Rule of Thirds -- when to break it?

[KenC]

I haven't researched the history of ROT the way Andrew has, but this classic book on composition - Pictorial Composition (Composition in Art) (Dover Art Instruction): Henry Rankin Poore: 9780486233581: Amazon.com: Books - doesn't even mention it. The most important aspect of composition according to this book and others is balance, which some photographers toss out the window in order to follow ROT.

There has been some scientific studies of how an eye moves through a composition that add more weight to the rules of composition: how the eye enters the image and whether it moves to the subject of the photographer or not.

To put it super simply: There is NO visual emphasis on a subject in a balanced image, only if the rule of thirds is used.

As to your first point, Arnheim's classic work, Art and Visual Perception - Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye: Rudolf Arnheim: 9780520243835: Amazon.com: Books - doesn't mention the ROT either.

As to the second point, there are many paintings (and photographs too, for that matter) that are balanced, don't follow ROT (at least not Andrew's Version 2, which is the way photographers typically mean it) and yet keep the eye moving and generate interest very nicely. Unbalanced images of course can do this also, by using the tension caused by the lack of balance.

 

[iolair]

My take on things:

The 'Rules' of composition reflect how our brains like to see these things.

Following these rules is 'comfortable' for the brain.

Examples of these rules:
'Rule of Thirds'
'Leading Lines'
'Symmetry'
'Repeated Patterns'
'Fill the Frame'
'Golden Ratio'
'Complementary Colours'
'Framing'

Breaking these rules adds 'tension' to the image.


Some of the best images are where the rule-following and rule-breaking are carefully balanced.
Strict rule-following leads to safe or even boring images.
Complete rule-breaking leads to disengagement from the image; we have no way to relate to it.

A balance of rule-following and rule-breaking creates an image that we can engage with AND find interesting.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I really wish people would dispense with the notion of "Breaking Rules". Y'all seem really hung up on that, and you are doing yourselves a huge disservice.
It seems like far too many people look at how they frame an image with the notion that "breaking a rule" makes an image more successful, and that is the ultimate goal, to break a rule!

You are simply using a visual language comprised of a palette of tools and ideas to make an image interesting, to hold the viewer, and to get some "point" across. That point could simply be an emotional "feel".

Many of these elements of design and composition "do" something. Often they are simply tools to move the eye around effectively. Some provide a feeling of "weight". If you are creating an image of a subject, and you want that subject to "feel" like it's floating, or flying, or lighter than air...where do you put in the frame? At the bottom?
When composing an image, you are looking for everything you have available to you to use to create an interesting image, that conveys "something". You are never "breaking a rule". You are simply choosing not to use a tool because it doesn't support your premise, and you are then using other tools that do.

Do yourselves a favor, and never use that phrase again while discussing composition.

 

[CraniumDesigns]

depends on the scene. i tend to feel more comfortable centering things when i have a reflection i wanna capture. other than that i usually stick to thirds 90% of the time.

 

[AlanKlein]

I move the objects in my photos around until they seem pleasing to my eye. Balance and weight tend to be important elements for me. When I'm done moving them around, I find that I have "followed" the rules intuitively for the most part. Not always though. Sometimes an element that appears off really makes the photo more interesting.

For most cases, this leads me to believe that aesthetic elements of what the brain likes came first. The "rules" just define what the brain already finds pleasing. Maybe we should change the expression from "rules of photography" to "the elements of pleasing photos".

 

[DiskoJoe]

When taking photos, how much attention to pay to the rule of thirds? How important is it to you? Do you generally feel your photography benefits from it or do you just follow it because it is what most amateur and professional photographers advise on forums, websites, books, and articles?

Also, if you are generally a proponent of this compositional rule, do you feel there can be instances when it is necessary to break it? What would these instances be?

Finally, what are your views on "compositional rules" in general? Do you feel some rules are followed blindly by the masses despite not adding any aesthetic value to images in your eyes?

Well with the wonders of digital photography you can take multiple shots and not worry about wasting film. So set up a standard kind of shot, check out the preview and then take some alternates. I do this alot with my landscape cityscape shots.

 

[nycphotography]

When taking photos, how much attention to pay to the rule of thirds?

Also, if you are generally a proponent of this compositional rule, do you feel there can be instances when it is necessary to break it? What would these instances be?

Correctly worded, you should never break the rule of thirds. Unfortunately, it doens't seem that you are working with a correctly worded version of the rule, as if you were you, wouldn't have asked. Let me help you by presenting the rule of thirds, correctly stated:

The rule of thirds, stated correctly: CONSIDER the composition with the subject off center, perhaps on a 1/3 line either horizontally, vertically, or both. Then, having considered this alternative, go with whatever composition best accomplishes your objectives.

 

[iolair]

I really wish people would dispense with the notion of "Breaking Rules". Y'all seem really hung up on that, and you are doing yourselves a huge disservice.

The concept of 'rules' is just a useful nomenclature. If people prefer to think of them as a range of compositional tools, rather than rules, then obviously that's okay too. I agree there's a danger that by calling anything a 'rule' it sounds like it MUST be followed, but as long as we agree these are just useful concepts rather than Laws Of Photography I don't think it matters what we call them.

 

[amolitor]

I have recently developed a theory about that which must be known before it is broken.

That thing is the notion of a well-balanced and pleasing picture. 19th century painters and their intellectual offspring the pictorialists seem to have believed that pictures SHOULD ALWAYS BE this sort of well balanced, pleasing, beautiful, soothing sort of thing. See also all the painting JWM Turner ever made. There's a great deal of material out there on How To Make These Things. Most of what we think of as Composition is a set of rules and ideas and principles for making these things.

The "rule" that must never be broken until you understand it is really the rule that pictures should be well balanced, pleasing, beautiful. The 20th century is more or less wave after wave of movements against this idea, after all. But the underlying theory here is that you gotta know how to make these sentimental Victorian pieces FIRST and only THEN should you trot off and start making your ugly whateverthehells.

There's real value in this theory, I think. Plus, I kind of like the sentimental Victorian things.

 

[imagemaker46]

I don't think of any rules when I shoot, I just shoot what I think looks good. If you start to overthink what you are shooting, you end up missing what you wanted to shoot in the first place.

 

[Overread]

I don't think of any rules when I shoot, I just shoot what I think looks good. If you start to overthink what you are shooting, you end up missing what you wanted to shoot in the first place.

When you first start to learn about exposure most people have to think about the exposure triangle - or a similar learning tool structure of the relationship. Some might even get really keen and lean all the shutter stop fractions and aperture fractions etc... and know off by heart all the numbers.

Now when you get more experienced and more familiar a lot of that information shifts from being forefront to being background in your mind - from being active to instinctive thinking.

Composition is no different and whilst some learn from copy and repeat or from formal lessons and "rules/guidelines/instruction" its really no different. AT some stage they were forefront mind things - then slowly over time and more and more shooting they slip into the back of the mind until its more instinctive.


The same can be said of shooting in any specific subject or environment - at first when you shoot sports you're always Thinking about where the next shot is going to be or where the ball will go - then slowly it becomes instinct - heck if you work at a specific team or group you'd likely know where a player is likely to take the ball and the game before they get there. Same is true in any other subject area.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I have recently developed a theory about that which must be known before it is broken.

That thing is the notion of a well-balanced and pleasing picture. 19th century painters and their intellectual offspring the pictorialists seem to have believed that pictures SHOULD ALWAYS BE this sort of well balanced, pleasing, beautiful, soothing sort of thing. See also all the painting JWM Turner ever made. There's a great deal of material out there on How To Make These Things. Most of what we think of as Composition is a set of rules and ideas and principles for making these things.

The "rule" that must never be broken until you understand it is really the rule that pictures should be well balanced, pleasing, beautiful. The 20th century is more or less wave after wave of movements against this idea, after all. But the underlying theory here is that you gotta know how to make these sentimental Victorian pieces FIRST and only THEN should you trot off and start making your ugly whateverthehells.

There's real value in this theory, I think. Plus, I kind of like the sentimental Victorian things.

Balance, discord, and tension are just elements of design used to make your intended point. Balance is a tool just like the rule of thirds. A vast majority of people are, quite simply, trying to make pleasing images. Very few are trying to create imagery to challenge the viewer.

I really wish people would dispense with the notion of "Breaking Rules". Y'all seem really hung up on that, and you are doing yourselves a huge disservice.

The concept of 'rules' is just a useful nomenclature.

I don't think it's useful to think of them as rules at all. Period.

 

[amolitor]

I am fairly sure that you missed my point.

 

[imagemaker46]

I don't think of any rules when I shoot, I just shoot what I think looks good. If you start to overthink what you are shooting, you end up missing what you wanted to shoot in the first place.

When you first start to learn about exposure most people have to think about the exposure triangle - or a similar learning tool structure of the relationship. Some might even get really keen and lean all the shutter stop fractions and aperture fractions etc... and know off by heart all the numbers.

Now when you get more experienced and more familiar a lot of that information shifts from being forefront to being background in your mind - from being active to instinctive thinking.

Composition is no different and whilst some learn from copy and repeat or from formal lessons and "rules/guidelines/instruction" its really no different. AT some stage they were forefront mind things - then slowly over time and more and more shooting they slip into the back of the mind until its more instinctive.


The same can be said of shooting in any specific subject or environment - at first when you shoot sports you're always Thinking about where the next shot is going to be or where the ball will go - then slowly it becomes instinct - heck if you work at a specific team or group you'd likely know where a player is likely to take the ball and the game before they get there. Same is true in any other subject area.

I had never heard of the rule of thirds until I joined this forum, and that after shooting for 4 decades.

 

[amolitor]

The rule of thirds as photographers tend to use it turns up in the first significant usage I can find in a 1970 article in Popular Mechanics. Which, I think, pretty much tells you everything you need to know about it.