Did I miss something?

[tomdinning]

I like Cambridge in colour and its fellow members.

I often pass on information that I have read here.

I was checking the tutorials of late and read with interest the Rule of Thirds.

Now, I've read a lot about art. photography, science and the like, so it surprises me that such an informative site such as this is still hanging on to this falacity with such temerity.

I know there are a lot of people who swear by it. There are those that a make judgement by it. There are those that use it but are never too sure. There are those who think it is god's gift to photography and there are those that just follow blindly.

What baffles me is that those images that we deem worthy of continuing praise in an historical sense or those that seem to gain the greatest attention or are found more 'interesting' are those that show little or no concern for such a rule.

The excuse for this contradiction appears to be shallow. 'Learn the rule then ignore it' or some such. 'It's only a guide' is another. 'It's been around for years' doesn't add any value to my existance but it is used to give veracity to the rule. 'It has ancient connections', quoting Pideas and the like. Nothing likea Greek to give a sense of importance to an argument. Maths helps some. fter all, who can argue with numbers?

So, I'm left with a hollow heart. My photos are worthless. They have no value, meaning or structure.

What am I to do?

[george013]

I like Cambridge in colour and its fellow members.

I often pass on information that I have read here.

I was checking the tutorials of late and read with interest the Rule of Thirds.

Now, I've read a lot about art. photography, science and the like, so it surprises me that such an informative site such as this is still hanging on to this falacity with such temerity.

I know there are a lot of people who swear by it. There are those that a make judgement by it. There are those that use it but are never too sure. There are those who think it is god's gift to photography and there are those that just follow blindly.

What baffles me is that those images that we deem worthy of continuing praise in an historical sense or those that seem to gain the greatest attention or are found more 'interesting' are those that show little or no concern for such a rule.

The excuse for this contradiction appears to be shallow. 'Learn the rule then ignore it' or some such. 'It's only a guide' is another. 'It's been around for years' doesn't add any value to my existance but it is used to give veracity to the rule. 'It has ancient connections', quoting Pideas and the like. Nothing likea Greek to give a sense of importance to an argument. Maths helps some. fter all, who can argue with numbers?

So, I'm left with a hollow heart. My photos are worthless. They have no value, meaning or structure.

What am I to do?

Bring the lady to her husband to be.

I don't care about rules. If the photo hits me, it's good for me.

George

[pnodrog]

Obviously if you learned the rules and are ignoring them you are a truly talented photographer otherwise your work must be rubbish.....

The policeman's note book and pen is close to the third so it probably rescues this photo and has made it acceptable to my indoctrinated sensitive eyes.

What an interesting story it invokes. I wonder if she got to the wedding on time.

[Donald]

Yep. I think the bit you missed is that the Rule of Thirds has served as tool used by artists over centuries. Like all tools, it has a job to do when it is required ... and when it is not required it is not used.

But given that many great artists over those hundreds of years used it, I think it's probably okay that CiC makes reference to it in its tutorials.

[tomdinning]

Obviously if you learned the rules and are ignoring them you are a truly talented photographer otherwise your work must be rubbish.....

The policeman's note book and pen is close to the third so it probably rescues this photo and has made it acceptable to my indoctrinated sensitive eyes.

What an interesting story it invokes. I wonder if she got to the wedding on time.

That's just it,, Paul, I never did learn the rules. I became aware of such a rule around the time I connected to the internet. I'm not suggesting they are connected. Perhap's the proliferation of information was the door to wisdom.

When I take photos, now and in the past, such a rule never entered my mind. Nor did I seek to see such things in photographs of others. When I look back at images that impressed me as a young man I am baffled my the absence of such rigorous adherance to any ratio of any kind.

Yet, todays teachers include it in their curriculum as if a person can't start without it.

Sure, if I examine my images with this in mind I do find some which loosely follow this ratio but I find more that don't and even those that seem to are only estimates at best.

The questions arise from this:

1. is it necessary for a photo to be good without such a rule in place?

2. If the rule of thirds is to be admired, does it over-rule the content and context?

3. What is the legitimacy of placing such rules on a media that has, as its outcome, interpretation of content?

4. Why does the rule persist if all it is, is a suggestion made by a bloke about 200 years ago who had no knowledge of photograhy?


Surely, if the rule of thirds is innacurate to be kind and suggestive of one person's opinion (initially) without any verification for its effects, it should not even enter into our discussions anywhere.

Nor should it be suggested to others to adhere to, even as a starting point. Kodak used to tell us to put the main suject in the centre of the picture. At least I can understand this might help in preventing chopped off heads or assisting in which direction to point the camera.

But Kodak's suggestion has been lampooned in favour of another recommendation which has even less compositional constructivism.


So, what now?

[tao2]

I like Cambridge in colour and its fellow members.

I often pass on information that I have read here.

I was checking the tutorials of late and read with interest the Rule of Thirds.

Now, I've read a lot about art. photography, science and the like, so it surprises me that such an informative site such as this is still hanging on to this falacity with such temerity.

I know there are a lot of people who swear by it. There are those that a make judgement by it. There are those that use it but are never too sure. There are those who think it is god's gift to photography and there are those that just follow blindly.

What baffles me is that those images that we deem worthy of continuing praise in an historical sense or those that seem to gain the greatest attention or are found more 'interesting' are those that show little or no concern for such a rule.

The excuse for this contradiction appears to be shallow. 'Learn the rule then ignore it' or some such. 'It's only a guide' is another. 'It's been around for years' doesn't add any value to my existance but it is used to give veracity to the rule. 'It has ancient connections', quoting Pideas and the like. Nothing likea Greek to give a sense of importance to an argument. Maths helps some. fter all, who can argue with numbers?

So, I'm left with a hollow heart. My photos are worthless. They have no value, meaning or structure.

What am I to do?

Well...you said it Tom.... The photo ye posted, IMO, is crowded, cramped, probably hurried, it doesn't lead the eye anywhere but round the people and then...... Yer missing the other copper's face altogether. A wee bit nifty footwork could've taken ye round tae catch the facial expressions of the two coppers and the bride, in a close crop. Ah'd say a hurried shot was more tae blame for how it turned out. Rule of thirds? Well there's three folk in the huddle .



This wouldn't work if rule of thirds wasn't applied...



Nor this...




There's a time and place for every rule, habit, custom, practice. It's knowing when tae use them that improves photos... and photographers...

[Donald]

So, what now?

I'd suggest a basic art history course.

If your conclusion of some of the greats of art is, "...a bloke about 200 years ago who had no knowledge of photograhy...", then a study of the basics of shape and form as represented in art might help you learn more about composition.

[tomdinning]

Well...you said it Tom.... The photo ye posted, IMO, is crowded, cramped, probably hurried, it doesn't lead the eye anywhere but round the people and then...... Yer missing the other copper's face altogether. A wee bit nifty footwork could've taken ye round tae catch the facial expressions of the two coppers and the bride, in a close crop. Ah'd say a hurried shot was more tae blame for how it turned out. Rule of thirds? Well there's three folk in the huddle .



This wouldn't work if rule of thirds wasn't applied...



Nor this...




There's a time and place for every rule, habit, custom, practice. It's knowing when tae use them that improves photos... and photographers...

And you are?

Sorry, Robert, you might need to fill me in on your expertise. I haven't found any reference to your work or words in any publications, worthy or not.
A picture of the moon or a few berries don't really prove anything. I might give you my opinion on them but that is as worthless as yours is to me.

In addition, the photo you refer to is a bit of spontenaity on the street. It would be nice to have the time or foresight to get it how you suggest. Next time it happens I'll ask them to hold still while I shift around.

Cheers
Tom

[tomdinning]

Good one, Donald. Is that where you got your info?

I'm not on about shapes and forms. I learnt about that in school. But I'm not a painter. The shapes and forms are already there. Surely I can shift them around a bit in the frame but surely that's up to me and the scene before me.

As for the 'bloke' I mentioned, I didn't want to get too pedantic or intellectual. I'm not sure how literate people are.
Robert is having difficulty writing in English.

Cheers
Tom

[Donald]

Ok Tom. I think I'll leave it there. Once you start insulting other members for the way in which they write and suggest that your own intelligence is superior to that of others on here and when your purpose seems to be persistently to push your own point of view rather than learn (despite your ostensibly asking questions), I don't see much point in continuing the dialogue.

CiC is a learning forum. When people want to learn it's a pleasure engaging with them.

[tomdinning]

Learn from whom?

Who decides they are the authority?

Why is questioning the authority frowned upon?

Why is pointing out a discrepancy or miss-information or poor spelling considered insulting?

Since when does presenting a question in order to determine what people think an adverse strategy?

Seems like we should all bow to niceties, agreement and the continuation of fallacy.

Sorry for wasting you time.

I guess there will always be discention when pointing out the stupidity of the ignorant. It comes easy whe all one need to do is ask questions or challenge answers. Or offend someone's dignity.

Cheers

[tao2]

Learn from whom?

Who decides they are the authority?

Why is questioning the authority frowned upon?

Why is pointing out a discrepancy or miss-information or poor spelling considered insulting?

Since when does presenting a question in order to determine what people think an adverse strategy?

Seems like we should all bow to niceties, agreement and the continuation of fallacy.

Sorry for wasting you time.

I guess there will always be discention when pointing out the stupidity of the ignorant. It comes easy whe all one need to do is ask questions or challenge answers. Or offend someone's dignity.

Cheers

Aaaah, such delicious irony...

PS not all ignorant folk are stupid...

[DanK]

How about this: in your mind, change "rule of thirds" to "suggestion of thirds." That's all it is--a suggestion about a form that often--but certainly not always--leads to an interesting composition. Whether it helps depends on all manner of other things. And even when it does help, the best solution may only approximate it.

When I go to museums, I spend time looking at how great artists arranged the elements in their works. Some more or less follow this suggestion. Many don't.

Personally, I find it helpful to have this in mind as I think about a composition, and I am glad that someone pointed it out to me years ago. I don't feel that I have to follow it, but it's one more idea worth considering. If you don't want to pay attention to it, don't.

[Shadowman]

What if you've captured an image that can work using more than one compositional guideline? I might compose in camera to adhere to the rule of thirds but if I fill the frame the rule might not work as well, or what if I zoom out and the golden mean works better. Might be worth it to work the scene a bit and analyze your composition later. Of course if the shot is a candid, quick action shot you may not have the opportunity to take multiple exposures, so what works best under all circumstances; follow the rule of third, compose intuitively, or grab the whole scene and work it out later?

[DanK]

Of course if the shot is a candid, quick action shot you may not have the opportunity to take multiple exposures, so what works best under all circumstances; follow the rule of third, compose intuitively, or grab the whole scene and work it out later?

The beauty of digital is that extra shots are free, other than the time you have to spend culling them. So when there is time and when I am uncertain what I want, I just try several different things. I would rather do that than simply frame loosely and crop later because I want to maximize the detail in the photo for the cases when I end up printing. I don't have a very good eye for landscape compositions, so I'd rather get a bunch of images and have time to look at them later.

of course, if there is time, you can wander around and check various perspectives before you shoot.

[Shadowman]

The beauty of digital is that extra shots are free, other than the time you have to spend culling them. So when there is time and when I am uncertain what I want, I just try several different things. I would rather do that than simply frame loosely and crop later because I want to maximize the detail in the photo for the cases when I end up printing. I don't have a very good eye for landscape compositions, so I'd rather get a bunch of images and have time to look at them later.

of course, if there is time, you can wander around and check various perspectives before you shoot.

Also, with some candid shots you are probably concentrating on something specific such as getting the eyes in focus or isolating a particular color or diagonal.

[rtbaum]

I like Cambridge in colour and its fellow members.

I often pass on information that I have read here.

I was checking the tutorials of late and read with interest the Rule of Thirds.

Now, I've read a lot about art. photography, science and the like, so it surprises me that such an informative site such as this is still hanging on to this falacity with such temerity.

I know there are a lot of people who swear by it. There are those that a make judgement by it. There are those that use it but are never too sure. There are those who think it is god's gift to photography and there are those that just follow blindly.

What baffles me is that those images that we deem worthy of continuing praise in an historical sense or those that seem to gain the greatest attention or are found more 'interesting' are those that show little or no concern for such a rule.

The excuse for this contradiction appears to be shallow. 'Learn the rule then ignore it' or some such. 'It's only a guide' is another. 'It's been around for years' doesn't add any value to my existance but it is used to give veracity to the rule. 'It has ancient connections', quoting Pideas and the like. Nothing likea Greek to give a sense of importance to an argument. Maths helps some. fter all, who can argue with numbers?

So, I'm left with a hollow heart. My photos are worthless. They have no value, meaning or structure.

What am I to do?

Tom- What perplexes me is that after questioning the 'Rule of Thirds', you would post an image that adheres to that same rule.....Am I missing something???

[xpatUSA]

I'd suggest a basic art history course.

If your conclusion of some of the greats of art is, "...a bloke about 200 years ago who had no knowledge of photograhy...", then a study of the basics of shape and form as represented in art might help you learn more about composition.

I'd further suggest some research into the 'Golden Ratio' so favored by many artists of yesteryear, including da Vinci hisself.

https://www.goldennumber.net/leonard...den-ratio-art/

The popular and comprehensive editor RawTherapee has 'harmonic means' and "golden" angles as guides in their cropping function.

Personally, I often find thirds to be a little too far off-center especially with flower shots.

Horses for courses perhaps? If I'm shooting items for sale on eBay, the rule is "dead center".

[Manfred M]

Tom - I took a photographic composition course at the local college last year and the professor who had been teaching the course for over 20 years. Strangely enough, none of the "rules of composition" were mentioned during the course, unless one of the students brought it up.

His summary on the rule of thirds went sort of like this; "The rule of thirds works, except when it doesn't".

His second explanation was equally vague; "the rule of thirds isn't an exact rule, so close enough often works better than being exact".

He also mentioned that about 80% of the assignments turned in to him over the years primarily used the "rule of thirds".

In my mind, the rule of thirds is more about asymmetry than anything else and seems to have first been documented in 1797 (so it really isn't all that old).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:R..._of_thirds.png

[pnodrog]

Tom I have taken a look at your blogs and find that at least 70% of the photographs have an important element placed on or near the thirds with maybe a slight bias towards the quarter. On the basis that is not a true rule I can't understand why you object to the concept so strongly when your own work conforms to it.
Even your self portrait has your eyes at the intersection of the thirds...

It has always intrigued me that a lot of my photographs also conform to the thirds as there is certainly no conscious effort to do so.