Originally Posted by
DanK
I am no artist, but it seems to me that the rule of thirds is no more than a useful starting point for trying to achieve balance in an uncentered image. It makes no sense to assume that the impression of balance would be unaffected by other variables, such as the size of the object, the number and placement of other objects, differences in color and tonality, etc., etc. I've commented here several times that I often look at art by undisputed masters to see how they placed elements in their images. Very few conform closely to the rule of thirds, but many aren't greatly off.
At the same time, there is a big methodological weakness in their study. Two, actually. First, they are not randomly varying conformity to the rule of thirds. It might be, for example, that among the posters on photo.net, less capable photographers tend to adhere more slavishly to the rule of thirds. (That's just one example of a possible confound.) Second, their judgments of aesthetic merit is simply a tabulation of the ratings of whatever people on photo.net chose to rate images. I visit that site from time to time and even post there sometimes, but I have never rated a single image.