Photo's " Too Centered "?

[icassell]

Take a look at a lot of the pictures from the best photographers, and you'll usually see their subjects are in 1 of the 4 power points. It just helps keeping your subject from looking boring.

Is that why my 7D seems to focus there instead of in the center? (I know I can set it manually, was just curious if that was the thinking behind the auto settings.)

Possible. It would make sense... but honestly, I have no idea.

Hmmm ... does it do that on auto? I know it is supposed to look at all 19 points, but didn't read anything about corner weighting. I have mine set manually.

 

[Plato]

Stop searching. Do not listen to ANYONE who attempts to qualify with facts, what is a matter of aesthetics and personal opinion. Yes, having a with a subject "dead on" might be distracting (especially if you do it in ALL of your photographs), but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad photograph, and in fact it may be intentional.

Just take the photograph you want, and after awhile you will begin to be able to personally note what works and does not work to you.

I think you might be a little over the top there ANDS!; I agree completely that composition is a matter of aesthetics and personal preference, and if you want an image centered than shoot it that way, BUT all photographers should have an awareness of the guidelines of what is generally agreed to be "good composition", the most basic of which is of course, the "Rule of thirds". As well, read up on the "The golden mean". These are by no means rules, but are guides to what the most people consider aesthetically pleasing.

You can't know whether you want to center an image or not without having an understanding of the pros can cons.

+1

 

[Mturulski]

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

 

[icassell]

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."

Strict rules? No. But many years of human history have shown repeated themes as to what the eye/mind finds pleasing and what it finds jarring. If one is trying to please the eye of the viewer, knowledge of these themes is important, otherwise you will not understand when your images make a viewer nervous. Once you have this knowledge, variation/experimentation can be done in a fashion that may intentionally nudge the viewer a bit.

 

[DennyCrane]

Strict rules? No. But many years of human history have shown repeated themes as to what the eye/mind finds pleasing and what it finds jarring. If one is trying to please the eye of the viewer, knowledge of these themes is important, otherwise you will not understand when your images make a viewer nervous. Once you have this knowledge, variation/experimentation can be done in a fashion that may intentionally nudge the viewer a bit.

qft

 

[ann]

what is qft

 

[GeneralBenson]

quoted for truth...

 

[GeneralBenson]

I agree with you, Tirediron, you can't break the rules until you've learned them!

I also agree with tirediron, but the problem is, you can break the rules if you haven't learned them. More than likely, breaking the rules is about all you'll do until you've learned them. If there were no speed limit signs anywhere, you can bank on the fact that almost everyone will be breaking the rules of the road. Some people have a very natural eye for comp and would maybe gravitate towards proper comp on their own, but not most. Many people would shoot boring pictures for years or forever, before they intuitively came to the ROT. It is most helpful in anyone's journey to be aware of what is generally regarding as a goodlooking picture.

 

[Gaerek]

I agree - in theory. But I think the more organic approach to learning about composition and what works and does not work is better than a dependence on a set of supposed photographic axioms. I think I've read one book in the entirety of my "photographic career" that was focused on anything that would be considered Basic Photography 101 - and that was actually a book on aperture, shutter-speed, etc.

Long story short, I think its better for burgeoning shutterbugs to first get into their own groove and see what works for them, what style they are comfortable with, before they get duck-walked into they way they should be shooting. This way they'll have a better understanding on what advice they can take, and what advice they can cast aside as it not fitting into their style.

I completely agree with ANDS! here. When I was learning photography in the late 90's, the pro that was kinda my mentor never once mentioned the rule of thirds to me. He helped me stumble onto it without knowing what it was. He would go through my shots and ask me what I thought about certain frames I took. He would hold up two similar shots and ask me which I liked better. One would have a centered subject, the other would be off center. I would usually pick the off center one, and he would ask me why. Typical reponses were it was more interesting, there's room for the subject to move, etc.

When I started showing my shots to a friend, I remember her distinctly saying, "Wow, nice use of the rule of thirds!" I had no idea what she was talking about, but to save face, I just said thanks. The next time I saw my mentor, I asked him what it was, and he simply told me, it's what I've been doing almost since the beginning. He was good at the vague answers, so when I dug a bit from him, he explained the mechanics of it.

When I'm shooting something, I typically shoot all sorts of compositions, centered, off-centered, etc. The ones I choose are the ones I find most aesthetically pleasing. I personally hate the term 'rule of thirds' because it sounds like it's something you have to follow. You'll see a lot of newer photographers giving C&C on these boards and the only critique they'll have is "You subject is centered." There's some kind of stigma against centered shots here. Don't get me wrong here, I do think that off-centered is the way to go 95% of the time. But there are definitely time when centered is the way to go.

The bottom line here is, it's a good idea to keep the rule in mind, but don't be limited by it. I have seen some great shots that break every rule of composition in the book. I've also seen some hideous shots that followed every rule to a T. There are no hard and fast rules of composition, just guidelines and suggestions.

 

[Overread]

hmm however I think its important to point out that you learnt with a guided instructor in person which is a very different learning environment to tutoring ones self through the internet. On a first basis the internet provides comments and advice on work at random - and whilst you might get people favouring and commenting on your work on a more regular basis they are also often unfounded in how much they know about photography. You've seen this yourself in comments on the net - heck I've seen it myself in my own comments and how they have evolved as I have got a little better and viewed things in different ways (giving comments is also a good learning tool).

Thus you lack that guided structure to advice and comments that comes from a teacher.

I think that is an important difference because whilst he did not teach you about the "rules" he was able to comment and stear you toward thinking about them without realising it - whilst for the average alone learner they have to go out and read the book themselves to get an idea of what it is. Infact I would argue that its better they read the book and know the method and theory a little deeper from an acredited (writer) source rather than cobble together bits from the net and comments, since - as you say - that can lead to a bias on the method or even a misunderstanding of it.

 

[Gaerek]

hmm however I think its important to point out that you learnt with a guided instructor in person which is a very different learning environment to tutoring ones self through the internet. On a first basis the internet provides comments and advice on work at random - and whilst you might get people favouring and commenting on your work on a more regular basis they are also often unfounded in how much they know about photography. You've seen this yourself in comments on the net - heck I've seen it myself in my own comments and how they have evolved as I have got a little better and viewed things in different ways (giving comments is also a good learning tool).

Thus you lack that guided structure to advice and comments that comes from a teacher.

I think that is an important difference because whilst he did not teach you about the "rules" he was able to comment and stear you toward thinking about them without realising it - whilst for the average alone learner they have to go out and read the book themselves to get an idea of what it is. Infact I would argue that its better they read the book and know the method and theory a little deeper from an acredited (writer) source rather than cobble together bits from the net and comments, since - as you say - that can lead to a bias on the method or even a misunderstanding of it.

This is all very true. The problem, I see, is that the 'Internet' generation of photographers are learning that the 'Rule of Thirds' is some magical rule that will make all of their photos better. I hear the line, 'You have to learn the rule to break it,' thrown around a lot, and while I agree to an extent, a lot of people learn the rule, but don't learn how to break it.

I'll give an example. I think this was on another board I frequented before coming here. A new poster came on and started showing some of his first shots. Most were centered, and disasters of shots. I remember giving him some good critique, even going so far as to mention that it's not a good idea to always center your subject (I hated the term rule of thirds back then also). Most of his critique was similar. He had other problems as well, but since we're talking about RoT in general, the rest of the C&C is unimportant.

I remember watching him grow as a photographer. Within a month or two, he had actually gotten pretty good. He then showed a shot of a reflection of some mountains on a lake, but he had followed the RoT. I simply stated that in the case of this shot, it might look better with everything centered. He left a very angry reply to my comment about how he always gets 'reamed' when he centers his shots, but now he's getting 'reamed' (his words, btw) because he didn't center. I tried explaining the rationale, but he never posted there again.

Sure, this is an isolated case, with someone who is being unreasonable. But it illustrates the problem I have with the RoT. People become so fixated on this so called rule, that they can't see the forest for the trees. They never place the horizon on the middle line, they never put their subject in the center. They limit themselves because they've been trained to believe that the RoT trumps all. Their creativity is limited by the fact that the subject has to be on the intersections of the 'third' line and the horizon has to be one third up or one third down. I just want to reiterate that I beleive that most shots look better utilizing the RoT.

I understand that my situation is fairly unique in these days. I had someone who could guide me to the conclusion of what the purpose of the RoT is without explaining the rule to me. I just don't like the name because it gives people the false understanding that it should always be followed. I suppose I should feel lucky that it wasn't called the Law of Thirds.

 

[icassell]

I suppose I should feel lucky that it wasn't called the Law of Thirds.

I'm going to start recommending that people look for the golden mean ... I can then leave out any mention of rules or laws ...

Golden ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Overread]

True points there Gaerek!
I think you have also pointed out something else which has changed photography a lot and that is numbers. For once the hobby has far far more new people to it than there are experienced members - certainly on the internet side of things and on many of the generalist photography forums (many of the more specialist still have a more regular ratio of fewer new to many experienced) and I think that makes things a lot harder.
For now its harder to get the advice from the old pros - instead you get newbies giving advice to newbies and because of that the advice gets watered down as the understanding is lesser - we have all done it at some time or another. Thus comments tend to get a little more polarizerd toward common themes. I do support newbies giving comments as detailed as they can as it teaches one to look at photography objectivly, but where there is no experienced shooter to pickup on the weaker points it starts to fall apart.
Then of course you get the worst thing for new photographers - that of the rude fool. Gladly whilst there are people who cannot give critique without ruffling feathers, most people can give constructiv advice in a good and friendly manner - however when newer people rebell against this with a rude tone (As you experienced above) I have seen it really knock away many experienced people from not only commenting in general, but also from the community (forum) itself. What gets worst is when you get a group of newer photographers who act as such it can push people into a corner.
Sadly such actions only damage things for all

 

[Gaerek]

I couldn't have said it better myself Overread. I for one think it's important for newbies to give advice. I know that once I started critiquing others photos, my photography got better because I was able to critique myself better. I guess this is simply a case of the times have changed, and people are learning in different ways.

When I started in photography, the Internet was in its infancy. If you were learning, you either had someone teaching you, or you were at the library pouring over books, written by pros, learning. I did both. With the Internet, sure, there's a lot of information out there, but it's difficult to guarentee the quality of information. You can't go off of post count. I've seen people with very low post counts who were absolutely great photographers, and have obviously been in the business a while. I've also seen people with very high post counts who have absolutely no idea what they are saying.

I'm only 28, but I feel old saying this, but here goes: My how the times have changed!