Rule of thirds

[terrig]

To be honest Terri, there are a number of variables that you need to address -- with each one having a direct impact on the image:

1. Shutterspeed. If you can get a reallllly loooong shutterspeed then it smooths out the water whilst getting you a sharper image at the same time, but of course for that, you need to be shooting from a tripod. If you're serious about your photography then a tripod is probably the first thing you need to look at (for landscape anyway)

2. Time of day. Usually there's a 1/2 hour "golden hour" at the start and end of the day (just before sunrise and just after sunset) - you'll get better colours at that time.

3. Remote release (you'll need it for the looooong exposures)

In terms of lenses, the short answer is "whatever focal length gives you the field of view that you want" - nothing more, nothing less. For sure, you can get better image quality from a lens that costs 10 times as much, but I wouldn't be too concerned about that at this stage.

In terms of exposure - shooting scenes at night with what we call "point light sources" in them (eg house or street lights) will generally cause issues with standard camera metering; the camera tries (unsuccessfully) to protect the brightest spots from blowing out, so the end result is typically a significantly under-exposed image that still has blown point light sources. The "trick" is to use manual exposure, and just concentrate on getting the midtones right.

Here's a couple of examples to illustrate the above -- the first I shot with a long exposure - at the right time of the day - with the right lens (I chose it as an example because it was a similar view to yours), and the 2nd, because it has lots of blown point light sources, but because the midtones are OK, the image still works.

Hope this helps.

Thank you for being so helpful!! I'm just starting to get out of auto and playing with settings. What happened in my pic was the lights from the houses were strewn all across the photo. What do you mean about remote release for long exposures? Are you talking about the setting?

[Colin Southern]

Thank you for being so helpful!! I'm just starting to get out of auto and playing with settings. What happened in my pic was the lights from the houses were strewn all across the photo. What do you mean about remote release for long exposures? Are you talking about the setting?

Most cameras can only automatically shoot a maximum of a 30 second exposure. To go longer, you need to use bulb mode - and using bulb mode typically requires a remote release (to avoid moving the camera when holding the shutter release open) (in the Canon camp anyway -- off memory, I THINK Nikon's may be able to have the release pressed once to open it, and once again to close it). Personally, I use a Canon TC80-N3 that acts as a remote release as well as a timer / intervalometer.

[Digital]

Terri, a remote release is an optional equipment that you can purchase for your camera. The purpose of the release is to allow you to release the shutter since it has a control on it. You use this rather than press your shutter button. It cuts down on the possible camera shake you may get from long exposures. Your camera will have a port where you plug the release in to.
Consult your instruction manual.

Bruce

[jcuknz]

I have cable releases for both camera type I have but find that the 10 second delay removes most of the need to use them ... for 'action' shots it is worth considering the burst option where the finger presing the trigger may upset the first frame but subsequqnt frames are good ones. In using the 10 sec delay I assume that you leave the camera untoched during countdown and exposure to let it settle down, this usually occurs in the first two seconds but it is the invisble settling down in the following eight which is important. The other option is the 2 second delay which doesn't suit me has holding 'steady' for the two seconds seems inteminably long

[Colin Southern]

I have cable releases for both camera type I have but find that the 10 second delay removes most of the need to use them ...

It indeed works well in that situation -- but doesn't help at all once you get past the 30 second limit of automatic exposures and then have to use bulb mode (which is pretty much ALL of my seascape work).

[Karm Redland]

I am now reading The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum. He argues that the rule of thirds has a faulty foundation in science and belongs in the trashcan along with the "thou shall not" divide a photograph in half with a horizon line.

karm

[jcuknz]

I discussed this with a person I have the greatest respect for as a photographer and he mentioned that research with both trained [ photographical aware] and un trained people of all ages naturally picked images following the RoT over those that didn't ... but of course there will always be people say the RoT is pure rot
Personally I am not sure I appreciate images following the rule becuase of their content or becuase I am aware of the rule.
I would suggest it is a good practice to follow as there are a lot of people who look for it in images so long as other guides do not over rule it for a particular image .... there are also the unfortunate people who rebel at any suggestion of conformity

The 'horizon half' rule is an application of "evens is bad, odds are good and one is best" and indicates that the photographer couldn't make up their mind as to which was the more interesting.

[Manfred M]

I am now reading The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum. He argues that the rule of thirds has a faulty foundation in science and belongs in the trashcan along with the "thou shall not" divide a photograph in half with a horizon line.

karm

Barnbaum quotes an erroneous statistical analysis from the 1850s as to the reason that the rule of thirds is incorrect. Other sources suggest that the rule was documented earlier than this (late 1700s); http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds, which invalidates his line of reasoning, if these sources are correct.

Regardless; where I agree with Barnbaum is that photographic rules are not written in stone and should be broken, as necessary. What is important is getting a pleasing composition, and more often than not, an positioning the subject off centre results in a better image.

[Colin Southern]

I am now reading The Art of Photography by Bruce Barnbaum. He argues that the rule of thirds has a faulty foundation in science and belongs in the trashcan along with the "thou shall not" divide a photograph in half with a horizon line.

karm

In my opinion, it's a tool in a toolbox - nothing more, nothing less. If it's a tool that enhances an image then use it - if it doesn't, don't. Personally, I do still use it quite often eg:



and ..



whereas on other occasions it has no place in the image, eg ...



and ...

[jcuknz]

I wonder if the waste space on the left of the girl was there to match the paper size or follow the RoT ... it is basically a vertical mugshot IMO.

[Colin Southern]

I wonder if the waste space on the left of the girl was there to match the paper size or follow the RoT ... it is basically a vertical mugshot IMO.

It's cropped that way for two reasons:

1. It gives the subject space to look into, and

2. Generally, the rear portion of an image like this doesn't contribute anything meaningful (portraiture is more about the face).

In contrast though, shots like this more fit with the "mug shot" crop ...

[Karm Redland]

Colin, all really nice images. Bruce is just arguing against the wholesale rejection of photographs because they fail to satisfy some preordained rule. When a rule works use it; when a rule doesn't work, then don't use it. He's just bugged by folks who never say whether they like an image or not but just reject it based on not following some compositional algorithm. I assume you agree with all of this.

karm

[terrig]

Does this landscape scene look better than straight on? Any advice to making picture look better is welcomed.

I just printed this photo...way dark with blue! I tried to lighten shadows which has helped on the island On the screen here it shows more of a sky blue but in print it is very saturated with a darker blue....that's not the color that it was on my screen...not at all the color that I posted...not sure what happened????

[Manfred M]

I just printed this photo...way dark with blue! I tried to lighten shadows which has helped on the island On the screen here it shows more of a sky blue but in print it is very saturated with a darker blue....that's not the color that it was on my screen...not at all the color that I posted...not sure what happened????

Terri - unless you have a profiled screen and use a colour managed workflow, what you see on your screen and what comes out of the printer are not going to be the same.

Over and above that images on your screen are going to look brighter than your printed output, your screen uses a RGB, additive, transmitted light technology while your print is a CMYK, subtractive, reflected light image. You can get results that are close, but it does take some work and testing to get there.

[Colin Southern]

Colin, all really nice images. Bruce is just arguing against the wholesale rejection of photographs because they fail to satisfy some preordained rule. When a rule works use it; when a rule doesn't work, then don't use it. He's just bugged by folks who never say whether they like an image or not but just reject it based on not following some compositional algorithm. I assume you agree with all of this.

karm

To be honest, I only know if I like an image or not -- I usually don't put a lot of time into understanding just what "rules" it's followed (or broken) to achieve that.

It's a VERY subjective thing -- not too long ago a looked at an exhibition of photos from the Christchurch camera society -- I hate to say it, but in my opinion it was the biggest collection of codswallop I've had the displeasure of viewing in a very long time. Just about each and every one tried to "be artistic" and "step outside the mold" - they "broke all the rules" - only problem is, each and every one looked like "the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to mention". I'm sure they all congratulated each other as they gave each other their awards, but honestly, in my opinion what I saw was almost a case of "in-breeding" (in a photographic sense) in that I think they spend so much time in their own little "break the mold" world that they've completely lost touch with the real world in the process.

[terrig]

Terri - unless you have a profiled screen and use a colour managed workflow, what you see on your screen and what comes out of the printer are not going to be the same.

Over and above that images on your screen are going to look brighter than your printed output, your screen uses a RGB, additive, transmitted light technology while your print is a CMYK, subtractive, reflected light image. You can get results that are close, but it does take some work and testing to get there.

Thanks Colin...I;m frustrated because it looks so dark...I just submitted a new thread on it. I tried brightening lightening shadows but to not much in saturation...Its so saturated it takes away from the rest of photo. Oh well! Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[terrig]

To be honest Terri, there are a number of variables that you need to address -- with each one having a direct impact on the image:

1. Shutterspeed. If you can get a reallllly loooong shutterspeed then it smooths out the water whilst getting you a sharper image at the same time, but of course for that, you need to be shooting from a tripod. If you're serious about your photography then a tripod is probably the first thing you need to look at (for landscape anyway)

2. Time of day. Usually there's a 1/2 hour "golden hour" at the start and end of the day (just before sunrise and just after sunset) - you'll get better colours at that time.

3. Remote release (you'll need it for the looooong exposures)

In terms of lenses, the short answer is "whatever focal length gives you the field of view that you want" - nothing more, nothing less. For sure, you can get better image quality from a lens that costs 10 times as much, but I wouldn't be too concerned about that at this stage.

In terms of exposure - shooting scenes at night with what we call "point light sources" in them (eg house or street lights) will generally cause issues with standard camera metering; the camera tries (unsuccessfully) to protect the brightest spots from blowing out, so the end result is typically a significantly under-exposed image that still has blown point light sources. The "trick" is to use manual exposure, and just concentrate on getting the midtones right.

Here's a couple of examples to illustrate the above -- the first I shot with a long exposure - at the right time of the day - with the right lens (I chose it as an example because it was a similar view to yours), and the 2nd, because it has lots of blown point light sources, but because the midtones are OK, the image still works.

Hope this helps.

Here's that awful blown out picture...What happened to this??? I'm embarrassed to even show this!! Not sure if is showing up...it just posted a link?

[Colin Southern]

Here's that awful blown out picture...What happened to this??? I'm embarrassed to even show this!! Not sure if is showing up...it just posted a link?

Lots and lots of camera movement while the shutter was open

[jcuknz]

What you did there by accident can be interesting when done on purpose.

[jcuknz]

It's cropped that way for two reasons:

1. It gives the subject space to look into, and

2. Generally, the rear portion of an image like this doesn't contribute anything meaningful (portraiture is more about the face).

I see nothing in the pose to justify the excessive space to her right ... a small inbalance becuase the head is slightly facing camera left but not the amount as shown above. I can appreciate a commercial reason behind it but nothing else.