rule of thirds vs balanced composition

[matej84]

Hi,

so i'm a bit confused about these two major concepts in composition, since they seem to contradict each other.

Rule of thirds is one of the first rules mentioned in tutorials, suggesting the object shouldn't be in the center of the photography, but rather on the intersection of vertical/horizontal lines dividing the picture to 3x3 rectangles. This creates less boring and more interesting picture.

But then a lot of 'more advanced' tutorials uses some kind of 'balance' in the composition. This roughly means that the picure shoud 'feel balanced'. Everything on the picture have some 'compositional weight' and this weight should be distributed evenly accross the composition. And I saw a lot of photos from professional photgraphers on their social networks/youtube channels where they uses this approch (especially in landscape).

So is there any general approach or rule of thumb about when to use which? I know it depends on the actual scene and the preference of the photographer, but still, profesionals who know how to take a great picture suggests both, so there I guess it's not just random pick

Thanks

 

[Aidan Williams]

A substantial proportion of the current 'rules' of aesthetics stem from the early Modernist period. One of its principal exponents, Johannes Itten, published an extremely influential book in 1963, The Art of Color, dealing with (unsurprisingly) colour theory. However in its original preface, he wrote something well worth remembering. I don't have a copy around, but it went something like this:

'Rules are extremely useful to guide one forward in one's weaker moments, but when one feels the power of beauty flowing though them, they can be discarded without predjudice, and the artist can perform to the utmost of his or her creativity, freed in the experience of synergy with the universe.'

 

[yardcoyote]

The rule of thirds is only a handy trick. There's nothing particularly special or significant about it. It's easy to learn, and therefore it's an excellent quick and dirty way to get beginners to start thinking about composition. There are plenty of other tricks you can learn that are just as good.

The issue of balance in a composition is much more important. It's pretty much the whole thing, really. Remember to consider your picture plane as a whole (in other art forms this is called "working to your page" or "working to your canvas") and try to ensure that everything in it has a thought-out part to play in your composition. This includes a lot more than your subject or subjects. You may have fields of color or tone. You may have defined areas of light and dark. You may have places that are full of action or exciting detail and others that are more quiet. You may have background and foreground forms. You may have lines you have created from the edges where different elements meet. You may have a large subject and several smaller subjects. Where will you place them all in relationship to each other?

Your goal will be to create a pleasing and interesting overall effect while saying whatever you want to say about the subject or scene. Some very good photographs are "all about the composition", while in others that are equally good the composition is designed to support the subject.

An excellent way to study composition is to study great landscapes and great still lives -- not just photographs, but paintings and drawings as well. These tend to not be based around one single obvious "subject", so the work the artist does to achieve balance is easier to see. A really good still life painting will show you pretty much everything you need to know to get started.

--
Instagram: @yardcoyote

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

A substantial proportion of the current 'rules' of aesthetics stem from the early Modernist period. One of its principal exponents, Johannes Itten, published an extremely influential book in 1963, The Art of Color, dealing with (unsurprisingly) colour theory. However in its original preface, he wrote something well worth remembering. I don't have a copy around, but it went something like this:

'Rules are extremely useful to guide one forward in one's weaker moments, but when one feels the power of beauty flowing though them, they can be discarded without predjudice, and the artist can perform to the utmost of his or her creativity, freed in the experience of synergy with the universe.'

 

[Bill Ferris]

If you've not found this online resource, it's a good overview of some basic concepts of composition: https://drawpaintacademy.com/understanding-composition-for-artists/#what-is-composition-in-art

I like that the author this everything back to two key questions. What do you want to say? How are you going to say it? A well-composed image will lead a viewer on a journey to a destination that is your message.

The message doesn't have to be a narrative. It can be as simple as, "I want the viewer to experience _________." Broadly speaking, an image in which the major elements align roughly along lines or intersections in that lattice of thirds and are balanced in their arrangement will seem natural or normal to a viewer. Their eye will be drawn to and among those elements.

I think of balance as a technique of arranging elements, each having its weight, in a manner the viewer perceives as balanced; giving each element its due.

What if your message is to make the viewer feel stress or experience disorientation? That's a scenario in which you might intentionally arrange the major elements against the "rule of thirds" guidelines to trigger a stressful or disoriented response. It's a scenario in which "breaking" the rules may contribute to successfully conveying your message.

In any event, it's a good introductory resource on key concepts of composition and the author leaves plenty of room for your creative vision to follow or deviate from the path.

Good luck.

 

[atom14]

Hi,

so i'm a bit confused about these two major concepts in composition, since they seem to contradict each other.

Rule of thirds is one of the first rules mentioned in tutorials, suggesting the object shouldn't be in the center of the photography, but rather on the intersection of vertical/horizontal lines dividing the picture to 3x3 rectangles. This creates less boring and more interesting picture.

But then a lot of 'more advanced' tutorials uses some kind of 'balance' in the composition. This roughly means that the picure shoud 'feel balanced'. Everything on the picture have some 'compositional weight' and this weight should be distributed evenly accross the composition. And I saw a lot of photos from professional photgraphers on their social networks/youtube channels where they uses this approch (especially in landscape).

So is there any general approach or rule of thumb about when to use which? I know it depends on the actual scene and the preference of the photographer, but still, profesionals who know how to take a great picture suggests both, so there I guess it's not just random pick

Thanks

Hi.

Yes, I thought your title implied you were talking as if there was a dichotomy between the two terms.

To me, employing a "rule of thirds" in a composition is still making a "balanced" picture. That is, I do not think it's "one or the other". The other responses might contain that idea as well.

It's good that you're thinking about it (composition), but I wouldn't worry too much about terms that you may see "bandied about". That's in quotes because you get a fair bit of bandying about online, but not all of the talk is that.

atom14.

 

[drynn]

Hi,

so i'm a bit confused about these two major concepts in composition, since they seem to contradict each other.

They don't.

I think it is a shame that people get hung-up on the word 'rule' in the phrase. Someone already mentioned 'guide': I wonder if it would cause less angst if the the phrase had been first coined as 'guide of thirds' instead. (We all have a dislike of rules, don't we? :-D )

 

[FrancoD]

For a start the "rule of the thirds" is really just a composition aid not a rule at all. So the idea is that once you get to know the various type of compositions you chose the one that you think will work for the shot.

BTW, I doubt very much that many competent photographers stop to think about what to use, they just do it....

 

[Running_Man]

Hi,

so i'm a bit confused about these two major concepts in composition, since they seem to contradict each other.

They don't.

I think it is a shame that people get hung-up on the word 'rule' in the phrase. Someone already mentioned 'guide': I wonder if it would cause less angst if the the phrase had been first coined as 'guide of thirds' instead. (We all have a dislike of rules, don't we? :-D )

exactly, I did a creative composition cost some time ago and I think we went through 25 rules includung the rule of thirds the rule of three, the rule of odd numbers , the rule of diagonal lines, the rule of single point of focus the rule of space,and many many others were discussed and then the final rule, it’s okay to break the rules ….

I find the rule of thirds probably the most used role in my photography it’s the basis of good composition, and when you unpack it they’re about 10 or 15 different ways of using it depending on the type of photography you are doing there are the intersections or PowerPoint there are the lines themselves and there are the areas of the grid and then there are all the two different types of grid one having equal spacing and one I think based on the golden ratio, so there’s a lot there to experiment and learn, I use it when I’m shooting I also use it when I’m cropping afterwards and often I disregard it completely

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I find the rule of thirds probably the most used role in my photography it’s the basis of good composition,

I'm not so sure about that.

and when you unpack it they’re about 10 or 15 different ways of using it

You can put the subject on the lines or between the lines. And then you can put it approximately on or between the lines, which covers almost any way you can make the photograph. If you make a rule vague enough, and adhere to it vaguely, almost everything fits the rule.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Would anyone really consider making a similar photo with the face at the center? Does it therefore follow the rule of thirds? Probably not. There are certainly many reasons for not putting the face in the center, and most of them do not involve the rule of thirds.

By the way, the face lies on the vertical center line of the photo, possibly violating two "rules". I am so numb from hearing those darned rules that I was certain that the Mona Lisa was oriented toward the right side of the picture, thereby following the rules and putting the face on the intersection of lines, until I checked.

depending on the type of photography you are doing there are the intersections or PowerPoint there are the lines themselves and there are the areas of the grid and then there are all the two different types of grid one having equal spacing and one I think based on the golden ratio, so there’s a lot there to experiment and learn, I use it when I’m shooting I also use it when I’m cropping afterwards and often I disregard it completely

I once spent an afternoon at a major art museum looking for evidence of use of the rule of thirds. I couldn't find any, even though that's where the rule is supposed to have come from. As far as I could tell, any seeming adherence to the rule was fortuitous. In other words, everyone adhered to the rule except when they didn't.

I'll give you this: If the rule of thirds inspires you to consider an asymmetrical composition, then by all means use it if it suits your fancy.

 

[drynn]

I find the rule of thirds probably the most used role in my photography it’s the basis of good composition,

I'm not so sure about that.

and when you unpack it they’re about 10 or 15 different ways of using it

You can put the subject on the lines or between the lines. And then you can put it approximately on or between the lines, which covers almost any way you can make the photograph. If you make a rule vague enough, and adhere to it vaguely, almost everything fits the rule.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Would anyone really consider making a similar photo with the face at the center? Does it therefore follow the rule of thirds? Probably not. There are certainly many reasons for not putting the face in the center, and most of them do not involve the rule of thirds.

By the way, the face lies on the vertical center line of the photo, possibly violating two "rules". I am so numb from hearing those darned rules that I was certain that the Mona Lisa was oriented toward the right side of the picture, thereby following the rules and putting the face on the intersection of lines, until I checked.

depending on the type of photography you are doing there are the intersections or PowerPoint there are the lines themselves and there are the areas of the grid and then there are all the two different types of grid one having equal spacing and one I think based on the golden ratio, so there’s a lot there to experiment and learn, I use it when I’m shooting I also use it when I’m cropping afterwards and often I disregard it completely

I once spent an afternoon at a major art museum looking for evidence of use of the rule of thirds. I couldn't find any, even though that's where the rule is supposed to have come from. As far as I could tell, any seeming adherence to the rule was fortuitous. In other words, everyone adhered to the rule except when they didn't.

I'll give you this: If the rule of thirds inspires you to consider an asymmetrical composition, then by all means use it if it suits your fancy.

First and foremost, I am not suggesting that Leonardo used the rule of thirds when he painted the Mona Lisa.

However, laying a ROT gridline over the painting does show some interesting elements:-

• the 'enigmatic' smile is in the centre and on an intersection - doesn't everyone refer to smile as the major element of the piece
• the head is in the upper centre third
• the upper left and right sections have very similar amounts of sky and background
• her chest is in the centre section
• the centre left and right sections have the shoulders with like amounts of background
• her dominant hand is the lower centre section
• her elbows are in each left and right lower sections

But, according to Google AI, the Mona Lisa is based on the rule of thirds, so it must be true then... :-D

Note: I am not trying to prove a point here, just having a bit of fun; but I readily admit that when cropping for final output, I do often have the ROT in mind.

 

[Running_Man]

I find the rule of thirds probably the most used role in my photography it’s the basis of good composition,

I'm not so sure about that.

and when you unpack it they’re about 10 or 15 different ways of using it

You can put the subject on the lines or between the lines. And then you can put it approximately on or between the lines, which covers almost any way you can make the photograph. If you make a rule vague enough, and adhere to it vaguely, almost everything fits the rule.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Would anyone really consider making a similar photo with the face at the center? Does it therefore follow the rule of thirds? Probably not. There are certainly many reasons for not putting the face in the center, and most of them do not involve the rule of thirds.

By the way, the face lies on the vertical center line of the photo, possibly violating two "rules". I am so numb from hearing those darned rules that I was certain that the Mona Lisa was oriented toward the right side of the picture, thereby following the rules and putting the face on the intersection of lines, until I checked.

depending on the type of photography you are doing there are the intersections or PowerPoint there are the lines themselves and there are the areas of the grid and then there are all the two different types of grid one having equal spacing and one I think based on the golden ratio, so there’s a lot there to experiment and learn, I use it when I’m shooting I also use it when I’m cropping afterwards and often I disregard it completely

I once spent an afternoon at a major art museum looking for evidence of use of the rule of thirds. I couldn't find any, even though that's where the rule is supposed to have come from. As far as I could tell, any seeming adherence to the rule was fortuitous. In other words, everyone adhered to the rule except when they didn't.

I'll give you this: If the rule of thirds inspires you to consider an asymmetrical composition, then by all means use it if it suits your fancy.

that’s interesting because I see it everywhere in art product design photography and cinematography, maybe you’re not looking properly?

 

[JRP64]

Hi,

so i'm a bit confused about these two major concepts in composition, since they seem to contradict each other.

Rule of thirds is one of the first rules mentioned in tutorials, suggesting the object shouldn't be in the center of the photography, but rather on the intersection of vertical/horizontal lines dividing the picture to 3x3 rectangles. This creates less boring and more interesting picture.

But then a lot of 'more advanced' tutorials uses some kind of 'balance' in the composition. This roughly means that the picure shoud 'feel balanced'. Everything on the picture have some 'compositional weight' and this weight should be distributed evenly accross the composition. And I saw a lot of photos from professional photgraphers on their social networks/youtube channels where they uses this approch (especially in landscape).

So is there any general approach or rule of thumb about when to use which? I know it depends on the actual scene and the preference of the photographer, but still, profesionals who know how to take a great picture suggests both, so there I guess it's not just random pick

Thanks

I think of the movie Dead Poets Society when My Captain John Keating tells the class to rip out the introduction of the poetry book. I personally think taking lots of pictures and developing your own vision for how the final image should look is better than following what any tutorial claims is best practice. As long as you know how to adjust your camera settings and practice photography by actually taking pictures, you should be golden.

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I find the rule of thirds probably the most used role in my photography it’s the basis of good composition,

I'm not so sure about that.

and when you unpack it they’re about 10 or 15 different ways of using it

You can put the subject on the lines or between the lines. And then you can put it approximately on or between the lines, which covers almost any way you can make the photograph. If you make a rule vague enough, and adhere to it vaguely, almost everything fits the rule.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Would anyone really consider making a similar photo with the face at the center? Does it therefore follow the rule of thirds? Probably not. There are certainly many reasons for not putting the face in the center, and most of them do not involve the rule of thirds.

By the way, the face lies on the vertical center line of the photo, possibly violating two "rules". I am so numb from hearing those darned rules that I was certain that the Mona Lisa was oriented toward the right side of the picture, thereby following the rules and putting the face on the intersection of lines, until I checked.

depending on the type of photography you are doing there are the intersections or PowerPoint there are the lines themselves and there are the areas of the grid and then there are all the two different types of grid one having equal spacing and one I think based on the golden ratio, so there’s a lot there to experiment and learn, I use it when I’m shooting I also use it when I’m cropping afterwards and often I disregard it completely

I once spent an afternoon at a major art museum looking for evidence of use of the rule of thirds. I couldn't find any, even though that's where the rule is supposed to have come from. As far as I could tell, any seeming adherence to the rule was fortuitous. In other words, everyone adhered to the rule except when they didn't.

I'll give you this: If the rule of thirds inspires you to consider an asymmetrical composition, then by all means use it if it suits your fancy.

First and foremost, I am not suggesting that Leonardo used the rule of thirds when he painted the Mona Lisa.

However, laying a ROT gridline over the painting does show some interesting elements:-

• the 'enigmatic' smile is in the centre and on an intersection - doesn't everyone refer to smile as the major element of the piece
• the head is in the upper centre third
• the upper left and right sections have very similar amounts of sky and background
• her chest is in the centre section
• the centre left and right sections have the shoulders with like amounts of background
• her dominant hand is the lower centre section
• her elbows are in each left and right lower sections

But, according to Google AI, the Mona Lisa is based on the rule of thirds, so it must be true then... :-D

Note: I am not trying to prove a point here, just having a bit of fun; but I readily admit that when cropping for final output, I do often have the ROT in mind.

Well, there are four intersections and 9 regions that are close to a gridline or an intersection between two gridlines.

So I measured. Her chin is on a gridline, but not her mouth or eyes. (The gridlines are at 1/3 and 2/3.) Her right metacarpals and left knuckles are on a line. The hair that's hanging down is on two lines, so points there. Her right breast covers quite a bit of space, so that probably hits a line -- hard to tell for sure. Her whole face is in the middle third, so points there. Notice that I have subtly redefined the rule of thirds here, using two conflicting versions. That way I can make a lot more parts fit.

If you make everything approximate enough and shift the criteria for a match, then you can make everything fit the rule of thirds. Sure enough, everything does fit onto at least one of the lines or the space between. So sure enough, it's the rule of thirds. ;D

Or maybe there's another possibility. Maybe instead of mentally measuring thirds, the artist composed the picture to fit her head, torso and hands into the picture and centered her in the frame. In a portrait, who could have expected that? ;D

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

I find the rule of thirds probably the most used role in my photography it’s the basis of good composition,

I'm not so sure about that.

and when you unpack it they’re about 10 or 15 different ways of using it

You can put the subject on the lines or between the lines. And then you can put it approximately on or between the lines, which covers almost any way you can make the photograph. If you make a rule vague enough, and adhere to it vaguely, almost everything fits the rule.

Take the Mona Lisa, for example. Would anyone really consider making a similar photo with the face at the center? Does it therefore follow the rule of thirds? Probably not. There are certainly many reasons for not putting the face in the center, and most of them do not involve the rule of thirds.

By the way, the face lies on the vertical center line of the photo, possibly violating two "rules". I am so numb from hearing those darned rules that I was certain that the Mona Lisa was oriented toward the right side of the picture, thereby following the rules and putting the face on the intersection of lines, until I checked.

depending on the type of photography you are doing there are the intersections or PowerPoint there are the lines themselves and there are the areas of the grid and then there are all the two different types of grid one having equal spacing and one I think based on the golden ratio, so there’s a lot there to experiment and learn, I use it when I’m shooting I also use it when I’m cropping afterwards and often I disregard it completely

I once spent an afternoon at a major art museum looking for evidence of use of the rule of thirds. I couldn't find any, even though that's where the rule is supposed to have come from. As far as I could tell, any seeming adherence to the rule was fortuitous. In other words, everyone adhered to the rule except when they didn't.

I'll give you this: If the rule of thirds inspires you to consider an asymmetrical composition, then by all means use it if it suits your fancy.

that’s interesting because I see it everywhere in art product design photography and cinematography, maybe you’re not looking properly?

Maybe. Or maybe you're looking too hard. See my reply to drynn.

 

[drynn]

But, according to Google AI, the Mona Lisa is based on the rule of thirds, so it must be true then... :-D

This is from Mr Google...

 

[ThrillaMozilla]

But, according to Google AI, the Mona Lisa is based on the rule of thirds, so it must be true then... :-D

This is from Mr Google...

That doesn't quite match the copy I have. But in any case, you say mouth, I say chin. It doesn't really matter, does it?

You have subtly shifted the definition of the rule. Stuff doesn't fit on the lines. It fits between the lines. If you claim both rules, almost everything fits in every picture.

But you have the last word. Have a nice day.

 

[drynn]

But, according to Google AI, the Mona Lisa is based on the rule of thirds, so it must be true then... :-D

This is from Mr Google...

That doesn't quite match the copy I have. But in any case, you say mouth, I say chin. It doesn't really matter, does it?

You have subtly shifted the definition of the rule. Stuff doesn't fit on the lines. It fits between the lines. If you claim both rules, almost everything fits in every picture.

But you have the last word. Have a nice day.

I just did, thanks.

 

[Jacura9]

There are many approaches to composition. Over time you might find that your approach changes as do the subjects.

 

[RetCapt]

My sole photographic interest is scenery. But I expansively define that, so, for example, that includes railroads.

I am of the balanced composition school - I think. Truthfully though I don't think about it in the field. I am too much in the moment for that.

On-scene I normally tend to move about seeking the best perspective. This may be termed 'zooming with your feet'. I despize that term though because it has so often been used to take cheap shots at those using zoom lenses. In fact moving around and using zoom lenses both play a role.

Sometimes elements I deem necessary to my image constrain my ability to move around much. I have an ocean sunset I did a couple of years ago where I wanted two trees, one at each edge of the image, to frame the sunset. I wanted the viewer's eye drawn to the sunset, specfically the lower part. The two trees would be the portal to that focus. My zoom lens allowed me to refine my perspective, and thus avoid cropping (which I am loathe to do). A further factor which dictated this composition was where the sun was situated north/south. The composition I got, which was taken in winter, would not be possible in the summer. An element of composition is seizing the moment.

I have, and still do learn much about composition from film. Those old time directors and cinematographers were, in my opinion, artists. I have read that John Ford relied on the works of Charles M. Russell and Frederick Remington as inspiration for his film scenes.

One of the great things about digital is the film is free. Once you have the gear, there is no further cost unless or until you choose to print or have an image printed. You are free to experiment as much as you want. After the fact you have ample opportunity to criticlly review your images and have others whose work you respect do the same.

Last point: Don't overthink this. Enjoy the experience, or there is not much point in being there. That sets the stage for improvement and growth.