Experiment with and without the rule of thirds (C&C)

[Buckster]

The term "Rule of Thirds" is s misnomer. The word 'Rule' indicates that it should always be followed. Like everything in the art world, there is no such thing as a concrete rule. Guideline? Sure. Suggestion? Sure. Rule? Nah, it's definitely not a rule.

And please, don't give me the "Rules were made to be broken" line. No one really believes that. Rule were made to be followed. Try that line on the cop next time you get pulled over for speeding and tell me what happens.

You've confused rules with laws.

How so?

Because when a cop pulls you over for speeding, he's pulling you over for breaking THE LAW, not a "rule".

I had 'rules' in school that I had to follow. If I didn't, I went to the principal's office, or had something else disciplinary done to me. If I didn't follow my parent's rules, I got grounded. If I don't follow the rules at work, I get disciplinary action against me. There is no context in ANY of these rules where it's acceptable to break them and not a single one of these are laws.

And I can think of a hundred rules where it's perfectly acceptable to break them, and so can you and so can everyone on this board, and so can everyone you'll ever meet. So what does that tell you?

Call it semantics if you want, but people view rules as things that shouldn't be broken, not loose guidelines with many exceptions and loopholes, like you appear to believe.

No, they don't. You do, and it's ridiculous to want to now have an argument with me about it.

Let it go junior - it's got no legs.

Taking things too literally is often of little value in the real world of common every day use of language, and I don't see how it can help to beat this common phrase over the head with semantics.

It helps because of threads like this, where people are trying to follow the rule of thirds, to a fault. Because people get so caught up with making sure their photo follows this 'rule' that they miss the bigger picture.

It's been readily explained to the OP already without doing a song and dance about your interpretation of how hard and fast and unbreakable a "RULE" is, and how that means it's not one. That's just ridiculous.

I'm probably fighting a losing battle,

Yeah, you are.

but it doesn't mean I should just wave the white flag and surrender.

I see. So, you're itching for a fight here. Grow up.

The 'rules' of composition are not rules, they are guidelines.

They are both, and we know them and refer to them as such, as does the entire photography and graphic arts communities (other than the noobs who are still learning - and, apparently, you).

That's reality. If I were you, I'd learn to suck it up and live with it.

I've seen too many new (and not so new) photographers get caught up with trying to follow the rules, that it stifles their creativity, and unique eye for what looks good. The trick is knowing what makes a typically good composition, and then knowing when those don't apply.

It's a learning process. Your novel idea to resolve it by declaring like King Nobody, "It's NOT A RULE - GET THAT STRAIGHT!!" based on YOUR idea of what a "rule" is comes down to just authoritative-sounding nonsense.

Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but we don't live in a perfect world with perfect language use and perfect "rules" that are unbreakable.

You may now launch into your next tirade, but don't expect an answer from me, k? 'Cause it won't amount to a hill-O-beans anyway, and since I already know that, I can dismiss it here and now without addressing it directly after the fact.

Have a nice day.