Violating the Rule of Thirds

kundalini · Sep 27, 2007

I know this violates the Rule of Thirds by having the horizon smack in the middle, but I kind of like it...
1.

...because this is too much sky. (but I like it also)
2.

Opinions?

kundalini · Sep 27, 2007

Anybody have an idea why these wide angle shots look so distorted on the upload and more importantly how to correct. The sky looks crinkled. They looked great before.

Patrolman Pat · Sep 27, 2007

I can't answer your questio but I prefer to think of the "rule of thirds" more as a guideline. There should be no rules in photography (or art in general) with the exception of innappropriate and explicit exploitation of vulnerable people.

LaFoto · Sep 27, 2007

Kundalini, you saved these at "12 - maximum" out of PS, which is why Photobucket compressed them further to their heart's content (but not to yours). My tip: save them at 10 and nothing will happen.
(I know that FastPictures simply does not load photos sized 800x533 saved at 12, but easily loads them - same size! - when saved at 10 --- but Photobucket loads them, but then "butchers" them).

And there are photos (these kinds of mirror image photos, for example), where the rule of thirds may easily be "broken". The reflection allows for this clear division into two halves here!

intheQ · Sep 28, 2007

kundalini:
I think #1 works because of the symmetry. I consider the "rule" of thirds to be more of a guidline as well.

clarinetJWD · Sep 28, 2007

Just like in music, the 'rules' are only there so you know when to break them...

NJMAN · Sep 28, 2007

Always compress your pics for web viewing in PS, using the Save for Web feature. PS will give you a nicely compromised file size and also allow you to keep the viewing quality (save with numbers that are "High" or "Very High", such as 80, 85, or 90). That way, you wont be worried about photobucket smashing the heck out of your pixels, and leaving the ugly jpeg artifacts and pixellation effects. Your pics are great, and deserve to be viewed in the best quality possible.

kundalini · Sep 28, 2007

Okay, if I followed the advice correctly, these will be beautiful. lol

1.

2.

Fingers crossed.

abraxas · Sep 28, 2007

Looks good. I like the second.

Alex_B · Sep 28, 2007

I keep saying this over and over again on this forum and elsewhere ... there is NO rule of thirds whatsoever in photography or anything else!

Having an image arranged in thirds is a concept which helps some photographs and hence it is good to know. But then again it would ruin other images. Hence: no rule, not even a guideline, but just a concept.

Anyway, like your second edit

Mesoam · Sep 28, 2007

i'm sorry but "rules" within photography or any other art form is simply just stupid...i had our marketing guy give me a lecture about some photography techniques and that upset me as his shots from his d200 looks like they where taken with a fisher price camera...so i just smiled and nodded, its all in the photographers eye

Helen B · Sep 28, 2007

Alex_B said:
I keep saying this over and over again on this forum and elsewhere ... there is NO rule of thirds whatsoever in photography...

I agree wholeheartedly. I have studied this and I can assure everyone that it is, in fact, the Rule of 19/57ths.

NJMAN · Sep 28, 2007

It looks like photobucket is smashing your 800 px photos into 23 KB files. Thats a pretty small file size for an 800, which would explain the artifacts and pixellation. Is there some sort of setting that allows you to not compress when you upload to their server? I wouldnt know because I dont use photobucket, but just suggesting.

abraxas · Sep 28, 2007

While you all rebels are out denying the 'rule' of thirds, the second shot seems to be following along quite nicely.

The first, while disregarding that particular 'rule/guideline/law/edict/whatever', is reasonably inline with the -appeal- of symmetry and balance.