Rule of Thirds -- when to break it?

[peter27]

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.

 

[esselle]

I've been reading about this just recently, and I think like anything, sometimes when we are starting something relatively new...I like having a guide or rules to follow. That's just me.

 

[Gavjenks]

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.

Not so sure about your grammar analogy there. Unless you're a big fan of poetry or House of Leaves.

 

[Tailgunner]

I believe one needs to learn to follow before they can lead. So until I can master basic rules, I shouldn't stray too far from them. Now for those people with more experience under their belts, rules are made to be broken.

 

[skieur]

The rule of thirds is one of these photographic rules that takes the general shape:

Stick the subject here in the frame

and these are all very very modern. Prior to photography, these problems didn't really exist. When you're making a painting, drawing, etching, everything in the frame is "the subject" and the problems are all how to arrange all the things in the frame, and what to add, and what to leave out. Only when photography turns up do we see the distinction of "the subject" and "everything else in the frame" which leads, more or less in the 1970s, plus or minus a couple decades, to helpful dopes writing books and articles about where to stick the subject.

Yes, I sometimes get told my photos have no real subject (and therefore no point of interest). I never quite know what to say or how to counter this ignorance, and normally end up smiling and thanking the person(s) concerned for their thoughts.

Nope, the rule of thirds comes from the elements of design which was part of art for a long way back and "the subject" certainly comes from minus a couple of decades. It existed back in the 50s.

Elements of design or rules of composition still exist because they work more often than not to create a better images.

 

[skieur]

I think tirediron nailed it earlier. There are so many ways to compose and no one "right" way... if it works, looks and feels right, go with it.

The point however is that IF it works for the viewer, NOT the photographer.

 

[amolitor]

I can find one reference to RoT in the 1940s and then it vanishes until a Popular Mechanics article in 1970.

Doesn't mean there aren't references earlier and in between, but it doesn't seem to have been in common use.

Designers and artists have long used various rules of thirds, but they speak to dividing the frame up and placing masses into the 1/3 sized regions -- the exact opposite of the "rule of thirds" that gets inflicted on new photographers.

 

[Overread]

Rule of Thirds has likely undergone changes in its name over time and also shifts in the application and concept of the theory. Art has always been like this - the only difference is that in the past there were periods of time where the composition theories were actual RULES. If your art didn't fit the bill it wasn't art (there were also social influences too of course).

These days the field is much more open and whilst most institutions or groups keep to certain concepts and appealing types of art forms and designs there are many more catering to different branches of the artistic world.



From what I understand the Rule of Thirds is just a simplification and one derivative method drawn out of the older golden spiral theory.

 

[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.

 

[skieur]

I can find one reference to RoT in the 1940s and then it vanishes until a Popular Mechanics article in 1970.

Doesn't mean there aren't references earlier and in between, but it doesn't seem to have been in common use.

Designers and artists have long used various rules of thirds, but they speak to dividing the frame up and placing masses into the 1/3 sized regions -- the exact opposite of the "rule of thirds" that gets inflicted on new photographers.

Actually the rule of thirds dates back to 1797 from John Thomas Smith and his book "Remarks on Rural Scenery". It entered the photographic associations in the late 1940s: CAPA and CPAC in Canada.

 

[skieur]

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.

 

[amolitor]

Actually the rule of thirds dates back to 1797 from John Thomas Smith and his book "Remarks on Rural Scenery". It entered the photographic associations in the late 1940s: CAPA and CPAC in Canada.

Different rule of thirds. I can read wikipedia too.

 

[amolitor]

I've been over this a few times here and there, including on TPF, but just to re-iterate:

There are at least two distinct rules of thirds, a distinction wikipedia was missing last time I checked, but it's important.

Both versions start out the same: Divide the frame into thirds, vertically, horizontally, or both.

VERSION 1: Now places things into the regions formed by the lines at 1/3 boundaries. That is not on the lines.

VERSION 2: Now places things on the lines at the 1/3 boundaries, ideally at an intersection of two of them. That is not in the regions

The two versions give exactly contradictory advice on where to place "the subject" and other important objects and masses. The two versions are the precise opposite of one another.

The first version existed at least as early as 1797, it appears regularly from that point onwards, and still appears in contemporary textbooks on design and painting. A quick perusal of.. any visual art collection whatsoever.. will show you that this general design of dividing into thirds and organizing masses within the grid so formed is extremely common in whatever we consider to be good art, as well as good design. The New Yorker, for crying out loud, follows this design. See also Mona Lisa, Migrant Mother, The Storm on the Sea of Galilee. It takes literally seconds of work with google to find example after example.

The second version appears, as near as I can determine, around 1940, and nobody except photographers pays it the slightest attention. Painters occasionally mention it, in order to openly mock it. While there is certainly "good art" that follows the general design, and has something or other of important placed more or less on a 1/3 line or the intersection of two of them, it's nothing like the quantity of art that follows the first version. In fact, good pieces which follow this second rule with any degree of precision are surprisingly uncommon. Try googling the names of various famous painters and checking the pictures that turn up. You'll probably find something eventually, but it'll take a while. Camera club output, locally produced postcards and calendars, on the other hand...

 

[skieur]

Actually the rule of thirds dates back to 1797 from John Thomas Smith and his book "Remarks on Rural Scenery". It entered the photographic associations in the late 1940s: CAPA and CPAC in Canada.

Different rule of thirds. I can read wikipedia too.

If you read Wikipedia, then THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, right there! I avoid it like the plague.

 

[runnah]

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