Composition : Rule of thirds or Golden Rule

[smoke665]

Proof positive that no one cares about rules of composition, or we need stricter rules - depends on you point of view obviously. This untitled painting by CY Twombly sold at Christie's NY, on November 15, 2017 for $46.5 million. WHERE'S MY MARKERS!!!!!

 

[Soocom1]

Proof positive that no one cares about rules of composition, or we need stricter rules - depends on you point of view obviously. This untitled painting by CY Twombly sold at via Christie's NY, on November 15, 2017 for $46.5 million. WHERE'S MY MARKERS!!!!!
View attachment 171980

Yeah, but you have to be dead.

 

[Derrel]

The "Rules of Thirds" is a tool. A compilation of multiple aspects of composure.
It is a system and a tool of measurement of sorts.

SNIP>>
to argue that such is some fantasy made up in the year...."x" is a fallacy.
It doesn't matter, it works and helps people do something that IMO should have been taught in the primary grades anyway.

I have quoted two areas of your argument that show a real misunderstanding of the issue. A "tool" is not a "hack"..today's world is looking for 'hacks', in lieu of genuine understanding, or in avoidance of work...the progression of increasing desire for of rapidity in arriving at/achieving a desired end, has been a long time in coming; let us look at food preparation: at first TV Dinners, and then boil-in-bag vegetables, then lasagne in a box,and now, microwave "meals" and such. Why learn to cook when all the goodness, salt,and fat, can be made hot in 120 seconds in the microwave!? ( sarcasm alert)

I also disagree with your contention that,"to argue that such is some fantasy made up in the year...."x" is a fallacy." Gilligan's Island..a literary classic, converted into a TV show. Batman, sidekick to Achilles in The Illiad. The first mention of Batman was approximately 2,900 years ago.

Except when it is true."The Rule of Thirds" first appeared in photographic/painting circles within my lifetime. It is _not found_ in classic texts on painting, nor in art circles..it is mostly a modern-era hack, whose pedigree is dubious. Let's say it, "the rule of thirds" is the paint-by-numbers cousin of painting as done by the great masters. Vermeer was a paint by numbers painter.

My italicized passages are fallacies,akin to referring the "the rule of thirds' as anything but a modern-era 'hack' that has NO traditional basis in the ideas that underly the visual arts.

 

[Original katomi]

All these rules and must do,s I always thought they were there as a guide and were not set in stone. Which is just as well as I trod on the rule book when I got out of the box and jumped up and down on the box. I have light painted with lasers, pushed my poor 600d well past its limits and done things that were so old school that people have forgot or tried out crazy ideas. Some are a complete mess others are a pleasant surprise. I been down the road where I took photos to please everyone else, now I take photos to please me. If a rule or a guide line helps brill. Eg who would have thought to use a UV filter when shooting by UV light whilst photographing things treated in UV reactive paint. kinda seems wrong but using a filter cuts down the haze.

 

[Derrel]

Some good,but easy, web-based reading on the things that are actually important when creating a composition. Note: the so-called rule of thirds does not pay heed to any of these things, but says that location within the frame, is the most-important factor in creating a composition.

The 8 Elements of Composition in Art

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Note: the so-called rule of thirds does not pay heed to any of these things, but says that location within the frame, is the most-important factor in creating a composition.

It's also important, if we're refining composition to numbers and rules to define exactly which point we're talking about.

Is it the one up here in the foreground?

Or the one down here in the middle distance?

It's a funny thing that when I draw arrows on an image you look at where the arrow points rather than at the arrow itself. We do this automatically and do not question or even realise we do it. Similarly when we draw a grid on an image we look at the lines and intersection points and similarly do not question or realise that our attention has shifted away from the image and towards the grid, as though the grid contains the meaning rather than how the 9 segments of image fit together:

Magicians call this *misdirection*, and so the ROT stops you understanding that where you position the frame has subtle effects on how we view and interpret the finished image. We do not see how the camera is tilted when we view either image but it affects our interpretations of scale and distance. The cloud is not above Sandra's head as it is actually higher and further away, the surf and hills are not as far away as they appear.

 

[snowbear]

The Golden Spiral is also based on prime numbers.

Not quite . . . it's based on the Fibonacci sequence where each successive number is the sum of the previous two numbers:
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, . . .
Note that 8, 21, 34, and 55 are not prime.

 

[RVT1K]

I have a couple of questions. I've known for years about the rule of thirds but have no experience concentrating on the Golden Rule, which I think may involve spiral.designs. For those who do landscapes do you prefer one over the other or do you use both?

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this

I find the concept of applying "rules" applied to art as strange.

As I see it, any art is something that invokes emotion. There are no rules that I am aware of to define what should invoke emotion in me.

To me it is very much like food.....if you like it, its good. Its as simple as that. I don't care how many 5-star restaurants you were a chef at, your foie gras is literally going to make me gag and there isn't an argument out there to convince me its "good".

If a photo grabs your attention, or makes you wonder, or touches you in any way and you like it...it's good. No matter what anyone else thinks. I have only ever shown people photos that, first and foremost, I like.

 

[smoke665]

It's also important, if we're refining composition to numbers and rules to define exactly which point we're talking about

Not surprisingly the elements of a good print ad, and photographic composition are very similar. Our eyes take in more information than the brain can process. Because of that we focus on the most compelling information that the brain thinks is most important by a process called selective attention. Studies have shown that you can be distracted by visual information even when it’s not relevant. If it’s attractive enough, it’ll grab our attention even against our intention. Case in point your big arrows, they forced me to first see what you wanted me to see.

In designing a print ad you want to speed up visual processing, reduce cognitive load, and increase comprehension. Directing the eye allows you to guide the viewer’s eye along an intended path, to the most important information. Starting to sound familiar?

I was taught, both school and on the job, that when viewing a page the eye naturally follows an arc from the top/bottom left inside corner to the bottom/top right outside corner. Putting your most important points along that arc, made it easier to direct the eye from other areas of the ad, or in this case a composition. The first image is a good example of this in that the major elements, sun, cloud, person are closer to the natural path, and as a result even your big arrow doesnt detract the eye for long.

Using techniques like position, emphasis, and visual cues within the image will do more to guide the eye to the points you want the viewer to see than any grid.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

It's also important, if we're refining composition to numbers and rules to define exactly which point we're talking about

Not surprisingly the elements of a good print ad, and photographic composition are very similar. Our eyes take in a more information than the brain can process. Because of that we focus on the most compelling information that the brain thinks is most important by a process called selective attention. Studies have shown that you can be distracted by visual information even when it’s not relevant. If it’s attractive enough, it’ll grab our attention even against our intention. Case in point your big arrows, they forced me to first see what you wanted me to see.

In designing a print ad you want to speed up visual processing, reduce cognitive load, and increase comprehension. Directing the eye allows you to guide the viewer’s eye along an intended path, to the most important information. Starting to sound familiar?

I was taught, both school and on the job, that when viewing a page the eye naturally follows an arc from the top/bottom left inside corner to the bottom/top right outside corner. Putting your most important points along that arc, made it easier to direct the eye from other areas of the ad, or in this case a composition. The first image is a good example of this in that the major elements, sun, cloud, person are closer to the natural path, and as a result even you big arrow doesnt detract the eye for long.

Using techniques like position, emphasis, and visual cues within the image will do more to guide the eye to the points you want the viewer to see than any grid.

^^^^ This. Composition is about organising an image within a frame with reference to how we as humans view and make sense of the information. It's not about trying to equate this to a *mathematical* formula or grid simply because we find these things easier to understand and implement.

But there is an important difference between ads and general photographic composition. Ads by their nature are encouraging you to just glance and jump to the assumptions the advertisers wish you to without question. "Release your individuality, Buy a mass produced car..." You are not supposed to think but imagine yourself being the envy of others by possession. It shouldn't occur to you that the advert, by encouraging everybody to do the same, is designed to have the opposite effect and is in fact doing the opposite to recognising you as an individual.

Photography though doesn't have to use composition to say, "bang, here's the subject, say WOW, move on..." If you hang an image on a wall you are really saying, "look again." It has to carry on convincing past the first glance and assumption, it has to remain interesting.

 

[smoke665]

@Tim Tucker 2 I've spent a lifetime in marketing multiple products/services, and certain things remain consistent. People talk about their individuality but deep down humans are social animals, we want to be a part of tribe, a nation, a family, even a group of buyers. Sales is not about destroying someones individuality its about recognizing and leading someone to a group they can relate to. This is going on every day around us. The cable news channels have become masters at it. Do you think it's just a coincidence that you watch one particular channel over another? They don't play to your individuality, they feed on the fact that you belong to a group that has similar thinking. Why do you prefer to drive brand x car or eat brand b cereal? Like it or not you make a choice to be a part of a group daily.

Now how does that apply to a composition? We are bombarded every second with sensory stimuli, noise to the nth degree. Unless something ticks one of our senses, we tune it out and move on. Case in point bird photography, I mean no disrespect to all those who enjoy this particular genre because I realize the skill level it takes to produce the beautiful images they do. However, it just isn't my thing, I click on the image and move on, the brain registerers noise and nothing causes me to pause. No matter how good the artist, unless they fall within our group interests, we probably won't stop and examine any composition for long.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Ah, but my point was that not all shots need to be advertising shots, not all shots need to cater for the lowest common denominator, be geared to those who only glance and make instant judgements. We don't always need to conform with what people want to see and the way they want to see it. Normally anything that requires a little thought will be less popular, it doesn't make it a poorly composed photo though.

 

[smoke665]

@Tim Tucker 2 No that wasn't what I meant. I was trying to say that ads play to many of the same elements that as photographers we strive for. Things like layout within the frame, use of color and other things to draw attention, even attempting to elicit emotions.

There's also substantial difference in what we portray for our own enjoyment and what we present in the hope that others will like it.

 

[Derrel]

I chuckled a bit at Tim's statement, "Release your individuality, buy a mass produced vehicle." I found that kind of comical.
One might like in the use of the rule of thirds as a competition lead to how do I drive? Answer? L keep it between the ditches!"
The so-called "rule of thirds" is a gross oversimplification of many well-known composition principles and ideas.

.

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

Don't get me started about ads... After one for "the revolutionary Michelin tyre design..." (how many read the word *new* in there?) I turned to Sandra and asked, "aren't all tyres designed to revolve?" Closely followed by the strange but true ad for "oven ready sausages" (apparently it was because they came in their own foil tray.) Even with the Sensodyne ad I have problems, at the point the dentist who is selling with her expertise says, "I would be failing if I didn't offer my clients every opportunity to avoid pain..." I keep cutting to the airline stewardess, "and the EXITs are here, here and here..."

@Derrel LOL, as in how do I compose a picture? - Keep it in the frame...