Rule of Thirds?

Steve wrote:

On 21 Nov 2003 23:26:46 GMT, Toke Eskildsen wrote:

However, I'd like to know if one of the rules are better than the
other, if we disregard the extra time it takes to calculate the
Golden Section?

Oh come on, don't you think it all depends on the picture? How can
you possibly debate the difference between 33% and 38% without
regard to what's in the frame?

With that reasoning in mind, we might as well invent an arbitrary rule:
"place any object of importance aproximately 10% from the left edge of
the image", then say that that rule is just as valid as the other two,
depending on what's in the frame.

It's true, but the advice has little value as a general rule of thumb.

Frankly, if you're going to impose such an arbitrary blanket rule on
all pictures then any number will work as well (or as badly) as any
other. These rules are *approximations*, rules of thumb [...]

Now, with fear of being unthankful for your help, I'll quote from my
original posting: "I know that both the Rule of Thirds and the Golden
Section are suggestions only, but I'd like to know if I generally
should stick to the Golden Section or if the Rule of Thirds is just as
valid?"

I expect that there's a reason that these rules of thumbs are given:
Probably because a lot of people like such compositions. I expect that
they _generally_ work better than the 10% rule I just pulled out of my
hat.

There are several rules of thumb for composition. "Make room for
movement" for example. What makes the Golden Section and the Rule of
Thirds interesting in this context is that they essentially tell the
same: "let straight lines and points of interest intersect with the
guides" - they only differ somewhat in where those guides should be.

Choosing between 33% and 38% is pseudo-precision at best.

That is true the moment you want to apply the rule of thumb to a
specific picture, but not if you're trying to establish what the rule
of thumb should be.
--
Toke Eskildsen - http://ekot.dk/