Rule of thirds

[pnodrog]

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.

I think it is a charming portrait, good lighting and tonal range, nicely vignetted and I like the unbalanced composition as it is not static like many portraits are. It certainly does not need any more room on the left but the amount Colin chose to use is fine by me.

[Colin Southern]

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.

So you'd feel the same about this image too then?

[jcuknz]

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. .

That was the reaction to last years RPS show when viewed down here

I don't feel anything about your last posting #42 There has to be a reason for including space and there was more in #29 than here.

[Colin Southern]

I don't feel anything about your last posting #42

... but it has the face offset, with a large space to camera left -- much like mine. Is there any difference between the two in that regard?

[jcuknz]

In both images the eyes are very powerful and in #42 override considerations about RoT even though the head is angled. I think that also applies to your image which is why I wrote about wasted space. With portraits it is less about thirds than the reason you mentioned ' room to move into' so the head is not on the third but perhaps around 45% .... It could be linked to another rule of thumb of half behind the head and twice that in front.

White backgrounds are undesirable with projected images and those on monitors, perhaps not for younger peoples' eyes, I remember being able comfortably to look into a studio spotlight when in my twenties. As Manfred pointed out in another thread there is a big difference between projected and print images. White is a frequent mount for prints but quite unsuitable unless in very small proportions for the projected image .... say 0.5% of image width etc.

[jcuknz]

I think it is a charming portrait, good lighting and tonal range, nicely vignetted and I like the unbalanced composition as it is not static like many portraits are. It certainly does not need any more room on the left but the amount Colin chose to use is fine by me.

You should read my posting more carefully because I do not suggest more space on the lady's left ... in any case my comment was not a crit of the photo or composition but I doubted it was arranged to follow the RoT.

[Colin Southern]

Having just read both of your replies, I'm afraid that I'm as confused as ever (to be expected for me on a Monday morning), so in summary, I'll just say a couple of things ...

1. I didn't "shoot mine" with RoT in mind - but it was certainly cropped that way deliberately. (usually to put one of the eyes on the 1/3 intersection).

2. The other image was shot by Peter Hurley - generally regarded as the world's premier head shot photographer - shooting mostly celebrities (at $1200 a session I might add too). If one takes a look at his (very successful) style, if can be seen that he greatly favors off-center placement of the subject (which I like far better too).

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=pe...=1920&bih=1071

My personal preference leans greatly towards giving models "space to look into", eg



I used to do a much tighter crop and not use negative space, but I don't like that result at all now.

[terrig]

Ok...here goes another post...Rule of thirds pic and other straight on...let me know what you think. this one straight on.

[Digital]

Terri, IMHO the second photo of the butterfly is a stronger composition. In this case breaking the rule of thirds is more appropriate.
Speaking of the Rule of Thirds (RoT), you do not have to place your subject EXACTLY on one the four intersecting points, just as long as its close.
Hope this helps.


Bruce

[terrig]

Terri, IMHO the second photo of the butterfly is a stronger composition. In this case breaking the rule of thirds is more appropriate.
Speaking of the Rule of Thirds (RoT), you do not have to place your subject EXACTLY on one the four intersecting points, just as long as its close.
Hope this helps.


Bruce

Bruce, it didd help! Thanks so much!!

[sheldonc]

Terri, I've found if you ask 20 photographers how to use the "Rule" of Thirds, you'll get 20 answers, all of them good! And there are some really good answers here on the board. My answer? "It depends." The Rule of Thirds is a tool you can use to help you create a composition, not something automatic.

There are other methods of creating a composition, including (and not limited to) the Golden Mean (or Golden Ratio), the Fibonacci Spiral, Lead Room, Head Room and Nose Room, Leading Lines, etc. All of these concepts are there to help you get the best composition possible. But, use them or ditch them where it suits you. Never let a single rule, guideline or suggestion dictate your image. You decide what you like best.

Try all sorts of crops. Play around and look for what you think is the best version. Ultimately, think about what moved you to take that photo and try to capture that essence in your crop.

There are articles and articles and articles, short long and in between, about photographic composition. Read a bunch, then forget them and go out and shoot!

Good luck, you're doing great.

[Cantab]

Terri, IMHO the second photo of the butterfly is a stronger composition. In this case breaking the rule of thirds is more appropriate.
Bruce

Terri, I agree with Bruce (and not just because we have the same name ).

[Colin Southern]

The 2nd shot follows the rule of the diagonal, which trumps the RoT on this occasion.

[jcuknz]

I have a simpler reason for prefering the second ... no rules just common sense ... that I prefer to see the whole butterfly or else a tight close-up. Actually it could be called a rule and based on where you crop anything ... Talking of diagonals ???

Sad the creature has been in 'the wars' or else suffered emerging from the crysalis ... I had to put down one seriously deformed as a result of emerging .... my wife had raised it ... a big dissapointment for her after weeks of careful attention.

As for the Hurley photograph it was the presentation I objected to for the reasons given ... that he is a good marketeer doesn't mean I have to like what he markets. There is a difference between wasting space and using it to good purpose. Both look like somebody trying to be different without good reason. Using the RoT as an excuse .... LOL.
Of course if it was showing a person in their environment that would be different. To me the vignetting just shows somebody trying to hide a problem.

[Colin Southern]

As for the Hurley photograph it was the presentation I objected to for the reasons given ... that he is a good marketeer doesn't mean I have to like what he markets. There is a difference between wasting space and using it to good purpose.

I agree that you don't have to like it -- the point I was trying to make is that the guy is phenomenally successful (pretty much the benchmark by which all other headshot photographers are judged), and the white background / offset positioning is an integral part of that. I for one like it, and apparently so do many many of his celebrity clients.

To me the vignetting just shows somebody trying to hide a problem.

To me it targets the light and draws the eye to the face.

[pasusan]

The 2nd shot follows the rule of the diagonal, which trumps the RoT on this occasion.

To me the most important thing is that it shows the whole subject and the diagonal orientation makes it pleasing to the eye. The other one was diagonal too, but that didn't help a non-complete subject.

[jcuknz]

-- the point I was trying to make is that the guy is phenomenally successful ......, and apparently so do many many of his celebrity clients.

A well known fact is that there are a lot of gullible folk in the world and celebs are most likely to follow fashion.

Based on this one photo I wouldn't spend a penny on him though I recognise he is a competant photographer and the pose is gripping ....I can see that such a composition is useful to the graphic designer seeking to add text etc for magazine use etc. There is a danger in following a style without really knowing the reason behind the original[s].

[Colin Southern]

To me the most important thing is that it shows the whole subject and the diagonal orientation makes it pleasing to the eye. The other one was diagonal too, but that didn't help a non-complete subject.

The 2nd one started the diagonal from the corner of the frame, which gives it far more powerful lead-in from that point.

[Colin Southern]

A well known fact is that there are a lot of gullible folk in the world and celebs are most likely to follow fashion.

Based on this one photo I wouldn't spend a penny on him though I recognise he is a competant photographer and the pose is gripping ....I can see that such a composition is useful to the graphic designer seeking to add text etc for magazine use etc. There is a danger in following a style without really knowing the reason behind the original[s].

I promise to never shoot another portrait like his ever again ...

[jcuknz]

There is another compositional suggestion I try to follow ... the western world reads from left to right so is more comfortable if things in a photo are also moving left to right BUT and this phopto convieniently has it ready for us a dark tome on the right helps to stop the eye wandering off out of the photo so the solution here is to flip the image horizontally.

Despite already being closely cropped it also helps to have less space behind the left wing than in front of the right wing