Rule of Thirds - Commentary

[Manfred M]

The Rule of Thirds has always bothered me. This is one of the best arguments against using it I have come across.

Attached is something that a well known local (Ottawa, Canada) photographer, Harry Turner posted on Facebook. Harry was the corporate photographer for Canada's National Research Council for 25 years and has taught photographyr at Algonquin College. I have met and chatted with Harry a number of times.

I'd like to post part of what he wrote to another photographer I know quite well and sums up the Rule of Thirds and why it is best ignored.


"The Rule of Thirds (RoT) has been frustrating fine artists since 1797 when a mediocre landscape artist named John Thomas Smith misinterpreted a reference by Sir Joshua Reynolds that in a work with areas of light and dark it is best that one dominate.

The rule of thirds has become myth and a crutch since. In one of the very few scientific investigations on the RoT done by a university Germany, it was derived that in esteemed paintings and photographs there was diminished correlation to the RoT. It has been found that for beginning photographers the RoT may aid in developing a sense of composition however as artist become more accomplished and confident the RoT is less evident. That as the photographer develops and gains an intuitive expertise in artistic composition they depend far less of on such rules as the RoT. Which was determined as the reason they did not find it in predominately in high quality artworks and photographs.

I have been teaching photography and photographic composition for over 40 years and have found dogged adherence to the rule of thirds is a pathway to mediocrity. The Rule of Thirds is built into the crop tools of Lightroom and Photoshop, camera viewfinders display it. The problem is the whole world is using the same cookie cutter and they all look just the same.

The world is organic and doesn't mold easily to a grid. As Edward Weston said studying the rules of composition before taking a picture is like consulting the laws of gravity before taking a walk. With your experience it is time to leave the so called rules behind and follow your developed artistic sense. We try generally to offset the subject from the center but where and how much depends on your sense of composition and what feels right. It the culmination of a myriad of micro decisions.

It come down to using depth of field, tone contrast and colour to create a strong figure-ground relationship. Is the subject the center of attention, does the viewer's eye go easily to the subject. Do other elements support or distract. Are there leading lines and how does the eye flow in the image. Are there shapes that help define the subject, like triangles which contain and keep the viewer's eye within the image and on the subject.

All this to say don't keep trying to adapt your images to some preconceived convention."


I've done some very minor editing to what he wrote (mostly broke things into paragraphs).

I had previously posted the study done at the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany here:

Rule of Thirds - Debunked

[xpatUSA]

I agree whole-heartedly with the quote and your expressed opinion, Manfred.

I feel that, if and only if any placement of an object is to occur, it is also important to consider the shape of the object. I myself tend to locate the centroid of an object's projected area (in the image) and use the centroid as the point to placed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centroid
.

[Manfred M]

I agree whole-heartedly with the quote and your expressed opinion, Manfred.

I feel that, if and only if any placement of an object is to occur, it is also important to consider the shape of the object. I myself tend to locate the centroid of an object's projected area (in the image) and use the centroid as the point to placed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centroid
.

Ted - I suspect that the centroid you are pointing out, the Golden Ratio, the Golden Spiral and all the other compositional tools are likely to have a high failure rate as well, should someone ever do a comprehensive study on them.

There are just too many variables in play in a composition for things to boil down to a rule based system . Paint by numbers never worked out as a way to create a strong work of art either...

[xpatUSA]

Ted - I suspect that the centroid you are pointing out, the Golden Ratio, the Golden Spiral and all the other compositional tools are likely to have a high failure rate as well, should someone ever do a comprehensive study on them.

Manfred, there is no shortage of "comprehensive" studies on photographic "rules" - a quick on-line search will show anybody that. There's even a whole book by Mario Livio devoted solely to "The Golden Ratio - the story or phi, the world's most astonishing number".

It would be interesting if you could tell us what percentage constitutes "a high failure rate"?

There are just too many variables in play in a composition for things to boil down to a rule-based system.

Of course. Any trade is learned initially by the teaching of basic rules. Variations come later.

Painting by numbers never worked out as a way to create a strong work of art either...

A bit a of a straw man argument, IMHO. If it were possible to put numbers to a pointillist work, that rendering would be as strong as the original, eh?

[pschlute]

There are just too many variables in play in a composition for things to boil down to a rule based system . Paint by numbers never worked out as a way to create a strong work of art either...

Love this comment.

[pschlute]

Manfred, there is no shortage of "comprehensive" studies on photographic "rules" - a quick on-line search will show anybody that. There's even a whole book by Mario Livio devoted solely to "The Golden Ratio - the story or phi, the world's most astonishing number".

It would be interesting if you could tell us what percentage constitutes "a high failure rate"?

61.8 % of course

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA Manfred,

It would be interesting if you could tell us what percentage constitutes "a high failure rate"?

61.8 % of course

Excellent!!

Meanwhile ... A "strong work of Art" by numbers:



https://concreteplayground.com/auckl...esene-testpots
.

[pschlute]

Interestingly, the Golden Ratio, Golden Mean etc were very much part of the Fibonacci sequence of numbers, detailed in a book by Leonardo of Pisa, 800 years ago. They still have a relevance today and are used widely amongst anyone trading the financial markets from a technical perspective.

As an ex technical trader myself I would use these ratios extensively. But in the same way as the "rule of thirds" is no rule at all in the artistic sense but more of a guideline, so too are the Fibonacci ratios in the world of financial trading. Anyone who considers them to be "lines in the sand" will be a poor artist and an even poorer trader.

My point is that they have a value. To some it will be none at all. To others it will border on zealotry. To the majority of folk they will use them as part of their thinking, but not as a hard rule. Indeed to consider them as part of many other things that make up your "art" or your "trading decisions" is to use them wisely.

[Manfred M]

Manfred, there is no shortage of "comprehensive" studies on photographic "rules" - a quick on-line search will show anybody that. There's even a whole book by Mario Livio devoted solely to "The Golden Ratio - the story or phi, the world's most astonishing number".

I do have Livio's book on the Golden Ratio and if I recall correctly, all he does is demonstrates how people have employed the Golden Ratio in arts, etc over the ages. Over the millennia where religion and mysticism was part of the creative process, I see no great surprise there that this instrument / mathematical relationship has been touted.

Nowhere, however, is there any demonstration as to it being anything other than a device that was used in some of artistic work. This is no stronger than being told that the Rule of Thirds is valid (something one can find in all kinds of books as well). I have seen many fine pieces done using the Rule of Thirds, but my suspicion has always been that the photographer got a great many things right and succeeded in spite of using the Rule.

None of this actually demonstrates a causal relationship with the Golden Ratio and great art. Creating a strong image involves making a great many decisions and trade-offs. There is no magic bullet here.

[xpatUSA]

I do have Livio's book on the Golden Ratio and if I recall correctly, all he does is demonstrates how people have employed the Golden Ratio in arts, etc over the ages. Over the millennia where religion and mysticism was part of the creative process, I see no great surprise there that this instrument / mathematical relationship has been touted.

Nowhere, however, is there any demonstration as to it being anything other than a device that was used in some of artistic work. This is no stronger than being told that the Rule of Thirds is valid (something one can find in all kinds of books as well). I have seen many fine pieces done using the Rule of Thirds, but my suspicion has always been that the photographer got a great many things right and succeeded in spite of using the Rule.

None of this actually demonstrates a causal relationship with the Golden Ratio and great art. Creating a strong image involves making a great many decisions and trade-offs. There is no magic bullet here.

In post #2, I said:

"I agree whole-heartedly with the quote and your expressed opinion, Manfred."

Then I said:

"I feel that, if and only if any placement of an object is to occur, it is also important to consider the shape of the object."

My mention of centroids, quickly demeaned and conflated with ratios, was with reference to shape and certainly not intended as advice for anyone here.

In the ensuing discussion, I appear to have somehow morphed into a fan of rules and ratios, judging by the stream of rebuttals and corrections.

At this point, I best fold and leave the Last Word to you.

[William W]

In any Art, I think it is good for the Artist to be "bothered" enough by "rules" to always question whether that "rule" will strengthen or weaken the Artist's Concept and Vision.

Equally I think it is very silly, (perhaps better stated as 'equally artistically immature', to dismiss all the 'rules', simply because they are 'rules'.

In any and every case, these 'rules' are simply guides, and not absolutes: and that is a Rule.

WW

[William W]

Preface:

I appreciate and endorse the concept of Harry Turner’s commentary.

My take is, his general message is we use ‘rules’ as a beginning to understand the constructions of composition and then his kicker message is summed up in one line:

“With your experience it is time to leave the so called rules behind and follow your developed artistic sense.”


Observation:

His commentary, (I believe unwittingly), in several areas, falls into the trap of either being prescriptive literally or being prescriptive by implication.

The trap of having a prescription (i.e. a ‘Rule’) is the trap the commentary itself is advocating should be avoided.

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?

WW

[Manfred M]

In any Art, I think it is good for the Artist to be "bothered" enough by "rules" to always question whether that "rule" will strengthen or weaken the Artist's Concept and Vision.

Equally I think it is very silly, (perhaps better stated as 'equally artistically immature', to dismiss all the 'rules', simply because they are 'rules'.

In any and every case, these 'rules' are simply guides, and not absolutes: and that is a Rule.

WW

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.

I remember my journey as a photographer:

Stage 1 - My images are technically strong, but not interesting. If I learn the rules of composition, I will be able to create stronger images;

Stage 2 - I have spent months studying the rules of composition. I applied the rules I had learned. It was a bit hit and miss; sometimes the rules worked but more often than not they didn't. Trying to apply more than a single rule often resulted in a weaker composition than I would have hoped for. Things were not working the way I had hoped.

Stage 3 - We got out of town for a few days and stayed at a B&B in the country where they had a large collection of books including some by some of the masters. At the time, I had taken a studio lighting course and found that when I went through one of Karsh's books, he was breaking many of the "rules" I had been taught. Works by Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Annie Leibovitz, Burtynsky, etc. all seemed to show the same thing; a blatant disregard for those rules I had learned.

Being a famous photographer seemed to magically allow them to break all those rules (and there is some truth to that statement), but it did get me thinking about the underlying principles of light (direction and quality, primarily), shadows texture, colour schemes. Then I started to look at the flow of the images, distractions, use of space, strong camera craft, etc.

My work improved quickly and people started to pay attention to my work. Prescriptive rules could be replaced by understanding how to create an image that would capture the viewer's attention and once that happens, to keep them engaged.

I remember taking a composition course at the local college about 6 years ago. The instructor (one of Harry Turner's colleagues) did not cover any of the rules of composition, but rather concentrated on getting us to assemble images that were technically well done and had a strong visual and / or emotional impact.

Yes, repeating patterns, leading lines, colour harmonies work. A lot of the other rules can be more hit & miss.

[billtils]

The thread can be summed up as "Rules and art are ill-matched, but guidelines come in handy from time to time".

I do have a question for Manfred though: when you are giving feedback on a composition that presents an opportunity for improvement do you ever say anything to the competition entrants that could be directly or indirectly taken as an example of the "xxxx of thirds"?

[Manfred M]

I do have a question for Manfred though: when you are giving feedback on a composition that presents an opportunity for improvement do you ever say anything to the competition entrants that could be directly or indirectly taken as an example of the "xxxx of thirds"?

Short answer is "no". In fact I never quote any rules of composition when commenting on an image.

I tend to mention how the outcomes of the decisions made by the photographer impact the image that is presented.

The judging system we are encouraged to use is to look at the technical quality of the image (and if the technical decisions made by the photographer were appropriate), the way the image is organized (composition, use of space and distracting elements) and the impact the image has on the viewer (original subject or PoV, mood of the image, imagination). Marks are deducted for weaknesses in any of those three categories.

No need to quote any rules and the closest I would get would be things like "the image would be more effective is the subject were not centred".

[DanK]

I know I'm more of less repeating something I wrote in the earlier thread, but still:

This is the first year in many years that I have been unable to visit the Clark in Williamstown, MA (because of COVID). The central room in the old wing of the museum is the core of their spectacular collection of impressionist masters. Every time I go, I spend time trying to sort out the ways in which the artists structured their paintings. In general, they don't conform to any rules I recognize, and they certainly don't follow the rule of thirds. However, they often do seem to follow a guideline that I think makes things approximating the rule of thirds work some of the time, which is more or less the principle of leverage: they often balance the image by putting dense or heavy material into less than half on one side and balance that with a larger amount of less dense material on the other. I came away from those sessions thinking that the issue is finding a pleasing way to balance off-center images, not a mathematical "rule".

It's also interesting that they often violated other "rules" that one frequently encounters in our world. E.g, 'don't crop so that you cut off part of the subject of the composition.' Check out Renoir's Peonies, https://www.wikiart.org/en/pierre-au...renoir/peonies.

I do occasionally use the "rule" of thirds as a starting point in cropping, but I never feel obliged to stay with it.

[xpatUSA]

I do occasionally use the "rule" of thirds as a starting point in cropping, but I never feel obliged to stay with it.

Found this today, Dan:

"You’ll always get the perfect crop with Composition^AI. Smart engine blends the golden rules of composition plus the expertise of the world’s best photographers."

https://skylum.com/luminar-ai

Couldn't be better.

Elsewhere it promises no more layers, masking, tutorials, da-di-da ...

[DanK]

Found this today, Dan:

"You’ll always get the perfect crop with Composition^AI. Smart engine blends the golden rules of composition plus the expertise of the world’s best photographers."

If a person believes that "the perfect crop" exists, she or he is a sucker for this sort of thing.

I'm also growing increasingly skeptical of almost any product that has "AI" in it. First of all, I doubt very much whether these products actually do the analysis implied by AI after they are canned. I suspect that what they are is just big-data techniques applied to generating the rules that the software will then blindly apply. That certainly is what this ad suggests.

But also, the whole point of the creative process is to create what YOU like, not to let a machine blindly apply an unspecified mishmash of "rules" and patterns derived from whatever the designers decided to use as the training set to figure out what's good.

[xpatUSA]

If a person believes that "the perfect crop" exists, she or he is a sucker for this sort of thing.

I'm also growing increasingly skeptical of almost any product that has "AI" in it. First of all, I doubt very much whether these products actually do the analysis implied by AI after they are canned. I suspect that what they are is just big-data techniques applied to generating the rules that the software will then blindly apply. That certainly is what this ad suggests.

But also, the whole point of the creative process is to create what YOU like, not to let a machine blindly apply an unspecified mishmash of "rules" and patterns derived from whatever the designers decided to use as the training set to figure out what's good.

I agree whole-heartedly with your expressed opinion, Dan.

[rpcrowe]

I was taught - perhaps in error, that people who read and write left to right; will look at the upper left conjunction of the RoT lines, first and then the gaze will rotate around the image clockwise...