"Rule of Thirds" vs compositional judgement

[Michael Long]

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

That's because, as I'm sure you realize, it takes skill to actually work the instrument. It takes practice to translate the sounds in your head into notes in the air.

Yes, one in 1,000,000 can do it by ear. The other 999,999 would be far better off taking a class.

 

[Steve Mitchell]

I think the rule of thirds is something that is followed in most images that are pleasing to the eye. When it is not followed, it is generally for a purpose which is quite evident in the image. Now do I think you need a grid to help compose, no. I think a good photographer who has a decent eye composes a shot that looks good and doesn't even think about it. Like a muscian while playing doesn't think about music theory, it just happens.

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

--
Steve Mitchell
http://www.rockeye.com
http://www.digisportspix.com

 

[DavidP #28649]

But that's because they need the class to learn the MECHANICS of playing the instrument, and hitting the right notes.

The CLASS that's needed for photography is simply learning the camera. Learning a few basic rules about exposure.

Learning a few basic "rules" like "rule of thirds", "move around", and "get down" (a classic from somebody on this forum -- maybe Steadman?).

How long does it take to learn THOSE "rules"? A lifetime. By simply going out and shooting. But you don't really need to study them, or even conciously try to apply them. Just shoot what looks good. The rules about moving around to see different angles are far more important that "rule of thirds" or "leave room in front of a moving subject", etc. Those are simply issues of style, and what many people seem to prefer. You only need to know them if you want to produce photos that follow those rules, and (presuambly) will have a higher chance of being accepted by others as good.

Just shoot what you think looks good. Then learn by reviewing. And by letting others see what you've done (assuming you like to hear that kind of feedback).

These "rules" should just be called "ideas". Ideas that you should keep in the back of your mind . . your subconcious. They aren't meant to be thought about.

IMO.

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

That's because, as I'm sure you realize, it takes skill to actually
work the instrument. It takes practice to translate the sounds in
your head into notes in the air.

Yes, one in 1,000,000 can do it by ear. The other 999,999 would be
far better off taking a class.

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

 

[Michael Long]

How long does it take to learn THOSE "rules"? A lifetime. By
simply going out and shooting. But you don't really need to study
them, or even conciously try to apply them. Just shoot what
looks good.

Vic Braden was a Davis Cup tennis coach. Once teaching a camp he had a student who complained that he didn't need to do any of these stupid drills, because he'd been playing for eight years. That said, he walked off the court.

Braden then remarked to another student, "You know, I've found that most people like him have played one year eight times..."

How much further along would you have been in your concert photography had you in fact studied and taken classes? If you had someone there showing you proper handholding techniques? The right way to brace a monopod? Low-light focusing techniqures? Panning skills? Compositon? Lighting? Forced you to go out and shoot with a single lens? Made you shoot themes of a single subject? Gave you new ideas to think about and try? Suggested different approaches?

How many more photos might you have now? How many concerts would not have been wasted by auto-focusing on the microphone instead of the singer?

Yes, you can do it by trial and lots of error, BUT WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO?????

 

[DavidP #28649]

Find a class that actually teaches that kind of stuff.

(Other than the shooting a single lens and single themes).

I submit there'd be a big difference in having a true pro give you private lessons (that could probably be done in a few days) vs. taking any kind of class.

I also submit that they could really only teach technique . . . . that composition and "they eye" simply has to come from within. It can't be taught, other than by looking at photos that you admire and thinking "how could I get that?".

Why would I want to do it by trial and error? Because that's quite effecitve, especially if you can get some sort of feedback on technique, etc. on a forum like this.

Maybe there are some who actually benefit from a traditional photography class. I doubt I'd be one of them.

How much further along would you have been in your concert
photography had you in fact studied and taken classes? If you had
someone there showing you proper handholding techniques? The right
way to brace a monopod? Low-light focusing techniqures? Panning
skills? Compositon? Lighting? Forced you to go out and shoot with a
single lens? Made you shoot themes of a single subject? Gave you
new ideas to think about and try? Suggested different approaches?

How many more photos might you have now? How many concerts would
not have been wasted by auto-focusing on the microphone instead of
the singer?

Yes, you can do it by trial and lots of error, BUT WHY WOULD YOU
WANT TO?????

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

 

[Michael Eckstein]

"The first rule of photography is there are no rules." - Edward Weston

 

[DavidP #28649]

Now, who is he? LOL.

"The first rule of photography is there are no rules." - Edward
Weston

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

 

[Alex Permit]

I'm not talking about the mechanics of playing a musical instrument. I'm talking about musical composition.

A musical composer "knows" these rules by ear. He may never have studies them, but he knows them. The same for a photographer.

There's really not that much to "study" in photography. There's not that much to "study" in musical composition either. Its all about developing a good ear (or eye).

So, what do I think about grid aides in a viewfinder? its similar to having musical notes written on a keyboard. Useful for the learning novice. Useless to the pro.

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

 

[Ian S]

was my daughter.

She spent 5 years taking formal training in art, specializing in painting.

I don't remember half of what she has told me on balance, geometry, colour etc etc. but I do know this:

Artists have rules! Her work does look better after 5 years' study! (We thought it looked good before).

Anyone who thinks the old masters didn't have rules is blowing smoke! Of course they had rules and abided strictly to them. It was only the occasional genius who came up with something radically different that then produced a sea change in schools of thought.

Yes you can shoot what "looks good to you", but wouldn't it be nice to know why it looks good?

That's what takes the years of experience and/or training. I agree with the person who said a class is not the same as training, but do you really want to try to learn by trial and error? Only those occasional geniuses get by that way.

Now, back to the original "rule of thirds". Really it's already a simplification, but there will always be people who think you can learn a few rules, and get results. Good luck to them. Probably their pictures will look better with the rules than without them.

What's more reasonable is to know as much as possible of the rules, and why they work. Then know when - and why to break them. That's creativity.

But "shoot what looks good to me" and pretend the rules don't exist? Call me skeptical. Sounds like the 101 student arguing with the teacher...

Cheers
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com

 

[Alex Permit]

Fantastic shots

You've observed many more compositional "rules" then the rules of thirds. Look at the following website
http://website.lineone.net/~peter.saw/ctutor/cmpsitn.htm

And yes, you've done it without "studying" them.

I'll add that a "mechanical" application of the "rules" would not create a beautiul photograph such as these.

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/

 

[Alex Permit]

Interesting reading

http://www.seshat.ch/home/ls.htm

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

 

[MAC]

.........forget any artificial made up rules........there are no rules .............good art needs to have appeal......and invoke emotion.....and that doesn't mean 1/3!

MAC

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

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

 

[Alex Permit]

was my daughter.

She spent 5 years taking formal training in art, specializing in
painting.

I don't remember half of what she has told me on balance, geometry,
colour etc etc. but I do know this:

Artists have rules! Her work does look better after 5 years'
study! (We thought it looked good before).

Anyone who thinks the old masters didn't have rules is blowing
smoke! Of course they had rules and abided strictly to them. It
was only the occasional genius who came up with something radically
different that then produced a sea change in schools of thought.

Yes you can shoot what "looks good to you", but wouldn't it be
nice to know why it looks good?

That's what takes the years of experience and/or training. I agree
with the person who said a class is not the same as training, but
do you really want to try to learn by trial and error? Only
those occasional geniuses get by that way.

Now, back to the original "rule of thirds". Really it's already a
simplification, but there will always be people who think you can
learn a few rules, and get results. Good luck to them.
Probably their pictures will look better with the rules than
without them.

What's more reasonable is to know as much as possible of the rules,
and why they work. Then know when - and why to break them.
That's creativity.

But "shoot what looks good to me" and pretend the rules don't
exist? Call me skeptical. Sounds like the 101 student arguing
with the teacher...

Cheers
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

Fantastic shots

You've observed many more compositional "rules" then the rules of
thirds. Look at the following website
http://website.lineone.net/~peter.saw/ctutor/cmpsitn.htm

Hey, that is a great collection of "rules". I was looking for something simple as that. (My Photographic books are all 500KM away)
J.

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

The only reason to know WHY it looks good, IMO, is if you can't figure out how to get an image in the viewfinder that looks pleasing to you.

If you're able to do it, who cares about the why?

If I can't find something I like through the viewfinder, then maybe I'd want to consider using some "rules" to guide me.

But it's more pleasurable to just keep looking.

Maybe it's because I'm an engineer. There are RULES about calculating exposure, DOF, etc. Or how slow a shutter speed you can hand-hold. Or how fast something has to be to stop action.

But other than that, photography is about creativity. Rules stifle that, IMO. And I spend enough time following rules to get the technique down.

Yes you can shoot what "looks good to you", but wouldn't it be
nice to know why it looks good?

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

My head hurts.

Interesting reading

http://www.seshat.ch/home/ls.htm

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

 

[Alex Permit]

Of course. Good art needs to have appeal, and invoke emotion. Now what?

A good photographer "knows" the basics
http://www.azuswebworks.com/photography/ph_comp.html

A great artist takes it to a much higher plane
http://www.seshat.ch/home/ls.htm

MAC

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

--
MAC
http://www.digi-pictures.com

 

[Alex Permit]

Its funny how we keep disagreeing, and yet we both agree with each other.

If you're able to do it, who cares. MOST people don't. Most photographs are HORRIBLE. Most people take photographs the way my cat plays the piano. The only way most people can discover how to take good photos is by learning these rules.

I also think that if you approach these rules mechanically, you end up with mechanical photographs. You NEED to go bring emotion and creativity to your work.

If you're able to do it, who cares about the why?

If I can't find something I like through the viewfinder, then maybe
I'd want to consider using some "rules" to guide me.

But it's more pleasurable to just keep looking.

Maybe it's because I'm an engineer. There are RULES about
calculating exposure, DOF, etc. Or how slow a shutter speed you
can hand-hold. Or how fast something has to be to stop action.

But other than that, photography is about creativity. Rules stifle
that, IMO. And I spend enough time following rules to get the
technique down.

Yes you can shoot what "looks good to you", but wouldn't it be
nice to know why it looks good?

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

 

[Thomas Gardner]

Opinions?

Is this a trick question that's gonna be factored into the final grade or is this really off the record

Why would anybody create art using a rule book?????

That being said, a thought.

In construction, you learn the trade from a master, rules, and until you can duplicate that what the master does, you have no business ruining a job because your ego got in the way and you wanted to do it your way. Once you can duplicate what the master can do, then and only then do you add your spin to it.

That's the fastest way to learning a trade and being good at it. I have a contractor's license and been a remodeler for years before transitioning over to pest control. So I speak with knowledge on the subject matter. The best are trained and worked for people that knew what they were doing. I've seen my fair share of hacks. Enough said.

But! Photography isn't construction and we're not building a bathroom.

The point, there's a time for rules and following what the master does and there are times when this is a falsehood.

But! In advertising and portrait, there are rules that need to be followed to get results that are acceptable by the customer.

So the point, when it comes to rules, art, photography and examples in life, are you learning a trade, creating a product for a customer or making art?

There in lies the answer to the question. It depends

 

[Ian S]

Can you figure out the "how" if you don't know the "why"?

Maybe it's just me, but in my book "why" is nearly always the best question (in many situations!)

And, sure if you can find a good image in your viewfinder, that's great! But is it the only good image? Is it the best (if such a thing exists)?

At the very least, knowing the rules saves time. It also helps me "see" the image before looking through the viewfinder.

Cheers

If you're able to do it, who cares about the why?

If I can't find something I like through the viewfinder, then maybe
I'd want to consider using some "rules" to guide me.

But it's more pleasurable to just keep looking.

Maybe it's because I'm an engineer. There are RULES about
calculating exposure, DOF, etc. Or how slow a shutter speed you
can hand-hold. Or how fast something has to be to stop action.

But other than that, photography is about creativity. Rules stifle
that, IMO. And I spend enough time following rules to get the
technique down.

Yes you can shoot what "looks good to you", but wouldn't it be
nice to know why it looks good?

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

--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com