new -- color & b&w 'The Elvagene'

Yes, I do subscribe to the rule of thirds ....when it works for me........but I don't use it as an absolute "rule", you will see many of the images I post have a central composition, in fact some of what I would consider my strongest photographs have a central composition....You may find these links interesting

 http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15574612-md.jpg

or this 

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/15758314-md.jpg

They both have a central theme along with accompanying converging lines.

..........but then a central composition is not a "rule" either .........I subscribe to what works on the day.  If I was to subscribe to any "rules" as an absolute it would be most inhibiting and restrictive, bordering on being smothering! 

I repeat there are no rules in photography.......unless of course they are self imposed. 

I would not consider the bicycle to be in the "middle" it is way more to the left and adds an opposite direction to "Elvagene" 

Regards to all! 

Alf 

Depends on how one defines "rule". Is this not that correct?

The following taken from the internet  google "rule of thirds"

1. "The rule of thirds is a "rule of thumb" or guideline  which applies to the process of composing visual images such as designs, films, paintings and photographs"."

2. "The rule of thirds is a powerful compositional technique for making photos more interesting and dynamic."

3. "The rule of thirds is one of the main "rules" in art and photographic composition and stems from the theory that the human eye naturally gravitates to intersection points that occur when an image is split into thirds. I'd like to note that I'd rather define this compositional  technique as a guideline rather than a rule..... but I'll call it a rule to be consistency with other sources."

1. 2., and 3. define "rule of thirds" as "rule of thumb", "technique" and "guideline" in that order.  So how can anyone say "there is not such thing as a rule of thirds"?

Constable adhered to static composition; i.e. objects of interest at intersection of point of thirds. Vermeer used both static (rule of thirds) and dynamic e.g. central object of interest is centered).

I might be wrong but I think Rembrandt primarily painted in the dynamic (central) form

Maybe I reversed these definitions. Its been a long time. 

So both compositions are correct as long as a balanced composition is maintained...and I'd say that we are on the same page.

Why the words "static" and "dynamic" are selected I do not know.

Meir and Alf, my problem with the word 'rule' suggests an 'absolute' which I totally reject.

If it's defined as an alternate technique, then it's at odds with its name, as 'rules' are not 'alternate' or 'optional' or something that are 'tools' to be used 'ad hoc' or when they are suitable and not when they don't.

I am reminded of one member who critiqued portraits of mine who congratulated me on my originality -- something he said he'd been pursuing but found bound in his photography to follow in his portraiture the use of the 'Golden Section' or whatever other name it goes by.

Sure enough, I looked at his photos, and each and every portrait looked like every one, with the centering unwavering, and each photo/portrait looking so similar to the others that they could almost have been clones.

His self-imposed use of the Golden Section was his own self-imposed rule, and it worked (in my view) to his detriment and to the detriment of his work.  I felt very sad.  Sometimes I take photos under such difficult circumstances that whenever I can get my model in focus or a part in focus I press the shutter, and I'll be blown away by what I see as a capture, and that's the rule I follow.

Being 'blown away' by a capture that was unplanned but happened because I kept pressing the shutter when I got some agreeable part in focus.

Anyway, that's my rule. 

I'll use the 'technique sometimes of 'thirds', but in some cases but in others, I'll divide things into fourths, or two parts, or even fifths, sixths or sevenths (unequal usually) and so forth).

I just refuse to be hidebound by rules -- they defeat originality

It's the use of the word 'rule' in the 'Rule of Thirds' that I object to, rather than the use of the technique (sometimes), but its obligatory use, I also object to, or the feeling that it is a 'standard' I also object to. It is just one device among a great many.  I feel maybe I've discovered or used a few forgotten devices while working on my own captures . . . . . right from the start.

It's just the word 'rule' that I object to, or the idea that somehow the word denotes something 'correct' because rules denote 'correctness' when it's just not a truth, (as opposed to a technique that sometimes is helpful.)

I hope this helps; and if not, just disregard it.

john

John (Crosley)

If only all discussions were this in depth and analytical.

But.......I am with John in as much as I too reject the word "rule" on the basis that it seems to denote an absolute. 

Meir......you misquote me.....or maybe you are quoting someone else when you quoted as follows: -  "there is no such thing as a rule of thirds"  I did not write that sentence.The word rule is a noun that has the following meaning or meanings  

One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity, 

Now that definition to me seems to be a good understanding and description of the word "rule" and whilst individuals may proceed to interpret it as they see fit, the basic meaning cannot be ignored.

To reiterate my former standing and for the avoidance of doubt I would state categorically that no one is denying that the so called "rule of thirds" exists, and I do use it as a guideline when I think it is appropriate. 

What I would emphasise however is that I am not bound by any such "rules" and no photographer should be. Though an understanding of the guidelines (as I prefer to think of them) is a good thing. 

Again as John suggests, any spontaneity in a photograph, particularly a street or action kind of photograph would be lost in the contemplation of any such "rules" if they were taken on board as an absolute parameter of "good composition" 

"Rule of thumb" however is a very different matter, and whilst the word "rule" is used again within the phrase, the connotations are somewhat different.  Different because the origins of the phrase date back to pre-biblical times when carpenters were thought to use that particular digit of their anatomy as a measuring device, rather than a scaled ruler. Therefore it follows that a "Rule of thumb" is mostly considered as an approximation, and not as a calculated precision measurement. 

This contrasts sharply to the connotations of a "rule of thirds" that makes direct reference to a measured division of segmented lines and divisions within a given frame. 

If we were to consider a cross pollination of the two aforementioned phrases as being integrated into one as Meir describes in his "google" search results. Then it would appear to me that the "Rule of thirds" was never a rule anyway, merely a guideline that can be used or ignored as I originally intimated. 

I do hope I have injected some clarity into the discussion and hopefully not muddied the waters further.

Regards to all 

Alf 

Hear! Hear! Hear!

A stunningly clear comment which expresses my sentiments so precisely that I will write no more on the subject and incorporate your comment as expressly my thoughts exceedingly well.

This well should be written or quoted in any learned treatise on photography, it's so thorough and well thought out.

Congratulations on a job well done.

john

John (Crosley)

To restrict the meaning of "rule" to one and only one definition is as silly and misunderstanding  as therefore claiming that there is no such thing as the "golden 'rule'" and therefore I may conduct myself as I so choose.

This discussion went way off track. The original contention (I thought) was, does the "rule of thirds" stifle creativity? If so then we ought to clean out the museums (even Jackson Pollock) and start all over again.

The "rule of thirds", triangles, number 3, centralization, diagonals, balance, repetition of sequence, etc. are  inexplicable human aesthetic instincts going all the way back to at least Cro Magnon.

John; if you want to become a new species be my guest.

All in good fun of course as always.