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

[kalni]

Okay its just a candle but I like the colors, am still trying to grasp the rule of
thirds and here are the two versions. Does the rule make the shot in this
case any better?

Original -

With the rule of thirds applied -

 

[LCARSx32]

The Rule of thirds is really more of a guideline, lol. This is one of those cases where it can be centered. Since there's nothing happening in the shot, you are pretty much doing a portrait of the candle. Portraits, for the most part, do not need to follow the rule of thirds (when close up).

Had the whole candle and it's candlestick been in the shot, then the rule of thirds would make the photo more interesting.

So, in this case, they are equally interesting. Although I like the second better because the flame bending to the left has somewhere to bend to.

 

[OrionsByte]

I'd have shot it vertically (portrait) with the center of the flame 1/3 from the top of the frame and centered horizontally. Basically, just crop off the left and right sides from your centered shot, plus a little off the top (or shoot more of the stick).

 

[LCARSx32]

I'd have shot it vertically (portrait) with the center of the flame 1/3 from the top of the frame and centered horizontally. Basically, just crop off the left and right sides from your centered shot, plus a little off the top (or shoot more of the stick).

Good call. :thumbup:

 

[LaFoto]

Your "ROT"-version (read "rule of thirds" ) would be helpful if you meant to turn this photo into a card and needed space for some writing.

Other than that, such a simple subject does not need this "rule", as there's nothing there in the photo BUT this candle. You're pretty free to place it wherever you want and whatever you want to do with the photo.

 

[kalni]

Thank you all guys, I will try out the portrait style candle shot with ROT applied the next time.
Also tomorrow I will be going out for my first ever nature photoshoot, I am sure the ROT will be more relevant.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Don't forget that if your subject is tall and narrow, you may be better served by shooting it in portrait aspect (vertical).

 

[BuS_RiDeR]

Don't forget that if your subject is tall and narrow, you may be better served by shooting it in portrait aspect (vertical).

I agree with this... And for the record I think it looks great in a portrait orientation... I tried to make it look as though the candle was occupying the middle third of the frame on a diagonal angle... sort of...

PS - I can not see your example of the rule of thirds... Not sure why it isn't showing up...

 

[Gaerek]

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.

 

[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.

Whether a rule must always be followed or whether it's a general principle or guideline that allows for "rules were meant to be broken" or "exception to the rule" is determined by the context of it's use. The "rule of thirds" is a guideline, and is a perfectly reasonable phrase to use.

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.

Addressing the real issue however, the rule of thirds is just one of many compositional principles that one should learn about and employ in the pursuit of photography or the other graphic arts. It's not usually enough to place a white dot in a particular place on a black canvas, unless it has context with something else placed on that black canvas as well.

I would recommend to the OP the book "The Photographer's Eye" for a more thorough understanding of the many aspects of composition. The "rule of thirds"is just one piece in a much larger puzzle. By itself, it has little impact, but in concert with other compositional principles, it can make a great deal of difference.

 

[kalni]

Thanks for the book reco, I will be sure to get my hands on it
And sorry for the broken link, actually I deleted the ROT variation, anyway it
wasn't much, I had just aligned the candle along the right vertical guide of a
ROT grid, while keeping the landscape mode. I agree vertical subjects
look better in the portrait mode!

 

[lyonsroar]

The "suggestion" of thirds is more like it.

 

[Gaerek]

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? 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. 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.

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. I'm probably fighting a losing battle, but it doesn't mean I should just wave the white flag and surrender. The 'rules' of composition are not rules, they are guidelines.

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.

 

[kalni]

I think I know what to do from now on, I will be composing the way I want to without caring for the rule much, posting them on this forum for all to see and comment, and THEN in some I might get a comment about how I "followed" the rule to make it better and how in some I "should" have followed it but I did not. And I can learn accordingly, I guess in this case its better to learn from mistakes than take undue precaution and stilt one's creativity

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

*shakes head*

I love these discussions on the RoT's.
Noobies tend to argue that they don't need to try to follow them. Yet, if you watch movies, TV, look at print ads, and pretty much any visual media (professionally produced) you will see the rules of composition applied again, and again, and again...

The theories, or rules, behind successful composition have been around for centuries. Why is that?

In breaking rules, such as the RoT's, other rules may be coming into play that make the image successful. This **** isn't arbitrary.

The best way to learn how to break the rules IS TO FOLLOW THEM. Eventually you will come across images that you can't get to work well following a particular rule. THATS when the *real* learning begins. It takes time, and you learn by experience. You learn by doing, rather than somebody telling you why a particular image works or doesn't. YOU have to understand and *use* the rules before you will ever get a firm grasp on them.

I see people argue against composotion all the time here. I see people claim not following the rules is there "style". What I see are people who will never fully understand the whole world of composition, and whose images will turn out mediocre at best. I don't have to go far to point out examples.