Rule of Thirds - Debunked

[Manfred M]

I've never been a great believer in the "Rules of Composition" and the Rule of Thirds is one that I have always been somewhat suspicious of.

This evening I learned that there has been one academic study on the "Rule of Thirds: and if anyone is interested in reading it, here is a link to the PDF. The study was done at the Friederich Schiller University in Jena, Germany:

https://www.uniklinikum-jena.de/anat...hiARTP2014.pdf

I've copied the conclusion here. The salient point seems to be that using the Rule of Thirds does not result in great images and in fact is seems to have the opposite effect; the images reviewed in the study that used this compositional rule were not particularly good.

The conclusion of the study reads:

"In summary, our findings suggest that the rule of thirds might not be as im-portant for the evaluation of the visual quality in photographs and artworks aspreviously assumed (see Introduction). Evidently, not following this rule doesnot necessarily result in images of low visual quality. We can only speculatewhy the rule of thirds plays such an important role in textbooks on photog-raphy and art. Perhaps, like the golden section, the rule of thirds mirrors thedesire of artists and photographers to comprehend rules of artistic composi-tion. Therefore, it might have become a normative aspect of creating artworksrather than a qualitative one. The rule of thirds may also help beginners toendow the products of their creativity with a particular visual structure underconscious control. Eventually, as artists gain intuitive expertise in artistic com-position, they may drop the rule, which might be the reason why we did not find it in high-quality photographs and artworks."

[Donald]

The final two sentences of the conclusion grasp the key point that needs to be heard by artists, including photographers.

Of course, by favouring a square format for my images, the 'rules' get thrown out of the window anyway, but others working to understand and create images that reflect themselves and their vision need to take on board that it is the feeling of what is right as they compose the image is what matters so much more than any 'rule'.

[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.

[xpatUSA]

I've never liked the 'rule of thirds' much. Stuff tends to end up too far off-center for my taste. I tend more toward the center and, if indeed following anything, that would be the Golden Stuff for which RawTherapee does provide various editing guides.

I have the book by Mario Livio "THE GOLDEN RATIO - the story of phi, the world's most astonishing number" - quite fascinating if you like that sort of thing.

I wrote a related article some ten years ago, which might be of interest:

https://tcktek.blogspot.com/2009/11/...oportions.html

[Astro]

Very interesting... I have always had problems with 'standard' compositional forms and applying them to the way I present my images.

I have always felt a little bit out of step about the rule of thirds in particular, and could never quile work out why. I put this down to an inability/incompetence on my part to pre-visualise an image properly.

That said, I have learned not to worry about it too much and go with what seems to work 'best' for the image.

Mind you there is always the possibiity that I am just rebellious about following rules!

[MrB]

Perhaps the problem is the word 'rule'. It seems to embody too much strength and influence, with the implication that the phrase in which it is used is definitive and indisputable. Use of alternatives such as 'suggestion' and 'guideline' might be more helpful, having sufficient authority to prompt experimentation, without being over-prescriptive or dogmatic.

'There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs.' Ansel Adams

Philip

[pschlute]

I have the book by Mario Livio "THE GOLDEN RATIO - the story of phi, the world's most astonishing number" - quite fascinating if you like that sort of thing.

I wrote a related article some ten years ago, which might be of interest:

https://tcktek.blogspot.com/2009/11/...oportions.html

Thanks for the link to your blog, an interesting read.

I always find this subject interesting not only as a photographer, but also because I was (and still am on a personal basis now) a technical financial trader, and I made great use of the Fibonacci sequence in technical trading especially in the application of Elliott-Wave theory. Although a number of my colleagues thought it was nothing less than witchcraft.

[rpcrowe]

I'll tell you another "RULE" (well maybe it isn't a rule, just residual from the days of paper printing and painting on canvas) than I don't agree with. That is slavishly adhering to specific format ratios (like the Golden Ratio) in cropping your images.

In the days when paper printing was the general way to display your imagery, sticking to a certain format ratio in which paper was available (and also mattes, frames, and other niceties) was the easiest route to travel.

Now unless you are doing video or making slides to include in video work and/or producing imagery which will fit in a certain place in a brochure or poster; I think that the content of the image should determine the image ratio; rather than having a specific predetermined ratio determine the content of your image

[DanK]

I think that the content of the image should determine the image ratio; rather than having a specific predetermined ratio determine the content of your image

I agree. Conventional aspect ratios and sizes still make it easier and cheaper to frame, so sometimes it makes sense for people to compromise and use something standard. However, it isn't all that hard or expensive to accommodate different sizes and aspect ratios. There are framing retailers who cut the pieces to any size, and one can easily reuse the frames with a somewhat different aspect ratio by cutting a new mat. However, all of this was true in the old days as well.

[xpatUSA]

I think that the content of the image should determine the image [aspect] ratio; rather than having a specific predetermined ratio determine the content of your image

I disagree. I'll hazard a guess that most viewing media have de facto aspect ratios (8x10", 16:9, etc) and many cameras have aspect ratio options to suit those de facto ratios. In taking a shot, I'll hazard another guess that framing is done at the time of the shot with the final output in mind, by which I mean that the framing influences the content. A bit like the classic film producer peering through his 5:4 thumbs and forefingers ...

Like, if were going to shoot The Last Supper and I only had a 4:3 point-and-shoot ... having pointed, I wouldn't shoot ...

[DanK]

In taking a shot, I'll hazard another guess that framing is done at the time of the shot with the final output in mind, by which I mean that the framing influences the content.

Right, but often the framing I want isn't the 3:2 or 4:3 offered by my cameras

Like, if were going to shoot The Last Supper and I only had a 4:3 point-and-shoot ... having pointed, I wouldn't shoot

Um, I'd back up or zoom out until the 4:3 included all I needed in the long dimension and would later crop to reduce the other.

I recently posted two images here that don't remotely fit the aspect ratios of my cameras. This one is very close to square, although the content makes it look as though it isn't:




And this one is almost 5:2:




If I were shooting for TV or the movies, I would worry about this. I'm not, so I don't.

[Manfred M]

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.

Only two flaws?

I think the biggest problem with any study involving aesthetics is determining what a "good image / picture" is. Tastes vary, as do fashions and I suspect cultural differences as well. A good editorial image is not necessarily going to make a good portrait and would not necessarily work as a fine art image either. Judging images, even by experts, can be hit and miss. I've seen images do poorly in one competition and then get a "best in show" in another.

Regardless, I do think that what the study attempts to do is important and that is to rule that seems to have a bit of a dubious history. The Phi (Golden Ratio) that Ted mentions has certainly been around for a lot longer and has certainly been applied in ancient and more modern times, but I suspect that it is no panacea when it comes to arranging elements in an image either.

Any image, where it uses an additive process (drawing or painting) or a subtractive process (photography where we frame our shots to remove / eliminate unwanted elements in camera or in post-process) are in fact design processes. One of the fundamental principles that applies to any design work is that the designer is trying to balance off competing elements and parameters to come up with a product that he or she feels is pleasing. This applies to anyone from the selfie shooter to well known photographic artists. To even think that organizing the elements in an image can be boiled down to a few relatively simple rules suggests wishful thinking more than anything else. Photographic composition (or any other creative process) is not a "paint by numbers" exercise.

[xpatUSA]

... often the framing I want isn't the 3:2 or 4:3 offered by my cameras

My Panasonic GH1 offers 1:1, 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 but, interestingly, at a constant diagonal measure:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcgh1
.

[loosecanon]

I think photography has a particular problem, made worse since digital has cheapened the process of image production.

We now have major photographic competitions where everything is judged in 10 seconds or less. Immediate impact and does it conform to rules such as thirds all judged in seconds. Can a panel of judges properly look at three or four hundred images an hour and pass judgement on them.

Even in camera club competitions the judge is "expected" to quickly start giving his view on an image, and so starts his criticism within a few seconds of first viewing it.

Too often I see formulaic, me to, images with little originality of concept rewarded whilst photographers trying something different are are not

[DanK]

We now have major photographic competitions where everything is judged in 10 seconds or less. Immediate impact and does it conform to rules such as thirds all judged in seconds. Can a panel of judges properly look at three or four hundred images an hour and pass judgement on them.

Even in camera club competitions the judge is "expected" to quickly start giving his view on an image, and so starts his criticism within a few seconds of first viewing it.

You need to find better competitions. I have never encountered one like you describe, and I certainly wouldn't bother participating in it if I did. In the electronic image competitions I participate in, participants are required to submit all images a couple of weeks in advance to give the judge sufficient time to evaluate them. I would guess that there are typically around 120 images, and it is sometimes hard for the judge to explain her evaluations in a two hour meeting (even though some require only a very short explanation). I'm entering a printed image competition next month, and in that case, we are required to submit the images in electronic form well in advance, I assume for the same reason.

[Manfred M]

I think photography has a particular problem, made worse since digital has cheapened the process of image production.

We now have major photographic competitions where everything is judged in 10 seconds or less. Immediate impact and does it conform to rules such as thirds all judged in seconds. Can a panel of judges properly look at three or four hundred images an hour and pass judgement on them.

Even in camera club competitions the judge is "expected" to quickly start giving his view on an image, and so starts his criticism within a few seconds of first viewing it.

Too often I see formulaic, me to, images with little originality of concept rewarded whilst photographers trying something different are are not

If this is what you are experiencing, then you are unfortunately dealing with some very mediocre judges.

I've been working on my national judging certification for about 18 months now and I have yet to be at a competition where any judge has mentioned one of the "Rules of Composition" for either scoring an image well or poorly. I won't say that never happens and there are some "old school" judges around that were trained that way and continue to judge that way. That is unfortunate.

Most of the photo clubs in Canada follow CAPA (Canadian Association for Photographic Art) rules and images are scored on a 10-point scale. I'd say that 95% of the images end up with scores in the 5 - 8 range (with the bulk of the images falling in as either a 6 or 7), so being able to recognize a solid, good image should take no more than 12 - 15 seconds. If the images fall outside of this range it does take longer to judge, especially at the higher end of the range. Under CAPA rules any time one judge (there are usually three judges at a competition) scores an image outside this range, the competition is stopped and the judges are asked to justify the high or low scores and all three judges will be asked to re-look at their scoring. This process generally takes two or three minutes and can take longer. The same mechanism kicks in if there is a three point or more difference between the highest and lowest score..

I would say that 200 images / hour would be the maximum I have seen judged and often it can be somewhat lower. It takes the same length of time to judge a print as it does a projected image, although the process of pulling a new image up is slightly faster with projected images as there is no print that has to be placed under the judging lights.

Scoring under CAPA rules considers three criteria; technical execution (colour, light, exposure, sharpness and technique), how the photographer has organized the material in the image (distractions, use of space and composition) and the emotional impact the image has (mood, impact, subject matter and imagination). We are generally encouraged to start with 10 points and deduct 1/2 point for minor flaws and a full point for major flaws. In the competitions that I have judged, in general the scores of all the judges are rarely more than one point apart.

When reviewing an image during a public forum it is challenging to critique an image in just a few words as we tend to have 20 or 30 seconds at most to sum up the strengths and weaknesses of the image. Fortuantely the judging and presentation occur within a few days so the judges will have seen the image once or twice already.

If the competitions that you are in penalize photographers for trying something different, that is unfortunate. Different (so long as it is effective) will generally score higher than a tried and true approach.

[Manfred M]

I'm entering a printed image competition next month, and in that case, we are required to submit the images in electronic form well in advance, I assume for the same reason.

That is correct Dan.

During the actual judging process the judges will not see the electronic version of the print. It is simply there for the audience to see while the judge(s) discuss the merits of the prints. In the competitions I have judged, the prints are on display for the audience to look at before and after the judges present the results. Often, if there is something particularly noticeable in the print that is not as apparent in the projected image, the judges will direct the members of the audience to look for some specific things found in the print itself.

[billtils]

Even in camera club competitions the judge is "expected" to quickly start giving his view on an image, and so starts his criticism within a few seconds of first viewing it.

You may be interested in these links on judging, published by the Scottish Photographic Federation:"What judges should be looking for", Checklist (ignore the first section), and Presentation Skills. There's nothing about the rule of thirds but there is quite a lot about behaviour and presentation skills. Add that a judge has had at least a week to review and grade entries and the "judging" evening at the club is not to conduct the judging but to deliver the results, and there's no excuse for rude judging.

[george013]

You may be interested in these links on judging, published by the Scottish Photographic Federation:"What judges should be looking for", Checklist (ignore the first section), and Presentation Skills. There's nothing about the rule of thirds but there is quite a lot about behaviour and presentation skills. Add that a judge has had at least a week to review and grade entries and the "judging" evening at the club is not to conduct the judging but to deliver the results, and there's no excuse for rude judging.

The first impression is the most important. I see that this is estimated for 50% of the decision. And overrules the "rules".

George