The Tremendously Lazy Rule of Thirds

[AcadieLibre]

Nice to see someone I agree with sort of, the rule of thirds has always been my pet peeve when it is discussed. It is not normal, I have read all the reasons why the rule of third is important, but always found the arguments for it trite and irrelevant and as for the article I am not in complete agreement with him either.

I think a shot should be proportioned to what best suits the shot, not a something you go out and must do as far as rules of composition go. Even as rule of thumb I find it fairly nonsensical and if I end up with the thirds rule in a photo it is only because it worked for that photo and not because it is a rule, same as the authors fibonacci spiral if it happens and it works for the photo fine, but I shoot so it looks best on how I framed the photo and what I am trying to capture/relay in my image.

The Tremendously Lazy Rule of Thirds

[casil403]

I saw this one a while ago and thought it made sense although it does seem a bit more complicated.
I guess my opinion on the rule of thirds is that I believe it to be a great tool for people new to photography who want to learn the basics of composition. I'm talking about people who want to always post the subject of the shot dead center in the photo and want to learn a bit more about photography and expand their horizons...it's easy to remember and explain.
Once the basics are done being learned and understood then it is a rule to play with. It's like anything really...there are guidelines to learn in the beginning that make things sometimes a bit easier in the long run.

[craigUK]

Really interesting thread here.

I have always compared this as like learning to drive.
(you learn to operate the car and learn to read the road)

Same comparison to photography you learn the basics and techniques and the rules of photography and composition and then adapt them for the current situation to make the shot work.

Yes sure, there are rules of composition but once learned, it's then i feel becomes the art in seeing the image, which i don't think the composition will always match or comply with any rule in photography.

Just my thought on it.
Craig

[Wicked Dark]

For me if a subject/scene is strong enough to survive an instictively non-pleasing composition it's fine, but in general the rule of thirds is pleasing in a gut-feeling sort of way that's hard to argue with. I've never consciously had this rule in mind while composing, instead I concentrate on what pleases me and what does my subject the most justice. Because the geometry this rule is based on is so ingrained, most of my work ends up following it. Just because its a rule doesn't mean it isn't valid.

[Iguanasan]

I too thought it was familiar so I had to search and sure enough, I found the post: http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f3/...irds-7615.html - A.L. you are starting to repeat yourself

I also went back to try and find some of your images - you've hidden/deleted pretty much all of them :( - but the ones I did find seemed to follow one of these rules. I suspect that what's good to your eye = rule of thirds (perfect proportion) and rule of thirds (perfect proportion) = what's good to your eye.

The rule is not a rule that must be followed because someone says you should do it. The rule is a rule as it makes it easier for people to create a pleasing composition even if they don't have a "compositional eye".

[kat]

I do what I want to do.. :P

I'm not sure if I have a good enough I to the flow thing. Unless it was landscape where I have the time to think it out in my head..maybe more practice?

[Wicked Dark]

absolutely practice. it's what builds good instincts. if you can convert what you have to think about into a habit, you'll have better results more of the time (like initial composition, seeing a subject in the first place, dealing with lighting situations, ISO choice etc). then you can turn your mind to other considerations that maybe aren't instictual yet or take more planning or tinkering to add to the photo (like moving the camera in all directions, different aspect ratios, playing with aperture to effect DoF, stuff like that...the stuff that takes more time during a shoot).

[Richard]

I think the rule of thirds is a good starting place when thinking about composition for a shot, If time allows I would start here for composition and then move away and experiment. In the past I have overlaid the diving proportion over my shots, sometimes its fits sometimes it doesn't.

However I wouldn't get to hung on up on rules. IMO if an image works it works.

On a side note when we design products and graphics at work we nearly always overlay a proportional grid, when time is money and you don't have time to play it does tend to produce pleasing results.

[ericmark]

What is the difference between 1/3 rule and Golden ratio? Square root of 5 + 1 over 2 or approx 1.618 works out roughly at 2/3 so OK may be we should call it 2/3 rule but when I went to school if you divide a whole by 2/3 then you have 1/3 left.

So how many can really see the difference between 0.666 and 0.618? It is really academic. It is really the same rule.

[AcadieLibre]

I too thought it was familiar so I had to search and sure enough, I found the post: http://www.photography.ca/Forums/f3/...irds-7615.html - A.L. you are starting to repeat yourself

Well I am old, heavily medicated so these things may happen on occasion lol, and some members were not here the first time I posted, well that is my excuse and I am sticking to it.