Rule of Thirds -- when to break it?

[skieur]

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.

No. It first turned up in the 1940s in photographic associations.

 

[somberg]

Somberg: Those were interesting studies that confirmed what Derrel said. It seems that Chinese cultural relations tend to have them look at the composition as a whole with both foreground and background. Part of their cultural need to see what's going on in relationships with other humans. Westerners on the other hand with more of a "free spirit" viewpoints, and less concern with others, get to the heart of the matter first focusing more time on the foreground. I'm not quite sure how that relates to photos each group favor. Maybe there were studies on that too.

Thanks, Alan. To me, the major point is that talk about our brain being wired to see things a particular way is always dangerous. I do not think the concept is wrong, merely that thee is no evidence that, with respect to the current topic, there is evidence to support it. Evidence that different cultures see things in different ways is usually used as an argument against some type of "hard wiring."

 

[amolitor]

While there are other references before 1970 starting right around 1940, the first significant one is the Pop Mech. one in 1970. It is at that point that references start to appear commonly, it is around that point that the idea starts to enter the zeitgeist.

 

[skieur]

While there are other references before 1970 starting right around 1940, the first significant one is the Pop Mech. one in 1970. It is at that point that references start to appear commonly, it is around that point that the idea starts to enter the zeitgeist.

No! I won awards in the National Association of Photographic Art where the rules of composition were part of the judging criteria, well before 1970.

 

[dxqcanada]

Alan: I find it interesting that the Japanese language had a word for the character of the out-of-focus portions of photographs. The word is boke.

Hmm, I think the Japanese interpretation of "boke" is similar to the word "baka" ... boke which implies being stupid, and baka doing something stupid.

 

[dxqcanada]

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.

No. It first turned up in the 1940s in photographic associations.

File:Rule of thirds 1797 John Thomas Smith rule of thirds.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Derrel]

File:Rule of thirds 1797 John Thomas Smith rule of thirds.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an entirely,entirely different concept; the above discussion from 1797 pertains to allocating the proportional "amounts" of land/sky or sea/sky or subject/background; the modern rule of thirds relates to the placement of interesting or importnat objects on the intersections of the imaginary lines that divide the frame up into thirds... the 1797 concept was not at ALL like the "modern" rule of thirds. In today's world, the intersection points of the lines diving pictures into imaginary thirds are now often referred to as "power points". (lol)

 

[AlanKlein]

Evidence that different cultures see things in different ways is usually used as an argument against some type of "hard wiring."

The studies refered to are not at 100%. There are varying degrees between cultures. That kind of fits into what they found in preferences between identical twins - that about 50% is nurture and 50% nature. I still feel that many if not most aesthetic elements are inate and not cultural. No I can't prove it. But does it make a difference what the reason is? If people finds certain things aethetically pleasing, does it matter whether it comes from nature or nurture? If you produce a photo that doesn't please their senses, whatever the reasons, it will be a harder "sell".

 

[Mikej15]

You should brake every rule, when you have mastered it and you surely know when the time is right to do it.
In other way - rules are there to be broken, so if you think you need to avoid standarts and common opinion - do it

 

[nycphotography]

You should brake every rule, when you have mastered it and you surely know when the time is right to do it.
In other way - rules are there to be broken, so if you think you need to avoid standarts and common opinion - do it

Does that include basic spelling and grammar?

sorry, I had to ;-)

 

[Overread]

You should brake every rule, when you have mastered it and you surely know when the time is right to do it.
In other way - rules are there to be broken, so if you think you need to avoid standarts and common opinion - do it

Does that include basic spelling and grammar?

According to Steven Fry - yes

 

[skieur]

File:Rule of thirds 1797 John Thomas Smith rule of thirds.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an entirely,entirely different concept; the above discussion from 1797 pertains to allocating the proportional "amounts" of land/sky or sea/sky or subject/background; the modern rule of thirds relates to the placement of interesting or importnat objects on the intersections of the imaginary lines that divide the frame up into thirds... the 1797 concept was not at ALL like the "modern" rule of thirds. In today's world, the intersection points of the lines diving pictures into imaginary thirds are now often referred to as "power points". (lol)

No, that is the SAME concept used in Photographic Associations in the 50s and 60s.

 

[skieur]

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?

.

Generally if garbage or tourists are in the wrong place to correctly frame a rule of thirds photo.

 

[amolitor]

File:Rule of thirds 1797 John Thomas Smith rule of thirds.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an entirely,entirely different concept; the above discussion from 1797 pertains to allocating the proportional "amounts" of land/sky or sea/sky or subject/background; the modern rule of thirds relates to the placement of interesting or importnat objects on the intersections of the imaginary lines that divide the frame up into thirds... the 1797 concept was not at ALL like the "modern" rule of thirds. In today's world, the intersection points of the lines diving pictures into imaginary thirds are now often referred to as "power points". (lol)

No, that is the SAME concept used in Photographic Associations in the 50s and 60s.

I have no idea what you even mean here, skieur. What is the antecedent of "that"?

 

[skieur]

Ideas like the RoT, and other compositional concepts and conventions, are a bit like the grammar of photography. You should learn all you can about these things whilts not allowing them to become too prescriptive; otherwise they can be rather restrictive and stifle creativity. Use them as a reference and guide rather than a concrete set of rules.

To put it another way, poor English generally does NOT produce a great literary work, nor do poor brush strokes and poor use of colour create a great painting, and therefore POOR composition seldom produces a great photo.