Rule of Thirds

For guides on how to do something, explanations on how particular results are achieved, etc.
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Rule of Thirds

Postby Mike Farley » Sun 31 Jan 2016, 08:06

Tavis Leaf Glover discusses the value of the "rule" of thirds in composiition. He is not a fan and suggests an alternative approach. From PetaPixel.

http://petapixel.com/2016/01/30/10-myth ... of-thirds/
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Rose
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun 16 Sep 2012, 18:09
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby Rose » Sun 31 Jan 2016, 20:37

Really interesting ! Thanks for sharing :)
Rose
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 02 Feb 2016, 09:13

Rose wrote:Really interesting ! Thanks for sharing :)

Your feedback is appreciated, Rose. I mainly posted it as I was not previously aware of the "Root 4 Rectangle" and wanted to stimulate debate about composition in general. I am not entirely convinced by the author's arguments and will post my views when I have time.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby davidc » Tue 23 Feb 2016, 04:42

Reminds me of this from XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/spiral/

You can draw composition lines any way you want to back up the idea your theory is "right". Absolutely garbage article.
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 23 Feb 2016, 08:07

davidc wrote:Absolutely garbage article.

The "Rule" of Thirds often gets a bad press from those who do not understand the scientific/mathmatic principles on which it is based. I particularly enjoyed the comparison between a sophisticated composition by Annie Leibovitz and a simplistic image with just a sailing boat as the subject. Actually, if you look at the Leibovitz shot there is a case to be made that it does adhere to the Rule of Thirds in some respects. As you point out, it is possible to go overboard when it comes to dividing different elements within a picture.

Thanks for your post. It reminds me that I still need to write my promised response.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby davidc » Fri 26 Feb 2016, 03:10

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that different compositional techniques aren't worth looking at when practicing photography. When you consciously try out many different compositions - whether instinctively or because you're applying some techniques you've read about - you're more likely to get a better shot.

It's the pretentious armchair experts who annoy me, the ones who spend hours drawing every conceivable line on a photo showing how the "masters" did the same as they themselves do. You can draw lines on any picture to support any argument you want! :D

That Annie Leibowitz photo is a good example. What the author has done is proven that deliberate composition was likely applied when she shot the photo. To suggest it's somehow "awesomer" because it's not rule of thirds oriented is disingenuous and ignores the fact that there are likely dozens of other compositions that would be just as effective, if not more so. And I'm not even going to mention that a "better composition" is entirely subjective and based on the viewer :)

Sharing options, guidance & techniques for composition is definitely worthwhile, I'm not doubting that at all. It's just the way this author has done reeks of arrogance, is biased towards their own tastes and is hugely cliched... to the point where I think it's counterproductive.
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby Mike Farley » Fri 26 Feb 2016, 08:54

Yes, I agree. For me, seeing a compositional structure of which I was peviously unaware was the main feature of the article. Whether Leibovitz was thinking of that when she composed her image is moot; I know that I rarely take such things into account when I am shooting and go more by what looks good in the viewfinder. I have seen similar group shots by Leibovitz and it seems to be something of a trademark.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby Mike Farley » Mon 29 Feb 2016, 15:22

OK, here's the long promised follow-up. In a nutshell, the author is claiming that the Rule of Thirds (RoT) is misguided and simplistic; it hampers composition and there are better ways to construct an image, giving a number of examples.

As I mentioned earlier, there are some scientific and mathematical principles underlying RoT, namely the Golden Ratio which is seemingly random at 1:1.618033989 but in reality is a visually pleasing proportion. In fact, it frequently occurs in nature, perhaps the best known example being the chambers of a nautilus shell which when seen in cross section change size in accordance with the ratio. For this reason, it is also sometimes given other names such as the "Divine Proportion" or "God Ratio". Intriguingly, the ratio between numbers in the Fibbonacci sequence follow it closely once it gets to 5:8.

There is evidence that the proportion has long been known to man, one example being the 4,500 year old Great Pyramid at Giza where the ratio between its height and width almost exactly matches the ratio, the 0.025% difference probably being accounted for by the less than sophisticated measuring tools available at the time. Given what they had available, the ancient Egyptians were amazingly accurate in their measurements and alignments. I suspect that awareness of the Golden Ratio goes back much further, probably at least to Sumerian times and architects still use it to this day, one example being Corbusier. The mathematical proof came when Euclid included it his book "Elements" published sometime around 300 BC.

The application to art and photography in particular comes with the use of 35 mm film , which at 36 x 24 mm has an aspect ratio of 1:1.5, as well as sensors in the 3:2 format that is very close to the Golden Ratio. A grid based on RoT drawn on a rectangle of any dimension will produce nine smaller rectangles of equal size, whereas one derived from the Golden Ratio will not be quite so symmetrical. Admittedly it is not an exact alignment but close enough to be useful when constructing an image. For me, the main value of RoT is to encourage subject placement away from the centre where often it can be less visually stimulating. As we are discussing composition, this is not an absolute. Centrally placed subjects or divisions do work and RoT might be just one element of a succesful image as the author of the article inadvertently demonstrates.

Consider the Annie Leibovitz shot shown in Myth 2. Essentially the subjects are divided into three groups and where do the separations occur? Why, along the vertical thirds. Admittedly there are other things happening within the shot, particularly in the way that the women are placed within their groups, but to my eye the thirds division works better than the Root 4 Rectangle alignment shown.

In Myth 5, the option of aligning the sailing boat on a third or centrally within a square is given. One aspect of the use of the square format is that the subject will be placed centrally, as has happened here. Quite apart from the ordinariness of the image, the one with the offset boat works better for me, although I would agree that there is a tad too much negative space and alignment on the golden ratio might work better in that instance.

Myth 6 talks about the Dynamic Symmetry Grid which is based on the Golden Ratio, yet the example given in the Bouguereau painting seems to show three more or less equal vertical divisions.

So what about the application of RoT in my own photography? As an arbitrary selection of some of my better images, I looked at those I submitted to the 2016 SPA Biennial Exhibition. In the main, RoT either played no part or possibly had a supporting role in a few. Maybe a couple have alignments on a third, but mostly I see more evidence of the Golden Ratio in one form or another. Was I thinking about RoT or the Golden Ratio at the time of taking or subsequent post capture cropping? No, I worked instinctively and considered what looked best.

I would not say that the article is complete rubbish as it does contain some useful information and has provoked debate, but it might have worked better had it not been such a rant against one particular aspect of subject placement. What amused me were the instances where the use of thirds could clearly be seen even as it was being decried. There are some occasions where it adds to an image, being just one of the items available in our compositional toolbox.
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)
User avatar
davidc
Posts: 2410
Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2012, 11:27
Location: location, location.
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby davidc » Tue 01 Mar 2016, 04:17

Is a photo pleasing because it can be mapped to the golden ratio, or is the golden ratio pleasing because it can be mapped to pleasing photos?
Check out my website - davidcandlish.photography
My Top 50 album is here
Mike Farley
Posts: 7316
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2012, 16:38
Contact:

Re: Rule of Thirds

Postby Mike Farley » Tue 01 Mar 2016, 08:12

davidc wrote:Is a photo pleasing because it can be mapped to the golden ratio, or is the golden ratio pleasing because it can be mapped to pleasing photos?

Neither?
Regards

Mike Farley
(Visit my website and blog - www.mikefarley.net)

Return to “Techniques & Tutorials”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests