Rule of Thirds?

So, to sum up: on the one hand, you have no ambitions to be a skilled
photographer and just want to take pleasing snaps (nothing wrong with
that), but on the other hand you feel that, somehow, making a bad choice
between the thirds rule and the Golden Section (ie, a 5% difference in the
placing of elements in the frame) will be somehow detrimental to your
photos. This is completely self-contradictory.

Let me ask another question: Is it bad to learn about the rules? To
read Goethes Theory of Colors, to understand the Golden Section? Would
it be better to stay ignorant so as not to get too drawn in by it?

In your case, yes, because this degree of finesse is completely irrelevant
to what you are trying to do. A creative act like taking a picture - and it
remains a creative act even if the intention is purely documentary - should
have, as its end result, something that fulfils the needs of the creator.
If your need is to document, then judge the results by the content of the
pictures, not by how well they conform to some external 'rule'.

And, indeed, there's no reason why anyone should bother about these
so-called rules. If you want to learn them, so that you can break them,
fine.

If you want to adopt such rules because you feel you have no capacity for
judging composition - well, that's up to you. In your case, both of these
rules are effectively identical - this is the point I can't seem to get
across to you. Taken in the context of a rule of thumb, *both* rules
effectively state that subjects should be placed roughly a third of the way
across the frame. Your worrying about the distinction between the two rules
is entirely pointless. There is no difference.

In the real world, of course, the distinction is even more blurred. Unless
you take pictures only of straight lines parallel to the edges of the
frame, where exactly do you judge the subject to be? Most subjects are
organically shaped and have width and height. If you have a person in your
frame - let's say head, shoulders, down to the waist, perhaps reclining
slightly diagonally - which is the point within this shape that you measure
to determine the 5% difference that will say whether the thirds rule or the
Golden Section has been used? This is why I keep saying that - if you do
decide to use these 'rules' - you must regard them as approximations. This
is *not* an exact science. Remember, that the Golden Section was devised
for architecture - an altogether more rigid form.

Given that you have no desire to produce great photographs, then worrying
to this degree about rules is pointless anyway. So don't worry about them -
just take pictures that feel right.

The reason I feel so strongly about the worthlessness of these 'rules'
stems from years spent working on photography magazines. For instance, I
spent some time on the (now-defunct) magazine 'SLR Camera' which was aimed
at, and was mostly read by, what we would call 'serious amateurs' - people
who really loved photography and wanted to take good photographs. We ran
many competitions and we'd see the same photographs coming in over and over
again - photos that were practically indistinguishable from each other.
There was the 'high-key, vignetted shot of a blonde girl' (usually titled
with the subject's first name), the 'low-key, harshly side-lit shot of the
old man with craggy face' (also known as the 'Karsh shot'), the usual run
of sailboats in a harbour, sunsets, etc etc etc. And you could just see how
the photographers had taken these pictures not because they had any real
interest in the subject, not because they were trying to say something, or
record something of interest, but because the picture conformed to standard
ideas of what makes a picture. And as such, these pictures were completely
pointless because they were so superficial and had already been done a
million times. (Of course, when these photographers had done enough of the
'standard' pictures, they'd put them together in a portfolio and use them
to get an ARPS).

You seem to want to do the opposite because your interest is in documenting
something. What will make your pictures worthwhile, what will give them
some point, is the *content*. If you can capture that (and conforming to a
standard rule of composition won't help one bit there - it's irrelevant),
then your pictures can't be bad, they can only be a success.

It is a basic misunderstanding of photography to think that conforming to a
template that has no direct relevance to the subject can turn a bad
photograph into a good (or even mediocre) one. It can't. It will only turn
into a conventional bad photograph.

Steve wrote:

So, to sum up: on the one hand, you have no ambitions to be a
skilled photographer and just want to take pleasing snaps (nothing
wrong with that),

With you so far.

but on the other hand you feel that, somehow, making a bad choice
between the thirds rule and the Golden Section (ie, a 5% difference
in the placing of elements in the frame) will be somehow detrimental
to your photos. This is completely self-contradictory.

I really don't see the problem. As long at one rule isn't more
difficult to follow than the other, the follower might just as well go
with the best (if a "best" can be found at all). No reason to be more
off than necessary.

For taking photos without visual guidance, I quite agree with you:
"Roughly a third" is fine.

[Snip Be ignorant of the rules?]

A creative act like taking a picture - and it remains a creative act
even if the intention is purely documentary - should have, as its end
result, something that fulfils the needs of the creator.

I can go with that. My need is to take better photos than I do now.
Better defined as in "I feel they look better" and better as in "The
people I know feels they look better".

If your need is to document, then judge the results by the content of
the pictures, not by how well they conform to some external 'rule'.

I'm not judging the pictures by the rules, I try to take pictures using
the rules. The judging comes afterwards. If I find that I like the
rules-based pictures better than my old ones and if my family feels
likewise, then I'll probably stick with the rules for a long while.

Why? Because that would fullfill my needs, as you put it.


I don't see that using the rules should somehow compromise my primary
need, which is to document.

And, indeed, there's no reason why anyone should bother about
these so-called rules. If you want to learn them, so that you can
break them, fine.

That's a straight answer to my question. Thanks.

If you want to adopt such rules because you feel you have no
capacity for judging composition - well, that's up to you.

Oh, I do feel that I have some sense for judging composition. If I
hadn't, I wouldn't be complaining about not being good at it, no?

In your case, both of these rules are effectively identical - this is
the point I can't seem to get across to you.

And I say the same to you. What do you say, should we both repeat what
we've already said a couple of times again or should we stop here?

In the real world, of course, the distinction is even more
blurred. Unless you take pictures only of straight lines parallel
to the edges of the frame, where exactly do you judge the subject
to be?

Ah, now it's getting interesting again.

[A person]

which is the point within this shape that you measure
to determine the 5% difference that will say whether the thirds
rule or the Golden Section has been used?

I understand that as the question "Which point do you want the viewer
to focus on", which is an interesting one as this is another of those
things that I try to get better at. A quick generic bet would be one of
the eyes of the person.

If I were using a visual guide, I would put the crossing lines roughly
at the eye (let's say +/- 5-10% of the total picture width). If I were
without such guide, "about a third" would be fine.

This is why I keep saying that - if you do decide to use these
'rules' - you must regard them as approximations.

You're talking about the act of approximation, where I quite agree with
you. I'm talking about what to approximate to.

[Description of reviews of predictable and superficial pictures]

[It's the content that matter]

If you can capture that (and conforming to a standard rule of
composition won't help one bit there - it's irrelevant), then your
pictures can't be bad, they can only be a success.

They are a success in one sense: My family and some friends view them
on a weekly basis. But I'm not completely void of ambition, I want them
to get better.

It is a basic misunderstanding of photography to think that
conforming to a template that has no direct relevance to the
subject can turn a bad photograph into a good (or even mediocre)
one. It can't. It will only turn into a conventional bad
photograph.

Since I have viewed nowhere near as many photos as you seem to have, I
haven't developed an eye for spotting the conventional bad photograph.
I still think that the old man with the craggy face is a great picture.

Now to consult the rules of composition before making
a picture is a little like consulting the law of
gravitation before going for a walk.
-Edward Weston

The so-called 'rules' of photographic composition are
invalid, irrelevant and immaterial ... there are no rules
of composition, only good photographers.
-Ansel Adams

I hope we shall never see the day when photo shops
sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders;
and the Golden Rule will never be found etched on our
ground glass.
- Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
Now to consult the rules of composition before making
a picture is a little like consulting the law of
gravitation before going for a walk.
-Edward Weston

The so-called 'rules' of photographic composition are
invalid, irrelevant and immaterial ... there are no rules
of composition, only good photographers.
-Ansel Adams

I hope we shall never see the day when photo shops
sell little schema grills to clamp onto our viewfinders;
and the Golden Rule will never be found etched on our
ground glass.
- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Huh.

"I just watch for a good pitch and smash the hell out of it."
- Ted Williams, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Barry Bonds...

All three you quoted had the natural gift of composition, "the eye." No
one had to teach them anything in that respect. I have an excellent eye
for design, color and composition myself, but I've worked with many
talented and hardworking people who simply could not make a design or a
photo "work" without following rules they had learned. The rules have a
place; that some people have the rules built right into their perception
doesn't change that.

--

| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein stuff at: www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah |

On 2 Dec 2003 02:47:20 GMT, Toke Eskildsen wrote:

I really don't see the problem. As long at one rule isn't more
difficult to follow than the other, the follower might just as well go
with the best (if a "best" can be found at all). No reason to be more
off than necessary.

Well, there you have the nub of it - there is no 'best' and never can be.
It's all down to personal choice. Besides which, composition is a highly
complex thing. It involves far more than just where you put the main
subject - it involves every line and shape in the frame. That's why you
can't adopt one simple rule and expect it to improve your pictures. If you
think that obeying the thirds rule will make your pictures better, you're
betting on the wrong horse. It may make them worse, because it may make
them boring.

I have a picture in front of me that I took in the summer. It shows a path
through woodland down which a woman is walking. There are tall poplars on
one side. The figure is quite small in the frame (and she's *not* wearing
red). It's a vertical shot. In terms of the vertical axis, the figure is
maybe 15-20% from the edge of the frame, depending on whether you measure
her head or her feet :-). In terms of the horizontal axis, she's bang in
the middle - which according to the rules, you're not supposed to do. I
tried reframing this shot according to the thirds rule, and it's pretty
enough, but far less interesting than the way I have it now, because my
current framing gives the effect of towering trees.

Steve wrote

Well, there you have the nub of it - there is no 'best' and never
can be.

That depends very much on what you mean by best. You nullify the value
of the rules and if we accept that, then you're right: There is no
best, because they are all useless.

If you adopt my point of view for a short while and accept the premise
that rules of thumb has value, then you aren't right. They are rules of
thumb and as such a based on what most people prefer. That means they
can be judged against each other (the Rule of Thirds and the Golden
Section at least, since they work on the same level).

Besides which, composition is a highly complex thing. [...]
That's why you can't adopt one simple rule and expect it to improve
your pictures.

I don't.

But I'm trying to use this single rule very much in order to get the
hang of it. Big difference.

I have a picture in front of me that I took in the summer. [...]

I do know that one single rule cannot be used successfully for every
picture.

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:52:47 +0000 (UTC), Toke Eskildsen wrote:

Steve wrote

Well, there you have the nub of it - there is no 'best' and never
can be.

That depends very much on what you mean by best. You nullify the value
of the rules and if we accept that, then you're right: There is no
best, because they are all useless.

If you adopt my point of view for a short while and accept the premise
that rules of thumb has value, then you aren't right. They are rules of
thumb and as such a based on what most people prefer. That means they
can be judged against each other (the Rule of Thirds and the Golden
Section at least, since they work on the same level).

No, you miss the point. To go back to your original question about choosing
between the rule of thirds and the Golden Section (and assuming you wish to
live by these rules), you cannot decide one is better than the other
because *they are the same thing*. You can only distinguish between them if
you start adopting some form of pseudo precision. This is irrelevant to
real-life pictures, therefore *both* rules - for all practical purposes -
boil down to "about a third". That's why you can't say one is best. You
need to stop worrying about the difference, because there is no difference.

Steve wrote

To go back to your original question [...]

You ignore my argument. Could I pursuade you to not do that and
comment on this quote?

----
If you adopt my point of view for a short while and accept the
premise that rules of thumb has value, then you aren't right. They
are rules of thumb and as such a based on what most people prefer.
That means they can be judged against each other (the Rule of Thirds
and the Golden Section at least, since they work on the same level).
----

Where do you disagree? If it's the part with "That means they can be
judged...", then please explain why one can't weight rules based on
statistics (eg. "what most people prefer") against each other.


No, that doesn't mean that one should always follow the rules or even
that the rules mostly give a good result. But try and answer me so
that we can move forward instead of just repeating ourselves.

you cannot decide one is better than the other because *they are
the same thing*.

Since one rule says 33% and the other say 38% (rounded values), they
are not the same. Period.

You state later that they are the same "for all practical purposes"
and that is the interesting point here. This is where you haven't
convinced me yet.

If your point is that both rules are very approximate, then why did
the Golden Section arise at all? It's quite hard to calculate, yet
both architechts, photographers and painters have found it worthwhile
to use in their creations instead of the much easier "roughly a
third".

You can only distinguish between them if you start adopting some
form of pseudo precision.

Please explain what you mean by pseudo precision.

This is irrelevant to real-life pictures,

If I compose a picture according to Rule #1, the same picture
according to Rule #2 and I show them to 100 people, asking them to
choose the one they find more pleasing, will they be split in two
groups of roughly equal size?

If your answer is yes, then my next question is "how do you know?".


(The reader is adviced til scale the example to live up to proper
statistical methodology)

You need to stop worrying about the difference, because there is no
difference.

I understand that is your opinion.

Toke Eskildsen wrote in message . ..
Steve wrote

To go back to your original question [...]

You ignore my argument. Could I pursuade you to not do that and
comment on this quote?

----
If you adopt my point of view for a short while and accept the
premise that rules of thumb has value, then you aren't right. They
are rules of thumb and as such a based on what most people prefer.
That means they can be judged against each other (the Rule of Thirds
and the Golden Section at least, since they work on the same level).
----

Where do you disagree? If it's the part with "That means they can be
judged...", then please explain why one can't weight rules based on
statistics (eg. "what most people prefer") against each other.


No, that doesn't mean that one should always follow the rules or even
that the rules mostly give a good result. But try and answer me so
that we can move forward instead of just repeating ourselves.

you cannot decide one is better than the other because *they are
the same thing*.

Since one rule says 33% and the other say 38% (rounded values), they
are not the same. Period.

You state later that they are the same "for all practical purposes"
and that is the interesting point here. This is where you haven't
convinced me yet.

If your point is that both rules are very approximate, then why did
the Golden Section arise at all? It's quite hard to calculate, yet
both architechts, photographers and painters have found it worthwhile
to use in their creations instead of the much easier "roughly a
third".

You can only distinguish between them if you start adopting some
form of pseudo precision.

Please explain what you mean by pseudo precision.

This is irrelevant to real-life pictures,

If I compose a picture according to Rule #1, the same picture
according to Rule #2 and I show them to 100 people, asking them to
choose the one they find more pleasing, will they be split in two
groups of roughly equal size?

If your answer is yes, then my next question is "how do you know?".


(The reader is adviced til scale the example to live up to proper
statistical methodology)

You need to stop worrying about the difference, because there is no
difference.

I understand that is your opinion.


Photographs CANNOT be composed according to the golden mean, which is
a ratio. Only rectangles, etc., can have ratios, of their sides. The
very nature of photography is such that objects in the world are in
the images. We divide the space between objects in photographs to form
a pleasing composition, which approximates, in ***some*** cases, the
ratios of the golden mean. That has nothing to do with the golden mean
itself. As a rough guide, good compositions avoid extremes of
symmetry or of asymmetry. This generally means that most classical
compositions will fall into certain patterns that can again be
desribed as a 'rule of thirds', because between perfect symmetry and
extreme asymmetry all that's left is 'thirds'.

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

Photographs CANNOT be composed according to the golden mean, which
is a ratio. Only rectangles, etc., can have ratios, of their
sides.

A great deal of the webpages I've seen on the Golden Section start by
defining it on a line and the moves on to rectangles and sometimes
triangles or pentagons. Examples fresh from Google a

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekSc...im/Golden.html
http://www.gkmac.co.uk/golden.php
http://cage.rug.ac.be/~hs/polyhedra/dodeca.html

|------|----| - Line divided using the golden ratio.

The very nature of photography is such that objects in the
world are in the images. We divide the space between objects in
photographs to form a pleasing composition, which approximates, in
***some*** cases, the ratios of the golden mean. That has nothing
to do with the golden mean itself.

If the ratio fits then I don't understand how you can claim that it's
unrelated to the golden mean (which is defined by that ratio)? That
sounds very illogical to me!?