Rule of thirds - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/01/2003 08:16:15 AM · #4

Originally posted by aiweaver:

Can someone please explain this to me (The Rule of Thirds)? Thanks, Aubrey

As far as I'm concerned, it's something to disregard. Not only does it limit creativity, it also gives a false impression that anything that falls outside that rule is aesthetically inferior. I'd say go with what YOU think is good.

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

09/01/2003 08:26:42 AM · #5

Originally posted by chalcone:

No one has said the ROTs has to be adhered to religiously.. Personally I use it more as a guideline.

Maybe it should be called the 'Guideline of Thirds'? :-)

tarique

Nikon Coolpix 5700

09/01/2003 08:28:22 AM · #6

Originally posted by chalcone:

Hmmm... I would like to modify the above as. Start with rule of thirds then when you are practiced enough you will know where you should break it for better effect

09/01/2003 08:35:03 AM · #7

Originally posted by tarique:

Originally posted by chalcone:
As far as I'm concerned, it's something to disregard. Not only does it limit creativity, it also gives a false impression that anything that falls outside that rule is aesthetically inferior. I'd say go with what YOU think is good.

Hmmm... I would like to modify the above as. Start with rule of thirds then when you are practiced enough you will know where you should break it for better effect

I never really adhered to it consciously. Elements in my work just happen to fall where I want them to. Had I been trained in the arts rather than the sciences, perhaps I would think differently and my own vision will not be fully realized. We can discuss this for lengths of time, but it really is a moot point because in the end, it is really YOU more than anyone else who will decide if what you captured was art or trash.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/01/2003 10:14:08 AM · #8

Originally posted by tarique:

Start with rule of thirds then when you are practiced enough you will know where you should break it for better effect

I'm with you tarique. As a 'newbie' on a learning curve, I would like a 'guideline' to practice with.

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/01/2003 10:33:20 AM · #9

Rather than following it fanatically or disregarding it completely, when you have the chance try taking multiple photos of a subject, some which follow the guideline (and there are various ways to do this) and some which do not. (Or take a wide-angle shot and try various croppings on your computer; you will lose resolution, but it works for experimentation). Scrutinize each one and determine which you think are effective and which are not. Then comes the hard part: Try to explain why (and "It follows the rule of thirds" is not a valid explanation; explain why it works for that particular subject).

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

09/01/2003 11:06:32 AM · #10

The rule of thirds is just a cliff notes version of a lot of visual communication theory. It is a useful guideline, in terms of making less static, more generally pleasing compositions.

However, it is a much more powerful approach to spend the time to really understand the visual impact of a variety of compositional techniques, then use the correct one to communicate whatever point you are trying to make.

E.g., 'rule of thirds' don't put the subject in the center of the shot.

underlying reason : centered subjects tend to dominate the composition, making them very strong and also anchoring the eye to the center of the image, giving a static feel.

ObComment: if you are trying for a dominated image or static feeling, a centered subject would be more suitable than a 'rule of third' adherence. Similarly there are a lot of additional implications in which part of a scene certain elements lie - although these are based on cultural biases - e.g., westerners typically read from top left to bottom right - so elements in the bottom right have a different impact than if they were in the upper left.

Upshot is, the ROT is just a little bit of a whole subject.

autool

Canon EOS-20D

09/01/2003 11:07:00 AM · #11

As an experiment, set down in front of the television, find a movie, and look for the cinematographer's use of the rule of thirds. Also search out this rules use in commercials. I have found that it is used constantly. Which tells me it is an important guideline in keeping the viewers interest, so don't be too hasty in ignoring its use.

:<)

09/01/2003 11:23:29 AM · #12

Originally posted by autool:

When I mentioned that I ignore that rule, I meant that I go on composing my work without any conscious regard for rules in general. I just do what appeals to me. If some of what I do seem to follow the 3rds rule, it's just coincidental, not a conscious effort to pigeonhole my style into what the photographers/cinematographers think is good. You see, for SOME people, it's pointless to be told what is a good foto, because no matter what the aesthetic trend is, they will remain independent in making judgements. In the long run, what they produce will show the influences of what they're exposed to, and not of what they hear from people who espouse foto mantras like the rule of thirds.

09/01/2003 11:33:12 AM · #13

Gordon,

Thanks for the great write up about ROT, as I was reading I could picture one of my photos which follows the ROT and is nice because of that (ROT Shot). Now one that doesn't need the rule (No ROT) and one that probably should (Should have used ROT).

Do I have this right for the different application of the rule?

Autool,

I'm glad you brought that up, more out of curiousity, I'm going to do this... my work is very marketing based, so I'm really interested to see what I find. :-)

tomc

Olympus C-350Z

09/01/2003 11:50:51 AM · #14

since I've started thinking about photography more and more I've been looking for photos in everything, as said earlier, when watching TV and movies I find myself continually pausing the screen in my head when I see a frame that would make a good photo.. sometimes they use rule of thirds sometimes they dont, its interesting how the director frames scenes to keep them interesting..

09/01/2003 11:55:31 AM · #15

Originally posted by chalcone:

It is certainly a good idea to just do what you want and not feel constrained in any way. I wouldn't even attempt to disuade you from doing that. I'm not sure that dismissing all of the previous work done in art and photography is the best approach to doing something truely unique though.

However, photography is also a form of communication and visual language is fairly well understood, at least to the level that it is used in the imagery we see every day. You can learn a lot about how to best express your ideas if you take the time to understand the implication of different elements within a scene.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

09/01/2003 11:59:00 AM · #16

Originally posted by tfaust:

The bark scorpion uses a very strong leading diagonal - imagine this shot rotated 45 degrees - it probably would feel flatter and not so dynamic.

The desert poppies one 'breaks' one of the guidelines quite effectively. Again this comes down to seeing guidelines as shorthand distillations of a lot of ideas. Normally the advice given is that subjects shouldn't look out of the frame when placed at an edge. In this case the dog looking out of the frame quickly pulls your eye out to the right and you don't look at the rest of the scene. However, in this case I think it works really well - you want to know where the dog is looking, you wonder what's going on over there, you wonder if the dog is about to shoot off. The point being, that the 'advice' only makes sense if you really understand when you should or shouldn't apply it - if the dog was looking the other way the shot would lose a lot of the tension that it has.

The Grand Canyon shot comes down to a question of what is the shot about. Is it about the guy and the dog, or is it about the location and them being there is really a secondary element ? You could put the person and dog off to the left, and have them looking across the landscape to the right. You'd then have a more powerful composition that was about the landscape - it would be the main element in the scene, and the person looking 'over' it would guide the viewer to see it being the strongest element. Again - this isn't applying a 'rule' it is firstly trying to work out what the message is of the picture and then placing the elements (and removing elements and clutter - an important part too) to reinforce or communicate this message.

These are obviously not the only ways these shots could be
shuffled around, nor are they necessarily 'right' but if you clearly understand what you are trying to say in a picture, and then consciously put the scene together to show that message, I think pictures can be improved a great deal quite easily.

Message edited by author 2003-09-01 12:02:33.

09/01/2003 12:05:20 PM · #17

Originally posted by tomc:

Try seeing works by the followin non-hollywood types...

Luis Buniel
Pedro Almodovar
Akiro Kurosawa
Satyajit Ray
Samara Makmalbaf (I'm not sure of the spelling, but she's the 20 year old wizard director from Iran)

Perhaps they follow the 3rds, perhaps not. With the exception of Almodovar, they are NOT mainstream. But their work, IMO, is exceptional. Each scene is very well thought-out, and each static moment is a high quality photograph residing in a very dyanamic film. I learn photography by watching great visuals from experimentalists.

e301

09/01/2003 12:57:53 PM · #18

Originally posted by chalcone:

I learn photography by watching great visuals from experimentalists.

sould that not be cinematography?

Ed

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/01/2003 01:05:29 PM · #19

Originally posted by e301:

Originally posted by chalcone:
I learn photography by watching great visuals from experimentalists.

sould that not be cinematography?

Ed

You are splitting hairs over semantics. It is still a source of cues that stimulate one to compose photographic images the way he/she does.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

09/01/2003 02:38:49 PM · #20

'Rules' like this, really, evolve out of practice and from collective experience. As I have said before, in another thread, nothing exists in a vacuum. I think it sound advice to learn and take that which is useful for our purpose and vision from those who already have conducted the experiment and discard that which we can do better, if in fact, we can.

In this sense, the ROT, is not an aesthetic trend, but rooted in a tradition. To ignore tradition is to ignore where we come from.

I do, however, feel, chalcone makes a strong point, when he 'questions' everything he has not found out by himself. The need to examine a thing from all sides and without prejudice includes a naiive stance, as part of the vista.

For these reasons, I would not choose one (view) over the other. Instead, I'd prefer to take advantage of both.

Message edited by author 2003-09-01 14:39:28.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/01/2003 02:52:41 PM · #21

Originally posted by e301:

Originally posted by chalcone:
I learn photography by watching great visuals from experimentalists.

sould that not be cinematography?

Ed

I just saw last night a PBS show on the making of 2001: A Space Odyssey, from which I learned that Stanley Kubric started out as a freelance still photographer, and that this experience was a major factor in the way he shot all of his movies.

I don't think there's any great conflict between the principles of photography and cinematography (which obviously grew out of still photography).

09/01/2003 03:32:35 PM · #22

Thanks Gordon,

I appreciate your comments and perspective on those 3 photos...

Breaking all the rules...

09/01/2003 10:54:05 PM · #23