the bridge and
the rock so I place them near the "intersection" I was trying to
get the bridge to line up with the upper line as well. How would
you have improved this? Thanks. Peter

I see what you were trying to get at. You have placed the bridge pylon nicely. However, IMO the picture doesn't entirely succeed for a number of reasons, most of which are related to the fact that there's a lot of chaotic detail here:

1. The first, most obviously eye-catching feature in the picture is the "horizon line" of the river's edge, which divides the picture into a top area and a bottom area. This is placed near the vertical middle of the picture, which makes the picture a bit static. It also cuts the connection between the bridge and the rock: I can see what you were after when you tell me, but the connection isn't immediately obvious from the picture.

Solution: I think the picture would've been better if you had applied the RoT to this feature rather than your main subject and thought in terms of areas rather than intersection points. I would have climbed up the river bank a bit, pointed the camera down and made the river ice (which has interesting textures, colors, and reflections) fill the bottom 2/3 of the picture.

2. As stated, the picture has a lot of chaotic detail. Using the rock as a secondary, foreground subject (what do you mean you only know one compositional rule? ;-) ) was a very good idea, but because of the other things competing for attention, it's not strong enough to seize it. In particular, the branches at bottom right are distracting.

Solution: Move left a bit to get rid of the branches, removing the foreground clutter, bringing the rock closer to the bridge, and making it stand out more. You could've effectively placed the rock at the intersection point of the RoT; now it is in an area, which IMO doesn't work that well.

3. The picture lacks a focus of interest; something for the eye to settle on. It's a nice setting, but it seems a bit empty. The eye travels from the rock to the bridge, and doesn't see anything much.

Solution: introduce a point of interest near the pylon. Imagine there had been a woman in a red coat leaning on the balustrade near the pylon. She would have brought the entire setting into focus. You didn't happen to have one around when you took the pic, I suppose?

Finally, here's an entirely different idea for composing the pic by the RoT: walk well towards the left, put the "horizon line" at the top RoT line, the pylon at the top left intersection point, and the rock at the bottom right intersection point, with the river ice and water in the foreground and running towards the bridge. Of course, you might've gotten your feet wet, but what wouldn't we do for a good picture? ;-)
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

Vinay Pai said:
OK... here are two shots I found digging thru my files. In the
first I did NOT apply the rule effectively:

This picture would have been better if I'd included more in the
direction the subject is looking

[snip]

Vinay Pai said:
This picture has the head in the exact same spot, but is a lot
better because the subject is looking at the camera.

[snip]

Both points are quite true... but off-topic for this lesson. Why don't you re-post these once we get around to "Line of sight?"

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Keith Mc · Jan 6, 2003

Well it seems this topic is right on time for me having just read about this on Charles Gardner's site and giving it a try at the zoo last week. I tried to keep this RoT in mind when composing all my shots to see how they turned out as compared to the last time I went to the zoo. These two shots came out nicely when using this rule (I like the second one best because it does not have the sky and tree tops, but I think it followed the rule the least because it put the sbjuects in the boxes rather than on the intersections).

PeterY · Jan 6, 2003

Thanks so much Petteri !

I would have never thought that the point of interest in this image would be the horizon line of the river's edge. But I do see what you mean. #2 and #3....yes I understood. Great advice!! Thanks again.

Peter

Petteri Sulonen said:
I see what you were trying to get at. You have placed the bridge
pylon nicely. However, IMO the picture doesn't entirely succeed for
a number of reasons, most of which are related to the fact that
there's a lot of chaotic detail here:

1. The first, most obviously eye-catching feature in the picture is
the "horizon line" of the river's edge, which divides the picture
into a top area and a bottom area. This is placed near the vertical
middle of the picture, which makes the picture a bit static. It
also cuts the connection between the bridge and the rock: I can see
what you were after when you tell me, but the connection isn't
immediately obvious from the picture.

Solution: I think the picture would've been better if you had
applied the RoT to this feature rather than your main subject and
thought in terms of areas rather than intersection points. I would
have climbed up the river bank a bit, pointed the camera down and
made the river ice (which has interesting textures, colors, and
reflections) fill the bottom 2/3 of the picture.

2. As stated, the picture has a lot of chaotic detail. Using the
rock as a secondary, foreground subject (what do you mean you only
know one compositional rule? ;-) ) was a very good idea, but
because of the other things competing for attention, it's not
strong enough to seize it. In particular, the branches at bottom
right are distracting.

Solution: Move left a bit to get rid of the branches, removing the
foreground clutter, bringing the rock closer to the bridge, and
making it stand out more. You could've effectively placed the rock
at the intersection point of the RoT; now it is in an area, which
IMO doesn't work that well.

3. The picture lacks a focus of interest; something for the eye to
settle on. It's a nice setting, but it seems a bit empty. The eye
travels from the rock to the bridge, and doesn't see anything much.

Solution: introduce a point of interest near the pylon. Imagine
there had been a woman in a red coat leaning on the balustrade near
the pylon. She would have brought the entire setting into focus.
You didn't happen to have one around when you took the pic, I
suppose?

Finally, here's an entirely different idea for composing the pic by
the RoT: walk well towards the left, put the "horizon line" at the
top RoT line, the pylon at the top left intersection point, and the
rock at the bottom right intersection point, with the river ice and
water in the foreground and running towards the bridge. Of course,
you might've gotten your feet wet, but what wouldn't we do for a
good picture? ;-)
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Lev Bass · Jan 6, 2003

Hi Petteri,

http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=502345

Putting the subject at the top right intersection seemed like an obvious choice since I didn't want to cut the long shadow.

Regards,
Lev
http://www.pbase.com/lev

Petteri Sulonen said:
1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

Keith McMonigle said:
Well it seems this topic is right on time for me having just read
about this on Charles Gardner's site and giving it a try at the zoo
last week. I tried to keep this RoT in mind when composing all my
shots to see how they turned out as compared to the last time I
went to the zoo. These two shots came out nicely when using this
rule (I like the second one best because it does not have the sky
and tree tops, but I think it followed the rule the least because
it put the sbjuects in the boxes rather than on the intersections).

I agree with you: I like the second one better as well. And you know what? I think it's because of the RoT. In the second one, the "horizon line" of the trees is near the top line in the RoT grid, whereas in the first one it's somewhere closer to the waistline, which makes it more static. Specifically:

Keith Mc said:

I think in the end this one has more potential than the second one: the giraffe's pose works better with the background elements. It has two problems, though:

1. The rocks to the left don't add much to the picture, and end up being a bit distracting.

2. The horizon is near the waistline of the pic. To pull this off, you usually need something that intersects the horizon, and here you don't have it.

Both of these issues can be fixed simply by cropping the picture a bit:

I cropped out some of the bottom, putting the horizon line near the bottom RoT divider and cropped out some of the rocks to the left. Now the picture is an almost "classical" RoT composition: the horizontal lines divide the pic into three bands of grass, trees, and sky, and the main subject (the giraffe's head) is at the bottom right intersection point.

Do you think this works for this shot? Remember, this is a compositional exercise about the RoT: I'm not saying this is the best way to crop the picture (or shoot it).

Keith Mc said:

The placement of the horizon and the tigher crop on the rocks is much better on this pic than the first one. However, the foreground grass is empty. This rarely works well: it's almost always important to put some point of interest in the foreground -- or omit it. Imagine a rabbit sitting at the bottom left "intersection point": this would've turned the picture into a real winner. Of course, such things don't come on order (unless you want to put it in afterwards in Photoshop).

My solution would be to crop out the foreground grass and a slice of the trees (to keep the 1/3 - 2/3 vertical division of space), making the pic more of a "letterbox" format.

Nice pictures, btw, and good illustrations of the RoT.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

Lev Bass said:
Hi Petteri,

http://www3.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=502345

Putting the subject at the top right intersection seemed like an
obvious choice since I didn't want to cut the long shadow.

[snip]

Wow! This one is spot on: I can't think of any way to improve it. Also a beautiful illustration of a classic application of the rule -- yet the picture is original, creative, and interesting. Could also be used to illustrate the "diagonal" and "negative space" concepts. It's humorous, too. Thanks for sharing!

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

David AA · Jan 6, 2003

Petteri, you'll gather I'm at an early stage.
I tried to apply the rule of thirds to this picture as it's the only one I know.

I wanted to contain the group of buildings as a whole but I'd appreciate your comments.

David AA

Petteri Sulonen said:
1. Present a photo of yours where you've used the Rule of Thirds in
some way -- either one of the ways described above, or some other
way.

2. Explain the way you've used it, and why you used it that way and
not some other way.

3. For extra credit: explain why you chose the Rule of Thirds and
not some other compositional idea.

Have fun,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

William West · Jan 6, 2003

Peter - I like the busy effect of the image because it makes me feel as though I am in the wilderness, and yet the bridge reminds me of man's pervasiveness on earth.

The first thing I noticed was the lines in the bridge, rather than the line of the river, but this may have been because you presented your explanation prior to showing the image.

William

Claymore · Jan 6, 2003

Petteri Sulonen said:
I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that
old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other
obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with
one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

--------------------------------------------------

Just a reminder, like you say, the "Rule of Thirds" is a starting point

and nothing is cast in concrete. A nobel effort, many users will

benifit from your tips.

Clifford

Petteri Sulonen said:
http://www.imageevent.com/cdbrown

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

David AA said:
Petteri, you'll gather I'm at an early stage.
I tried to apply the rule of thirds to this picture as it's the
only one I know.
I wanted to contain the group of buildings as a whole but I'd
appreciate your comments.

[snip]

Could you elaborate a bit more about what you were thinking when you took the picture, or what you like about it, or what you don't like? Also, how did you try to apply the RoT?

It's a nice picture, with a peaceful atmosphere and good light; it's also not too cluttered. To improve it, I would've either zoomed out to get it more of the context, and gotten more compositional options, or zoomed in on a detail for the same. A foreground secondary subject (a person, maybe?) would have made the picture more interesting too. The field in front of the hedge looks like it might have some pattern or texture that would give a sense of distance and scale: it might've been a good idea to just include that, if there was no clearer subject there.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri Sulonen · Jan 6, 2003

Clifford said:
Petteri Sulonen said:

I'm starting these composition classes with my fallback rule, that
old classic: the Rule of Thirds. I use it if I can't see any other
obvious way of composing a picture, or often in combination with
one of the other "rules".

"When in doubt, use the Rule of Thirds," I say.

Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------

Just a reminder, like you say, the "Rule of Thirds" is a starting
point and nothing is cast in concrete.

[snip]

Indeed, as are all of the other "rules". I think the main importance of the rules is that they give you a structured framework you can use to think about the pictures: for most people, visual thinking is quite hard without one. But the only way I know of understanding them is applying them, thinking of them, and practicing them -- and once you know them, breaking them.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Petteri's Composition Class 1: The Rule of Thirds

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts