Please help- Rule of thirds

[briant]

<p>I am on a site and the challenge this fortnight is to produce<br>

'the best photo which breaks the rule of thirds'<br>

The prize is to nominate the theme of the next challenge.</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me how to go about this challenge in terms of ideas cos I have no idea what the rule means</p>

 

[mike_stemberg]

The 'Rule of Thirds' is a compositional aid of many framing and composing techniques. Check out some or all of the

<a href="http://photoinf.com/Golden_Mean/"> Photo Composition Articles (available here), </a> and then break the rules to your fancy.

[c_wyatt]

<p>The way I know it is the 'rule' (read <em>principle</em>) is a common theme in all kinds of image composition, in which the dominant elements are meant to divide the image into thirds (vertically and/or horzontally). In photography this often equates to 'don't cut the photo in half with the horizon, and have the main subject noticeably off centre'.</p>

<p>If you do a net search on it there should be heaps.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p>I dug through my files for some examples.</p>

<p>My opinion is that, liek most 'rules', used at the right time the rule is effective, but used dogmatically and it can make photos boring.</p><div></div>

[c_wyatt]

<p>...</p><div></div>

[c_wyatt]

<p>....</p><div></div>

[c_wyatt]

<p>.....</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Lots of great candid photos in the photojournalism, documentary, street and similar genres ignore standard guidelines for composition. These photos are memorable because of the subject matter.</p>

<p>Standard guidelines for composition can make mundane subject matter inoffensive but can't make a boring subject more interesting. Most applications of the rule of thirds to landscapes appear more like damage control than anything else. Just technical exercises in proficiency, but forgettable.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>.</p>

 

[jenkins]

<p>.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>I was doing a fashion shoot for North Carolina Fashion Magazine when this furry critter ruined my picture and made it a rule of thirds, i was not amused.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>There's nothing wrong with Simon's photo that can't be cured with Fibbernachos Sequencing, Geomogological Platonistry and Gould & Means Thirding.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>BTW, semi-seriously, <a href="http://jakegarn.com/the-rule-of-thirds/">this blog entry</a> actually has some useful examples. It also provides some wiki links including a graphical overlay you can copy in PNG format and use in your own photo editing software.</p>

<p>There are probably dozens, maybe hundreds, of textbook examples of how purists say it should be done. Offhand, I can't think of any that emphasize how these compositional rules are broken successfully. It's one of those touchy topics. If a photo is critically acclaimed or, at least, famous, then forgiveness is retroactively applied for having violated the rules. But newcomers are not permitted to break the rules until such photos have achieved critical acclaim, fame or infamy.</p>

[c_wyatt]

<p><em>“There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."</em> - Ansel Adams</p>

[jenkins]

<p><strong>There's nothing wrong with Simon's photo that can't be cured with Fibbernachos</strong><br>

I thought that was an illness, anyway Lex how did you do that, was it Layers?? 7/7 my friend bravo.<br>

Funny thing about that picture, they had bars around the windows, like anyone was going to want to steal that stuff.</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>You could always google 'rule of thirds'.<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Sure, you can always Google "rule of thirds", "golden mean", etc., etc. There are a gazillion such hits.</p>

<p>But what can't be easily Googled are examples of ignoring standard rules for conventional composition while still producing a photo that is considering critically successful. Which is what applies to the OP's question. I'm actually hoping someone else can kick in some websites or blogs with examples of breaking those rules successfully.</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Ah. So you want to break the rules. How iconoclastic.</p>

<p>All righty. Here are, from left to right, an empty frame, an empty frame with a dot, centered, and an empty frame with a dot placed according to the <em><strong>Rule of Thirds </strong> </em> (on which be peace):</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Now the middle frame evidently violates the Rule of Thirds, so there's gotta be something wrong, right? In fact there isn't. It's a radially symmetrical balanced composition, as opposed to the asymmetrical-but-also-balanced composition on the left. It gives a different feeling, it's got different historical antecedents, it's used for different purposes. </p>

<p>The difficulty is that when you add graphic elements, they too have to be radially symmetrical to keep the balance going, else you've got symmetry and asymmetry mixed in the same composition, which isn't in itself wrong, but dashed hard to do well. By contrast, graphic elements seem to be easier to add to the Rule-of-Thirds composition because you haven't got radial symmetry to observe. Getting an asymmetrical composition to balance really, really well is actually also dashed hard, but it's an intuitive thing that depends on visual sophistication, and easily fudged for naive viewers.</p>

<p>Now here's the kicker: the Rules of Composition are pure, theoretical, and apply only to visually simple elements in homogeneous fields, as above. Whenever you add a graphic element, you change the visual weight of the field, and you've got to rebalance accordingly. Every rule of composition has a <em>ceteris paribus</em> condition--"all other things being equal"--and in a non-trivial work other things are never equal.</p>

<p>So if we want to be young Turks and prance in there breaking all the rules, we've simply got to disturb the visual weight by adding a graphic element:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[michaeljlawson]

<p>Here's one from my collection that is a fan favorite. It breaks all the rules of composition, subject is centered, no fancy angled crops, but it tends to illicit a reaction of fun\laughter\smiles. In my opinion because it gets that emotional responce from so many people, the photo works, even though it breaks the rules.</p><div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Fortunately, square format photographers are relieved of such trivial concerns. Everyone knows that all square format photos are automagically art. Square format makes composition irrelevant.</p><div></div>

[James G. Dainis]

Many people say they ignore the rule of thirds and others shouldn't adhere to such arbitrary rules. When I check their portfolios I find that most of their images do adhere to the rule of thirds. Their reply is they didn't consciously do it, the image just looked better that way.

[James G. Dainis]

BTW, don't the frogs eyes. the most captivating part of the image, fall right on the thirds?

[michaeljlawson]

<p>True James, the eyes to fall into the cross-hairs of the thirds, and the tip of the nose does fall across what would be the lower line of the image if you drew the lines for the thirds. Maybe that's why it works even though the subject itself is centered.</p><div></div>

[ajglover]

<p>i think you should try something minimalistic</p>