Rule of Thirds - Commentary

[William W]

Bill - I find that the issue is that there are "rules" which suggests a rigid structure for accomplishing a particular task, rather than concepts that the rules try to embody. . .

Manfred - I think that it is not the 'Rule' which suggests a rigid structure: it is the delivery, the teaching, the reinforcement of the rule: that is to say it is people's persuasive influence (or power) when discussing or presenting the 'Rule' which is 'the issue'.

That's the crux why made the observation in Post #12.

No doubt anyone in any 'teaching' situation can unwittingly give emphasis or spin to a 'rule' whereby the recipient gets the message that this 'rule' is a rigid structure to achieve an outcome: that's not the rule's fault - it's the teacher's responsibility.

WW

[Manfred M]

Manfred - I think that it is not the 'Rule' which suggests a rigid structure: it is the delivery, the teaching, the reinforcement of the rule: that is to say it is people's persuasive influence (or power) when discussing or presenting the 'Rule' which is 'the issue'.

That's the crux why made the observation in Post #12.

No doubt anyone in any 'teaching' situation can unwittingly give emphasis or spin to a 'rule' whereby the recipient gets the message that this 'rule' is a rigid structure to achieve an outcome: that's not the rule's fault - it's the teacher's responsibility.

WW

I remember sitting in the Photographic Composition (that was the name of the course) class when the instructor was commenting that the image being shown wasn't working at all. When this was pointed out to the student, his reply was "but I used the Rule of Thirds".

To which the instructor answered, perhaps you should have tried something else...


I have been formally been studying photography since 2009, at two different accredited "bricks and mortar" schools. I'm not sure if this is just a local approach, but the rules of composition were not covered in any course I took, including the ones where composition was a core component of the course (as a course of composition should) and the portfolio project. The instructors were very clear that the Rules of Composition were not part of the curriculum.

When I asked why, their response was along the lines of it was far more important to create a strong image (and to understand why it is a strong image) than to train people to use specific formulas to create images.

[DanK]

As two example only -

1. “It come down to using depth of field, tone contrast and colour to create a strong figure-ground relationship.”

> Why only are these the only constructs to be used?
> Bigger question: Is a strong figure-ground relationship required?


2. “Is the subject the center of attention, does the viewer's eye go easily to the subject.”

> Does the subject need to be the centre of attention?
> Should the Viewer’s eye go directly and easily to the Subject?
> Would the image’s message be strengthened if the Viewer’s eye lingered a moment, elsewhere?

I agree. I think an excellent example is Ansel Adams' Moonrise Hernandez New Mexico. I'm not being glib in saying that I don't actually know what the subject is, and I can't say what's figure and what's ground. Is the subject the clouds, the houses, or the moon? I think my eyes go first to the clouds because they are so bright, but it seems clear that Adams' intent wasn't to get people to focus on almost featureless clouds, and I don't. I find my eye moving between the houses, the clouds, the foreground, the mountains, and the moon. That interplay is what, for me, makes the image so magical.

I also agree with your comment in #21:

I think that it is not the 'Rule' which suggests a rigid structure: it is the delivery, the teaching, the reinforcement of the rule: that is to say it is people's persuasive influence (or power) when discussing or presenting the 'Rule' which is 'the issue'.

For example, it avoids many of the pitfalls of a "rule" if a teacher explains something like this: "The 'rule' of thirds--note that I put 'rule' in quotation marks--is a suggestion that you can often attain a pleasing balance in an image by placing a key focal point roughly a third of the way in from the edge. Keep in mind that this is only a suggestion and that even if this is approximately right for a given uncentered image, you will often do better by picking a different point--perhaps 20% or 40% of the way in from the edge. Your assignment is to examine at least 10 of the following images to see how they artist operationalized this general notion and how close--or far--they ended up from the 'rule' of thirds". See if you can speculate about why they may have placed the subject where they chose to place it."

Last year I had the opportunity to see a large exhibit of Olivia Parker's work at the Peabody Essex in Salem, MA. Included in her exhibited work are images that break pretty much every rule I've read.

[billtils]

Some very valid points on composition in general, but to return to the topic of "Rule of thirds", there is general agreement that, with some exceptions, if there is a main subject in the composition, then placing it in the centre of the frame can be less than ideal. But so is placing it too close to an edge. What's left ... ?

Sounds like a good idea? OK, so let's give it a snappy name. Maybe we should have a competition to give a snappy title to all the other important elements that go into a good composition.

[DanK]

I just did a quick and dirty version of the hypothetical exercise. I just looked at 17 photos by Edward Weston, one of my favorites, and tried to classify them into three bins: rule of thirds followed, rule of thirds clearly not followed, unclear or inapplicable. I found that the classification isn't clear-cut, but this is what I came up with:

Yes: 5

No: 9

Inapplicable or unclear: 3

[William W]

. . . rule of thirds clearly not followed . . .

Those nine would be the photos of interest to me, of interest for discussion:

I'd ask "Why (were the rules clearly not followed)?"

WW

[DanK]

Bill,

I don't entirely recall which ones I looked at. However, I can give some examples, looking at a collection again. You can probably find these by searching his name and the title.

Some are centered. A good example is Hands of Kreutzberg.

A few follow the "rule" of thirds quite closely. A good example is Bedpan. It looks like it doesn't--the pan looks to me closer than that to the left--but the black line down the middle is pretty nearly exactly a third in.

One that clearly doesn't and that seems a bit jarring to me is Tomato Field, Big Sur. Other landscapes that don't follow the rule are Xanicho, Michoacan and Sand Dune, Oceano.

In furlough, the solder's head is more than a third down and less than a third from the left.

Dan

[mspil]

When I first started in photography, my mentor, who was a magnificent photographer, maintained that not only were there no rules of composition, but that composition was a topic that could not be taught. You either had it or you didn't, and if the latter, you might as well sell your camera.
But..... when judging camera club competition, he often made reference to the rule of thirds, especially when talking to beginners. He was not being hypocritical, but simply wanted to emphasize that, in general, the centre of the photograph is compositionally weak, and that most images could be strengthened by offsetting the main subject matter somewhat towards one of the corners. To more advanced workers, his advice was that rules are made to be broken, but always have a valid reason for doing so. In his own photography, (he had AFIAP after his name) I am sure the thought of applying any rules to his images would never have entered his head. He worked on gut feeling and an artistic eye. I have always tried to follow his example.