I have to say that I have issues with the way photographers throw around the "rule of thirds". The first issue is that most of the time it is presented as if it were a rule or "requirements for Rule of Thirds" as Charles originally presented it. As if somehow an image suffers because it isn't properly employed. In fact, I am reluctant to even call it a guideline as it is really a short hand for one of the many visual principles and probably not even the best shorthand at that. As with all of the principles and elements of design, an understanding of what they are about and how they affect a visual is to understand how to use them, or abuse them, to serve the intent of any image, not requirements that an image must serve.

Certainly, having the "guidelines" can assist someone beginning, however, for real understanding and growth to take place one needs to understand more than a "rule" or two.

Excelente foto, te invita a crear una historia, y cualquiera es valida. Felicitaciones.

The Rule Of Third.
I was the first to mention here, that the image been centered, in fact, the clearance on the left shows more than the clearance to the right, but that was me saying so and no one paid any attention to that, because it came from some one like me, where I also did not call that a Rule Of Third.
The photographer here wanted to show us that his image is having some sort of life and movement where the figure is his main target and that figure is on the move, he was not showing us a stationary document like a portrait of head and shoulder which then I would except and would not argue about any rules
That is why the clearance shall be maintain to what ever you would call it, a third of rule or given it any other name, still I will agree to as long as it remain within the right meaning, but I will not agree with changing the nature of that issue, I will except a lady give birth from the Fxxxxx if some one else having a different phrase for it while it remain meaning the same thing, it is still ok, but if some one else like to change its nature and start arguing that the lady give birth from the Bxxx, thats just do not work for me.
I also did not expect to read on this forum some words like this one " shut the fuck up ", this is an international site with so many nice people around and there must some better words for a person to express whats going around his mind in a civilized manner.
Thank you
Thank you

This frame is one of two featuring the same character from a category 'Street'. It is a welcome reminder for me of the beauty of nature as much as the awe in the labour that's shaping that nature. How clear of crap those stones are here. Lovely to see it!

Complimenti: che bella foto! E' equilibrata e fa "vedere" bene il vento.

Se vuoi, prova a tagliare un po' sulla destra, potrebbe migliorare l'effetto dinamico.

The picture is very nice, well-contrasted with its own logic and clear. The main character is certainly the wind that moves the central figure.
The square format, however, hampers the dynamism of the whole. I think a more accurate cut on the right would improve the effect.
I tried this, and keeping the square format, is trying to shape: this is the effect

The picture is very nice, well-contrasted with its own logic and clear. The main character is certainly the wind that moves the central figure.
The square format, however, hampers the dynamism of the whole. I think a more accurate cut on the right would improve the effect.
I tried this, and keeping the square format, is trying to shape: this is the effect

Mr. Rashed

For me, I don't understand the intention of your above phrase, Whether you mean the image is centered or it is off center. Anyhow Mr. John A. was very clear when he said " the image just seems to be very static and frozen." of course if the Rule Of Third has been used or not.

Certainly there is a place for analysis and open discussion, but there is altogether too much analysis here IMHO, and also some extraordinarily ungentlemanly combat (and some comments that should have been deleted).

The photograph itself really doesn't care about whether people are arguing about whether the elements are precisely in alignment according to explicit or imagined rules. It's like arguing about whether or why Beethoven, Mozart, and Haydn all violated the structure of sonata form (as they did, often). The music is still sublime.

Personally, yes, I know all the rules, but here I just love the thrill of appreciating a fine photo. It's an example of why street photography, like other genres, is worth pursuing as an art form for its own sake.

Bravo to Carlos for finding, capturing, and submitting this.

Mac Moss, you are certainly right in saying that the photo is emotion, beyond the rules. I think as you. However, having opened a discussion on that picture, it seemed right also highlight that point of view, while appreciating that much shooting.
In addition, I write bad English, I did not want to be rude.
Bravo Carlos, la tua foto è splendida!

It likes frame but personally i had boosted the a little bit main figure

Photograph was taken in a moment in time....well composed ...regards

very nice capture, good compotition

I too cannot understand why the degrading comments & foul language were allowed to air

"here I just love the thrill of appreciating a fine photo"

Then you're not thinking critically and shouldn't be disappointed that others are in a forum set up to do so.

Others are speaking to why they don't get a thrill of appreciating when looking at this. And they are able to articulate those reasons. You are relying on the subjectivity of thrill, which is often simply vapid, an excuse not to dig a little deeper. I know, I know, art needs no words . . . NOT.

In every good music class I've been in, we've discussed specifically in what ways Mozart, Beethoven, and Haydn broke the forms they broke.

Of course, people think of the "rule" of thirds as they do the sonata form, which is a mistake. Classical musicians were often not only guided by but restricted to the forms in which they wrote. They were writing for kings, princes, and churches who were paying them to fulfill expectations in many cases. Forms were structures which few were brave or creative enough to break. The rule of thirds is not such a form.

There is entirely too much dwelling on the rule of thirds in this thread for my taste but there is not too much critical thought. And swooning isn't persuasive.

(Sorry for my bad, bad english...)
I have read with a lot care, and internal gratitude, all comments. I am not going to advert directly to none in particular, but I would like to express my comment on my own photo; logically, I will take into account several of things that have been said here.
When I published this photo in August, it had already at that time a significant positive reaction between some that they saw it. In Photo.net, that is sign of that the photo constitutes an image in which is possible to see some type of aesthetic universal. Obviously, this is something that has been seen confirmed for its choice as a photo of the week ("it is interesting and worthy of discussion").
From my point of view, the essential in this photo is that the man, dress that way and alone, allows creating, thanks to the action of the wind on the layer (that it is which it indicates that there is wind), an intemporal image that quickly we can identify with concepts as a resistance before adversities, etc.
I want to say: for me, the value of the photo is in its skills to symbolise an idea, a concept. Beyond that, it does not be a lot more. I am very little one interested in the processing of the images with computer programs, and I do not usually touch photos more than as for very basic parameters, simply until the colour, tone, glow, contrast, etc. they are of my taste. Without more.
However, I am enough worried for the frame and the distribution of the elements in the interior of the photo. In this case, above all, I fretted of centring to the man, because is him, and nothing nor nobody more, to which it is necessary to watch. In addition, I tried also that borders of stone that they fall in diagonal came together in him, with the intention of strengthening the dynamism of the image and to accompany the movement of the layer.
Apart from that, I did not retouch anything in the figure of the man (nor I removed nor I added): I made three photos of the moment, and this is that which chose finally for the willingness of the layer and of the hand in the head.
As I said in the beginning, I have read all your comments. I thank them and I expect to have them in account in my next photos.

Carlos, thanks very much for your explanation of your own image -- what it means to you and the message you want to say with the photo. My own interpretation is very similar to yours. That is neither good nor bad; we simply saw the same (or similar) story in the photo. I've enjoyed and appreciated the discussion that has centered around your photo this week.

Dear Carlos, hank you very much for coming here and letting us know your ideas behind your photo, this is very nice of you and very much appreciated, at the same time you do deserve your image being a POW.
Wishing you all of the best.

Love the concept, but the composition doesnt seem right to me, too square perhaps?

Emma

Excellent scene and capture. Well done. FS

Great detail and great work....no mistaking the wind in the picture. The unique texture of the paved ground provices great contrast for the form in black. Detail is excellent.
I would have positioned the figure at slightly more to lower left corner and would have darkened the corners a bit.