DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Never Ending Confusion with Rule of Thirds [ROT]
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 26, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/28/2011 03:11:34 AM · #1
My ROT Blue entry:

received a following comment:
"not even rule of thirds."

This was defended very eloquently by Ben (thanks!) before I got back from my cycling ride:
"Definitely disagree. Horizon is on a proper third, as it should be for a seascape. The initial posts are on intersecting thirds. There is a second horizon in the sky on another third. Beautiful ocean tones presented in thirds...a pair of triangles created by the horizon and posts ( right and left frame), and a center triangle created by the vanishing posts."

WOW!! I knew the horizon was a proper third (I use LR3 for cropping, it shows ROT grid making it easy to be exact) but didn't realize there were so many other ROTs! It will help me think along these lines in future :)

I thought I will post this issue here as this is the second ROT challenge since I joined DPC and the second time I got a similar comment. I think people are still very confused what ROT is. It would be great if everyone made an effort to understand this before making negative comments like this. Thanks
07/28/2011 05:20:37 AM · #2
Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

ruleofthirdsphotography
07/28/2011 08:56:52 AM · #3
It is totally ROT. No question. I believe some people interpret the ROT to mean "plop the subject on a set of crosshairs". Not so. The rule of thirds is about composing the frame in a manner that leads the eye and it can be used in a less direct manner than just the obvious one that hits you over the head.
07/28/2011 09:52:35 AM · #4
Obviously most people "got it" since it won the blue. I think horizontal thirds are easier to recognize than vertical thirds, but they are no less effective.
07/28/2011 10:35:37 AM · #5
Everyone has an opinion... here is mine...

Besides its stark and elegant beauty, my instant first impression of your very excellent photograph is that it is a wonderful example of leading lines.

Leading lines are usually used by the photographer to take the viewer on a purposeful euclidean journey related to the photograph.

The two rows of posts draws the eye inward to a point in the far distance centrally located just above the horizon where the stationary clouds are.

On those two post rows there are five sets of leading lines that immediate stand out:
1-The pair formed by the birds atop the posts, 2-The tops of the posts, 3-The secondary tops of the posts, 4-The pair formed at the surface where post meets water, 5-The set formed by inward and upward tilting posts.

The surface line of the ocean bisected by the posts act as two halves of a leading line drawing the eye toward that same area of stationary clouds.

The stretched movement in the clouds brought on by your inspired choice of a super-wide lens combined with a 113 second timed exposure for this specific composition also draws the viewer inward toward that same distant point.

Your photograph leads me off into the far distance toward an unknown and perhaps exotic place beyond the horizon.

If I had to describe your photograph in a phrase I'd say, "The journey is the reward"

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 10:45:36.
07/28/2011 10:37:39 AM · #6
I think the problem here, conceptually, is not about whether the image "makes use" of the ROT (it certainly does), but rather about whether it stands as a good exemplar of the ROT. In other words, if you wanted to show people an image that illustrates "what the ROT is about", this wouldn't be an especially good example, because ROT is not the dominant compositional motif in operation here.

I say this because ROT primarily codifies the process of creating a "harmoniously imbalanced" image, a pleasingly asymmetrical image, whereas Margaret's shot is exceptionally well-balanced and symmetrical.

It's interesting to look at what Ben wrote in the image's defense in this context, actually, because the location of each of these elements he references on ROT hot spots is what takes this very centered, symmetrical image and gives it an interior dynamic that's often lacking in this sort of shot. In other words, if the horizon were in the middle of the shot, it would be more anchored and static. If the triangle of the pilings began out in the corners of the image, instead of on the ROT lines, the image would be more anchored and static. All of this is true.

Nevertheless, it's not surprising, nor even particularly dismaying, that some people didn't see this image as being especially responsive to the challenge; it's perfectly valid to say "The challenge was to produce the perfect illustration of ROT at work" and think there were other examples that did that better. I'm surprised more people didn't feel that way. I think it speaks well to the sophistication of DPC voters that they saw beyond the obvious and gave this much more subtle ROT image a ribbon.

R.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 10:38:49.
07/28/2011 10:44:07 AM · #7
Originally posted by Artifacts:

Everyone has an opinion... here is mine...

Besides its stark and elegant beauty, my instant first impression of your very excellent photograph is that is a wonderful example of leading lines.

Leading lines are usually used by the photographer to take the viewer on a purposeful euclidean journey related to the photograph.

The two rows of posts draws the eye inward to a point in the far distance centrally located just above the horizon where the stationary clouds are.

On those two post rows there are five sets of leading lines that immediate stand out:
1-The pair formed by the birds atop the posts, 2-The tops of the posts, 3-The secondary tops of the posts, 4-The pair formed at the surface where post meets water, 5-The set formed by inward and upward tilting posts.

The surface line of the ocean bisected by the posts act as two halves of a leading line drawing the eye toward that same set of stationary clouds.

The stretched movement in the clouds brought on by your inspired choice of a super-wide lens combined with a 113 second timed exposure for this specific composition also draws the viewer inward toward that same distant point.

Your photograph leads me off into the far distance toward an unknown and perhaps exotic place beyond the horizon.

If I had to describe your photograph in a phrase I'd say, "The journey is the reward"
WOW!! Thanks! By now I don't care about ROT, I love your review! :)
07/28/2011 10:51:01 AM · #8
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I think the problem here, conceptually, is not about whether the image "makes use" of the ROT (it certainly does), but rather about whether it stands as a good exemplar of the ROT. In other words, if you wanted to show people an image that illustrates "what the ROT is about", this wouldn't be an especially good example, because ROT is not the dominant compositional motif in operation here.

I say this because ROT primarily codifies the process of creating a "harmoniously imbalanced" image, a pleasingly asymmetrical image, whereas Margaret's shot is exceptionally well-balanced and symmetrical.

It's interesting to look at what Ben wrote in the image's defense in this context, actually, because the location of each of these elements he references on ROT hot spots is what takes this very centered, symmetrical image and gives it an interior dynamic that's often lacking in this sort of shot. In other words, if the horizon were in the middle of the shot, it would be more anchored and static. If the triangle of the pilings began out in the corners of the image, instead of on the ROT lines, the image would be more anchored and static. All of this is true.

Nevertheless, it's not surprising, nor even particularly dismaying, that some people didn't see this image as being especially responsive to the challenge; it's perfectly valid to say "The challenge was to produce the perfect illustration of ROT at work" and think there were other examples that did that better. I'm surprised more people didn't feel that way. I think it speaks well to the sophistication of DPC voters that they saw beyond the obvious and gave this much more subtle ROT image a ribbon.

R.
Thanks, Robert. I like what you said even if it was not my intention to cause this kind of response :)
07/28/2011 10:52:36 AM · #9
Hey, Margaret,

I'm incredibly impressed that you put this out for discussion. While you think the commenters are mistaken, I actually agree with them to a certain extent. Thank you for taking the opportunity to discuss your image and people's understanding of ROT.

I didn't vote on the challenge, but I asked some friends whether they considered it ROT, because I didn't particularly think so. I wanted to discuss it with someone, but I didn't want to do it publicly. I hate the threads that question the blue ribbon winners, because they're usually nasty things, not intellectual discussions. I applaud your initiative!!

This is the reason that I don't particularly see it as rule of thirds:

This is the definition I use:

"As you’re taking an image you would have done this in your mind through your viewfinder or in the LCD display that you use to frame your shot.

With this grid in mind the ‘rule of thirds’ now identifies four important parts of the image that you should consider placing points of interest in as you frame your image.

Not only this – but it also gives you four ‘lines’ that are also useful positions for elements in your photo.

The theory is that if you place points of interest in the intersections or along the lines that your photo becomes more balanced and will enable a viewer of the image to interact with it more naturally. "

While I agree that the horizon is definitely at the thirds line, I don't think the horizon is really the point of interest, imo
. Neither are the front two posts. They're not anymore important than the other posts. If I was trying to do this as rule of thirds, I would have had the vertical center between the posts at the left third line, and more negative space on the right. When I looked at it, the point of interest was the pattern of the posts, so it appeared to be a centered composition to me.

Out of curiosity, I was wondering how they were teaching it in photography. So I showed my 16 year old daughter and asked what composition rule was followed, she also thought it was a centered composition. (which I understand many people think that centered has to be centered horizontally and vertically, and this is not vertically centered. But many centered compositions have extra negative space at the top.)

While I really don't consider it ROT, I would probably have given it an 8 anyway. Just because I think the vertical center of the row of posts should be the point of interest, doesn't mean that you think that's the point of interest. You have followed rule of thirds with the horizon line. And while that seems unimportant to me, it may very well have been your entire purpose.

This was my image from the first ROT challenge. Many people have told me that there's no way that it's rule of thirds. But my point of interest in the photo was the skipper's face. Which I purposely placed on the ROT intersection. Other people thought the skipper itself should be on the thirds, but that actually made it very lopsided, imo, and the body wasn't nearly as important as the face.



So this is what I've learned from the ROT challenges -- and what I hope others take from the challenges:

1. Look at the third intersections and the third lines (many people think that it's only the intersections -- but the lines are important as well)
2. See what's at those spots
3. Figure out why the photographer would do that
4. Remember, just because you think the point of interest is someplace else -- that really means nothing. What is the photographer trying to say with it and were they successful in their interpretation?

07/28/2011 10:53:48 AM · #10
Originally posted by Artifacts:

Everyone has an opinion... here is mine...

Besides its stark and elegant beauty, my instant first impression of your very excellent photograph is that it is a wonderful example of leading lines.

Leading lines are usually used by the photographer to take the viewer on a purposeful euclidean journey related to the photograph.

The two rows of posts draws the eye inward to a point in the far distance centrally located just above the horizon where the stationary clouds are.

On those two post rows there are five sets of leading lines that immediate stand out:
1-The pair formed by the birds atop the posts, 2-The tops of the posts, 3-The secondary tops of the posts, 4-The pair formed at the surface where post meets water, 5-The set formed by inward and upward tilting posts.

The surface line of the ocean bisected by the posts act as two halves of a leading line drawing the eye toward that same area of stationary clouds.

The stretched movement in the clouds brought on by your inspired choice of a super-wide lens combined with a 113 second timed exposure for this specific composition also draws the viewer inward toward that same distant point.

Your photograph leads me off into the far distance toward an unknown and perhaps exotic place beyond the horizon.

If I had to describe your photograph in a phrase I'd say, "The journey is the reward"


Bear, You more eloquently and articulately discuss these concepts than I ever could. What is truly heartening about this whole discussion is that there were people who felt that it did not meet the challenge to the strict letter of the law, nor the spirit, yet- still, the shot kicked much ass and won.

My mantra, pleading, cautioning and formal request to people, through many of these threads- has been to first ask themselves, "could a reasonable person think this meets the challenge even though I think it may not?" and if the answer is yes, then just rate the damned photo on how good it is. Don't make your opinion as to meeting the challenge be reflected in the vote- especially if reasonable minds can differ.
07/28/2011 11:10:02 AM · #11
Originally posted by blindjustice:

there were people who felt that it did not meet the challenge to the strict letter of the law, nor the spirit, yet- still, the shot kicked much ass and won.

This is because a visually strong image is a more important factor than meeting every voters interpretation of the subject. It's been proven time and time again. I still feel this entry fit the topic perfectly.
07/28/2011 12:37:51 PM · #12
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

there were people who felt that it did not meet the challenge to the strict letter of the law, nor the spirit, yet- still, the shot kicked much ass and won.

This is because a visually strong image is a more important factor than meeting every voters interpretation of the subject. It's been proven time and time again. I still feel this entry fit the topic perfectly.


Visually strong. Intentional or serendipitous, the elements I mentioned, and Robert described as subtle, makes the image visually captivating. I believe it is difficult for our brain not to find beauty in an image full of compositional subtleties...thus voters, and viewers, react in a positive manner even if their final opinion results in an eyeroll because they think they've seen it too many times.

Excellent discussion, and I'm happy to see Wendy chime in with the classic interpretation and expectation. We see that in her photographs, and it clearly works. My own entry was more in line with Wendy. Rules should be leveraged and bent to our subject and intention of the photograph.
07/28/2011 12:56:55 PM · #13
Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Rules should be leveraged and bent to our subject and intention of the photograph.


Absolutely agree! Very well said.

That's what I look for, and what I hope other people look for in challenges. Though I don't personally see this as ROT, I can certainly understand where the photographer is coming from with the rule of thirds. That's good enough for me, since it is open to interpretation. The photos with which I have issues, are where you can't even begin to understand where the photograph is seeing the rule.
07/28/2011 01:20:33 PM · #14
While you can draw a thirds overlay over this image and watch the elements neatly fall into place, rule of thirds isn't why this composition works.

As Wendy suggested, leading lines pull the eye to the center of the image. The horizon is merely not centered, which was a good compositional choice, but as such, where else could it go? Too far above the bottom thirds line is still too close to the center. Too far below, and the sky begins to dominate. The thirds line seems like a good idea; it's where I would put it.

I think rule of thirds is most useful in creating balance where there is no symmetry. This composition is very symmetric. I also think (in general) that the square frame has less necessity for rule of thirds composing.

Just my two cents. I didn't vote in this one, but I did enjoy the discussion.
07/28/2011 01:43:19 PM · #15
Just out of curiosity, with so much room for interpretation and rule bending, good someone post an image from the challenge that clearly wasn't rule of thirds? I had no horse in this race,
thanks.
07/28/2011 01:55:31 PM · #16
Originally posted by Marfun:

Just out of curiosity, with so much room for interpretation and rule bending, good someone post an image from the challenge that clearly wasn't rule of thirds? I had no horse in this race,
thanks.


Right in the middle of the pack, 66th place, is this one; any correlation this image has to ROT seems to be a stretch, IMO...



R.

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 13:56:06.
07/28/2011 01:59:34 PM · #17
Originally posted by Marfun:

Just out of curiosity, with so much room for interpretation and rule bending, good someone post an image from the challenge that clearly wasn't rule of thirds? I had no horse in this race,
thanks.


Here are a couple that I thought didn't meet ROT (I could be wrong, but these are my thoughts).


This particular photo is so centered, that I feel it flies directly opposite of what ROT aims for.


Same as the previous entry, just too centered.


This will likely stir the most controversy, but to me to be Rule of Thirds, you need to have a subject that really falls into one of the crossing points. For me, the entire scene of the photo is the main subject, and thus ROT cannot really be applied. Again, these are my thoughts, and I could be wrong.
07/28/2011 02:16:18 PM · #18
we are not reducing to the absurd...

heres one

The "fireworks" challenge, obviously that was a freaking stretch- (and JJ wanted to enter despite the fact that IT wasn't Bastille day and he would be hardpessed to find "real fireworks") that was voted apparently down to the bottom,
but was as good as any roman candle casting a silhouette shot- and although it was a classic shot to be remembered, IMHO, It was too much of a stretch. Talk about shoehorning!

It all comes down to whether you are a strict constructionist or a shoehorner! I say Viva la shoehorn!

Message edited by author 2011-07-28 14:25:56.
07/28/2011 03:38:00 PM · #19
Originally posted by blindjustice:

we are not reducing to the absurd...

heres one

The "fireworks" challenge, obviously that was a freaking stretch- (and JJ wanted to enter despite the fact that IT wasn't Bastille day and he would be hardpessed to find "real fireworks") that was voted apparently down to the bottom,
but was as good as any roman candle casting a silhouette shot- and although it was a classic shot to be remembered, IMHO, It was too much of a stretch. Talk about shoehorning!

It all comes down to whether you are a strict constructionist or a shoehorner! I say Viva la shoehorn!


Shouldn't that be "Vive le chausse-pied!" ?

R.
07/28/2011 03:46:17 PM · #20
Originally posted by giantmike:


This will likely stir the most controversy, but to me to be Rule of Thirds, you need to have a subject that really falls into one of the crossing points. For me, the entire scene of the photo is the main subject, and thus ROT cannot really be applied. Again, these are my thoughts, and I could be wrong.

The horizon falls on (about) the 1/3 line, the horizontal bushes run close to the 1/3 line. The border of the rocks run along the 1/3 (vertical) line, and meets the horizon near one of the intersections, where there is also a big rock protruding from the water.

I agree that it is not that great an exemplar of the ROT -- "this is what we mean by the ROT" -- but it certainly takes it into account in its composition.
07/28/2011 04:18:16 PM · #21
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by blindjustice:

we are not reducing to the absurd...

heres one

The "fireworks" challenge, obviously that was a freaking stretch- (and JJ wanted to enter despite the fact that IT wasn't Bastille day and he would be hardpessed to find "real fireworks") that was voted apparently down to the bottom,
but was as good as any roman candle casting a silhouette shot- and although it was a classic shot to be remembered, IMHO, It was too much of a stretch. Talk about shoehorning!

It all comes down to whether you are a strict constructionist or a shoehorner! I say Viva la shoehorn!


Shouldn't that be "Vive le chausse-pied!" ?

R.


even more eloquent and articulate when it comes to silly French phrases!
07/29/2011 12:15:22 AM · #22
It's actually interesting to compare Margaret's ROT entry:



With her Photo Tutorial entry:



Arguably, in these two shots of the same scene, on the same day, the tutorial shot is the better ROT shot (but of course the blue's not dominant) and the ROT shot would serve as well as the tutorial shot, I imagine... But anyway, in the "other" shot, the positioning of the forwardmost pilings is on the ROT line, bottom, whilst the horizon is on the ROT line, top, and the forwardmost pilings also locate nicely on the left and right ROT lines, so the whole is more easily categorized as an example of ROT, at least to my eye.

Both of them lovely shots.

R.

Message edited by author 2011-07-29 00:15:37.
07/29/2011 12:42:44 AM · #23
Thanks, Robert. These were taken about 3 hours apart. I also thought that the sunset shot had more ROT and was better balanced but then I did not want to lose the tracking of the clouds shot that got so much more blue and only worked with the vertical crop. I still think it is definitely a ROT composition but maybe not "into your face" version :)
08/03/2011 03:12:20 PM · #24
Well since I started this. I will post how I got to the score. On my screen the entire Image is purple (calibrated monitor). The subject not in the rule of thirds, crop differently to have the infinite ending of the posts end at a rule of thirds placement (if that is the subject). The clouds move in an odd angle, no that you can control that, taking away from the balance of the photo if is to be symmetrical. Darker on right hand side, does not match left hand side, over exposed in upper left hand corner (lighting). In my eyes, I saw 5 things, -1 each.
08/03/2011 04:55:15 PM · #25
Originally posted by TheDruid:

Well since I started this. I will post how I got to the score. On my screen the entire Image is purple (calibrated monitor). The subject not in the rule of thirds, crop differently to have the infinite ending of the posts end at a rule of thirds placement (if that is the subject). The clouds move in an odd angle, no that you can control that, taking away from the balance of the photo if is to be symmetrical. Darker on right hand side, does not match left hand side, over exposed in upper left hand corner (lighting). In my eyes, I saw 5 things, -1 each.

Fair enough. Anyone votes according to what they think. I am comfortable with the majority thinking and vote (YAY!! :)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:37:34 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 12:37:34 AM EDT.