MegaHertz Studios wrote:
I am addicted to the forums on MM.
But slavish reliance on the "rules of photography" make me giggle.

I love using certain rules of composition; but sometimes breaking the rules creates a great photograph.

So don't get upset when someone critiques your photos and quotes a favorite rule.

Experiment, do what you love, it will be OK.

Andy Warhol broke a few rules.  Nobody seemed to like Van Gogh when he was alive.  They both did some good work.

lmao!!!
you are obviously insane but you are also (almost) entirely correct!
d-

Ched wrote:
Well, you can break the rule of thirds with a series of triangles and there are a couple other things that seem to work. Doesn't have to conform to a tic-tac-toe board all the time.

I'm Batman.

Good point. I've also broken it with s-curves.

Jason McKendricks wrote:
Good point. I've also broken it with s-curves.

I think when people say they're composing with curves, it usually turns out to be triangles, meaning the rule of thirds is simply off axis.

Anyone care to post some examples of odd but functional compositions?

Ched wrote:

I think when people say they're composing with curves, it usually turns out to be triangles, meaning the rule of thirds is simply off axis.

Anyone care to post some examples of odd but functional compositions?

Probably not what you were asking for, but the bubble bath photo in my port has a number of triangles.

Jason McKendricks wrote:
You're right...to a point. One of the first laws of composition is the "rule of thirds". Now there are certainly cases where breaking that rule and centering your subject works, but I still believe these cases should be the exception and not the new rule.

Bottom line...if you and your subject like the photos, shoot them how you like.

Rule of Thirds, BUSTED!!!



well, *I* like it anyhow...

Had I centered these, I don't they'd be as appealing...

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Rules are made to be understood; and once you understand them, then you can break them with impunity.

Rules are more fun to write than to follow; only through a great deal of practice and experience will you be able to derive your own rules.

Once you derive your own rules, you may find that your rules align with everyone elses - or you may discover that you are a "visionary" standing out in left field. Either way, you've learned something.

Since rules are open to interpretation (e.g.: the "rule of thirds") you can mentally interpret almost anything that looks good as following the rule of thirds. Conversely, if it looks awful, you can figure out some way in which it violates the rule. The rule, in other words, exists to make you comfortable with that which you already like.

mjr.

Excellent...

DigitalCMH wrote:

Rule of Thirds, BUSTED!!!



well, *I* like it anyhow...

Had I centered these, I don't they'd be as appealing...

Nice pics.

Ched wrote:
This one?



I don't see them. I mean I see the triangle the wall creates, but it doesn't really make it a functional composition. Composition is the visual guides for the eye at first glance. Here there don't seem to be any. The only thing my eye is pulled in by is the skin on the side of model's face, but that isn't really what the picture is about, you seem to have wanted it to be about the lips and the hands. My eye doesn't go to them first. Maybe you should have tilted the camera to follow one of the caulk lines of the back edge of the bathtub?

Well, I haven't been doing this as long as you and we may be working from different perspectives on what comnposition means. To me, it's the arrangement of elements in your photos and that's where I saw the triangles in the aforementioned photo. I massacred it in order to show where I saw the triangles.

Doug Lester wrote:
Absolutely, all of the 'rules' of composition  can all be broken. But ..... for god's sake, know what they are first. Understand them, underestand why they exist and have lasted for a couple of centuries. Then when you know what they are and why they are, feel free to break them.

I think this is what I was getting at but you put it more eloquently. Knowing why you are "breaking the rules" is far better than arbitrarily breaking them without understanding them in the first place.

DigitalCMH wrote:
Rule of Thirds, BUSTED!!!

The first one is a weak composition, but would be stronger with a little more room on the left side. The last two don't break the rules, they follow the rule of thirds in almost textbook fashion!

Jason McKendricks wrote:
You're right...to a point. One of the first laws of composition is the "rule of thirds". Now there are certainly cases where breaking that rule and centering your subject works, but I still believe these cases should be the exception and not the new rule.

Given that the "rule of thirds" is a very broad simplification of the underlying principles, it seems strange to call it a 'law'. It's merely a quick guideline for achieving a particular kind of visual result. (Dynamic vs static.)

If someone deliberately centered something because they knew the results would result in an increast in a particular feeling (solid, static, stable), is that 'breaking' the rule of thirds, or merely understanding what's underneath it?

Studying art helps, especially analyzing effective art (effective being, of course, variable...)

Studying human perception and perceptual responses helps also, and that includes some of the more recent (~50 years or so) studies of physio- and psycho-perceptual issues as well as the cultural aspects. (Arnhelm's Art and Visual Perception is a good introduction to what lies behind/beneath the so-called rules.)

Ched wrote:

The first one is a weak composition, but would be stronger with a little more room on the left side. The last two don't break the rules, they follow the rule of thirds in almost textbook fashion!

No, you're wrong.  The first one is perfect.  You're not Batman anymore!

and I showed the others to indicate that had the subjects BEEN in the center of the frame, they'd very likely be less appealing.  Which is why the "Rule of the Thirds" is a good idea to learn and use as a guideline when composing a photo. 

Knowing the rules makes one THINK about the rules.  It's during that process you can decided whether or not it is best to follow it or not.

Ched wrote:
Here I've taken the original shot and widened it by cloning the terrain on the left and expanding the frame, putting the eyes of the model on a classic thirds intersection point.

It does look pleasing, but I don't see it as really being more interesting in any way.  Had the background been different, I'd likely feel different.  But since it's a blurred out background (leaves on the ground) it really doesn't do anything for me to have her off-center.  This I think just comes down to an eye of the beholder thing.  I rarely like shots like this because it is too centered.  I found this to be my exception.