| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2005 02:03:14 AM · #1 |
I would like to know, if the rule of thirds is really a rule how often should it be adheared to and what are the consequenses for violating this rule. I hear this term thrown around a lot, but wonder at the significance of it all.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 02:06:25 AM · #2 |
I guess they found that when you follow the rule of the thirds, the image is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye.
Certainly it can be broken and a good photo the result. Take for instance a beautiful sky with just a slim shadow of the ground left over -- so there are exceptions. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 02:23:03 AM · #3 |
Usually makes composition interesting, but it's starting to get boring seeing subjects closer to one side then the other. Center is ok people :)
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 02:58:32 AM · #4 |
The Rule of Thirds is a guide that aids in creating images with more visual appeal. Off-center subjects convey certain elements of impact to the viewer, such as depth and motion and many others depending on the image. Sometimes, however, the standard impact of the scene is not quite what is desired -- 'violating' the guides in this case produce the desired result. But how one can know when violating a guide will produce a desired result, without first knowing what effect following the guides will create, is beyond me.
But, maybe that's just me -- I'm still figuring out what the elements of composition can be expected to accomplish when followed. ;)
David
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 03:00:09 AM · #5 |
I personally think the rule of thirds do apply in most images even though the rule can be broken and be a great picture. Looking at your recent entry [Betty...] If you notice you used the rule of thirds great, intentionally or not. You used 3 of the 4 power points and placed the top of Betty's head on the top 3rd. Her nose is on the bottom left power point and the top of the ear is on the top right power point. Composition wise nice 'c' and 's' shapes to join the power points. Notice the nice 's' shape of the ear from top right power point to the lower right power point. And the same from the top of the ear at the top right power point flowing down to the nose at the bottom left power point. So I say yes the rule of thirds is a good and appealing rule but at the same time and be broken to make a good photograph. With all that said Great photograph - nsbca7
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 03:07:39.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 03:00:55 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 03:01:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Britannica:
But, maybe that's just me -- I'm still figuring out what the elements of composition can be expected to accomplish when followed. ;)
David |
That's the best advice i have heard all day :)
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 03:01:30 AM · #8 |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 03:32:20 AM · #9 |
The "rule of thrids" is loosely based on the Greek concept of the "golden rectangle", a classic proportion that is inherently pleasing to the eye.
In a given rectangle of long dimension "x" and short dimension "y", you have used the goden proportion if if the ratio "y/x" is equal to the ratio "x/x+y"... Classical Greek architetcure is based on these proportions.
The fibonacci series of numbers, where each number in the string is equal to the sum of the previous two numbers, also defines a golden proportion: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55.... This series of numbers is one of the basic building blocks of nature; it defines, for example, the spirals of the chambered nautilus and the seeds in a sunflower head.
At a fundamental level, the "awareness" of the fibonacci series is hard-wired into every living organism.
The "rule of thirds" is a close visual approximation of the golden proportion "hot spots" within a given rectangle, though it works best on a rectangle that is already defined int he golden proportion, which some film formats are not and most crops assuredly are not. It's just one more among many compositional rules-of-thumb, but perhaps the most univerally valid of them all.
I prefer to call a "rule" like this a "model"; effective compostional models include the "symmetrical", the "diagonal", the "zee", the "ess", and the above-discussed "golden proportion".
In the end, whatever works, works. An image is more likely to please more people if it follows the golden proportion, however. This has been proven... My entry in "best of" follows the symmetrical model, which is much less in the popular taste now than it was, say, 100 years ago, and the voting is suffering accordingly; EVERY comment has remarked they wish the image were not so "centered".
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:04:21 AM · #10 |
Good deal bear. I was wondering is anyone actually knew where it came from. I prefer the term golden section to rule of thirds as rule of thirds would imply that this was something to be strictly followed. It is the product of a mathematical equation.
I studied this years ago in design and art classes, but the concept is not one I now think of consciously. As with my Betty picture that was posted above I first shoot and then sometimes later crop with what pleases my eye at the moment. Upon later critiquing the Betty image I found a slightly tighter crop was a vast improvement.
For some I think this has become a hard and fast rule often to the point measuring to make sure they have it right. I don’t see this as a rule to good balance, but more as a guideline. (what was that line from? Pirates of the Caribbean)
It comes down to what pleases the eye.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 04:08:19.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:05:05 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
In the end, whatever works, works. An image is more likely to please more people if it follows the golden proportion, however. This has been proven... My entry in "best of" follows the symmetrical model, which is much less in the popular taste now than it was, say, 100 years ago, and the voting is suffering accordingly; EVERY comment has remarked they wish the image were not so "centered".
Robt. |
It could be argued that those who commented were individuals who both know and apply the rules, whereas the vast majority (I presume) that did NOT comment may not be so inclined.
If indeed compliance to prescribed rules was a given, and adhered to by all participants, I would hazard to guess that some of the results we saw in " BOKEH" would have be dramatically different. It is my contention that Bokeh was indeed a rare commodity in a great number of submissions.
Ray |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:16:40 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
In the end, whatever works, works. An image is more likely to please more people if it follows the golden proportion, however. This has been proven... My entry in "best of" follows the symmetrical model, which is much less in the popular taste now than it was, say, 100 years ago, and the voting is suffering accordingly; EVERY comment has remarked they wish the image were not so "centered".
Robt. |
I completely agree with this. As an abstract artist who has only recently began to delve into the realm of photography I hate following rules. Some of the work that most interests me are the pieces that don't adhere to standards. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:08:07 AM · #13 |
I think for all the various 'rules' or shorthands for composition, it is more valuable to learn about the underlying principles at work than use the superficial 'rules'
As mentioned the 'rules of thirds' is a guideline from the golden mean and from observing art over the centuaries. Many of the other compositional rules like, 'have people looking in to the photo with space to move' are based on similarly more deep ideas.
Once you actually start understanding the point for these various conventions, it becomes a more interesting proposition to deviate from them, with intent. When someone just decides to 'ignore the rules' or 'break the rules' without a clue about what the visual meaning is, you tend to get a mess (which could be good or bad) At least knowing why you are doing it, you can tend to have a more directed result.
E.g., putting someone close to the edge of a frame, looking 'out' of the photo to increase tension/ mystery. If you just followed 'rules' this would be bad - rather than deliberate. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 09:09:23 AM · #14 |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 10:43:24 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I would like to know, if the rule of thirds is really a rule how often should it be adheared to and what are the consequenses for violating this rule. I hear this term thrown around a lot, but wonder at the significance of it all. |
Martin - I found the info in this article a decent source on the 'Rule of Thirds', along with many others (Rule of Thirds returned over 20,000 hits using Yahoo search).
//www.camerahobby.com/Ebook-RuleThirds_Chapter15.htm
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 10:50:53 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
E.g., putting someone close to the edge of a frame, looking 'out' of the photo to increase tension/ mystery. If you just followed 'rules' this would be bad - rather than deliberate. |
breaking the rules here - served a purpose - and fit the subject matter well - if it were a less ominous bird it probably wouldn't have worked well.
zeuszen's boken entry would verify this statement...
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 10:52:28.
|
|
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: 04/18/2024 06:59:53 AM EDT.
