Reading mode: Light Dark

"Rule" of 3rds

Go to last post
Hi,

it's because sometimes you don't have the choice,because of the light available and the ISO your shooting etc...

Here is another milky one for you ;)



leopold
pentax forever
 
HI,

they are rough guidelines,like putting subject in dead center is not good.Sometimes it's true but sometimes you do what seems the best to you.
I arrange my photos how i think looks the best sometimes there is no rules.

leopold
pentax forever
 
Whoa, finally someone that agrees with me! Many times people say that my photos should be more natural, and then I see they have tons of photos with the creamy water streams... I wonder why are these photos considered to be 100% purist and realistic? They are as real as a very post-processed fast shutter speed photo...
Larry Winters said:
Hello:

Not only that I'm getting sick of all these creamy waterfall/stream
shots...They were cool at first but EVERY damn shot is that way
now...When's the last time anyone saw milk running down a waterfall
or stream?...I'll take a good ole splash anytime...

LW
Click to expand...
 
José Ramos said:
Click to expand...
Symmetry does not "need" rule of thirds. But in any case, the castle is ruleofthirdish vertically. Well, not really, but the green triangles locate it nicely. Still, there is a very nice partly ruleofthirds shots (crop away bottom) and a fully ruleofthirds shot (crop bottom and right side) hidden in there ;)
Lovely scenery shot, BTW.
José Ramos said:
Click to expand...
Again, symmetry, and the sign is ruleofthirdish vertically. You have a 50/50 mix of sky and ground, though.

Just for fun, crop away the sky to align the horizont with ruleofthird and then compare to cropped away ground. Cropped sky centres the sign...

Of course, if you want to show the vastness of the sky and the length of the track, your compo is spot on, but maybe someone finds it interesting to look at the other options.
Very nice processing, BTW.
José Ramos said:
Click to expand...
Well, symmetry of course ;)

Hard to see something ruleofthirdish here - I therefore conclude that I can't like the shot. Sorry. ;)

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
Rules aren't made to be broken. They're made to give general guidance until you're bright enough and experienced enough to make exceptions. The Golden Rule is a good example. We can all find times when it's not best to treat people as you want to be treated but until you have some judgement, it's not a bad rule of thumb.
--
Patrick T. Kelly
Oaxaca, Mexico
 
Texinus said:










--
Pedro aka Texas

And when Jesus rote to the heavens he said:
'Forgive Him men as He does not know what He as done'
Click to expand...
I would be inclined to differ from your observation. When perceiving faces people tend look directly to the eyes. In theses photos the eyes are not centred in the horizontal but are at the upper third.

However I do not disagree with the intent. Composition (unless purely for capturing a visual record of a space in time) is about communication and while the rule of thirds supports what could be considered most photo communicative intent, it can be counter producttive in other situations.
 
When your facing a subject and you don't know how to frame it, the rule of the thirds will be useful to help the photographer achieve a good composition. Most photographers will rely on this rule at least once in their lives.

However, as they develop experience, most photographers will come to realize that the rule of the thirds doesn't applies to every subject. Sometimes a centered subject will help achieve a better dramatic effect or result, even if the overall picture lacks a good, balanced composition or seems too centered.

I often frame way past the 1/3rd (or 2/3rd) of the picture, placing the subject at the near border of the image. Sometimes, I frame the subject near the center. Most of my portraits will follow the rule of the thirds when it comes ot the eyes' position, but again, many will be framed differently.

I also do a lot of square pictures (like the 6x6 medium format photos). In square pictures, the rule of the thirds doesn't apply really well, so I often frame near-center (although I occasionnaly frame in one of the corners too).

So my advice is: use the rule of the thirds as a guideline to check if it's actually the best way to achieve a good composition. If it's not, just frame the way you like it, the way you think is the best.

--
Once you've mastered the technique and the equipment, you can concentrate on
the more important aspects of photography: originality, atmosphere, emotion
and — ultimately — soul.
— Jeff
 
The rule of thirds has been around, in the west, since the renaissance. Just look at paintings of the Byzantine Empire. Flat, no perspective, bad body proportion, no depth. Now go look at the paintings of the late renaissance. Break them up into the rule of thirds, what do you see – human relatable art.

Pentax makes a focus screen for the *ist Ds that has the rule of thirds engraved on it. I have it and I use it to --- gasp --- compose --- in the camera --- less post processing - more pixels and I exercise my thinker. I have the supposed rule of thirds for my K10D also – but it is not really the rule of thirds more of the rule of quarters. It works to a degree. I use the rule of thirds in landscapes, macros, street shots – well almost everything. Modern cameras will properly expose correctly about 90% of the time – so use the extra time to compose your shots. Use whatever rule/guideline/dictate you feel the need to follow. However, if you center every photo – pretty soon it gets boring. Think about what you are doing – if centered works – use it. If the guy next to you is getting the same shot with his pocket P&S – maybe you should try to shoot something a little different.

--
PDL
 
There is no rule of thirds for good and artistic picture, golden mean or what ever else. It is some sick mind who tried to describe art by technical means. Art is something innovative, something original, something different.

If one third is borring reality - then place your subject in center to make some difference. Thats all - principle of "one center" :D

It does not mean that your sunset with centered sun is something original and worth to waste valuable time of viewers, comentators, critics etc.
dansari said:
I think some people are taking this "rule" to an extreme. First off,
it's a guideline and not a rule. Is it possible to get a good
composition with the subject in the middle, and not off-centre? I
would say, "yes". I took a look at some old Pentax magazines from
the 70's (that I picked up from somebody who wanted to get rid of
them), and there are plenty of images with the subject in the dead
centre. So is that bad? Has photography changed in the past couple
of decades that "better" compositions are being made? Or is it just
a different style and different mindset?

Then you get some shots where there is absolutely no background (OK,
maybe blue), and somebody has chosen to stick the subject on 1/3
areas.

A better guideline, I think, would be "use 3rds where it makes sense,
otherwise just having the subject off-centre, to whatever degree, may
be better".
--
Daniel Ansari
GMT-05:00

Click to expand...
 
They are not laws but good advices and you don't get punished or a bad karma if you don't follow them but if you have no natural sense of composition they are surely the best methods to start your compositions from.

Anyway no matter how you compose your shots initially you should allways think about alternatives because with photography the first impulse is not allways the best.

--
.......
Have a nice day (a picture says more than 1000 words)
Jim

Link to Pentax SLR Forum Best images:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23551175

Creative attempts:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=24071712

Inspiration Challenge - in depth feedback guaranteed

'Don't overestimate technology - nothing is knowledgefree'

 
...strong reaction to the "rule". BTW, most other languages call it the "golden cut/mean", it really seems that Kodak (Tijean said so) or whoever dumbed down the golden ratio idea and applied the "rule" tag to it. Well, "philisophy of thirds" would have sounded a bit stupid...

It's not something a dictator decided pictures have to look like. It has been discovered in ancient times that the golden ratio is a harmonic division of a length. Just as in music, having only harmonics might get boring.

Knowing the tools to create a harmonic or a dis-harmonic intersection is important. The correct utilisation of these tools is one of the things that separates a snapshoot from a

Also, horses for courses. As some shots in this very thread have shown, symmetry relaxes or negates the "need" for a complete golden ratio and if you want to show isolation, your subject should have much empty room around it.

Cheers
Jens

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.JensRoesner.de
 
The rule of 3rds is a good rule...but like ALL rules...not an ALL ENCOMPASSING one.

Dynamic photos are the goal. Sometimes symetry does that for you....somtimes it dosnt.

Love what you shoot......and it will tell you what IT NEEDS to bring it forward...despite ANY rules....including the rule of thirds.

Roman
--

The Law Of Attraction is ALWAYS working. Your only choice is whether you drive 'it'...or 'it' drives you.
-Me
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
fotogenetic said:
I wrote an article about that very subject here as well (see figure
10 overlay of rule of thirds over convergence points in golden mean).
The first page also discusses how close 35mm ratio is to the golden
rectangle.
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle_2.html
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link! The "rule of thirds" never quite seemed right to me until I start taking fundamental design coursework and learned about little things like the golden ratio and how it has been utilized for thousands of years.
fotogenetic said:
--
http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com
Click to expand...
--



http://photos.apt131.com
 
The photographic community likes to borrow here and there from design principles, simplify some rules and remain ignorant to others.

There are no "should"s and "should not"s in deign - only ways to express. If you are trying to convey stability, then placing the main subject in the center is not breaking the rules - it's following another rule. Composing so that the main subject appears to be about to fall off the side of the photo is not breaking a rule - its using composition to express a sense or instability, movement, or agitation.

Photographers do themselves a great favor when they learn basic design principles instead of trying to make sense of the hodgepodge of rules that have been migrated over to specifically suit photography.

Photography is art and all the same "rules" apply. Photography is not as special as we'd all like to believe with our silly Kodak-created rules.

--



http://photos.apt131.com
 
JensR said:
...strong reaction to the "rule". BTW, most other languages call it
the "golden cut/mean", it really seems that Kodak (Tijean said so) or
whoever dumbed down the golden ratio idea and applied the "rule" tag
to it. Well, "philisophy of thirds" would have sounded a bit stupid...

It's not something a dictator decided pictures have to look like. It
has been discovered in ancient times that the golden ratio is a
harmonic division of a length. Just as in music, having only
harmonics might get boring.

Knowing the tools to create a harmonic or a dis-harmonic intersection
is important. The correct utilisation of these tools is one of the
things that separates a snapshoot from a
Click to expand...
My favorite photographic rule:
JensR said:
Also, horses for courses.
Click to expand...
  • :-)
JensR said:
As some shots in this very thread have
shown, symmetry relaxes or negates the "need" for a complete golden
ratio and if you want to show isolation, your subject should have
much empty room around it.

Cheers
Jens

--
'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom
rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
http://www.JensRoesner.de
Click to expand...
--



http://photos.apt131.com
 
While the rule of thirds is the most talked about rule, possibly the most useful and likely the most easily described, it is not the only compositional rule one should know.

I will say something now though that will likely annoy some people. Our perceptual systems are very mathematical in their nature and as such, they respond very well to certain mathematical relationships (ie rules). This is true in pretty much all areas of perception, but most quantifiably so in sight and hearing. In saying this, I am also saying that we are nowhere near as individualistic and artistic as those who claim there are no rules. We are progrrammed through evolution to react in certain ways to certain things; some things are just not different from person to person.

If you want evidence that perception is mathematical, think about this. Beethoven composed entire symphonies, some of his best actually, after becoming stone deaf. The reason he could do so was because he really understood the mathematics underlying the music. Another, similar, example is something that was pointed out to me many times by one of my best friends, himself a musician (I am most certainly not). John loves to point out how much his two favourite genres of music, classical and metal, share the same chord structure and progressions. Now, I don't know anything about music, but as best I understand it, this basically comes down to the underlying math (harmonics) of the music. I am sure Dream Theater (his favorite metal band) don't spend a lot of their time listening to classical music, yet they are following the same math. Why? because the rules work.

As I mentioned, the ROT is the most commonly talked about and commonly explained rule. It is therefore a good first rule to understand. While following the ROT won't guarantte a good composition, there are far more photos which look dull as dirt because they are too centered than shots which are ruined in obeying the ROT.

Now, getting slowly to my point, if a shot works, but doesn't follow the ROT, it most likely works because there is another rule superceding the ROT. There are lots of other rules that must be considered in photography, they just are not as easy to sum up or put in a piece of ground glass. Things like leading lines, repeating shapes, receding lines, symmetry, complimentary colours, etc, etc, etc are all just as impactful in some photographs. A truly decisive moment can trump any of these too, of course.

The whole point though is that I think it would be very rare to find a photo that works, yet does not follow some sort of perceptual rule. Our bodies are just hardwired that way. It might not be the ROT, but it will be some rule for sure.
--



http://www.trekearth.com/members/Darren/photos/
http://www.darrenmelrose.com
http://dailysomeone.blogspot.com

Photos or pixels. Make sure you are looking at the right thing.
Have camera, will travel
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top