re: rules of third

[crob2go]

<p>How do the rule of third play in portrait photograpy? Headshot, 1/2, 3/4, and Full? Any feed back will be welcomed and any photos to support what you are explaining will be even more appreciated. Thanx to all who comment in advance....C-Rob</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I shoot a lot of portraits and I've never once thought about the "rule" of thirds. You can see some of them <a href="http://spirer.com/Portraits/">here.</a> I just try to make it work inside the frame.</p>

[crob2go]

<p>Thx Jeff</p>

[Mattman944]

<p>Don't be obsessed with the rule of thirds. But, in general, try to keep the center of interest out of the center. So, if a head is small in the frame, try not to put it in the center. If a head is large in the frame, try not to put the eyes in the center. Of course, I have seen many excellent portraits that break the rule. </p>

<p>What annoys me, is when people add unnecessary negative space trying to satisfy the rule of thirds. There is also "the rule of wasted space". It is important also.</p>

[Jack_Maegli]

<p>Rules were meant to be broken; but a loose adhearance can give you results such as below. Note the focal point of interest in portraiture is usually the eyes. Try framing the picture with the eyes at least in one of the vertical thirds, then try horizontal "off-centers" to the point of hitting the "rule". Then back off the changes till it looks good to you.<br>

<a href="../photo/11384750&size=lg"><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11384750-md.jpg" alt="Susan" width="544" height="680" border="0" /></a></p>

[crob2go]

<p>Matt & Jack interesting view point. Thanks, C-Rob</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I think it can help make certain headshots and body positions stronger, and I give it "some" consideration while working, but I mostly go for getting the right material that I need in the frame to convey what I want to show. For whatever reason I tend to use it more when working with diagonals.</p>

[igord]

<p>I remember that around 10 years ago in this forum (time goes fast) someone posted link to the very good article about composition in portrait, based on classic paintings. I even printed it and come back to it quite often. Maybe it is worth to look back.</p>

[Jack_Maegli]

<p>Igor, You bring up an interesting point, to my superficial knowledge, the early classical painters used the "Golden Rectangle", which is derived from the "Golden Ratio" originating from greek mathemeticians such as Euclid and Pythagoras, which is the product of ((1 + SQRT5)/2) or <em>phi</em> or numberically 1.62. Using this ratio, the long side of the rectangle, or subject placement in a work of art should be 1.62 times the distance of the short side, which gives a rough division of the composure into thirds along one dimension. Check out this Rembrandt self portrait, the eyes kind of grab me as the focal point in this example of the Golden Rectangle in the vertical dimension.<br>

<a href="../wiki/File:Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg"><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg/220px-Rembrandt_aux_yeux_hagards.jpg" alt="" width="220" height="223" /></a><br>

The actual two dimensional "rule of thirds" was first proposed by John Smith about 1797; dividing a composure into both horizontal and verticle divisions. It was heavily employed in landscape art (where a tree should be in a field with a horizon of clouds). <br>

Anyhow, I like to consider both rules, but first employ the Golden Rectangle in portrait composition, then try throwing the eyes in a head shot, or face in a full body, off center and see if there is an improvement. If not, I go back in my cropping as no one should be addicted to all the rules unless they consisently produce the best result. I find the full "rule of thirds" works best when the subject is arranged diagonally in the compostion. <br>

If you find your printed article, Igor, I would be very curious to see which of these rules it refers to.<br>

Jack</p>