"Rule of Thirds" vs compositional judgement

[DavidP #28649]

It doesn't really matter, as the person stated

"Almost all cultures read and write from left to right"

He said nothing about the number of PEOPLE who read from left to right.

... 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.

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

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

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Ted,

I am reluctant to critique other's work primarily because it simply takes too-much time to do/explain a detailed analysis of individual shots.

The other option is to give a HASTY first-impression response ;-)

Here's the latter:

There are a number of your shots that I would be very pleased to-have-taken.

Others I would have approached differently.

I am not attracted by what I call simple-symmetry (a waterfall centered above a centered bush, for example, or a tree centered above a bridge). Nor by what I consider a "cliche" shot (building contained completely within a circular foliage-frame).

Of course many subjects do not lend themselves(without a great deal of creativity in-the-approach) to "artistic treatment". Such are best accepted/valued as "record shots", i.e., "Here's what was there!".

I consider your gallery to contain a fairly good percentage of "keepers'", BY MY STANDARDS.

Which really means nothing. Yours may well be different/more in agreement with a greater number of others', etc.

FWIW, I would very-roughly describe some of my own criteria in this way;

1. Subject elements attractive(or meaningful, if not a scenic) in their own-rights. (else, why bother?)

2.Balanced A-symmetry.

3. Pleasing eye-path, resulting in a sense of movement while-viewing(in some manner flowing or angular, ...NOT "straight".)

4. Lighting which varies within the scene, but is (ideally, ...may have to wait-for-it, or come-back)within dynamic range for capture. (mood/drama/atmosphere element)

5. Excellent technical execution. (tripod, focus, exposure, etc.) Duh! ;-)

I'll leave it to you to ferret-out which of your shots I might choose, based on these criteria ;-) (Hey, critiquing is supposed to be a LEARNING process, right?)

Remember, any fool can make a list.

Whether or not it is a good list for someone else is always debatable, ...and usually IS debated.

In any case, keep it up, IMHO you've got some good ones there

Larry

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?

 

[Andy Ly75136]

The masters created these rules to help beginners understand the idea of composition. It is up to the photographer to grow beyond that; the truth is, only a few photographers move on to their own style. Even though it is simply a tool to help photographers establish a foundation to start from, many end up relying on it.

Composition is a word we often use for photographs, when we are in fact including or excluding, when we photograph. Painters compose images onto their canvas: the luxury of putting things where they want onto the canvas. As photographers, we choose our perspective and by the use of aperture, we limit DOF to exclude, or we stop down to provide max. DOF to include.

Andy

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

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

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

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Steven,

I don't disparage the use of aids, as-such.

My post-focus was on the ABUSE or MIS-use of aids to the extent that the "aid' supposedly being given to performance, can become a "hindrance" to the development of (un-exercised because of growing habitual "dependence'")abilities.

If more "horizontal lines" , in addition to those provided by the top/bottom of the frame, are helpful to anyone, I say "Go-for-it". Not quite the same thing as thinking "the line-intersection says I should put my subject HERE.", and stopping the thought-process at that point. ;-)

Larry

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

 

[Larry H. Smith]

That type of "grab" shot makes thoughtful composition and positioning an unavailable luxury.

Perfect application to keep speedy 'rules of thumb" in mind

Larry

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!

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Your example brought up an interesting thought re. skill vs tools;

If you (or, if that's not a good example,any ordinary weekend golfer) were to play a one-on-one tournament with Tiger Woods, using all your bag, ...while Tiger could use only ONE club(his choice) for the whole round, ...who would you bet on?

Larry

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....

 

[50/1.4]

... First of all reading from top to bottom was common 200 years ago in Chinese and now reading left to right is done virtually all the time, my Chinese colleagues say over 98% of their reading is left to right. Second of all, you are probably thinking of "Muslim" and "Arabic" as being synonymous. This is not so. The majority of people and cultures read left to write. I will get you one authoritative source tomorrow about the ascending and descending lines. This is an interesting discussion from all of you!

Almost all cultures read and write from left to right.

... 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.

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."

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/ ]

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

First, I don't really think the masters came up with the rules.

OTHERS look at the photos they liked, and tried to come up with "rules" that described what they were seeing.

I doubt the masters paid any attention to the rule of thirds when they composed. They just composed what they thought looked best.

It's silly to try to describe an artistic decision by any set of "rules", IMO. Especially when those rules don't really describe how the decisions were made.

Yet, we as humans tend to do exactly that, because we can't come up with a better alternative.

The masters created these rules to help beginners understand the
idea of composition.

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

Hmmmm. I think I'd let him use only the putter.

Your example brought up an interesting thought re. skill vs tools;

If you (or, if that's not a good example,any ordinary weekend
golfer) were to play a one-on-one tournament with Tiger Woods,
using all your bag, ...while Tiger could use only ONE club(his
choice) for the whole round, ...who would you bet on?

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

 

[Ted B.47613]

Part of what drives me to do some cliche shots is the market. What will people want? This particular day, I had in mind the lady at the Maymont Gift Shop who was interested in, among other things, photos of the gift shop (the modern building). I wanted to give her as many choices as I could, not really knowing what she would prefer. She may or may not like the circular foliage 'frame', so I gave her more choices, including that one. People are strange birds and you just never know what they will like.

Another aspect of what I do is 'documentary' shooting: "This Is Maymont". If a shot is not obviously flawed, I generally keep it, as you never know what a customer might find pleasing. Some shots I have hated, for composition reasons, have sold. Go figure. One of my least favorite Richmond skyline shots is the biggest seller, but some I like very much sell too.

It never hurts to get opinions (well, sometimes it hurts!), and thanks for taking the time to offer one. It is rare you get well thought out opinions like yours.

Ted

I am reluctant to critique other's work primarily because it simply
takes too-much time to do/explain a detailed analysis of individual
shots.

The other option is to give a HASTY first-impression response ;-)

Here's the latter:

There are a number of your shots that I would be very pleased
to-have-taken.

Others I would have approached differently.

I am not attracted by what I call simple-symmetry (a waterfall
centered above a centered bush, for example, or a tree centered
above a bridge). Nor by what I consider a "cliche" shot (building
contained completely within a circular foliage-frame).

Of course many subjects do not lend themselves(without a great deal
of creativity in-the-approach) to "artistic treatment". Such are
best accepted/valued as "record shots", i.e., "Here's what was
there!".

I consider your gallery to contain a fairly good percentage of
"keepers'", BY MY STANDARDS.

Which really means nothing. Yours may well be different/more in
agreement with a greater number of others', etc.

FWIW, I would very-roughly describe some of my own criteria in this
way;

1. Subject elements attractive(or meaningful, if not a scenic) in
their own-rights. (else, why bother?)

2.Balanced A-symmetry.

3. Pleasing eye-path, resulting in a sense of movement
while-viewing(in some manner flowing or angular, ...NOT "straight".)

4. Lighting which varies within the scene, but is (ideally, ...may
have to wait-for-it, or come-back)within dynamic range for capture.
(mood/drama/atmosphere element)

5. Excellent technical execution. (tripod, focus, exposure, etc.)
Duh! ;-)

I'll leave it to you to ferret-out which of your shots I might
choose, based on these criteria ;-) (Hey, critiquing is supposed to
be a LEARNING process, right?)

Remember, any fool can make a list.

Whether or not it is a good list for someone else is always
debatable, ...and usually IS debated.

In any case, keep it up, IMHO you've got some good ones there

Larry

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?

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



http://svphoto.us My Website

 

[Newk]

... played many rounds of golf just using a medium iron. In truth, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference in my score. And it's probably much the same with someone not skilled with with photography. An expert at anything gets the most out of his highly specific tools, while a duffer, like me at golf, will score poorly no matter what tools he uses!

I never consiously think about the "rules" of design, but I expect that's because I've spent too many years doing it. For those just starting out, no matter what they're designing, it's good to have some guidelines to follow. Can they be broken? Of course. Should they? Of course. Do most great works of art demonstrate the guidelines? Of course.

 

[Tomrok]

I confess my ignorance of the rules. I still don't know what the "Golden Means" is. How did I learn? By viewing the works of painters (photography and photographers came later). Reading Petersen's Photographic (from the late 70's to early 80's) helped early on when I became serious about taking pictures.

It seems to me that too much attention paid to the "rules" of photography might become a hindrance at some point – the "rules" can be the means AND the goal. You might miss wonderful opportunities to record what is practically begging to be photographed because you never learned to actually "see" (heightened awareness of your surroundings or environment, and knowing how to use your camera as the extension of your mind more than just a tool).

I'm not speaking out against learning whatever might be of help to some. It might be helpful – but not necessarily for all. I don't think it would be beneficial to make learning the rules the rule.

Just my (uneducated) opinion.

Tom
http://www.pbase.com/tomrok

 

[Adam Clark]

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.

Larry, thanks for the interesting and thought provoking post!

This is no doubt one of the many places where philosophy and psychology intersect.

I have interpreted your use of the word "subjective" to mean "not derived from any universally shared human mental trait"

I thought I might point out that, in my view, it is far from established that this "artistic sense" is completely subjective. It is true that one cannot expect people to agree on a definition of art-- indeed it may be an absurdity to even attempt to define "art" except in the most vague terms.

However, I would be very surprised if there were not universally shared aesthetic preferences (universal to the extent that they tend to appeal to all "healthy" humans).

It is important to note that what is artistically "pleasing" is often nowhere to be found in what many regard as the greatest of art. As others have pointed out, you may not want your audience to be comfortable-- tension, fear, emptiness, or confusion may be an essential part of the message. Thus, breaking the rules that tend to produce artistically pleasing effects may convey a powerful artistic message.

Photographs and other art forms are obviously highly specific manifestations of an "artistic sense". But I think it is reasonable to expect that there are at least SOME rules which tend to produce (relatively) universally pleasing results. But we ought to ask ourselves, are we really aiming to please? Or is conveying discomfort really what we're after?

I don't think anyone would claim that the rule of thirds is "complete" in the sense that it encompasses all that we need to know about composition. But I think it may perhaps reveal a single tiny facet of some greater shared "human" artisitic sense.

Of course, one might easily respond by saying "images which follow the rule of thirds tend to be ugly and fundamentally displeasing". I don't deny that this would weaken my claim.

Adam

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

... 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.

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

Arabic-speakers aren't the only ones who use the Arabic script. Add Iranians and Urdu-speakers (Pakistan, Bangladesh); I was also thinking of Turcophones before they were forced to switch to the Latin or Cyrillic alphabets. You're right, though, my estimate was high: I lumped the Indonesians in the figure before I realized what I was doing. They use the Latin script, of course.

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

They may, now. 1000 years ago they were a pretty small minority: almost everyone who was literate wrote right-to-left (Arabs and Jews; literacy was widespread among both) or up-to-down (Chinese). The largest numbers of left-to-righters were in India, and I'd wager there were fewer literates there than in the Arab empire or China.

The reason why left-to-right scripts are as prominent as they are is simple: they derive (mostly) from the same root (the Greek script, which was based on Phoenician, which was written alternately from left to right and right to left). The two big left-to-right scripts today are the Cyrillic and the Roman. Both were spread by conquest -- just like the Arabic and Chinese scripts, for that matter. Preference had nothing to do with it.

I don't have the figures, and it's quite possible that you do find more left-to-right scripts than other schemes, but certainly not enough to warrant the assumption that left-to-right is somehow more "natural" for people. You might as well say that cultures that write left to right are more likely to dominate cultures that write in other directions. In both cases it's a variant of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

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

 

[Ben Strasser]

If you didn't like the way the picture looked, I don't think you would have taken it. If you like the picture, keep it. If someone else likes the picture, sell it to them. Rule or no rule, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (I wonder who said that?) If the public likes your work you can be an Ansel Adams if not you could be a John Bogdonovich.

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.

Larry, thanks for the interesting and thought provoking post!

This is no doubt one of the many places where philosophy and
psychology intersect.

I have interpreted your use of the word "subjective" to mean "not
derived from any universally shared human mental trait"

I thought I might point out that, in my view, it is far from
established that this "artistic sense" is completely subjective.
It is true that one cannot expect people to agree on a definition
of art-- indeed it may be an absurdity to even attempt to define
"art" except in the most vague terms.
However, I would be very surprised if there were not universally
shared aesthetic preferences (universal to the extent that they
tend to appeal to all "healthy" humans).

It is important to note that what is artistically "pleasing" is
often nowhere to be found in what many regard as the greatest of
art. As others have pointed out, you may not want your audience to
be comfortable-- tension, fear, emptiness, or confusion may be an
essential part of the message. Thus, breaking the rules that tend
to produce artistically pleasing effects may convey a powerful
artistic message.

Photographs and other art forms are obviously highly specific
manifestations of an "artistic sense". But I think it is
reasonable to expect that there are at least SOME rules which
tend to produce (relatively) universally pleasing results. But
we ought to ask ourselves, are we really aiming to please? Or is
conveying discomfort really what we're after?

I don't think anyone would claim that the rule of thirds is
"complete" in the sense that it encompasses all that we need to
know about composition. But I think it may perhaps reveal a single
tiny facet of some greater shared "human" artisitic sense.

Of course, one might easily respond by saying "images which follow
the rule of thirds tend to be ugly and fundamentally displeasing".
I don't deny that this would weaken my claim.

Adam

 

[Alex Permit]

The "rule of thirds" is just one of many compositional tools. Check out the following website for more:
http://website.lineone.net/~peter.saw/ctutor/cmpsitn.htm
You should also learn about color
http://website.lineone.net/~peter.saw/

These are BASIC tools that are valuable to master. But they are not "rules" to follow blindly.

Photography is like any other art form. There are basic tools that are useful to master, but they are just that, tools.

Think of music. You need to understand the basic concepts of scales, tempo, modes, modal transformations, pentatonics (At least you do for western music). But you can't just blindly follow these tools to create a symphony.

Following the "rule of thirds" in all your photos is like playing a scale in music. It sounds better then radomly pecking notes, but its not going to sound like beethoven (or miles davis)

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.

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

You only really need to know scales, etc. if you want to play and/or communicate with others.

Photography isn't a cooperative effort. It's solo. And a solo musician can pretty much do whatever he wants to musically. If it sounds good, that's all that matters.

I've seen and heard of too many examples of musicians who could simply play by ear with no formal training at all. No, not all musicians can do that. Many need to know the scales, etc.

But I submit it's FAR easier to photograph by not learning the rules than it is to play music without learning the rules.

I've never heard of anybody actually having to STUDY the rule of thirds. Or go and and pay close attention to that rule while composing. If they think of it at all, it's simply a guiding principle. (The exception are poor souls in a photography class).

Contrast that with learning scales. Most musicians must learn those, by rote. Practicing quite some time in many cases.

Think of music. You need to understand the basic concepts of
scales, tempo, modes, modal transformations, pentatonics (At least
you do for western music). But you can't just blindly follow
these tools to create a symphony.

Following the "rule of thirds" in all your photos is like playing a
scale in music. It sounds better then radomly pecking notes, but
its not going to sound like beethoven (or miles davis)

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

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

I think the "Rule of Thirds" was made from a observation rather than being deliberate. 2 examples:





In neither of these photos I was thinking about the rule, even though you can easily classify these photos as scool book examples of the rule.
So, the rule was "found" by looking at a lot of photos. (I guess)
J.

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

 

[Michael Long]

My post-focus was on the ABUSE or MIS-use of aids to the extent
that the "aid' supposedly being given to performance, can become a
"hindrance" to the development of (un-exercised because of growing
habitual "dependence'")abilities.

Everyone falls into a comfort zone, no matter what the level of their performance. The trick is, as you've suggested, to recognize this, and push the boundaries.

I watch the Actor's Studio on Bravo from time to time. It's amazing how many actors there say that they do their best work when they're pushing the limits, when they try something that has a very real chance of failing.

That said, photography is cursed by the fact that any idiot can pick up a fully automatic camera auto-focus camera and press the button. "Rules?" they say. "You think Ansel-what's-his-name knew rules..."

Usually the implication is that a real artist, a true photographic genius, simply doesn't need them. And as such, neither do they...

 

[DavidP #28649]

You got it.

I think the "Rule of Thirds" was made from a observation rather
than being deliberate. 2 examples:





In neither of these photos I was thinking about the rule, even
though you can easily classify these photos as scool book examples
of the rule.
So, the rule was "found" by looking at a lot of photos. (I guess)
J.

--
http://jonr.beecee.org/gallery/

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