Rule of Thirds -- when to break it?

[Overread]

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

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.

Move beyond the Rule of Thirds - look at the golden triangle, look at lines, patterns, shapes, lighting, colours - heck there are theories on all that stuff. Sometimes I wonder if its the leaders not the learners here on the site who are more obsessed with the Rule of Thirds. Its just one - common, popular currently and very simple to teach lesson. Its not the be all and end all and yes you can learn it from other sources, in other ways and from other historical and different backgrounds.

My point had nothing to do with that one single rule, it was addressing the fact that the way you think about composition is just like how one things about exposure in that it begins at the forefront of the mind and then slips into the background. If we expand that line of thought composition can be learned as a theory without the camera; you can do it just with your eyes and fingers if you want to frame -or you can draw or use a myriad of other artistic applications which can teach and use similar fundamental compositional theories.

I even included the good old look and copy example where you learn via simply viewing - learning what the core components are in a photo and copying the effect into your own work - likely for most at a basic level to start with and then if one chooses to building upon that and experimenting.

 

[imagemaker46]

I expect being taught and learning photography the way I did, that photography didn't really have any rules, but just being taught how to see and use light was all that I ever thought about. Being able to see a photo and without thinking about it, but the composition was being put together without conscious thought. I never read any books on photography. I think for most people learning photography anyway they can is the most important thing. Some people see it and some people have to work harder to find it. How photos are created is what matters.

 

[Overread]

Aye I agree that there are many paths toward the goal and that not every path will work for all people. You see more reference to written, video and formal structure courses online only because of the nature of the interaction being distant. You can't "be there" in the moment or work over someones shoulder to guide them as easily over the net; and if you can its likely in a closer one to one situation than over a forum.

I'd fully agree that you can learn a lot from a mentor who can and is willing to teach and when both of you can work with each other in person in the moment and in the light itself.

 

[somberg]

I'm a scientist and wonder if there is really anything behind the rule of thirds. Is there really any evidence that pictures that use this are judged as more pleasurable than those that do not? Of course, now, that everyone hears it all the time and thinks it's a RULE, the test would be hard to do. It's a useful principal, but I somehow think that good composition is a bit more complex than that.

 

[Derrel]

I'm a scientist and wonder if there is really anything behind the rule of thirds. Is there really any evidence that pictures that use this are judged as more pleasurable than those that do not? Of course, now, that everyone hears it all the time and thinks it's a RULE, the test would be hard to do. It's a useful principal, but I somehow think that good composition is a bit more complex than that.

amolitor has recently done some research on the supposed "rule of thirds", as well as other bogus compositional theories like the Golden Mean...a few weeks ago, I followed some of amolitor's links to scholarly papers that set out to disprove these rules or concepts. As it turns out, most of these "rules" are simply people regurgitating the same utter B.S., over and over, and over. After all, as we know, if it's on the Internet--it MUST therefore be true and accurate information. Turns out the golden mean, golden rectangle, rule of thirds, and so on are ALL basically folk nonsense.

The rule of thirds is a modern "shortcut", a sort of cheat, a how-to-shoot-pictures halfway measure that was spawned by some magazine article writer not all that long ago--it has utterly ZERO basis in fine art, design, or composition. Of course, it is a very easy phrase to throw out there. I studied fine art, photography, and composition at university; I never ONCE, and I mean never ONCE, read a thing about the "rule of thirds", nor about the Golden Rectangle. Instead, it was all about the elements and principles of design, and about using those to make compositions.

It would be nice if the entire field of photography could be made into a big, giant shortcut, with one, overarching "rule". NOT!!!!! ;-)

 

[somberg]

Thanks, Derrel. Pretty much what I suspected. Actually, though, I kind of like that there's not one big giant shortcut...that would take a lot of the fun out of it

 

[AlanKlein]

Turns out the golden mean, golden rectangle, rule of thirds, and so on are ALL basically folk nonsense.

Derrel: You have some very nice photos on your site. The interesting thing is that you follow elements that our brains find aesthetically pleasing and seem to follow the rule of thirds or just plain balance in a picture. Our brains automtically place elements in a photo that are pleasing to our eyes. The rules aren't so much rules as they are descriptions of what our brain already finds pleasing. My understanding is that these explanations came long before photography and were described in painting.

Here's a couple of your shots that follow compositional aesthetics. I see it as balance. Other may call it a rule or theory. But our brains think they're a pleasing arrangement. We do it without knowing anyhting about "rules".

http://m1.i.pbase.com/g9/65/45565/2/151274491.WWNHoT2z.jpg

http://m1.i.pbase.com/g4/65/45565/2/144047881.CeuJPQdy.jpg

 

[amolitor]

The thing about thirds is this:

Sometimes you want to chop something up into "the big part and the little part". Half and half, or too close to that, feels like half and half not big/small. If you go 1:3 (one quarter to three quarters) then it starts to feel like "most of it and a little sliver", still not big/small.

So you wind up going 1:2 (thirds) of 1:1.618 (golden ratio) or something else similar. It's all just a way of saying "the big part and the small part".

The business of placing the subject at any specific point in the frame (and there are LOTS of those rules) is pretty specific to photography. Photographers worry about "where do I stick the subject?" Painters don't.

 

[skieur]

Rules like this are just ways for those who are not articulate to describe why something looks good.

No, they reiterate approaches that work in a wide variety of photographic situations.

 

[amolitor]

Rules like this are just ways for those who are not articulate to describe why something looks good.

No, they reiterate approaches that work in a wide variety of photographic situations.

Go google up some pictures, and see which ones stick the subject at the intersection of 1/3 lines. This is a FASCINATING exercise which I urge everyone to do at least once in their lives.

 

[skieur]

First of all understand it dates back over 2000 years, was it a Greek scholar that identified the mathematical principals to pleasant esthetics? Golden rule, spiral, etc. All rules are made for breaking...it's understanding the rule completely that gives one the freedom.

Rules are for breaking ONLY IF it produces a BETTER IMAGE, and most often, it doesn't.

 

[skieur]

Ceeboy it may be natural for you but look at all the new photographer's images here and you'll see just that, horizon or subject in the middle of the frame.

The compositional point of shooting however is EMPHASIS on the subject and there is NO emphasis on the subject in a perfectly balanced image.

 

[AlanKlein]

Ceeboy it may be natural for you but look at all the new photographer's images here and you'll see just that, horizon or subject in the middle of the frame.

The compositional point of shooting however is EMPHASIS on the subject and there is NO emphasis on the subject in a perfectly balanced image.

The perfectly balanced picture is when you place the subject in the middle if there are no other elements, like a portraiture. Howewver, by placing the main subject in the middle when there are other elements in the shot, is that the other elements draw the eye away from the main subject into either the negative area or other area where other objects are located. By balancing the elements, you remove that effect. Plus the eye isn't fixed. It moves around through the whole picture. Then the brain assembles the photo into something that is not what the eye is seeing. Maybe balance sets off aesthetic enzymes or whatever in the brain. So in a way, a balanced picture where the subject is off center, creates a better emphasis on the main subject even though it's off center as long as other elements balance the composition.

 

[skieur]

Ceeboy it may be natural for you but look at all the new photographer's images here and you'll see just that, horizon or subject in the middle of the frame.

The compositional point of shooting however is EMPHASIS on the subject and there is NO emphasis on the subject in a perfectly balanced image.

The perfectly balanced picture is when you place the subject in the middle if there are no other elements, like a portraiture. Howewver, by placing the main subject in the middle when there are other elements in the shot, is that the other elements draw the eye away from the main subject into either the negative area or other area where other objects are located. By balancing the elements, you remove that effect. Plus the eye isn't fixed. It moves around through the whole picture. Then the brain assembles the photo into something that is not what the eye is seeing. Maybe balance sets off aesthetic enzymes or whatever in the brain. So in a way, a balanced picture where the subject is off center, creates a better emphasis on the main subject even though it's off center as long as other elements balance the composition.

I'm sorry, but after reading the above several times, it is as clear as mud. If the subject is off centre in accordance with the rule of thirds, then it is not a perfectly balanced image.

 

[amolitor]

The center is weak, sometimes.

Balance can be got at in a bunch of ways. A pure grey frame is balanced, but not very interesting. An interesting frame that is also in balance, is usually but not always balanced by opposing forces. The "subject" if you must worry about such a damn-fool thing, is usually at some sort of visual center. You balance that in tension with some other visual element, a contrasting area of tone, or similar.

These two opposing forces pivot most naturally on the center on the frame. Therefore the subject ain't in the middle. Usually.

Typically you won't put these things at the edges of the frame either, it feels weird to stick something important right at the edge for reasons I don't fully understand.

So your subject ain't in the middle and it ain't at the edge. It's somewhere else. Where can it be?