10 Myths about Rule of Thirds

[Retief]

10 Myths about Rule of Thirds

I ran into this on another site and thought some folks here might find it of interest. This poor forum is seeing little love, so getting a thread started here makes me feel as if I have done my good deed for the day

Your thoughts please? I'm sure you have one or two.

 

[wizzard0003]

The linky doesn't work...

Does that mean those 10 myths are a myth...?

 

[Palouse]

Try this one: http://petapixel.com/2016/01/30/10-myths-about-the-rule-of-thirds/

 

[wizzard0003]

Try this one: http://petapixel.com/2016/01/30/10-myths-about-the-rule-of-thirds/

That's better.

Thanks, Nick...!

I was starting to get a little miffed over the myth of the myths...

 

[Palouse]

Yeah, Bill needs the occasional helping hand

 

[Retief]

OK, it is NOT my fault. I blame it on that OTHER Bill who lives around here with the last name of Gates. It is obvious to me that something happened during the Copy/Paste operation, a Microsoft Internet Explorer issue.

So, mods, I would be happy to fix it, but you won't let me, can one of you fix the link please? Or maybe it was just an intelligence test.

That being said, how about we get back on topic, what do you think of the article and concepts?

 

[Palouse]

A bit of a dramatic title I think. I don't think the rule of thirds is a myth, nor is it the only rule of composition. It is one of many, and I'm sure with time any of us could find examples to discredit his rules and relegate them to mere myth status. That said, he does have some good things to offer. Some of it will take 2nd, or a 3rd reading (ah, rule of thirds ) for my few remaining brain cells to comprehend.

 

[wizzard0003]

Where art is concerned I tend to reject the idea of rules altogether.

Tendencies, yes. Rules, no...

 

[crazy]

I never was one for rules......my mother said that as a toddler, I would pound my head against the floor if I did not appreciate her correcting me.

Fortunately, my declining dexterity limits my ability to do this now.

 

[Palouse]

I never was one for rules......my mother said that as a toddler, I would pound my head against the floor if I did not appreciate her correcting me.

Fortunately, my declining dexterity limits my ability to do this now.

There's always a handy wall around for my head bangs!

Besides rules are meant to be broken - see my signature But I do like Arabesque - draw a curvaceous squiggle and say in an authoritative voice, " I was following the arabesque rule my dear!"

 

[Pa]

Well I found this an interesting read. I'm always bothered by the negative space that is often created by slavishly following the rule of thirds. But his "dynamic symmetry grid" is not something I'm likely to think about when I'm out in the field.

(He bothers me when he refers to Leonardo as "da Vinci" which is simply a phrase meaning "from Vinci", a small town near Florence. But many people do that. The man's name was Leonardo.)

 

[Palouse]

Jim, I tend to like negative space, but when I do use it is because I want it and frame for it, not paying any attention to the rule of thirds. But your point is very well taken.

 

[Growltiger]

So, mods, I would be happy to fix it, but you won't let me, can one of you fix the link please? Or maybe it was just an intelligence test.

OK I fixed all the links so they work and they now start at the top of page as well.

 

[Growltiger]

I enjoyed this article.

I don't accept the stuff with lots of lines. I think if you draw enough lines you can demonstrate anything.

Did you notice he wrote “well, rule’s were meant to be broken” and broke the rule of apostrophes at the same time?

 

[Randy]

I didn't read it because I don't like rules, I like what I like and I can't describe it because it changes (what I like) based on the image.....here I sit at 4 in the morning sounding like Bill, Texas is gonna be alot of fun

 

[AndyMcD]

Good article. I've been told off in the past (on another forum) for not slavishly following rule of thirds. However, I agree that there are so many "rules" in this post involving multiple (almost random) lines that you could never work with that in the field. Maybe, we just take a picture and then draw lots of lines on afterwards and say that this proves we used "rule x" or whatever. Personally, I would hope that I think enough about taking the picture to get a look that I am after, regardless of whether it fits a specific rule or not.

 

[Beagledog]

Rules? I don't need no stinking rules!

Georgie Beagle.

oh My, Georgie does get up off the couch when people start doing the rules of composition! Really I like to think of the "rules" as more of a suggestion, like: "try this it might work?" For the most part, the rules of composition are added post hoc when someone is analyzing why a composition works or not.

That said, I did enjoy the article and he did use the "Myth" hook as a way of organizing his treatise on composition which was much better than most articles I have read on the subject.

cheers,
alexis.

 

[Retief]

Lively conversation, I like it! My first complaint with this article is the title. Perhaps it is my age, but the "attention grabber" gets old very quickly. Much better served had it been something like "Beyond the ROT, other compositional techniques". I did learn a fair bit, and I now know how to spell Gestalt, I guess I should go figure out what it might mean, eh?

In a practical sense, I am trying to figure out how to apply all the dynamic lines and Gestalt stuff when I am photographing flying Short-eared Owls. Is there an overlay I can get in my viewfinder so I am sure the wings are in the appropriate Power Points for the right bits of "tension"? How about a flashing light in the VF when you have the appropriate balance and negative space? And let's not forget an arabesque, I thought that was what we did trying to run around the tripod keeping the subject IN the VF

As to rules, it is funny to see some of the common of not needing "rules". I quite enjoy it when I break a rule on purpose, clipped wing, no negative space, no ROT, and then have folks complain that this makes the image "no good".

But what I REALLY want to know is this. Can we get MythBusters to Bust This Myth?????

 

[TonyW]

I have now officially ditched R.O.T and replaced with Dynamic Symmetry Grids and I will be looking to replace these in the near future with my new theory named S.N.O.T (Simply Not On Target).

A method where before shooting a pleasing looking image we must examine all the composition theories and make sure we have not inadvertently used one i.e. hit a composition target.

If we have hit a composition target/rule we must not shoot but recompose until we are sure we have not compromised the rules of S.N.O.T

 

[Retief]

I have now officially ditched R.O.T and replaced with Dynamic Symmetry Grids and I will be looking to replace these in the near future with my new theory named S.N.O.T (Simply Not On Target).

A method where before shooting a pleasing looking image we must examine all the composition theories and make sure we have not inadvertently used one i.e. hit a composition target.

If we have hit a composition target/rule we must not shoot but recompose until we are sure we have not compromised the rules of S.N.O.T

Could someone please pass me a Kleenex? By following your method, for which I thank you profusely, I will now have an even better "reason" for "missing the shot" ..... off to find some Mucinex now ...

Tony, you should post this on your blog and become famous, not that you aren't already