If there was a "distinct" subject, it would make a difference using the rule of thirds. In this case, I see none. The whole image is what it is.
It's quite well balanced up and down. As for left and right, the big cloud on the right does weigh the right side down a bit, but does not distract me.
I'm really interested in the farm land. I like how the yellow and green intersect in angular patches. The yellow vegetation in the immediate foreground is not as interesting. A higher vantage point would allow more of the farmland to be seen. I don't know how such a shot would be possible if you were in the middle of an open field.
The thing about the "rule of thirds" (or as I prefer to call it, the "gentle suggestion of thirds") is that it is a hugely simplified application of the much larger theory of visual balance, that just happens to work in a reasonable percentage of scenarios.
good example of not following the "rule" but using your own judgement on visual balanceSpot on. If you super-impose thirds on golden ratio, then you get a band around the centre of the image that generally carries more visual weight without making the image too static and/or unbalanced as placing objects dead centre might be. One of the reasons the so called "rule of thirds" seems to work is because anything exactly on the intersection is also on the diagonal between two corners, and close to the intersection of "triangles".The thing about the "rule of thirds" (or as I prefer to call it, the "gentle suggestion of thirds") is that it is a hugely simplified application of the much larger theory of visual balance, that just happens to work in a reasonable percentage of scenarios.
If you want to move beyond slavishly following it (and other such "photographic rules"), I would really recommend reading up on the broader mechanisms on which these "rules" are based. That way, you'll be much better equipped to make decisions on where to place the visual weight (and other compositional decisions), and really make your compositions convey whatever you want them to. It'll take more effort and practice than going through your photographic life with a handful of "rules" that can be explained in 20 seconds each, but I'm sure it'll be worth it. I personally really enjoyed and learned from Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye".
Nice image, by the way!
I used to be a world designer on the Lord of the Rings franchise for a short period. I worked with some of the world's most talented artists. Never once were the words "rule of thirds" mentioned in the creation of any landscapes or vistas. It either looked good or it didn't, even if the rule of thirds was actually applied to many areas and shots.
That's not surprising. I find this rule less applicable in wide formats. At 16:9, it's already a stretch, so to speak. At typical cinema widescreen formats, it really falls apart.I used to be a world designer on the Lord of the Rings franchise for a short period. I worked with some of the world's most talented artists. Never once were the words "rule of thirds" mentioned in the creation of any landscapes or vistas. It either looked good or it didn't, even if the rule of thirds was actually applied to many areas and shots.
-
Photo Tour Guides + Articles
500PX
Your last sentence summarises my thought on the matter. I don't always apply the rule of thirds when shooting but often find the best shots comply with it. However, as in this case, I don't think I could have made it work, yet for me at least the image is pleasing.I used to be a world designer on the Lord of the Rings franchise for a short period. I worked with some of the world's most talented artists. Never once were the words "rule of thirds" mentioned in the creation of any landscapes or vistas. It either looked good or it didn't, even if the rule of thirds was actually applied to many areas and shots.
-
Photo Tour Guides + Articles
500PX
Here is the same image as presented and with a crop of the foreground and then stretched to get closer to the rule.
Are you sure that it's the rule of thirds on your crop? (view full size to see composition template)Here is the same image as presented and with a crop of the foreground and then stretched to get closer to the rule.
Which do you like better? I like the second one as I think that rule has some merit, not necessarily all the time, but more often than not. In the second one, my eyes are not drawn to the foreground as they are in the first. Dave
--
Visit my gallery at http://davesphotography9173.zenfolio.com/
View of Yosemite Valley, Bridalveil fall 4 frame vertical pano taken from the tunnel parking lot.
http://davesphotography9173.zenfolio.com/p664463597/h158d1121#h158d1121
My Flickr pics here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefroggyspics/
If you read my post, I said "closer to the rule". I never try to get it exactly, as I don't work that way. I just get it to somewhere in the ballpark.Are you sure that it's the rule of thirds on your crop? (view full size to see composition template)Here is the same image as presented and with a crop of the foreground and then stretched to get closer to the rule.
Which do you like better? I like the second one as I think that rule has some merit, not necessarily all the time, but more often than not. In the second one, my eyes are not drawn to the foreground as they are in the first. Dave
--
Visit my gallery at http://davesphotography9173.zenfolio.com/
View of Yosemite Valley, Bridalveil fall 4 frame vertical pano taken from the tunnel parking lot.
http://davesphotography9173.zenfolio.com/p664463597/h158d1121#h158d1121
My Flickr pics here. https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefroggyspics/
--
Well seen in both contexts.
