"Rule of Thirds" vs compositional judgement

From the recent 1Ds viewfinder-screen thread:

Member said:

I too am using the grid screen. It has been a wonderful change as now
horizons are straight, and it also divides the screen into thirds for perfect
placement of objects during almost any shoot.

Click to expand...

I am interested in the "use-it-or-lose-it' aspect of certain artistic senses, when reliance is placed on any rule or artificial aid.

In the matter of composition, or placement/arrangement of visual elements in an image: Each such element has a certain visual(or psychological ) "weight", whether due to mass, color, brightness, emotional impact , etc. (an example of the latter is the too-crowded "feeling" of a portrait with the head facing the side of the frame with little space between).

One is either gifted-with, or can develop with effort and attention, an "artistic sense" or feeling for a pleasing BALANCE of these elements. (I most specifically do NOT mean symmetry, in the geometric sense, which I seldom find desirable;-).

Whether this "pleasing balance' is pleasing to others as well, or at least to how MANY others(;-) , has a bearing on the degree of public(or customer!) acceptance one's work will receive.

The fact that this artistic sense is completely subjective, and dependent upon the particular sensitivities, emotions, preferences, etc., of the individual photographer, is the basis for the development of individual "style", and a recognizable distinctiveness in his/her work.

IMO, the development of this sense of balance(for want of a better term) depends upon a conscious awareness of its significance, and and a consideration-of and attempt-to-acheive it in every image.

If one has an artificial-"aid", such as grid lines 'telling" you where to place certain elements(Rule of Thirds, for example), a situation of habitual-reliance can easily develop, where the artist's own judgement, as discussed above, is replaced over-time with the often too-simplistic , but oh,-so-easy/convenient "stck the main subject HERE and shoot!" approach.

The "rule" BECAME the rule, because the result is often relatively pleasing, ...but consistent application of ANY rule removes that essential(IMO) "personal vision" of the individual.

...which is something I very much prefer to think is involved in any work I am viewing ;-)

Crutches can be very useful WHEN absolutely necessary, ...but are not really the preferred method of getting-around.

Use with care!

Opinions?

Larry

One should know the "Rules", know "how" to apply them and "when" to break them. In a nut shell...

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

Balance and "movement" in composition interests me very much. An object of a given size will look "heavier" on the right side than on the left. Painters will often make an object on the right side smaller to balance a composition and do similar things with colour, brightness, etc. DaVinci's "backwards" writing does not look "correct" when viewed in a mirror. He is making a subtle point about balance and probably some other things that are going over my head! Almost all cultures read and write from left to right. A straight diagonal line that is lower on the left and higher on the right will almost always be described by people throughout the world as "ascending" and the converse of this line will be described as "descending." People will be resistive when they are told the line is meant to be the opposite of what they perceive it to be. I've noticed that most pictures of moving vehicles show or imply movement from left to right. In this sense, there are artistic "rules", but they are not laws. Imbalance is used to intentionally cause tension or anxiety in a work. As an exercise in a history of art class, we used transparent sheets of various sizes with grid lines dividing the sheet into thirds. We then placed them over photographs and depictions of paintings to see what works conformed to the rule of thirds. There was correlation a lot greater than randomness, but there were plenty of works that had little to do with the rule of thirds. I'll disagree with you a little bit. Since the perception of balance is almost universal, I don't think any development of artistic sense is necessary to recognize or appreciate balance. To CREATE balance does generally require a conscious awareness of its significance. Opinions?

Larry H. Smith said:

Larry H. Smith said:

I too am using the grid screen. It has been a wonderful change as now
horizons are straight, and it also divides the screen into thirds for perfect
placement of objects during almost any shoot.

Click to expand...

I am interested in the "use-it-or-lose-it' aspect of certain
artistic senses, when reliance is placed on any rule or artificial
aid.

In the matter of composition, or placement/arrangement of visual
elements in an image: Each such element has a certain visual(or
psychological ) "weight", whether due to mass, color, brightness,
emotional impact , etc. (an example of the latter is the
too-crowded "feeling" of a portrait with the head facing the side
of the frame with little space between).

One is either gifted-with, or can develop with effort and
attention, an "artistic sense" or feeling for a pleasing BALANCE of
these elements. (I most specifically do NOT mean symmetry, in the
geometric sense, which I seldom find desirable;-).

Whether this "pleasing balance' is pleasing to others as well, or
at least to how MANY others(;-) , has a bearing on the degree of
public(or customer!) acceptance one's work will receive.

The fact that this artistic sense is completely subjective, and
dependent upon the particular sensitivities, emotions, preferences,
etc., of the individual photographer, is the basis for the
development of individual "style", and a recognizable
distinctiveness in his/her work.

IMO, the development of this sense of balance(for want of a better
term) depends upon a conscious awareness of its significance, and
and a consideration-of and attempt-to-acheive it in every image.

If one has an artificial-"aid", such as grid lines 'telling" you
where to place certain elements(Rule of Thirds, for example), a
situation of habitual-reliance can easily develop, where the
artist's own judgement, as discussed above, is replaced over-time
with the often too-simplistic , but oh,-so-easy/convenient "stck
the main subject HERE and shoot!" approach.

The "rule" BECAME the rule, because the result is often relatively
pleasing, ...but consistent application of ANY rule removes that
essential(IMO) "personal vision" of the individual.

...which is something I very much prefer to think is involved in
any work I am viewing ;-)

Crutches can be very useful WHEN absolutely necessary, ...but are
not really the preferred method of getting-around.

Use with care!

Opinions?

Larry

Click to expand...

--
Cheer up, Peter Jennings. Maybe your side will win next time.

Larry H. Smith wrote:
[snip]

Interesting post. -- IMO the RoT is a good crutch: a fall-back "rule" for the times when no other compositional idea suggests itself, and also a good starting point for learning to think about compositionally. It works well as an antidote to the common reflex to put the subject and horizon line splat in the middle of the frame.

However, if you suddenly start to believe that the use of RoT becomes a criterion for "good" or "bad" pictures or the end-all be-all of composition, IMO you become silly. And I have heard of photos being marked down at contests because the subject placement was off by a few millimeters... as measured by the RoT.

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

For better or worse, I just use my own compositional judgment.



Do you like it? (I do). Does it follow the rule of thirds? Heck if I know. You can't even get people to agree exactly on what it means. Does it mean keep the subject out of the center box? Or put the subject on the crosshairs? Or put the subject in one of the 4 corner boxes?

In spite of all that, I actually ordered a new screen from BrightScreens.com -- it should be a stop brigher, with the same contrast as the Canon screen (they start with a Canon screen). I chose the center to have a horizontal-split, with a micropsim ring around it. I also had them etch the "rule of thirds" lines (scaled for the 1D, even) on there for me.

Why did I have them etch that on there? Not for rule of thirds, I can assure you. Mainly to give me another aid to help keep the darned camera level when there are obvious vertical lines in the frame.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Those who came up with the rules were simply noticing what looked good to them in prints.

I say, shoot what looks good to you. If that follows a set of rules, great. If not, great.

Melanie Kipp said:

One should know the "Rules", know "how" to apply them and "when" to
break them. In a nut shell...

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

what do you think of my composition in this gallery? I'm always open to honest, constructive criticism. No "It sucks!" comments, though. ;^)

My motto is "If it feels right, shoot it".

Now, I'm not saying every shot is as I'd have preferred it, but this is more or less, my best effort. I try to provide a variety of angles and compositions, to suite a range of taste, so there are some shots done from several angles. Well, enough pre-apologizing. What do you think?

http://svphoto.us/Data/Source%20Images/Virginia/Maymont%202003/HTML/index.htm

Ted

Larry H. Smith said:

Larry H. Smith said:

I too am using the grid screen. It has been a wonderful change as now
horizons are straight, and it also divides the screen into thirds for perfect
placement of objects during almost any shoot.

Click to expand...

I am interested in the "use-it-or-lose-it' aspect of certain
artistic senses, when reliance is placed on any rule or artificial
aid.

In the matter of composition, or placement/arrangement of visual
elements in an image: Each such element has a certain visual(or
psychological ) "weight", whether due to mass, color, brightness,
emotional impact , etc. (an example of the latter is the
too-crowded "feeling" of a portrait with the head facing the side
of the frame with little space between).

One is either gifted-with, or can develop with effort and
attention, an "artistic sense" or feeling for a pleasing BALANCE of
these elements. (I most specifically do NOT mean symmetry, in the
geometric sense, which I seldom find desirable;-).

Whether this "pleasing balance' is pleasing to others as well, or
at least to how MANY others(;-) , has a bearing on the degree of
public(or customer!) acceptance one's work will receive.

The fact that this artistic sense is completely subjective, and
dependent upon the particular sensitivities, emotions, preferences,
etc., of the individual photographer, is the basis for the
development of individual "style", and a recognizable
distinctiveness in his/her work.

IMO, the development of this sense of balance(for want of a better
term) depends upon a conscious awareness of its significance, and
and a consideration-of and attempt-to-acheive it in every image.

If one has an artificial-"aid", such as grid lines 'telling" you
where to place certain elements(Rule of Thirds, for example), a
situation of habitual-reliance can easily develop, where the
artist's own judgement, as discussed above, is replaced over-time
with the often too-simplistic , but oh,-so-easy/convenient "stck
the main subject HERE and shoot!" approach.

The "rule" BECAME the rule, because the result is often relatively
pleasing, ...but consistent application of ANY rule removes that
essential(IMO) "personal vision" of the individual.

...which is something I very much prefer to think is involved in
any work I am viewing ;-)

Crutches can be very useful WHEN absolutely necessary, ...but are
not really the preferred method of getting-around.

Use with care!

Opinions?

Larry

Click to expand...

--
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers



http://svphoto.us My Website

A co-worker and I were walking by a photography exhibit just the other day on the way to lunch.

Walking back, somehow I brought up the "rule of thirds". His comment was "I noticed that several images had the subjects way off to one side, but I had no idea why they took the photo that way".

He didn't seem to appreciate the photos that followed the rule any more than those that didn't. Other things were far more important.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

I say it's eather the rules or the photography. Photography by the rules goes down the drain.

50/1.4 wrote:
[snip]

50/1.4 said:

Almost all cultures read and write from left to right.

Click to expand...

... except, of course, the two billion or so people using the Arabic script, (right to left), the billion and a half using Chinese (usually top to bottom)... and a large number of other, smaller script systems. IOW, there's little preference for left to right.

50/1.4 said:

A
straight diagonal line that is lower on the left and higher on the
right will almost always be described by people throughout the
world as "ascending" and the converse of this line will be
described as "descending."

Click to expand...

Could you cite a source? I have a feeling this could be tied to the culture's reading direction, too.

[snip]

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

Hmmmmm. Do Chinese look at graphs sideways? Do Arabs look at them backwards? I'd never thought of that before.

Petteri Sulonen said:

Petteri Sulonen said:

Almost all cultures read and write from left to right.

Click to expand...

... except, of course, the two billion or so people using the
Arabic script, (right to left), the billion and a half using
Chinese (usually top to bottom)... and a large number of other,
smaller script systems. IOW, there's little preference for left to
right.

Petteri Sulonen said:

A
straight diagonal line that is lower on the left and higher on the
right will almost always be described by people throughout the
world as "ascending" and the converse of this line will be
described as "descending."

Click to expand...

Could you cite a source? I have a feeling this could be tied to the
culture's reading direction, too.

[snip]

Petteri
--
Portfolio: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/ ]
Photo lessons: [ http://www.seittipaja.fi/lessons/ ]

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

I do not disagree with your analysis so much that aids should not be used. Personally, for whatever reason, I have trouble getting a level horizon on the 1D. Never had problems on the K-1000, AE-1, A-1, A2e... just the 1D??? If I employ an aid in the view finder to help, that is not a problem. If it divides things up so I become more conscious of framing, that is not a problem.

The split image was an Aid.
The Micro-prism was an Aid.
The Frame-remaining counter is an Aid.
The exposure information is an Aid.
The flash compensation setting in the view-finder is an Aid.

The point of all the information in the view-finder is to "AID" the photographer in understanding the current conditions. Can you do great work with a simple matte screen and a hand held meter? Yes. And some of the best photographs ever taken were done that way. Does that mean that we should walk away from advances just because that does not make you an "artist". Not a chance. That is why what was wild-life photography 25 years ago won't cut it in todays world. The "aids" have raised the standards.

Steven

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/in_the_supers
http://upload.pbase.com/snoyes/flight_to_the_canyon

I agree with a lot of the statements you make regarding ascending, descending, motion, etc., but I think these interpretations they imparted on us culturally.

I spent a considerable amount of time in Japan once upon a time, and a lot of their artwork/paintings are "portrait" orientation, but longer/thinner, like a panoramic on end. I find it no coincidence that their written language can also be done in a vertical format.

Yes, I view a diagonal / as ascending and a \ as descending, I think because I read left to right. I've flipped many of photos around to put the weight of the image on the left side with the subject looking right because it is more comfortable to me.

I remember reading about such things in an art book once (not photography oriented, but it still applies) but I can't remember where....

50/1.4 said:

Balance and "movement" in composition interests me very much. An
object of a given size will look "heavier" on the right side than
on the left. Painters will often make an object on the right side
smaller to balance a composition and do similar things with colour,
brightness, etc. DaVinci's "backwards" writing does not look
"correct" when viewed in a mirror. He is making a subtle point
about balance and probably some other things that are going over my
head! Almost all cultures read and write from left to right. A
straight diagonal line that is lower on the left and higher on the
right will almost always be described by people throughout the
world as "ascending" and the converse of this line will be
described as "descending." People will be resistive when they are
told the line is meant to be the opposite of what they perceive it
to be. I've noticed that most pictures of moving vehicles show or
imply movement from left to right. In this sense, there are
artistic "rules", but they are not laws. Imbalance is used to
intentionally cause tension or anxiety in a work. As an exercise
in a history of art class, we used transparent sheets of various
sizes with grid lines dividing the sheet into thirds. We then
placed them over photographs and depictions of paintings to see
what works conformed to the rule of thirds. There was correlation
a lot greater than randomness, but there were plenty of works that
had little to do with the rule of thirds. I'll disagree with you a
little bit. Since the perception of balance is almost universal, I
don't think any development of artistic sense is necessary to
recognize or appreciate balance. To CREATE balance does generally
require a conscious awareness of its significance. Opinions?

Click to expand...

50/1.4 said:

I'll disagree with you a
little bit. Since the perception of balance is almost universal, I
don't think any development of artistic sense is necessary to
recognize or appreciate balance.

Click to expand...

Re. "disagreement":

I'll start with your subject line ;-)...Balance IS geometrically asymmetrical?

I say it can be either. A simple cross, with equal-length arms, placed centrally on a square sheet of paper IS "geometrically balanced", and is NOT assymetrical. (i.e.IS symmetrical!)

Balance can be achieved between equal elements, or between unequal elements,...the classic example being the see-saw, or teeter-totter.

A lesser "force'"at a greater distance, balancing a greater one at a shorter distance, ...OR two equal forces equally placed.

On to your paragraph(above):

IMO ANY physical (or psychological) skill or ability, however "universal" in rudimentary form, can be "developed". The ability to recognize/appreciate "visual balance"(in an image) has, for the purpose of this discussion, been called an "artistic sense". To suggest the knack for such perception is universally pre-existing, and can not (in most cases) benefit from improving-upon (paraphrase/"does not need developing") is to defy what to me is patent reality ;-).

Exemplars, or those who are the "best' at any activity, are those who have indeed "developed" to the highest levels, qualities that exist more or less 'universally' among the rest of us.

That any ability is inherent, ,,,says nothing 'universal' about it's degree of development. The best usually 'practice' a lot, for good reason.

50/1.4 said:

To CREATE balance does generally
require a conscious awareness of its significance. Opinions?

Click to expand...

And a "more-developed" sense/recognition of its consituent elements can only aid in the creating ;-)

Thanks for responding,

Larry

50/1.4 said:

Balance and "movement" in composition interests me very much. An
object of a given size will look "heavier" on the right side than
on the left. Painters will often make an object on the right side
smaller to balance a composition and do similar things with colour,
brightness, etc. DaVinci's "backwards" writing does not look
"correct" when viewed in a mirror. He is making a subtle point
about balance and probably some other things that are going over my
head! Almost all cultures read and write from left to right. A
straight diagonal line that is lower on the left and higher on the
right will almost always be described by people throughout the
world as "ascending" and the converse of this line will be
described as "descending." People will be resistive when they are
told the line is meant to be the opposite of what they perceive it
to be. I've noticed that most pictures of moving vehicles show or
imply movement from left to right. In this sense, there are
artistic "rules", but they are not laws. Imbalance is used to
intentionally cause tension or anxiety in a work. As an exercise
in a history of art class, we used transparent sheets of various
sizes with grid lines dividing the sheet into thirds. We then
placed them over photographs and depictions of paintings to see
what works conformed to the rule of thirds. There was correlation
a lot greater than randomness, but there were plenty of works that
had little to do with the rule of thirds. I'll disagree with you a
little bit. Since the perception of balance is almost universal, I
don't think any development of artistic sense is necessary to
recognize or appreciate balance. To CREATE balance does generally
require a conscious awareness of its significance. Opinions?

Click to expand...

You may not realize it but you are pretty darn close to the upper left interest point of the RoT. When I first looked at the picture, my eye was drawn to the person on the left , somewhere around his ear. That stood out the most. There are other things that seem to point you to the interest point like the person's face on the left is brighter, the mic stand is pointing to the interest point as well as the person's thumb. All stear your eye to about the same point - the point of interest. The very white dodad pointing down is a distraction and would tend to point you out of the picture if there were not so many things pointing to the ear of the person on the left. So in addition to the RoT there are other things that come into play. If you say the person on the right is the intended point of interest in the picture, well, sorry, no brass ring. Remember that the RoT is an attempt to document the way a person looks at a picture. You may have not tried to use the RoT in this picture but you came very close.

DavidP said:

For better or worse, I just use my own compositional judgment.



Do you like it? (I do). Does it follow the rule of thirds? Heck
if I know. You can't even get people to agree exactly on what it
means. Does it mean keep the subject out of the center box? Or
put the subject on the crosshairs? Or put the subject in one of
the 4 corner boxes?

In spite of all that, I actually ordered a new screen from
BrightScreens.com -- it should be a stop brigher, with the same
contrast as the Canon screen (they start with a Canon screen). I
chose the center to have a horizontal-split, with a micropsim ring
around it. I also had them etch the "rule of thirds" lines
(scaled for the 1D, even) on there for me.

Why did I have them etch that on there? Not for rule of thirds, I
can assure you. Mainly to give me another aid to help keep the
darned camera level when there are obvious vertical lines in the
frame.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

In a major way.

And what is that thing in the lower left cutting across the boys torso? There are dozens of "rules" of composition. "S"-curves, balance, symmetry, having a subject, showing direction, composition by thirds. Some are actually contradictory. Many can be used in conjunction to get a stronger composition. And like the Matrix, some can be bent and others broken.

Steven

DavidP said:

For better or worse, I just use my own compositional judgment.



Do you like it? (I do). Does it follow the rule of thirds? Heck
if I know. You can't even get people to agree exactly on what it
means. Does it mean keep the subject out of the center box? Or
put the subject on the crosshairs? Or put the subject in one of
the 4 corner boxes?

In spite of all that, I actually ordered a new screen from
BrightScreens.com -- it should be a stop brigher, with the same
contrast as the Canon screen (they start with a Canon screen). I
chose the center to have a horizontal-split, with a micropsim ring
around it. I also had them etch the "rule of thirds" lines
(scaled for the 1D, even) on there for me.

Why did I have them etch that on there? Not for rule of thirds, I
can assure you. Mainly to give me another aid to help keep the
darned camera level when there are obvious vertical lines in the
frame.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

--
---
New and Updated!!!
http://www.pbase.com/snoyes/in_the_supers
http://upload.pbase.com/snoyes/flight_to_the_canyon

Larry H. Smith said:

Larry H. Smith said:

I too am using the grid screen. It has been a wonderful change as now
horizons are straight, and it also divides the screen into thirds for perfect
placement of objects during almost any shoot.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm not a professional photographer and I do not consider myself to be artistic. Some people really like my pictures. I like two or three out of every thousand or so that I shoot.

I've got all sorts of things to work on to improve my photography skills, and composition is high on the list. My favorite form of photography, candid portrait shots at renaissance fairs, means I usually have less than two seconds to focus, frame and take the shot.

I know that the rule of thirds isn't perfect or all encompasing, but in the split second I've got to get the picture, it is one of those things I try to work into the shot if I can. I've got to start somewhere.

--
legalize UPDOC!

Petteri Sulonen said:

... except, of course, the two billion or so people using the
Arabic script, (right to left), the billion and a half using
Chinese (usually top to bottom)... and a large number of other,
smaller script systems. IOW, there's little preference for left to
right.

Click to expand...

Estimates of Arabic speakers range from 210-250 million people. That's an error of an order of magnitude.

I would wager that most people of the world do indeed display a preference for reading left to right.

Cheers.
Rayo

If I want to be a good golfer, I could buy a bunch of professional clubs, some balls, a bag, and simply go out and start swinging. Or I could take lessons, learn the rules, and practice them.

Some people may be golf "geniuses" who don't need rules -- but the vast majority of people are not.

Since I'm probably not a genius, which of the above paths is going to take me further faster in my goal to become a good golfer?

In photography, we have many "rules". Used properly, they can improve your photos. Know WHY they exist, and you'll know when to apply them, and when to break them.

A centered horizon is static. Usually you want to move it up or down to show more sky or more landscape. If you mood you want to project, however, is lifeless, or calm, then you may want to toss RoT out the window.

"Rules" such as follow the strong diagonal can also act as signposts, shouting out "there may be a picture here" when you walk down the street and see one.

"Rules" can help you diagnose why a picture isn't quite working. "Rules" can be a fallback when you don't have time to think, just to act.

Finally. "rules" are really no such thing. As said before, at most they're aids. A good photographer will apply them. The better photographer knows why they exist, and when to apply them. The best will simply transcend them.

Me, I still need to know when to use the five iron....

I think that's another mic stand. As I recall, it was holding a microphone down to pick up the sax of a seated player.

Steven Noyes said:

And what is that thing in the lower left cutting across the boys
torso?

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise