# Rule of Thirds -- when to break it?



## batmura (Jun 21, 2013)

When taking photos, how much attention to pay to the rule of thirds? How important is it to you? Do you generally feel your photography benefits from it or do you just follow it because it is what most amateur and professional photographers advise on forums, websites, books, and articles? 

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? 

Finally, what are your views on "compositional rules" in general? Do you feel some rules are followed blindly by the masses despite not adding any aesthetic value to images in your eyes?


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Jun 21, 2013)

Break it every chance you get...really. It was never meant to be a hard and fast rule but rather a guideline. A good example is a *Slow to 25* on a mountain road. For a Mini driver, that's just an invitation to see if you can take it at 50 (which normally I can, and normally do). The sign is meant for novice drivers or those who drive like old ladies. You should compose to how your eyes composes the scene. There are some rules that should be adhered to (again, in most instances) like not putting your horizon line dead center or your point of focus dead center but in most cases,  I think it is almost a natural POV not to fall into that visual trap. My opinion.


----------



## Trever1t (Jun 21, 2013)

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.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 21, 2013)

Strive for compositions that you find appealing.  There are no more rules about when to break the 'rules' then there are when to use them, and I would estimate that my compositions probably tend to follow the basic tenents of "good composition" most of the time.  In short,  if it feels or looks 'right' then it probably is.


----------



## Benco (Jun 21, 2013)

The rule of thirds is a useful composing trick that I'll usually try but sometimes it just doesn't work, if adhering to it produces big dead areas, unbalanced composition, unwanted elements and so on then that's when I break the 'rule'.


----------



## ceeboy14 (Jun 21, 2013)

I should have continued with saying for novice photographers by all means adhere to the rules until you reach a level of compositional comfort...and I sort of did by saying some rules should always be adhered to...well, mostly. I see a lot of 2,500 + posters on here who still have that problem.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 21, 2013)

Composition is about,  "Finding or creating the most effective means of utilizing the space." On natural-world scenes, one can "find" the best composition by moving the camera up, down, sideways, back, forth, and using different lenses, and so on. On user-created compositions, such as still life photos, or catalog photos, and so on, the photographer "creates" the composition in another manner. Composition involves using the elements and principles of design. The elements and principles of design are the things that compositions are built with. Line, shape, mass,texture, hue, value, repetition, dissonance, harmony--those kinds of things are what I think about. Some pictures are about *shapes*. Some photos are built around strong *lines*. Some photos show relationships between things of widely differing mass; for example, a child placed next to a giant redwood tree's base--that is a photo that uses widely differing "mass" as a building block. Grand, towering views of El Capitan convey mass by way of foreground forests of tall coniferous trees, which are absolutely dwarfed by the sheer height of the monolith.

"The rule of thirds" is in no way any type of a rule. It's sort of a modern cheat-sheet type of device that's been elevated wayyyyyyy beyond its usefulness. It has in fact, led to legions of unstudied shooters positioning people precisely 1/3 of the way off to one side of horizontal shots, and thinking that they are creating "interest", or God forbid, "a good picture".

There truly are NO rules in composition. I have said that repeatedly for years. There. Are. No. Rules.   There are no absolutes.  There are no shortcuts.   There are no "cheats". Composition involves using the elements and principles of design, in an effective way. GOOD composition uses the elements and principles of design in a highly-effective manner.

If one wishes to learn more about how to compose pictures, search for "elements and principles of design", and look into what the real fundamentals are.


----------



## Overread (Jun 21, 2013)

The "Rule of 3rds" is but one single compositional concept in a sea of MANY. It's one of the most popular because its simple to each the basic concept and its got a catchy name. There are many theories - leading lines - golden spiral - rule of thirds - patterns - brightness values etc....

The key is to get yourself as broad an understanding as you can and to also gain a degree of depth of each method. Once you understand better how and why a theory works you can then understand when its best to use it and also when its best to "break" it (although half the time you "break" one theory, you are just making use of others).

Photography, like art, is not about blind following of single theories; but rather combining and using different ones to gain creative results.


----------



## KmH (Jun 21, 2013)

RoT is just one visual image composition guideline. As mentioned, there are lots of others.

Composition (visual arts) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Composition and the Elements of Visual Design
Image Composition in art - A quick summary of my art lesson for home study


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 21, 2013)

The rule of thirds like many things seems to be getting perpetuated all over the internet but as others have said it's just one concept related to composition. 

You could try searching Elements of composition in art and that should give you some resources about line, shape, texture, space, tone (value), color, and space. I think composition takes time to learn about and be able to use in your photos.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 21, 2013)

I would like to say that it's a gimmick.  However, of all of my photos that end up being my favorites, about 90% of them are ones that adhere to the rule of thirds (while also having other things going for them of course), despite me only taking like 50-60% of my photos as rule of thirds photos.

The other 10% are symmetrical situations where a center composition makes more sense, and the lines reflected on either side create the interesting shapes and space rather than subject placement.

I do not have a single, centered, but not symmetrical subject in a photo that I consider one of my best, as far as I can remember.  So IMO, there's a lot going for this "rule."

That said, pretty much anything that isn't dead centered could be sort of interpreted as being 1/3 away from SOMETHING, so it covers a pretty broad range of compositions, some of which might be really bad, some good.

So I'd say it's almost always a good idea, BUT it by itself isn't really giving you a ton of constraints to work from, either. So you still need lots of other compositional intuition and tricks on top of that.


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 21, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> I would like to say that it's a gimmick.  However, of all of my photos that end up being my favorites, about 90% of them are ones that adhere to the rule of thirds (while also having other things going for them of course), despite me only taking like 50-60% of my photos as rule of thirds photos.
> 
> The other 10% are symmetrical situations where a center composition makes more sense, and the lines reflected on either side create the interesting shapes and space rather than subject placement.
> 
> ...



Agreed.. we're encouraged in class to use as many compositional elements as we can in photography.  The rule of thirds is one, but we also use leading lines, shapes, symmetry, depth of field, repeated objects/patterns, etc.. the more interesting compositional elements you can place in a photo, the better.. assuming you're using what works for the shot.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 21, 2013)

Break it when it works... otherwise don't!


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 21, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Break it when it works... otherwise don't!



This same advice should not apply to your camera.


----------



## Benco (Jun 21, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Break it when it works... otherwise don't!



Break it when it _doesn't_ work.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 21, 2013)

I try to think about balance when framing an image.  The balance of light/dark tones, colors, shapes and how that balance guides the eye to the subject or away from it.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 21, 2013)

Most of the "rules" photographers inflict on one another boil down to "get the subject out of the center" which is usually a good idea. But it's not about getting it out of the middle, it's about balancing things. Since things balance around some point, like the fulcrum of a lever, and that point naturally falls in the middle, you wind up sticking the things opposite one another across the middle.

This is all about balancing things. This is why symmetrical elements WILL work in the middle, at least sometimes - they are balanced in and of themselves.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 21, 2013)

Benco said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Break it when it works... otherwise don't!
> ...



AS IN Break it when BREAKING it works!  DONT break it when Breaking it Doesn't work.... Sheesh!


----------



## Benco (Jun 21, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Goes without saying, if breaking it doesn't work then you can't break it. QED.


----------



## skieur (Jun 21, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Most of the "rules" photographers inflict on one another boil down to "get the subject out of the center" which is usually a good idea. But it's not about getting it out of the middle, it's about balancing things. Since things balance around some point, like the fulcrum of a lever, and that point naturally falls in the middle, you wind up sticking the things opposite one another across the middle.
> 
> This is all about balancing things. This is why symmetrical elements WILL work in the middle, at least sometimes - they are balanced in and of themselves.



Lack of balance creates visual interest and emphasis by the photographer or by an artist.  Even many symmetrical elements work better off centre.


----------



## peter27 (Jun 22, 2013)

ceeboy14 said:


> I see a lot of 2,500 + posters on here who still have that problem.



Lots of posters here like to talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk....


----------



## ShooterJ (Jun 22, 2013)

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.


----------



## cptkid (Jun 22, 2013)

always


----------



## amolitor (Jun 22, 2013)

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.


----------



## peter27 (Jun 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> 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.


----------



## kathyt (Jun 22, 2013)

It just depends. I think there has to be some fundamental element of composition within your image to create interest. It doesn't have to be rule of thirds though.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 22, 2013)

If I'm shooting for myself, as opposed to for a client, I break every rule there is, just because I want to, and just because I can.

Don't confine yourself with rules...


----------



## cynicaster (Jun 22, 2013)

I've found that the terminology "rule of thirds" lends a misleading level of precision to the technique, as in, it seems to suggest that you need to have something exactly at a third away from the edge for it to be applied correctly.  In practice, for me, insofar as the general philosophy yields any benefit (which I believe it does in the right situations), I've found it's more of a rule-of-not-placing-the-subject-smack-dab-in-the-center, but I guess that's a bit of a mouthful.  

Either way, the more time goes by, the more I find myself completely ignoring the rule of thirds and just going with what looks good to me.


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 22, 2013)

Follow the rule most of the time.

If you're taking a shot which is meant to show *symmetry*, break it.  For example... (it's a cliche - sorry) taking the photo looking down the railroad tracks (or down a long hallway, or down a long road (don't get run over by a car while taking) are all photos where you probably want to show symmetry with respect to the center line -- in which case you wouldn't use a horizontal rule of thirds but you might use a vertical rule of thirds.


----------



## peter27 (Jun 22, 2013)

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 (Jun 22, 2013)

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 (Jun 22, 2013)

peter27 said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2013)

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 (Jun 22, 2013)

peter27 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > The rule of thirds is one of these photographic rules that takes the general shape:
> ...



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 (Jun 22, 2013)

ShooterJ said:


> 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 (Jun 22, 2013)

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 (Jun 22, 2013)

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 (Jun 22, 2013)

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 (Jun 23, 2013)

amolitor said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

KenC said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

skieur said:


> 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 (Jun 23, 2013)

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 (Jun 23, 2013)

amolitor said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## runnah (Jun 23, 2013)

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


----------



## KenC (Jun 23, 2013)

skieur said:


> KenC said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



As to your first point, Arnheim's classic work, Art and Visual Perception - Art and Visual Perception: A Psychology of the Creative Eye: Rudolf Arnheim: 9780520243835: Amazon.com: Books - doesn't mention the ROT either.

As to the second point, there are many paintings (and photographs too, for that matter) that are balanced, don't follow ROT (at least not Andrew's Version 2, which is the way photographers typically mean it) and yet keep the eye moving and generate interest very nicely.  Unbalanced images of course can do this also, by using the tension caused by the lack of balance.


----------



## iolair (Jun 28, 2013)

My take on things:

The 'Rules' of composition reflect how our brains like to see these things.

Following these rules is 'comfortable' for the brain.

Examples of these rules:
'Rule of Thirds'
'Leading Lines'
'Symmetry'
'Repeated Patterns'
'Fill the Frame'
'Golden Ratio'
'Complementary Colours'
'Framing'

Breaking these rules adds 'tension' to the image.


Some of the best images are where the rule-following and rule-breaking are carefully balanced.
Strict rule-following leads to safe or even boring images.
Complete rule-breaking leads to disengagement from the image; we have no way to relate to it.

A balance of rule-following and rule-breaking creates an image that we can engage with AND find interesting.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jun 28, 2013)

I really wish people would dispense with the notion of "Breaking Rules". Y'all seem really hung up on that, and you are doing yourselves a huge disservice.
It seems like far too many people look at how they frame an image with the notion that "breaking a rule" makes an image more successful, and that is the ultimate goal, to break a rule!

You are simply using a visual language comprised of a palette of tools and ideas to make an image interesting, to hold the viewer, and to get some "point" across. That point could simply be an emotional "feel".

Many of these elements of design and composition "do" something. Often they are simply tools to move the eye around effectively. Some provide a feeling of "weight". If you are creating an image of a subject, and you want that subject to "feel" like it's floating, or flying, or lighter than air...where do you put in the frame? At the bottom? 
When composing an image, you are looking for everything you have available to you to use to create an interesting image, that conveys "something". You are never "breaking a rule". You are simply choosing not to use a tool because it doesn't support your premise, and you are then using other tools that do. 

Do yourselves a favor, and never use that phrase again while discussing composition.


----------



## CraniumDesigns (Jun 30, 2013)

depends on the scene. i tend to feel more comfortable centering things when i have a reflection i wanna capture. other than that i usually stick to thirds 90% of the time.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 1, 2013)

I move the objects in my photos around until they seem pleasing to my eye. Balance and weight tend to be important elements for me. When I'm done moving them around, I find that I have "followed" the rules intuitively for the most part. Not always though. Sometimes an element that appears off really makes the photo more interesting.

For most cases, this leads me to believe that aesthetic elements of what the brain likes came first. The "rules" just define what the brain already finds pleasing. Maybe we should change the expression from "rules of photography" to "the elements of pleasing photos".


----------



## DiskoJoe (Jul 1, 2013)

batmura said:


> When taking photos, how much attention to pay to the rule of thirds? How important is it to you? Do you generally feel your photography benefits from it or do you just follow it because it is what most amateur and professional photographers advise on forums, websites, books, and articles?
> 
> 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?
> 
> Finally, what are your views on "compositional rules" in general? Do you feel some rules are followed blindly by the masses despite not adding any aesthetic value to images in your eyes?



Well with the wonders of digital photography you can take multiple shots and not worry about wasting film. So set up a standard kind of shot, check out the preview and then take some alternates. I do this alot with my landscape cityscape shots.


----------



## nycphotography (Jul 1, 2013)

batmura said:


> 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?



Correctly worded, you should never break the rule of thirds.   Unfortunately, it doens't seem that you are working with a correctly worded  version of the rule, as if you were you, wouldn't have asked.  Let me help you by presenting the rule of thirds, correctly stated:

The  rule of thirds, stated correctly:  CONSIDER the composition with the  subject off center, perhaps on a 1/3 line either horizontally,  vertically, or both.  Then, having considered this alternative, go with  whatever composition best accomplishes your objectives.


----------



## iolair (Jul 3, 2013)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I really wish people would dispense with the notion of "Breaking Rules". Y'all seem really hung up on that, and you are doing yourselves a huge disservice.


The concept of 'rules' is just a useful nomenclature.  If people prefer to think of them as a range of compositional tools, rather than rules, then obviously that's okay too.  I agree there's a danger that by calling anything a 'rule' it sounds like it MUST be followed, but as long as we agree these are just useful concepts rather than Laws Of Photography I don't think it matters what we call them.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 3, 2013)

I have recently developed a theory about that which must be known before it is broken.

That thing is the notion of a well-balanced and pleasing picture. 19th century painters and their intellectual offspring the pictorialists seem to have believed that pictures SHOULD ALWAYS BE this sort of well balanced, pleasing, beautiful, soothing sort of thing. See also all the painting JWM Turner ever made. There's a great deal of material out there on How To Make These Things. Most of what we think of as Composition is a set of rules and ideas and principles for making these things.

The "rule" that must never be broken until you understand it is really the rule that pictures should be well balanced, pleasing, beautiful. The 20th century is more or less wave after wave of movements against this idea, after all. But the underlying theory here is that you gotta know how to make these sentimental Victorian pieces FIRST and only THEN should you trot off and start making your ugly whateverthehells.

There's real value in this theory, I think. Plus, I kind of like the sentimental Victorian things.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 3, 2013)

I don't think of any rules when I shoot, I just shoot what I think looks good. If you start to overthink what you are shooting, you end up missing what you wanted to shoot in the first place.


----------



## Overread (Jul 6, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> I don't think of any rules when I shoot, I just shoot what I think looks good. If you start to overthink what you are shooting, you end up missing what you wanted to shoot in the first place.




When you first start to learn about exposure most people have to think about the exposure triangle - or a similar learning tool structure of the relationship. Some might even get really keen and lean all the shutter stop fractions and aperture fractions etc... and know off by heart all the numbers.

Now when you get more experienced and more familiar a lot of that information shifts from being forefront to being background in your mind - from being active to instinctive thinking. 

Composition is no different and whilst some learn from copy and repeat or from formal lessons and "rules/guidelines/instruction" its really no different. AT some stage they were forefront mind things - then slowly over time and more and more shooting they slip into the back of the mind until its more instinctive. 


The same can be said of shooting in any specific subject or environment - at first when you shoot sports you're always Thinking about where the next shot is going to be or where the ball will go - then slowly it becomes instinct - heck if you work at a specific team or group you'd likely know where a player is likely to take the ball and the game before they get there. Same is true in any other subject area.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 6, 2013)

amolitor said:


> I have recently developed a theory about that which must be known before it is broken.
> 
> That thing is the notion of a well-balanced and pleasing picture. 19th century painters and their intellectual offspring the pictorialists seem to have believed that pictures SHOULD ALWAYS BE this sort of well balanced, pleasing, beautiful, soothing sort of thing. See also all the painting JWM Turner ever made. There's a great deal of material out there on How To Make These Things. Most of what we think of as Composition is a set of rules and ideas and principles for making these things.
> 
> ...



Balance, discord, and tension are just elements of design used to make your intended point. Balance is a tool just like the rule of thirds. A vast majority of people are, quite simply, trying to make pleasing images. Very few are trying to create imagery to challenge the viewer. 




iolair said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish people would dispense with the notion of "Breaking Rules". Y'all seem really hung up on that, and you are doing yourselves a huge disservice.
> ...


I don't think it's _*useful*_ to think of them as rules at all. Period.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 6, 2013)

I am fairly sure that you missed my point.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 6, 2013)

Overread said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think of any rules when I shoot, I just shoot what I think looks good. If you start to overthink what you are shooting, you end up missing what you wanted to shoot in the first place.
> ...



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


----------



## amolitor (Jul 6, 2013)

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.


----------



## Overread (Jul 6, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


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





amolitor said:


> 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 (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 7, 2013)

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 (Jul 14, 2013)

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 (Jul 14, 2013)

somberg said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2013)

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 (Jul 14, 2013)

> 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 (Jul 14, 2013)

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 (Jul 14, 2013)

runnah said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2013)

skieur said:


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



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 (Jul 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2013)

Trever1t said:


> 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 (Jul 14, 2013)

skieur said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jul 14, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Trever1t said:
> ...



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 (Jul 14, 2013)

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?


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 14, 2013)

skieur said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...





I never mentioned rule-of-thirds.  I was talking about balance.  I said that if the main subject is on one side, it should be balanced against something on the other side.      Re-read the last sentence in my last post.


----------



## somberg (Jul 15, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


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



That's exactly what I was asking about, Alan.  Is there really any evidence that our brains find the rule of thirds to be aesthetically pleasing or is it just folk lore that has been passed along for ages.  I suspect the latter.


----------



## Benco (Jul 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Photographers worry about "where do I stick the subject?" *Painters don't*.



It depends what or how you paint, sure there's plenty of modern and contemporary artists who pretty much throw paint onto a canvas randomly but for more disciplined work composition is an important element and painters do indeed worry about it.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 15, 2013)

Benco said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Photographers worry about "where do I stick the subject?" *Painters don't*.
> ...



Not really, no, not in the sense that I mean. The painting is not divided up into "the subject" and "all that crud in the background, the stuff that's not the subject, oh bother what am I going to do about that". Photographers tend to think of the things in the frame as:

- the thing I am taking a picture of (the Subject)
- everything else

To a painter, the "subject" is everything in the frame. If it's not part of the subject of the painting, you simply don't put it in the frame. There may be a primary object of interest, say the sitter for a portrait, but the stuff in the frame around that sitter is generally designed to support that main object of interest. You can certainly say "well, the sitter is the subject" but there's no denying that whatever you call these things, there are two rather different points of view in play here. I have no wish to argue over what the word "subject" shall mean. Feel free to substitute "Fragnap" for my meaning of "subject" if you like. The rule of thirds then tells you were to place the Fragnap.

Painters do not see the problem of composition as one of "where shall I stick the primary interesting object", in general. The problem of composition is one of designing the entire frame, including most interesting object if any, and subordinate objects. Placement of subordinate objects and masses relative to the primary one, for instance, _is_ a problem of great import to the painter, it's an actually important problem that needs to be solved to make a good picture. Things like the RoT, Golden Triangle, etc, sweep these kinds of actually important problems under the rug in favor of the relatively trivial "where shall I stick the subject".

Of course there are exceptions. There are probably painters who, perhaps, paint absolutely true to life, for whom "background" is synonymous with "stuff I have to deal with that isn't the main object" but these are the exception rather than the rule.


----------



## somberg (Jul 15, 2013)

Very interesting ideas, amolitor.  I need to think about that some, but it does make sense.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 15, 2013)

Apparently, some "rules" predate photography and were used in painting: Rule of Thirds - Watercolorpainting.com (c) Greg Conley


> In 1797, J.T. Smith wrote of the rule of thirds for landscape painting in his book _"Remarks on Rural Scenery."_ He requires that 1/3 (one third) of the painting be reserved for land and water and the upper 2/3 (two thirds) are to be used for air and sky. The land and water bottom third is again divided into thirds, reserving the lower 1/3 (one-third) for land and the remaining 2/3 (two thirds) for water. J.T. "Antiquity" Smith was a contemporary of English watercolourist John Constable (1776-1837).


----------



## amolitor (Jul 15, 2013)

There are two different rules of thirds. I happen to own a copy of that book, and all he's talking about is proportions. When you're whacking something up into "a major part and a smaller part" thirds is, very roughly, about where you want to go.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Benco said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Speaking of exceptions: there is a HUGE difference between western viewers of photographs, and eastern (as in Asian) viewers of photographs. When my ex-wife was studying for her doctorate in research psychology, I was exposed to some of her books on visual perception, and one of the books contained some results of studies in visual perception that compared the way western subjects actgually viewed and conceptualized photographs, based on eye movement scan records and analysis.

You wrote: "Photographers tend to think of the things in the frame as:

- the thing I am taking a picture of (the Subject)
- everything else"

Umm, YES, that is the way western viewers look at photos. Asian viewers, and as I recall Asian-Americans (!!!) tend to look FIRST, as in FIRST, at the BACKGROUND, and then use repeated eye movements and cognitive analysis effort to place the "subject" within the contenxt of TIHE BACKGROUND. Wow....what a mind-fry,eh? This is a subject I found fascinating. ANd there might actually be some genetic hard-wiring in this. As an aside, witness Asian (Japanese and ChHinese,specifically) landscape painting; thousands of years BEFORE Europeans learned to draw, Asian landscape painters were painting landscapes that used the phenomenon of aerial perspective, to convey distance and depth and dimensionality. THOUSANDS of years later, Europe's top level painters were still drawing charcoal outlines around their figures, and could not even figure out how to draw a vanishing point...

While much of Europe was warring and starving and in a dark age, the eastern cultures were exploring the arts and thriving...

Anyway..."western" viewers FIRST focus on the foreground, with very little background study....Asian viewers on the other hand,look at photos and images in an almost diametrically opposed manner.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 15, 2013)

> Anyway..."western" viewers FIRST focus on the foreground, with very little background study....Asian viewers on the other hand,look at photos and images in an almost diametrically opposed manner.


Do you have a source for that?  I couldn't find anything like that in Google but did find this.  Difference Between Chinese Painting and Western Painting


----------



## somberg (Jul 15, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> > Anyway..."western" viewers FIRST focus on the foreground, with very little background study....Asian viewers on the other hand,look at photos and images in an almost diametrically opposed manner.
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for that?  I couldn't find anything like that in Google but did find this.  Difference Between Chinese Painting and Western Painting



There are actuallly a number of studies that show eye movement differences across cultures.

Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception is an example.  See also Eye tracking reveals cultural differences in eye movements. | Eye-Com Research


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jul 15, 2013)

When to break it? 

...when it works.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> > Anyway..."western" viewers FIRST focus on the foreground, with very little background study....Asian viewers on the other hand,look at photos and images in an almost diametrically opposed manner.
> 
> 
> Do you have a source for that?  I couldn't find anything like that in Google but did find this.  Difference Between Chinese Painting and Western Painting



Alan, you might contact Dr. Maggie Shiffrar, at Rutgers (Newark) about this subject area. Rutgers University - Newark Campus, Department of Psychology


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 15, 2013)

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.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 15, 2013)

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*. The word was first introduced to America by Mike Johnston, in some articles he wrote for an American photography magazine in the early 1990's. He added an h to the end, to come up with the Americanized version of the word, "bokeh". Prior to that time, there was basically NO discussion of the out of focus background (and foreground) rendering characteristics of specific lenses. I recall being involved in on-line photography fora back in the mdi-1990's and late 1990's; long-time American commercial and professional photographers often were HORRIBLY dismissive of bokeh, and often insisted there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO IT! (in about that much emphasis...very vehement dismissal was the norm among a substantial segment of "old pro's").

What I find interesting is that most of those "old pro" shooters often shot Hasselblad 500-series cameras with inter-lens shutters, and many of the lenses in that system had absolutely $hitty, abysmally jarring bokeh rendering--BUT,m since those guys shot on seamless paper so much, there really was, in effect "NO background" in many of the images they had been making for decades. It was amusing to here these self-importnat blowhard profess their utter,total inability to literally SEE the way lenses rendered out of focus areas...these guys loudly and proudly shouted about their ignorance of something obvious.

Again...the Japanese photo culture was clearly aware of background rendering, while western culture was pretty much oblivious to it....when your culture does not even have a WORD for something, I think the chances are high that your culture is ignorant of the effect...


----------



## amolitor (Jul 15, 2013)

see also: Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## skieur (Jul 15, 2013)

amolitor said:


> 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 (Jul 15, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> 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 (Jul 15, 2013)

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 (Jul 26, 2013)

amolitor said:


> 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 (Jul 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> 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 (Jul 26, 2013)

skieur said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Derrel (Jul 26, 2013)

dxqcanada said:
			
		

> 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 (Jul 26, 2013)

somberg said:


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


----------



## Mikej15 (Jul 29, 2013)

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 (Jul 29, 2013)

Mikej15 said:


> 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 (Jul 29, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Mikej15 said:
> 
> 
> > You should brake every rule, when you have mastered it and you surely know when the time is right to do it.
> ...



According to Steven Fry - yes


----------



## skieur (Jul 29, 2013)

Derrel said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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


----------



## skieur (Aug 26, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> batmura said:
> 
> 
> > When taking photos, how much attention to pay to the rule of thirds?
> ...



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


----------



## amolitor (Aug 26, 2013)

skieur said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > dxqcanada said:
> ...



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


----------



## skieur (Aug 26, 2013)

peter27 said:


> 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.


----------



## skieur (Aug 26, 2013)

AlanKlein said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > AlanKlein said:
> ...



I did read your last sentence.  There is NO balanced picture if "the subject is off center" and there is no balance because other elements cannot equally balance the subject.


----------



## skieur (Aug 26, 2013)

Ilovemycam said:


> When to break it?
> 
> ...when it works.



Of course, but fortunately or unfortunately, it seldom does.


----------



## skieur (Aug 26, 2013)

peter27 said:


> ceeboy14 said:
> 
> 
> > I see a lot of 2,500 + posters on here who still have that problem.
> ...



Well considering almost a 1/4 million views of my gallery, I walk the walk.


----------



## JTPhotography (Aug 26, 2013)

Learn it, and like some others have said, you will know better when and when not to break it. I personally find it useful to break it in one dimension and not the other. For example, if you have a bird perched on a post, you can easily center a horizon or treeline in the BG, but you want to keep the bird to one side or the other.

One example of when it makes sense to break it is in a water reflection shot, when you're trying to do a mirror image.


----------



## JTPhotography (Aug 26, 2013)




----------



## amolitor (Aug 27, 2013)

skieur said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > ceeboy14 said:
> ...



There are lots of reasons why your gallery might have many views. Citing this as an example of why you're right is a particularly poor example of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy.

Your remarks about there being no way to balance a picture with an off-center subject appear to be complete nonsense, but as your writing is generally opaque, I'm not actually sure if the intended meaning is nonsense, or merely the actual words you used to try to convey that meaning.

I still have no idea which rule of thirds you're even talking about, despite having asked you directly and been ignored.

I apologize for sounding somewhat testy here, I am somewhat testy.


----------

