Breaking rule of odds : Even

[Tejal]

Odd number of subjects looks good in the frame in general but just trying to break some guidelines for odds by having even number of elements in the image.

Kindly share your views for the below images, which is more suitable for this concept.

Regards,

Tejal

IMG_1140 by patel_tejal, on Flickr

or

IMG_1783 by patel_tejal, on Flickr

Thanks a million everyone for such an informative discussion. I really enjoyed reading all the comments. From the inputs some more frames came in my mind here are these......kindly give your inputs for the same.

IMG_0065 by patel_tejal, on Flickr

and

IMG_6356 by patel_tejal, on Flickr

[jcuknz]

Once again you are proving the rule by breaking it and not breaking it in first and second photos ... though the central man in the first is quite dominant and the only distraction is the bright tripod legs of the RH man. Again in the second image the front man so so strong you simply do not have a 'two', if anything the boat makes 'three'. Else the 'three' and the cloud make two.
Sorry

[Tejal]

Once again you are proving the rule by breaking it and not breaking it in first and second photos ... though the central man in the first is quite dominant and the only distraction is the bright tripod legs of the RH man. Again in the second image the front man so so strong you simply do not have a 'two', if anything the boat makes 'three'. Else the 'three' and the cloud make two.
Sorry

I enjoyed reading your comments John . Thanks...very nicely explained.

[fotugraphy]

Once again you are proving the rule by breaking it and not breaking it in first and second photos ... though the central man in the first is quite dominant and the only distraction is the bright tripod legs of the RH man. Again in the second image the front man so so strong you simply do not have a 'two', if anything the boat makes 'three'. Else the 'three' and the cloud make two.
Sorry

brilliant explanation. Thanks

[pnodrog]

I responded to the other version of this post before seeing this one and my answer was said completely differently to Johns (jcuknz) but amounted to the same thing. So I am in complete agreement with his comment.

[Tejal]

I responded to the other version of this post before seeing this one and my answer was said completely differently to Johns (jcuknz) but amounted to the same thing. So I am in complete agreement with his comment.

Thanks L.Paul (y)

[Shadowman]

Both work as each photographer is so different in terms of colors worn and stance. The boating scene works because the boat is an additional element.

[Tejal]

Both work as each photographer is so different in terms of colors worn and stance. The boating scene works because the boat is an additional element.

thank you John...!!

[Mike Buckley]

the central man in the first is quite dominant...in the second image the front man [is] so strong

This explains why I think in terms of primary and secondary subjects. You can have two equally dominant subjects, in which case I think of both of them as primary subjects. However, when you have two or more subjects and when one of them is more dominant than the others for whatever reason, I think of a primary subject and secondary subjects. I then apply the generally accepted guidelines differently to the scene based on whether I am applying them to the primary or the secondary subjects.

[Tejal]

This explains why I think in terms of primary and secondary subjects. You can have two equally dominant subjects, in which case I think of both of them as primary subjects. However, when you have two or more subjects and when one of them is more dominant than the others for whatever reason, I think of a primary subject and secondary subjects. I then apply the generally accepted guidelines differently to the scene based on whether I am applying them to the primary or the secondary subjects.

Very well explained Mike. Thanks !!

[Tejal]

This explains why I think in terms of primary and secondary subjects. You can have two equally dominant subjects, in which case I think of both of them as primary subjects. However, when you have two or more subjects and when one of them is more dominant than the others for whatever reason, I think of a primary subject and secondary subjects. I then apply the generally accepted guidelines differently to the scene based on whether I am applying them to the primary or the secondary subjects.

Sir, kindly share your input on cropping to balance the importance of two subjects, to make them both important.

Here is the original SOOC shot :

IMG_1140 by patel_tejal, on Flickr

If I keep the frame as follows then can we balance both the subjects ?

IMG_1140 - Croped by patel_tejal, on Flickr

Kindly give your suggestion.

Regards,

Tejal

[Downrigger]

Interesting thread.

First - I find that for me the two photographer image does illustrate two competing subjects, and succeeds nonetheless as an image. Both photographers prominent with similar mass, each different in interesting ways, resulting in a ping-pong/back-and-forth experience when viewing. The second one above better illustrates this, and it works for me as a successful, symmetric two subject image.

Second - I think Mike's comment interests me because I am not clear on the distinction between primary and secondary "subject" as strictly compositional elements (light, mass), versus elements characterized by the interest they command and the content they express.

For instance, imagine a photo of a face with a gorgeous flowering hedge as close-in background. If shot with the face showing a flat, disinterested expression, dull skin tones, no eye contact, the primary subject would be the blossoming hedge, with the face secondary. However, if in a second shot, the same face is animated, striking, attractive, sparkling and engaged, this image, with the same compositional elements has either switched primary and secondary or perhaps now has two primary subjects that compete for the eye.

The issue can be made more complex: if we make the face an attractive male or female and assay the "primariness" of the face as a compositional object we might obtain different results according to the sex of the viewer.

All this suggests to me, that definition of subject in terms of its strictly compositional content and impact is incomplete without also considering its subjective intellectual or psychological content and impact, and the latter may vary according to the viewer. To me this adds a complexity and relativity to apprehending composition that makes the common rules for it seem inadequate.'

You can tell I have no formal training in art - I bet this is all a well developed portion of one art curriculum or another.

[Mike Buckley]

cropping to balance the importance of two subjects, to make them both important.

That premise is wrong for me. The role of the secondary subject is to make the primary subject dominant. In most cases and certainly in this case, you wouldn't want to make them equally important. Even if you did, you would probably find that impossible to do. The posture and overall size of the man on the viewer's left renders him the primary subject and there is nothing you will be able to do to make the secondary subject equally important.

I prefer the first interpretation of the scene because it emphasizes the respective roles of the primary and secondary subjects. In the second interpretation, the scene is rendered more static for me because the placement of the two people essentially divides the image into equal thirds and, thus, attempts to place equal importance on the primary and secondary subjects when by definition they aren't equally important.

[Mike Buckley]

Mark,

I think you nailed it: The concept of primary and secondary subjects isn't limited to compositional aspects of the scene; the distinction between the two can be made by any number of characteristics including the possibilities you so well described. In fact, one would very often change the composition to enhance the roles being played by the primary and secondary subjects. You might (or might not) use a different composition to display the role of primary subject that is primary because of the look on the face than when composing to display the gorgeous light falling on the hedge that makes it the primary subject. All of that is really up to whatever creative processes you use to make an effective photo.

[mknittle]

Very nice images Tejal, Both work for me. That said, I have to think there must be a lot of very nice images passed by because of "the rules say"

P.S great conversation on what works.

[Manfred M]

I had never heard the "rule of odds" before I joined this site. It is one of those rules that has never made any sense to me and still does not.

It's all about composition and I have many, many images of pairs that work out well. When I asked about why this image works I got a number of answers ranging from my having left space for a third person on the right, the two girls are are sitting so close together that they appear as one to all kinds of other "garbage" answers.





I do think there is a role for the "rules of composition" as one starts in photography, but as one improves ones skills, it becomes apparent that the rules act more as a constraint than something actually helps create a good image. I still remember going through a book of the best pictures by one of the "best of class" photographers to analyze his use of rules and found that in over 50% of the images I looked at he had broken rules I had been taught were not to be broken. Now that I ignore most of the "rules" when shooting and working my images; which is a nice way of saying I am no longer letting the rules constrain my photography, I find I am producing superior images.

To quote Ansel Adams - "There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs".

[Downrigger]

Sensible and interesting iconoclasm, Manfred. And the reason I agree with you that this fine image is a two subject/symmetrical and not one of the other "garbage" concepts is that my eyes bop back and forth, back and forth between the two sweet engaging faces when I enjoy it. And I like that.

[Mike Buckley]

I had never heard the "rule of odds" before I joined this site. It is one of those rules that has never made any sense to me and still does not.

That's also true for me.

Using my vernacular, I would describe Manfred's photo as displaying two primary subjects. Alternatively, I could describe it as displaying one pair of primary subjects to justify the effectiveness of thinking in terms of an odd number of subjects, but doing so would only be a matter of semantics. If we have to manipulate a thought process to justify the effectiveness of a rule, there just might be something ineffective about that rule in the first place.

[Manfred M]

Sorry about hijacking your thread, Tejal. I forgot to comment on your images.

The first one doesn't do much for me. It's the classical case of "what's the subject" and my eyes bounce between the two figures. It records a couple of men using tripods to take pictures. It does not work for me.

The second image on the other hand is all about the boat, and the men standing on it are really just part of the boat, so the fact that there are two people in the shot is largely irrelevant. They do add context and colour to the boat, which to my eyes is the subject. I also like the contrast between the warm tones of the boat (the colours of the men on the boat add to that). I think this contrasts nicely with the hazy cool colours of the water and the background hills.

There is no question in my mind that this is the stronger of the two images. The only part I am not totally sold on is the cloud of black smoke. I suspect that a different crop and no smoke would be an even stronger shot.

[Tejal]

Interesting thread.

First - I find that for me the two photographer image does illustrate two competing subjects, and succeeds nonetheless as an image. Both photographers prominent with similar mass, each different in interesting ways, resulting in a ping-pong/back-and-forth experience when viewing. The second one above better illustrates this, and it works for me as a successful, symmetric two subject image.

Second - I think Mike's comment interests me because I am not clear on the distinction between primary and secondary "subject" as strictly compositional elements (light, mass), versus elements characterized by the interest they command and the content they express.

For instance, imagine a photo of a face with a gorgeous flowering hedge as close-in background. If shot with the face showing a flat, disinterested expression, dull skin tones, no eye contact, the primary subject would be the blossoming hedge, with the face secondary. However, if in a second shot, the same face is animated, striking, attractive, sparkling and engaged, this image, with the same compositional elements has either switched primary and secondary or perhaps now has two primary subjects that compete for the eye.

The issue can be made more complex: if we make the face an attractive male or female and assay the "primariness" of the face as a compositional object we might obtain different results according to the sex of the viewer.

All this suggests to me, that definition of subject in terms of its strictly compositional content and impact is incomplete without also considering its subjective intellectual or psychological content and impact, and the latter may vary according to the viewer. To me this adds a complexity and relativity to apprehending composition that makes the common rules for it seem inadequate.'

You can tell I have no formal training in art - I bet this is all a well developed portion of one art curriculum or another.

Thanks Mark !! Very informative description. I really enjoyed the way you explained.