This a great article by Tavis Leaf Glover written at Petapixel (no links to this site seem to be allowed by DPR). I hope people read it and stop with all the rule of thirds nonsense.
--
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
10 Myths of the rule of thirds
- Thread starter Abrak
- Start date
This a great article by Tavis Leaf Glover written at Petapixel (no links to this site seem to be allowed by DPR). I hope people read it and stop with all the rule of thirds nonsense.
--
Sean_Jayhawk
Veteran Member
What's interesting, however, is that many of his examples of other compositional frameworks still conform to the principal of thirds. The Degas painting, the Henri Cartier-Bresson photo, etc.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the RoT principal is the only one that should operate or that it should not be combined with others or that it should be used in every image. But it is a useful learning tool to get people away from centering in every shot as my non-photo friends do when i lend them a camera.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the RoT principal is the only one that should operate or that it should not be combined with others or that it should be used in every image. But it is a useful learning tool to get people away from centering in every shot as my non-photo friends do when i lend them a camera.
Interesting article.
I actually consider photography as an art form that has no set rules. There's no right or wrong, it's art not science. I like the randomness of taking a stack of photos, then picking out a few that hit the mark.
What I don't like, is picking up my camera and thinking about all these "rules" that are gonna supposedly give me the perfect photo. It never happens that way.
J
I actually consider photography as an art form that has no set rules. There's no right or wrong, it's art not science. I like the randomness of taking a stack of photos, then picking out a few that hit the mark.
What I don't like, is picking up my camera and thinking about all these "rules" that are gonna supposedly give me the perfect photo. It never happens that way.
J
Knoxis
Leading Member
- Messages
- 628
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 221
What I think is that the Rule of Thirds is not necessarily bad, it's just that so many use it over other, and arguably better, compositional rules, such as symmetry, leading lines, and others mentioned in the article. RoT can be useful, but if only used alone it can be quite boring. Circumventing the RoT and using other compositional 'rules' allows photographers to make stronger compositions, but never realize this as they persistently stick to the rule that so many professionals recommend that they start learning with. So RoT is not necessarily bad, it just limits the creativity of photographers who don't bother learning other techniques.
The reason that many photos bear a resemblance to the ROT is because if you draw the basic armature of a 3:2 rectangle (ie a sensor) - the power points where the rectilinear's meet the baroque and sinister diagonals fall broadly on the ROT.
Cartier-Bresson was trained as an artist and studied geometry under Andre Lohte. Virtually all his photos have strong diagonals and many conform to the basic armature of the 3:2 rectangle.
--
WarrenPeas
Senior Member
I completely agree with you. How a photo is composed is subjective to the photographer. It is just a technique that, when used correctly, can create great photos. To me, the fault lies with the author for allowing himself to be engrained to believing that it should be used. I wouldn't be dismissive of a technique that has been shown to work by countless professionals and non-professionals alike.
Well that is one way of looking at it. I think there are two big problems with the 'Rule of Thirds'. First it is taken by many people as being a fundamental tenet of composition. Actually this 'rule' is only about 200 years old (and is incredibly narrow) while many of the fundamentals of composition date back 1,000 years plus. So I feel he dismisses partly because many people take pretty much as 'The rule of composition' and therefore tend to dismiss others.
Secondly, the basic problem that both painters and photographers face is depicting a 3d scene in a 2d format. A major problem with the ROT is that the horizantal and vertical lines are inherently non-dynamic...
So for instance if you take this photo from McCurry....
Now you can say this photo is basically a rule of thirds composition but it inherently misses the underlying design of the photo...
...then place in the underling gamut and you can see the dynamic symmetry...
So the reason to dismiss the rule of thirds is because if you 'focus' on it, it will tend to block your understanding of more dynamic forms of composition. (Incidentally, the composition is so strong in this photo noone notices the horizon isnt straight.)
--
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
I immediately saw the horizon wasn't straight because I just got done straightening the horizons on a bunch of ocean shots I took today...
Is it ? If so, then I suggest that those people don't have a better alternative. Saying "rule of thirds is bad, dynamic composition is better" may be true, but my sense is that anyone who takes ROT as a fundamental tenet of composition is a beginner or someone who is simply content to be a dabbler.
I disagree. That's like saying it's reasonable to dismiss A mode because if you focus on it, you'll never understand M mode.
I don't make a habit of using rule of thirds, though I certainly take pictures that conform to it. I don't really consciously think about composition at that technical level when shooting, but then, I shoot things I encounter. Perspective and framing are my compositional tools. And I find that I do okay going by how things look in the viewfinder. I can sense that one composition is more 'dynamic' than another without having to imagine some convoluted lines in my viewfinder. I don't construct photos; I don't pose models or arrange subjects in a still life - the few times I've tried, I've discovered that I'm really lousy at it, and could stand to learn a lot from composition techniques like the author describes. But my point is that learning the rule of thirds never harmed me in any way. No dead ends, no "blocking", just information to process and move on.
I've actually spent a little time on the author's website before - it's pretty impressive, but kind of overwhelming (where ROT is kind of simplistic).
You're right, and that's normally a pet peeve of mine !
- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
The article is ridiculous and full of logical errors. Here are a few:
MYTH #1: “It makes it visually pleasing”. To debunk it, he shows other ways to make an image pleasing, which in no way proves that the ROT does not. Ironically, his examples actually obey the ROT.
MYTH #2: “Pros use it”. He then shows two examples where they do not. The problems is: Myth #2 does not say that pros use it all the time.
MYTH #3: “It moves the eye around the image.” I have never heard of such a myth but his 4th crop works quite well. His Arabesque image actually obeys the ROT. Then he talks about other techniques to create dynamics which in no way says that the ROT does not.
MYTH #4: “It gets the subject out of the center.” Well, it does, if you put it in the center first, which many beginners do. I do not see how one can argue with the fact that the ROT points are not in the center.
MYTH #5: “Basis for a well balanced and interesting shot”: Pretty much a made up myth but his ROT crop is better in the boat example.
MYTH #6: “It’s a great starting point for beginners” (boldface mine). It is.
...
MYTH #9: “Cropping to the rule of thirds after shooting a photo is a great way to save an image”: Cropping a poorly composed, badly lit image will not save anything. It does not need to be poorly lit and if it is poorly composed, it could save it. As an absolute statement this is a myth because one can always find a counter example, but it was him who formulated it that way.
MYTH #1: “It makes it visually pleasing”. To debunk it, he shows other ways to make an image pleasing, which in no way proves that the ROT does not. Ironically, his examples actually obey the ROT.
MYTH #2: “Pros use it”. He then shows two examples where they do not. The problems is: Myth #2 does not say that pros use it all the time.
MYTH #3: “It moves the eye around the image.” I have never heard of such a myth but his 4th crop works quite well. His Arabesque image actually obeys the ROT. Then he talks about other techniques to create dynamics which in no way says that the ROT does not.
MYTH #4: “It gets the subject out of the center.” Well, it does, if you put it in the center first, which many beginners do. I do not see how one can argue with the fact that the ROT points are not in the center.
MYTH #5: “Basis for a well balanced and interesting shot”: Pretty much a made up myth but his ROT crop is better in the boat example.
MYTH #6: “It’s a great starting point for beginners” (boldface mine). It is.
...
MYTH #9: “Cropping to the rule of thirds after shooting a photo is a great way to save an image”: Cropping a poorly composed, badly lit image will not save anything. It does not need to be poorly lit and if it is poorly composed, it could save it. As an absolute statement this is a myth because one can always find a counter example, but it was him who formulated it that way.
Yes, I think that strikes at the heart of it. Artists spend years studying composition to improve their art. Photographers generally spend years studying camera systems in order to improve theirs.
The very simplicity of the rule of thirds makes it very attractive to people and, in my view, also often gives them a 'cop out' to not delve into the subject deeper. Rule of Thirds is the 'smart phone' camera of composition. It is 'good enough' for many people and 'gets the job done' etc.. As a rule I personally feel it has done more harm than good. And feel that many photographers are missing out by not delving deeper into composition theory.
apathyman
Senior Member
The rule of thirds isn't nonsense despite what Glover says. It works well in many cases but that doesn't mean you have to slavishly apply it to every composition.
Cheers
Brian
Biological_Viewfinder
Senior Member
It occurs to me that all of these disagreements are from preconceived notions. Before you read that article, you decided that the author was wrong. There was no room for you to absorb what the author was trying to communicate to you; which was that it isn't the rule of thirds or any other fundamental method of photography, but rather the communication of the method.
You see, you already had your mind made up. You went to his website to prove him wrong. You sought out anything that was wrong and then lit it up in lights and pointed at it.
But you failed to listen.
The spirit of what was being written is that how people teach photography is wrong. If all photography entails is collecting a set number of light photons, using raw, portraits get shallow depth of field, landscapes that use wide angle, and use of the rule of thirds because "WE ALL TOLD YOU USE IT!", then that kind of teaching misses the mark.
Photography is also artistry. And artistry is not something that can be containerized by rules.
You know that many photographers have never used the auto-scene features on their cameras. You know why? They feel that those things are for beginners. And it's a shame too, because they're occasionally a delight.
Some cameras can be set up to make very useable JPEG shots. But most people in a forum won't accept that, or allow anyone else to accept such a notion.
The webpage as a whole described a man who had learned photography from people such as those who enforce their will over others here- Who would mock, insult, and ridicule anyone who disagreed with them. He learned photography just as most of us learned it; by force. We come here ignorant and eager for knowledge, and we all get force-fed a bunch of technical nonsense.
The only thing that the rule of thirds does is put a box around your art. It's not a frame either, it's a prison. Do not go past this. It prevents. It shapes something that should be unshapeable. It tries to quantify emotion with math. It is the antithesis of artistry. It is the opposite of what you want. And what you want... That's easy. Freedom.
"The camera likes you". I'm sure you've heard of this. It's much like that. When you are free, you point the camera wherever you will. You use your mind to make it look right, but you use your heart too. It isn't a blind guess, it's intuitive creativity.
The rules of thirds and almost everything else that is based on equations lacks emotion.
Photography is not that complicated.
The reality is that some people really do have a better eye.
The reality is that some people actually do have talent and others do not.
The reality is that photography is easy. You're not painting anything from scratch. Just learn a little bit about cameras and if you have any talent at all, you can take excellent pictures too. You'll change over time, your work will mature, and that's all.
The rules people will make you feel like you need this or that, that you have to use your gear the way they use their gear, and photograph things they way they do. ALL OF THAT is nonsense. You might as well let them move your hands from this very forum when you are taking pictures with your camera.
And then what happens is that we learn this stuff, buy into it, and start selling it ourselves.
That camera is a paintbrush. It doesn't have to be a brush that paints the world black and white, but it can be. It depends on the artist. My camera is my paintbrush. I don't think about the rules of thirds when I use it. I sometimes don't use raw. I sometimes move my camera while it's capturing the scene. I do what I do because I feel. It isn't that I'm incapable of understanding the common concepts. It's because using what's common will not make me unique.
--
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Last edited:
Streakshooter
Well-known member
I don't blame ROT per se, but I agree with the rest. Composition by rote sticks out like a sore thumb after you've seen enough photos, and it's boring no matter what technique was used.
The problem with teaching "rules" instead of design principles is that they turn people into followers and photographs into painting (with light) by numbers. We underserve novices so badly by teaching them one basic idea as fact and stopping the composition lessons there.
Even if mastery takes years, the first lesson should be providing a much better start than it typically does. I mean, is this stuff really that hard to understand? http://www.projectarticulate.org/principles.php
Seriously. I so disagree with this statement. People are not born photographers - we learn to become one. We improve our skills through understanding and not ignorance.
As an example look at this....
On the left side is a picture whereby the grey of the circle looks like a single continuous mid grey. We move them apart and surround them with 'white' and exactly the same mid grey looks 'different' but ''exactly the same' to everybody. In the black rectangle it looks lighter in the lighter grey rectangle it looks darker. What we see is built around our evolutionary development and that applies to our appreciation of 'beauty' as much as our appreciation of 'grey'.
Michelango once said 'If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn't seem so wonderful at all.' So if we study and work hard we can determine what is beauty in the eye of the beholder. If we assume that such beauty does not exist or is simply the result of a massive oversimplification we clearly cannot.
--
I think the example I gave about comparing the 'ROT' is not a good one.
Perhaps it is better if I explained it this way. Imagine someone came to you with a 'new DSLR' and asked you to teach him out to use it properly. 'I place it on 'A' 'automatic' he tells you. Now 'I' and I suspect many others would say 'let's take it off automatic' 'and dont put it on automatic again.
Now of course others would say 'well a lot of good photos have been taken on automatic' the 'idea that a camera doesnt need an automatic mode is ridiculous'. While someone might easily state that 'whilst he didnt disagree' 'automatic' was also a crutch he used to get decent photos which prevented him from getting the best out of his camera.
If I was to suggest that 'A' mode on a camera was 'as much a hindrance as a help' on a professional camera, I suspect I would get quite a lot of support. If I was to suggest that the first thing you need to do to really understand how your camera works is to 'switch off 'A' mode and not use it again' I suspect it would get a lot of support. Sure there would be people arguing that 'A' mode helps a photographer and you can get really good photos using 'A' mode.
But just like if we want to understand how a pro camera works we need to go beyond (and even forget A mode) so the same is true about 'composition' and 'ROT'.
Perhaps it is better if I explained it this way. Imagine someone came to you with a 'new DSLR' and asked you to teach him out to use it properly. 'I place it on 'A' 'automatic' he tells you. Now 'I' and I suspect many others would say 'let's take it off automatic' 'and dont put it on automatic again.
Now of course others would say 'well a lot of good photos have been taken on automatic' the 'idea that a camera doesnt need an automatic mode is ridiculous'. While someone might easily state that 'whilst he didnt disagree' 'automatic' was also a crutch he used to get decent photos which prevented him from getting the best out of his camera.
If I was to suggest that 'A' mode on a camera was 'as much a hindrance as a help' on a professional camera, I suspect I would get quite a lot of support. If I was to suggest that the first thing you need to do to really understand how your camera works is to 'switch off 'A' mode and not use it again' I suspect it would get a lot of support. Sure there would be people arguing that 'A' mode helps a photographer and you can get really good photos using 'A' mode.
But just like if we want to understand how a pro camera works we need to go beyond (and even forget A mode) so the same is true about 'composition' and 'ROT'.
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,976
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
Its a fundamental princle just one that can be should be used with others and in a fashion to suit each image best.
His notion of the rule of thirds basically seems to be your standard shot of a person/tree/etc a third of the way across an image and the horizon a third or two thirds of the way up an image. That's certainly a very basic level of composition(although obviously sometimes its needed) that people should look to advance beyond but the rule of thirds is very important when mixed in with other techniques or indeed using in a more subtle fashion by itself.
Actually it is not 'Its a fundamental princle' at all. It is a pretty modern concept first mentioned by 'John Thomas Smith' (wow his parents were imaginative when it came to choosing names) in 1797.
Rule of thirds - Wikipedia
The likes of Da Vinci and Michelangelo seemed to do 'ok' without having heard or even thought of the 'rule of thirds'. One rather suspects that even say Cartier Bresson probably never ever thought about the concept (and certainly never referred to it) as he was classically educated. The rule of thirds 'only' makes sense in any 'theoretical' sense if you are considering 3:2 rectangles or close approximates (which is why it is a popular tenet in the photographic world.)
If you actually read what John Thomas Smith wrote about the rule of thirds you will also realize that either he didnt have the faintest clue what he was talking about or he had consumed way too many magic mushrooms.
A lot of wild assumptions. You sound as somebody who decided that I was wrong before you even read my post. Did you? Your post tells me that you missed my point completely.
Wild allegations.
Good learners are not necessarily good teachers. Whatever he thinks, he failed to communicate it.
Again, you missed my point completely. I did not say much about the ROT per se. I just said that his writing was full of logical errors. You assumed that I my point was that the ROT was a strict rule that must be followed religiously. This is kinda of the same mistake he did - he passionately assumes (wrongly) that ROT is a dogma that he needs to fight. It is not and I do not know anybody who think otherwise - it is just one of the many "rules" that often contradict each other and could be helpful at times.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum