Rule of thirds

What does this exactly mean? What is its origin? Is it a general belief, or a real rule?

Here's a Wikipedia entry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds. It's basically "don't center everything". Like all rules, it is a very worthwhile rule of thumb that also becomes limiting at a point if you don't learn when to break the rule.

 

In looking at your portfolio (you've got some real nice shots in there) it looks like you are doing it instinctively some of the time, but I also think there are a few shots in there where it would have improved the image. But that's just me. Try it out, and use it as you see fit. :-)

Apparently there are many other "rules" in photography. I bet I break them all the time. Mostly 'cause I don't know them.

The Wikipedia entry isn't really very enlightening. If you want to understand what is called "the rule of thirds," study art and learn about the "golden mean" or "golden ratio." The so-called "rule of thirds" is a dumbing down of the golden mean for photographers who don't want to learn about art and find "rules" easier than an art class.

A composition tool.

 

I notice composition and appreciate it when it is good on TV and movies, even a "talking head", often involves a shift

away from the middle of the screen. So you find it used in many formats.

 

I suggest when you have time while shooting, look at the subject through the viewfinder, and find the placement,

consider several options. The rule of thirds gives you several.

 

I have seen people get carried away with it, but usually not for more than one roll of film.

 

It does not hurt to think about this rule when looking at the work of others and see where it improves things, and

where it does not.

 

For example, horizons dividing the frame equally are not often interesting.

 

When an image strikes you as outstanding, enjoy it, and think about the composition, among other things. Some

pretty good examples in the galleries, check and see how many use some aspect of the rule of thirds.

 

Just suggestions, Regards.

Classic artistic aesthetics for composition were derived from observations of the natural world, which were the basis for the development of mathematics and geometry. Classic compositional guidelines are merely a reflection or echo of what we already see in the natural world.

 

Research the connections between the Golden Mean/Section, Fibonacci number/sequence and related issues.

Mr. Faster, do you feel you have a sufficient answer? I used to recommend the "Golden Guide to Photography" as a primer for students, and when you get to a photo show, pick up some old books and see what you see as good work. I have found plenty of books for a few dollars, and if you get one idea or clarification, it is money well spent.

 

Regards, J

Jeff wrote: "If you want to understand what is called "the rule of thirds," study art and learn about the "golden mean" or "golden ratio." The so-called "rule of thirds" is a dumbing down of the golden mean for photographers who don't want to learn about art and find "rules" easier than an art class."

 

The golden ratio recommends placing key elements of the composition at 38 and/or 62 percent of the image's width and/or height. The rule of thirds recommends 33 and/or 67 percent. So, what's so dumbing down about the rule of thirds and why would the golden ratio be a rule superior to the rule of thirds?

I understood Jeff Spirer`s comment about the ``Rule of Thirds`` being a ``dumbed down`` version of the Golden Mean

etc. relating to:

 

The ``Rule of Thirds``, is often simplistically bandied around and glossed over in many photography ``classes`` and

``textbooks``: especially by often drawing up a grid of four lines and making nine rectangles in a scene, all equal.

 

From, there the student is told that ``good composition`` puts the key subject at or near the intersecting points, and

that is the ``Rule of Thirds``.

 

Research into the Golden Mean and many of the Geometric and Arithmetic Progressions (such as the Fibonacci

Sequence mentioned), will reveal that there are Mathematical Relationships re-occurring in the Natural World, and,

moreover, Mathematics (Sequences and Geometry) can be used to quantify, (and predict) in many Arts, what man

has historically and generally determined as ``pleasing`` or ``beautiful``.

 

Whilst the ``Golden Mean`` and the ``Rule of Thirds`` are close in percentage terms; I understood the ``dumbed

down`` comment to relate to the omission of the reference to; study of; and understanding of the Mathematical

Sequences and Geometry and their subsequent relationships and quantification of events in the Natural World.

 

 

The ``dumbed down``, I just took to refer the (usually) simplistic methods the ``Rule of Thirds is explained: not that

the Rule itself is any ``dumber``.

 

WW

Regardless of the math involved, the golden ratio is a figment of man's imagination, particularly where it is supposed to relate to esthetics. There is no more magic to 38/62 percent than there is to 33/67 percent. The percentages, either of the two sets, just happen to be pleasing to the eye for many people, but to ascribe any deeper meaning to them is looking for straws.

``Regardless of the math involved, the golden ratio is a figment of man's imagination``

 

IMO, this sentence is non sequitur: an oxym0ron, at least.

 

One cannot disregard the mathematics involved, because the mathematics involved describe many re-occurring patterns found in nature.

 

WW

Dividing a picture into thirds is "a figment of man's imagination."

 

There's a reason why art schools teach the golden mean - it's more than just dividing into thirds. It's a way to look at composition that helps to understand different ways to divide the frame. Not the only ways - there are some great photos and paintings that put the horizon straight through the center - but a way to look at how the frame is divided.

 

Because of the assumption that art students and painters are far more interested in understanding how composition works, it's learned that way. The assumption, sometimes quite wrong, that photographers have no interest in how composition really works, beyond a simplistic "rule," is why we have the "rule of thirds."

Perhaps the name should be changed to the "Suggestion of thirds?", thought it was implied, it might not be art if

rules were not actually suggestions or starting points? If I say there are no absolute rules, I have just given you

one. ;-)

 

Classes often have you print full frame and use cardboard composition tools to determine cropping or more pleasing

composition. Ideally you do some of this before you shoot, or in the case of "spray and pray" one of the shots

should have something of interest.

 

We also used to find and compose using a frame or viewfinder. Any number of ways to work on composition.

 

It can yet be another situation of "we know it when we see it", but you may wish to look here to begin.

"Perhaps the name should be changed to the "Suggestion of thirds?""

 

I agree with that to an extent. The rule of thirds is simply a fundamental guideline and a place to start when learning about the skill of composition or when one who has mastered the skill is developing a composition.

 

Beginning with the rule of thirds; one can then be as creative or inventive as they like, in order to convey a thought, feeling or message that the image producer hopes the viewer will be able to interpret easily.

 

If all artists and photographers followed the rule of thirds to the letter; all images would then take on a mass produced, generic look and art isn't about cranking out the same things over and over or doing everything the same exact way everyone else is doing it. Art is about experimentation, discovery and self expression, which is what keeps breeding new inspiration to create something fresh, original and maybe more interesting to look at than what already exists.

 

I think maybe it's the word "rule" in rule of thirds that scares people into believing they can not and should not have a mind of their own or an idea of their own.

We have here some excellent responses and examples of subject placement. Rule of the thirds and using the golden mean are both a "feel" when it comes to exactly where the dominant area goes. But let me throw in another into the mix: Bakker's Saddle (from artist Gerhardt Bakker).

 

Bakker's saddle is also useful after one feels comfortable with the rule of the thirds. It simply is an easy way to "feel" and get a handle on how inexact but still very useful rules can be. Mathematically it is a fluid combination of the golden mean and rule of the thirds. From this one rule I have learned to let the rules "whisper" to me but not to become a slave to them.

 

http://home.comcast.net/~barbdoug/rules/ruleswup.html

> I have learned to let the rules "whisper" to me but not to become a slave to them. <

 

:)

 

IMO, well stated.

 

WW

Master Faster: if you get into phi, the Golden Mean, too much, I fear that you will find yourself descending into an

eternal spiral of analysis.

 

I like painting a lot, got into phi for a while, and found its usefulness limited. For example, one of the things I learned in

my readings is that there was once a study done of several hundred masterwork paintings, to examine them for

compliance with phi. There are several different forms of phi ratios, like 1/phi or 1+phi or 1+1/phi, etc., with several

different levels of estimation for the square root of five. When you get into phi, the math can get a little confusing; the

problem solving can get bewildering.

 

What did they find? That only a very small percentage of the masters of painting ever used it in a strict way. Really,

some of the only "strict compliers" were Dali, Mondrian, and some others who deliberately used it in the compositions.

 

Measurements "close to" phi come up all the time. Interestingly, phi ratios can be found "roughly" in the structure of

many living things, including human beings, other animals, and plants. It comes up also in natural matrix formations,

like crystal growth and how complex flowers stack individual flowers into the overall blossom, for example.

 

Phi is an "okay" method for determining aspect ratios on an overall painting. Like, if you know you want one side to be

one dimension of a canvas, plug that number into a phi formula to determine how big to make the other side of the

canvas.

 

Meanwhile, I think we can all acknowledge that some kind of eye-leading organization can be helpful.

 

"Whispering" the "suggestion" of thirds, as they wrote above, is not only a good idea, it's probably what most masters of

painting actually did.

Picture a tic tac toe board. imagine a tree lining a road in the middle of full blown fall foilage forest. Now, picture the

tree in each corner. your eye hits the tree then moves the path of the road. put it dead center and your eye hits the

tree and just sits there.

 

i love this concept. as you see things, you'll discover when it works.

Note: symmetry can also look beautiful in a photo, depending on what the subject matter is and in this situation the rule of thirds is pretty much meaningless.

While attending a series of classes, two classes by some chance, were taught by physics profs who were interested

in vision and the eye and had a few great demonstrations up their sleeves.

 

While you do not need a degree in physics, you may discover that some concepts in light and vision generate more

than a little knowledge in composition and extant art.

 

We all discover some of these concepts, perhaps some more easily than others, and I have met people who just

get "it" right off the bat.

 

The rest of us might be left on our own to discover them at our own pace.

 

The "rules" might lead us a bit quicker to discoveries, but are not the ends in themselves.

 

A fellow photographer once looked at a print I had made, and pointed out what is now to me, such an obvious flaw,

but now more easily avoided, but I knew something was there and had given me some feeling that the print was not

finished. That person did me a service.

 

Hope there is some service here to the OP and anyone else.

 

Bakker's saddle, interesting, I knew there was something wrong when I did not think my Rollei TLR's format was just

always wasting film to get to 8x10 all those years ago ;-) .

 

Good posts by several of "you guys", thanks.

 

Regards, John

John Vance,

 

I hear what you are saying, but isn't the first impulse to center the subject anyway? Rule of the thirds, et al. is to help us visualize. If something doesn't look good at one of the intersections, then we naturally take another option. More options we have in our visualization toolkits, the better, no?

 

Steve

If one looks at the small image on a medium format focusing screen, the composition is easier to see. When looking through the relatively large scene in an SLR viewfinder it is not. If a novice is wiggle wagging his camera up and down to try to figure out what looks best on a seascape, it is a help if someone were to say, "Just place the horizon on the top or bottom third of the frame."

 

When looking at used view cameras or backs, I often find that the previous owner has drawn the thirds lines on the ground glass. People who use view cameras are not novices. Any help they can get when viewing the image under a focusing cloth is big help.

I also recall collecting a number of "Making good pictures" books. Even though the techniques were old, you can

learn by looking at someone else's work. Certainly there is more than one good composition to many scenes.

 

I can recall a few very basic books which demonstrated poor composition and lots of other errors (telephone pole or

tree growing from someone's head, etc.) , probably could publish a book from mine alone.

 

James, when you use a TLR, MF SLR, or other camera with a larger screen, it may be that you look longer, you

certainly have a different perspective. The image is obviously two dimensional.

 

I used to have my students turn the camera over to right the image in the view camera. ;-)

 

They liked the Graflex especially, the image was in color and it was like TV.

 

At the low prices locally for Graflexes, they are a learning tool themselves, even if you do not shoot them much with

film. Should be a book, 101 things you can learn from old cameras, sorry, wrong forum.

 

 

 

Regards, John

The Golden Mean goes back to the Greeks. It is about 0.61 (or 1/0.61) and suggests the most pleasing ratio of the two sides of a building, such as the Acropolis. Most if not all ancient Greek buildings used the ratio.

 

An exceptional series of books, three I believe, are by Ansel Adams (try Amazon to find them). Good for the earnest beginner thru the expert. My girlfriend and I have done B&W film work for a decade and often refer to these books. We had a chance to see some of Adams work in Santa FE NM recently and it is truly beyond belief! If his works ever come near where you live, drive and see them! His books make good bedtime reading, as with all good books you always find something new!

Here is a good Photoshop related article on Rule of Thirds ,

 

http://www.swpp.co.uk/professional_imagemaker/rule_of_thirds.htm